Zeppelin Loop on a Bight

[X1]

That has been answered with ample evidence, for most readers, already.

   You say that the Zeppelin bend is not very good, because it is not used by many people. I say that I am not so blind, because there are not many readers left , to see what I see. If " most" of the readers who see my blindnes is the one most of us know very well, I agree ! 

I wonder why you didn't invent this progression earlier

  Oh, I had, I had, the first moment I had saw the knot the first time, back in the good old days - during the infamous thread about the other contender of the " Zeppelin loop"  throne. Because it seems even blind people can see with the eyes of their mind. It should have been obvious even to you, because the double line is sooo long ( the one line follows/retraces the other for such a long path inside the knot s path). that the structure of the overhand loop ( the double line overhand knot), is OBVIOUS - while the claimed structure of the Zeppelin bend is a " great " invention ! 

Question : given #582, how would you make an eye knot from it, to realize the Great Z. you worship?

   I do not know. I have not brought any daughter of mine to the beauty contest, you did ! 
   I say, let the Great Z remain bachelor, we do not need a greater royal family...

[X1]

You have not done squat in producing some presumedzeppelin eye knot

  But I had ! And not one, two ! (It seems that the Zeppelin-mania dis-ease is contagious...)
  What did you say about
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12812#msg12812
  and about the retucked Sheet bend bowline ?
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4084.msg24495#msg24495
   Apparently, nothing.  Maybe you dreamt it. 
   I have not seen anything you had posted about those pseudo-Zeppelin loops - but sorry, I forgot, I am sooo blind, I would nt even if I had tried...

The "pivots" are three, now;
that from the SPart and from the other eye-leg have conceptual/non-extant tails,

   The one pivot is there, true, but it could nt have been elsewhere  - I mean, it is easy/natural for the one tail to penetrate both bights - this happens to many bends, not only to the Zeppelin bend. However, the other one is sooo " conceptually"- and only conceptually, unfortunately - pivot-like ( because it is, in the same time, also something else : a part of the obvious double line overhand knot structure), that I do not see it. The over-hand knot structure over-laps the claimed Zeppelin bend structure. And I have not said anything yet about the beauty of your daughter, had I ? Of course, it lies in the eye of the beholder - but only there, I am afraid. Come on, you too had somewhere ( I do not recall where ) said that this knot is unnecessarily complicated - to the degree it became ugly. We have so many good, nice TIB loops, do we really need this conception ?

need this conception ?
 the absence of unloaded tails is no loss (like not adding 0, twice, to some sum).

   Good try. But you do not add two 0 s, what you actually/materially do is to add a 0 and a -1 ( because the second, "conceptual" tail, is also part of something greater, something occupying a much longer portion of the total ropelength of the knot - the structure of the double line overhand knot.) So, you actually subtract the Zeppelinquence, in favour of the overhandloopquence of your knot.

one can negatively see a former pivot being loaded on both sides

That is what I see. You can call it negative-ness ( of which you have a great experience, indeed ), but not blind-ness !

  I have not imagined/realized that you would be so eager to defend your knots - even more ferrociously than you offend anybody else s ! 
  It is a nice TIB loop, that addresses the problem of the most simple overhand loop, with the adition of a overhand knot. It has some similarity with the structure of the Zeppelin bend, indeed, which might be a further reason it will not jam early. It is not easy to tie in the bight, and it is very asymmetrical - so it is hard to be inspected at a glance. Let it/her queue with the other Zeppelin s throne brides, and let us proceed forward - if we really wish any of the "most"  other readers to remain in place !

[X1]

You have not done squat in producing some presumed

  Unfortunatelly perhaps, I have - twice ! -, but I will recover from this dis-ease soon, I promise my doctor ! I will SEE, again !

--and pointing to Mr. Lee's knot really goes wide of the mark.

   I wish to make it clear, again, that I do not consider either one of the two Lee-Zep bowlines ( see the attached pictures) to be the "corresponding" to the Zeppelin bend loop knot !
   Please, read my lips :

   This bowline is one of the best I know. However, I do not see it as a bowline "corresponding" to the Zeppelin bend - but as a bowline where there are maximally interlinked nipping loops on both legs of its bight. The one loop serves as the "nipping structure", and the other loop as the (one-half of the) "collar structure" ( the other half is a "proper" bowline collar).

   I had tried to enhance this "maximal" way the limbs of the loop knot are interlinked even more. with the " Lee Zep X bowline" , presented in the same post. ( This trial is not counted in the "twice"... )

  From a non-TIB end-of-line loop, I prefer a TIB one. And from a non-bowline TIB end-of-line loop, I prefer a non-TIB bowline !

[Dan_Lehman]

I wonder why you didn't invent this progression earlier

...  It should have been obvious even to you, because the double line is sooo long ( the one line follows/retraces the other for such a long path inside the knot's path), that the structure of the overhand loop ( the double line overhand knot), is OBVIOUS - while the claimed structure of the Zeppelin bend is a " great " invention ! 

"Sooo long"?!  "The one line" semi-retraces --nb: your own defined process
(for finding the zeppelin bend in Ashley's #582, a bend from single-strand
lanyard knot)-- the other precisely to your stipulation of half-way.  Here,
to find the matching eye knot, not end-2-end knot.

Which was the point of my question noting this relationship.

Question : given #582, how would you make an eye knot from it, to realize the Great Z. you worship?

   I do not know. I have not brought any daughter of mine to the beauty contest, you did ! 

And you had no trouble finding the zeppelin in the lanyard knot,
to the point of musing admonishment for his missing --or, rather, musing
that he had NOT missed it but just declined to recognize it-- the knot,
to wit:

Ashley knew the Zeppelin knot, but decided not to publish it,
because it was invented by a (German) enemy :  The proof that he knew it,
is ABoK#582 stopper - which is the Zeppelin bend turned into a stopper

!!!  Your selective vision is a marvel!

Ashley's #582 is precisely the SPart's structure in the eye knot
at issue in our debate, and the completion by your prescribed
"semi-retracing" is there as well.  And yet you mis-see in that
an overhand loop (which loaded geometry in fact doesN'T obtain).
If you insist upon (here, though not for the lanyard knot) unloaded
"pivots", one could form a gratuitous loop of what I see as the
"fused" tails (of the single-strand_tied_to_bight-ends) such that
non-tension could be observed in them (and "they" would be
materially plural, adding 1 additional part being nipped); this would
be of course merely a theoretical exercise to appease the recalcitrant.

(For an eye knot with such a reeve-the-bight formation into an
overhand knot base, I actually prefer one in which this reeving
takes an asymmetric path that put more pressure on the SPart,
and also gives a more rounded U-turn to it.  It bulks well more
than the fig.8 eye knot, but might give the high strength with
ease of untying, for those selective uses in which such attributes
can be seen compelling.)


--dl*
====

[X1]

"Sooo long"?!  "The one line" semi-retraces --nb: your own defined process (for finding the zeppelin bend in Ashley's #582, a bend from single-strand lanyard knot)-- the other precisely to your stipulation of half-way.

   OK, the one end retraces the other s path alongside halfway, only, of the total path through the knot - but this iseems enough to destroy the balance, because what is derived after the retracing, does not remain symmetric ( as it happens in the case of the ABoK#582 and the Zeppelin bend ). Just LOOK at your knot, with the eye of the Great Z : Do you see a beautiful bride ? Do you see something related to you, to the Zeppelin kingdom, or to the kingdom of your enemy, the G double line overhand knot ?

   

!!!  Your selective vision is a marvel!

Thank you my doctor ! Miracles do happen, after all ! My blindness disappeared overnight, and turned onto a marvellous selective vision ! 

And yet you mis-see in that an overhand loop (which loaded geometry in fact doesN'T obtain).

   Mis-see, but SEE nevertheless !  True, the loading is different, indeed, but loading can not be seen easily. Your knot does not have the loading of the double line overhand knot, that is true, but its half looks like it - and the other half looks like a single line overhand knot ! On the contrary, it does not have the loading of the Zeppelin bend ( because of the additional binding role played by one of its pivots, which, because of this role, can not play the role of the pivot simultaneously, i.e. be doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde at the same time...  ), and G Zeppelin only knows how much it has the looks of the Zeppelin bend !
   I wonder what is your greater problem, that your knot should be seen as not-related to the double line overhand knot plus single line overhand knot, or that it should be seen as related to the Zeppelin bend... I have opened a second front to facilitate my line of argument, and it seems you have fallen in the trap.  Two fronts are better for me and worse for you. And things at third, Western front ( that of the analogy between the two pairs, ABoK#582 -Zeppelin bend, on the one hand, and Zeppelin bend - your daughter on the other) are not going much better, I am afraid. The ABoK#582 and the Zeppelin bend are both symmetric AND beautiful, while the beauty of your daughter is not even skin deep...

one could form a gratuitous loop of what I see as the "fused" tails (of the single-strand_tied_to_bight-ends) such thatnon-tension could be observed in them (and "they" would be materially plural, adding 1 additional part being nipped); this would be of course merely a theoretical exercise to appease the recalcitrant.

   The recalcitrant sees that " plurality"  is the only thing that would characterize this compound knot ! We have gone from the humble 2 +1 ( 2 overhand knots, or 1 double line overhand knot, + 1 overhand knot ) to the the inflationary universe of this new monster.

   For an eye knot with such a reeve-the-bight formation into an overhand knot base, I actually prefer one in which this reeving
takes an asymmetric path that put more pressure on the SPart, and also gives a more rounded U-turn to it.  It bulks well more than the fig.8 eye knot, but might give the high strength with ease of untying, for those selective uses in which such attributes can be seen compelling.

   I see ( ?!). It looks interesting. I , too, have already noticed the usefulness of this strategy, in this thread and elsewhere, to "feed" knots with retucked segments of rope, so to force the standing parts to follow wider /  rounder curves. They would gain in strength, and in easiness of untying after heavy loading. I would be glad to see your conception in a picture or a drawing, if my blindness does not come back...

[Luca]

Hi Dan,

To my thinking, correspondence #3 is least close, in that
it reduces the load on A from 100% to 0%;

my dismissal of "correspondence #3"
...
(And Luca comes out with it as "true" [correspondence], no less !)   

I could not agree much more! So,in fact, when I wrote:

This is the "real" Zeppelin loop!,

I had no intention of entering into the merits of this your speech, and even less to argue against it[the no-correspondence (in the sense in which you intend it, regarding the load)];it is that my speech was an another, I apologize if I have not explained well, but that I wanted to say, in the core, was this analogy formula: if A is the knot quoted above, if B is the Zeppelin bend, if C is the[classical(/"real")]Butterfly loop, if D is the Butterfly bend, then

A is to B as C is to D

And it is only for this reason, I have argued that A="real"Zeppelin loop!
However, I wonder if,at this point, considering instead the loads that come into play within the knot during use, this can not be the nearest knot to be (ideally) designated as candidate to rise to the "status" of "real" Zeppelin loop (this is the photo that I for mistake linked in my first post):

Then what is this?

That seems to me to be also the knot indicated by X1 in this post(is interesting the quote, and the link,and the roo's comment in the page linked in this post):

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4084.msg24498#msg24498

Thanks for everything Dan, a couple of times you complimented me for my good eye, if I do not do compliments to you is just because you do not need compliments from a little guy like me!

                                                                                                               Bye!

[X1]

   I think I have an explanation why the DL s TIB loop is not so beautiful - to describe its ugliness as politely as I can.
   It is because the overhand knot itself is an ugly knot ! I know that this statement would sound odd or incomprehensible to "pure" practical knot tyers, but it is true.         
   Compare the tight overhand knot to the fig.8 knot, or to the overhand knot itself in its loose fig.8-like fluid form. I do not wish to imagine how the world would look like if the living things, in general, and the humans, in particular, had such a form...
   Then, why the Zeppelin bend IS beautiful ? After all, it (ot should I say "she" ? ) is not but two overhand knots hinged together around their tail pair.
   Because of the symmetry of the con-figuration of the two overhand knots. Draw a curve as ugly as you can. Then, place near it a point-  or a mirror-symmetric one. Even if your initial curve would look like a frog ( to describe it politely, once again...), the total sum would be aesthetically acceptable. How is this possible ? Because our brain recognizes the beauty of the pattern of the transformation, appreciates it, and ignores the ugliness of the individual elements.
   In the Zeppelin bend, the two overhand knots are symmetrically placed ( composed ), while at the DL s TIB loop they are placed the one next to the other ( juxtaposed).  In the former, the ugliness of the individual overhand knots is subtracted, while in the later it is multiplied. Not to mention that in the DL s knot the one overhand knot is fat ( double-lined) , while the other is slim ( single-lined) - that is, a Laurel and Hardy odd pair of overhand knots !
   Now, if there was a clear, forced reason behind this juxtaposition, the brain would have had appreciated it, and would had persuaded the eye to delay its own judgement. I would dare to compare the DL s loop with the EVEN MORE UGLY "double crossed nipping loops bowline" I had presented in this Forum some time ago. There was a reason behind the construction ( to form a bowline-like loop knot  that can hold even if its collar is cut ) which could not lead to any other, simpler, prettier knot.  On the contrary, there is no compelling reason why we have to place the two overhand knots of the DL s TIB loop knot in such a position - and the "semi-retrace-the-Zeppelin-bend-to-see-what-happens", AT ALL COSTS ( material and formal) argument of DL does not sound convincing enough to me.
  However, this knot IS new ( I would nt describe the Zeppelin - or the inversed Zeppelin - bend turned into an end-of -line pseudo-Zeppelin loop as ""new? knots - or as clever knots...), it is interesting, it is TIB ( although this is not a great comparative advantage - we have many much simpler TIB loops ), it is clever, and the general strategy it follows can be useful elsewhere.