ABoK#1425, AND ABoK 1425a.

[xarax]

    (Here is a scenario of what Ashley is thinking, as he is writing the chapter "Bends" of our bible...)
 ...Ashley ties the Double Harness bend with parallel ends, (ABoK1421), and then he decides to have some fun, to  play for a while with more complex "decorative" knots. He ties the ABoK#1422, he mentions the Japanese bend (ABoK#1423) just in passing, then he modifies the ABoK#1422 a little, by changing the paths of the re-tucked working ends, and arrives at the ABoK#1424. Now he decides to re-tuck the working ends of this knot in a more complex way - with more crossings -, a way that forms a more secure bend than ABoK#1424, made by two interlocked overhand knots, and he ties the ABoK#1425.  Any knot tier that arrives at this knot, would immediately ask himself what will happen if he reverses the order with which the working ends of the two links cross each other at the central point. Ashley would not allow himself to miss this, of course, so he now reverses the order:  the working end that was used to cross the other by going over it, at ABoK#1425, now goes under it, and vice versa. He tightens the new knot, manipulates it for a while, and decides that it is not a reliable, stable practical knot, worth of exploring any further. He is right, of course. The falsely tied Hunter s bend, is a poor knot indeed. But right at this instance, the great Ashley makes an elementary mistake : He is betrayed by his tying method / diagram. So, he does not pay any more attention to the knot itself, and he misses the opportunity to tie the Hunter s bend, that is there, under his nose ! Had he just made this small step, to make the first bights of the falsely tied Hunter s bend embrace each other, brought to an elbow configuration, we would have had two Ashley s bends by 1944, the Ashley bend 1 (ABoK#1425a) , and the Ashley bend 2 (ABoK#1452). The moral of the story is simple : Study first at the knot itself, then its tying method ! If you want to be sure you have not missed any interesting knot, make an exhaustive search, tie all the possible combinations of your tying method.
   See the attached pictures for the similarly looking tying diagrams of ABoK#1425 bend, and of the falsely tied Hunter s bend. ( I made them resemble somehow the original Ashley sketches.)
 
Note : It was not the first time that Ashley met the "falsely tied Hunter s bend", and chose not to study it any further. The first time was, probably, with the ABoK#1062 loop.

[zoranz]

Hi Xarax,

I sholud like to see, as part 3, your photo of Hunter's bend (loose knot).
Thx in advance!

Regards, ZZ

[xarax]

   Unfortunately, I do not keep the files of all the pictures I have taken in my archives ( mind and/or computer ), in order to gain some room for new ones !  Those two shown below are very old pictures it had happened to be saved from the many successive deletes...
   The Hunter s bend, and, for that matter, the falsely tied Hunter s bend, can easily be transformed in many other knots, if we insert "twists", i.e., if we rotate the pair of the parallel lines of the two links of the bend inside the knot s nub. Also, we can cross the tails of all those bends the one way or the other, and generate even more knots. See (1), (2). The Zeppelin bend, or the falsely tied Zeppelin bend, due to their greater symmetry, do not offer such a fertile ground for alterations.

1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.0
2.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4561.0

Two relatively recent new pictures of the twice-twisted Hunter s bend are shown at :

3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.msg19948#msg19948

[zoranz]

Thx Xarax,

I have one more question. I got information from Luca:

The "bottom side twist" variation of falsely tied Hunter's bend is none other than #1425!



http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19170#msg19170

Do you agree with it? I see some similarity, but I'm not 100% sure. (I met bend #1425 a few days ago, and I'd like to know more about it. The bend is recommended by Dan and Luca.)

Best regards, ZZ

[xarax]

   Let me put it that way : If you choose, at random, any one of the three variations of ABoK#1425 ( Tails parallel, Tails crossed the one way, Tails crossed the other way ), you have about 33.3 % chances this knot be identical to one of the three variations/dressings of the "bottom side twist" Falsely tied Hunter s bend. So, those two bends are, in general, identical, only 1 in 9 times . If you ask why I had shown only one of the three variations/dressings, I guess I did it because it was the most compact one - and the nice thing with some of the variations/dressings of the Hunter s and the Falsely tied Hunter s bends is that they lead to spherical, compact / dense knots ( which, unfortunately, may jam a little bit...).
   Personally, from the Alpine Butterfly or the Hunter s bends, I prefer the Ashley ( ABoK#1452) or ( last but not least ) the Zeppelin bend, because of their greater symmetry. ( All those four bends, and then some, can be generated by retucking the Reef family of knots "base" ). The best, by far, exploration of the differences of those four bends I know is at :
   
   http://charles.hamel.free.fr/knots-and-cordages/Investigation_6.html
 

[Dan_Lehman]

Thx Xarax,
I have one more question. I got information from Luca:

Beware gifts from Luca!   

The "bottom side twist" variation of falsely tied Hunter's bend is none other than #1425!

Do you agree with it? I see some similarity, but I'm not 100% sure. (I met bend #1425 a few days ago, and I'd like to know more about it. The bend is recommended by Dan and Luca.)

Yes, once it capsizes/transforms into the other's form.

One reason I'm happy to see Xarax vanished is that he
is like a demanding teacher assigning wayyyy too much
homework : all the time he is opening yet another door
into the knotting universe and inviting others to explore
--yet still there are only 24 hours in the day and 7 days
in the week and ... !   
Darn you to Heck, X!   

Looking at the image of X's you (re-)present, I see in
THIS structure a shape in the S.Parts I'd like to retain
(so, to prevent its "capsizing" into #1425)
and thus mentally re-tie it so that after the S.Part
makes its U-turn it reaches to where the tail begins
its exit, and turns around in the opposite direction
to tuck out through the center --thus binding the
S.Parts in their current-in-this-form orientation.

This revised knot draws up like a round rock,
and I surmise that it will prove rock-solid strong:
because the S.Parts' curvature is not severe;
and there will be little movement of parts
to generate friction & heat & chafe (from cyclic
loading).  Moreover, I believe that the tails can
be cut off snug to the body, at which point they
are bound by two overwraps --so, should
they somhow retreat beneath the first, the 2nd
will yet bind them (and these wraps receive the
heavy load --ameliorated by the U-turn-- of usage).
.:.  It could conceivably supplant the fisherman's knot
for some uses?

Xarax shows various things akin to what I describe,
in the aforecited thread, but so far as I could see
there all of them have the S.Parts passing by each
other straight and then turning, not crossing each
other as for the squaREef which I preserve in the
above revision.

(Yes, it has taken only a 2nd Coming after TWO YEARS
for my eyes to be led into this X opening --from as one
can see, a so richly/multiply set of things in 2011.)
 

--dl*
====

[xarax]

...there all of them have the S.Parts passing by each other straight and then turning, not crossing each
other as for the squaREef which I preserve in the above revision.

  The "twisting" of the Standing parts of the two links of the bends around each other, should not alter the essential characteristics of the parent knot. So, I had taken the "Falsely tied Hunter s bend", and had twisted the standing parts after they "pass by each other straight", because this way the knot remains a "Falsely tied Hunter s bend ", albeit a modified one - otherwise I would had transformed it into a modified/twisted "Correctly tied Hunter s bend"  ! For such a bend, see the pictures at the first three posts of (1), at (2) and (3).

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2894.0
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2019.0
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.msg19948#msg19948

[xarax]

   Perhaps we can build a bridge here, between this and the thread at (1), and between the ABoK#1425 / bottom-side-twist falsely tied Hunter s bend, shown at (2) and (3), and the symmetric Fig.9  / ABoK#525 "stopper", shown at (4) and (5).
   As shown at the attached pictures :
   
   1. Tie this particular symmetric form of the Fig.9 / ABoK#525 "stopper", and retrace it with the second line - or tie it on a double line. (a)
   
   2. Untuck the one line / Tail from the double line collar of the one side, and the other line / Tail from the double line collar of the other side. (b)   
 
   3. Re-dress the knot, after you have reduced any remaining slack.
   
   4. You end with the ABoK#1425 / bottom-side-twist falsely tied Hunter s bend, shown at the last two pictures. (c)

   Note (a):  I find that this knot is not very stable ( so it seems not very suitable as a basis of an end-to-end or an eye-knot ), because the oblique / diagonal element that connects the two linked bights / the two sides of the knot, shown at the "back side", does not stem out from / is not attached at the centre of the nub, so it can slide on its surface, and be transported towards the one or the other side.
   Note (b): We can say that this will not transform the knot very much, because, in fact, those lines / Tail ends are not nipped significantly within those collars, so this last tucking of theirs is not functionally important, re. security. Also, those collars are already wide enough, so the untucking of the lines / Tail ends does not reduce their diameter very much.
   Note (c). This is neither the Snug bend( M. B 11 ), nor the Crossover bend ( M. B 12 ). The Snug bend is the top-side-twist falsely tied Hunter s bend, shown at (6) - which is similar to the ABoK#1425, but the first curves of the Standing parts are less wide.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4705.0
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19170#msg19170
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19172#msg19172
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3838.0
5. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4705.msg30466#msg30466
6. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19167#msg19167

[zoranz]

Hi Xarax, hi all.

If you choose any one of the three variations of ABoK#1425 (Tails parallel, Tails crossed the one way, Tails crossed the other way)...

I tried to find out something about two nonstandard forms, but only found a photo with Opposite direction tails (attachment) in
http://charles.hamel.free.fr/knots-and-cordages/Investigation_6.html.
But, I can't see any relationship between Hamel's and Ashley's knot. And no any reason for same designation!?
Any comment?

Thx and regards, ZZ

[xarax]

  What you call "Hamel s knot", is a falsely tied ABoK#1425 knot...
  Do not pay any attention to this - Charles Hamel s article has a much bigger fish to fry ! And it is about the topology of the interlocked overhand-knot bends, not their dressings - which, in the case of ABoK#1425, can be considered as a minor detail. There are other bends where the three different dressings play a much more important role - like in the Ashley s bend ( ABoK#1452)( see those ancient attached pictures, which, somehow, had vanished from the Forum... )(1),(2), the Hunter s X bend (3), or in the Carrick bend (4).
   Pictures of different ABoK#1425 dressings, ( with no particular order - better, with no order at all  ), arte shown at (5),(6).

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1446.msg12867#msg12867
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2826.msg17069#msg17069
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4201.0
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4128.0
5. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1446.msg17062#msg17062
6. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1446.msg17063#msg17063