Zeppelin Loop and Double Dragon Loop - security based on experience

[alanleeknots]

 
Alan, try reading with your eyes --if your nose
is hitting the screen, you're too close to it! 
--dl*
====

Dan, Yes my nose is close to the screen, but I am not afraid to look at myself.

       謝謝  alan lee

[Dan_Lehman]

THAT, re-posted in the previous post, was the post by Ron, which you though it could offer you something to defend the paroosites... Poor Dan Lehman, I really feel sad for you !

The cited reference is after all readable by all,
and it clearly says :

...
[ QUOTE ] #1
[ QUOTE ] #2
Now we have a reliable and strong loop knot that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.

[/ QUOTE ] #2-close
!? But there is already quite a set of Bowlines for that -- old technology, complemented with various methods to secure the knot.

[/ QUOTE ] #1-close

[& here, RON's --the tester-- commentary]
...

? ? ?  Ooops, seems X. cannot quote this far,
 as it puts the lie to his BS!

   You are really desperate, are nt you ?
   You cite the SAME two quotes, as you have done already TWO times now,
while they are BOTH quotes coming from the replier, NOT the tester - and when you had not yet lost your nerve, as you did now, you had acknowledged that ...( "Touche", is something the person who received the hit says, not his opponent ! You start to lose it, and forget... )

   Now we have a reliable and strong loop knot that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.

   Read my lips : THAT is what the replier concluded / said ( and you, obviously ), NOT the tester !
The tester has not mentioned anything about the easiness to untie the knots he "tested"

Quit being such a flaming ass, X.
You cannot be so stupid, but you surely are
again resorting to an ugliness and deliberate
bias in these forums that is unforgivable.

SOB, you cut off my prior post OF RON'S COMMENT
exactly where he does conclude what I said (and,
yes --unlike you--, I acknowledged my misreading
regarding the prior quote, which was from Moray
(who, mind you, is one who also does knot testing)).

So, one more time I will post this.  If Alan gets his
nose out of the way (I will not even hope you get
your nose back in joint) and stops looking at himself
he can see it for himself.

...
[ QUOTE ] #1
[ QUOTE ] #2
Now we have a reliable and strong loop knot that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.

[/ QUOTE ] #2-close
!? But there is already quite a set of Bowlines for that -- old technology, complemented with various methods to secure the knot.

[/ QUOTE ] #1-close

[& here, RON's --the tester-- commentary]
The ZL is stronger or as strong as an F8 and can be untied much easier.
The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines
and it's just as easy to untie.
...

--dl*
====

[xarax]

Quit being such a flaming ass, X

   I will not follow in THAT kind of discussion, dL...

   I will make a last attempt to summarize the issue, for those who would like to learn something. Now I am sure dan Lehman had read my posts related to his false claims, I will delete them - they are no more useful to him, than his posts are useful to me. I will leave him alone in his raving ( to use another term of his -normally, I would had used the term "delirium" ). Evidently he needs it, more than the truth. No wonder - the truth can not be afforded by all people, and it seems that, among knot tyers, this happens more often than one would had expected by people who are supposedly interested in tools. 
   
   This thread was about the so-called "Zeppelin loop", and the Double Dragon loop. So far, nothing has been said for the later. I am not qualified to have an opinion about it, because I fo not know the Double Dragon loop well enough : I have tied it only a few times, I have not (yet) studied it, and, until quite recently, I was confusing it with another, "similar" loop !
   About the so-called "Zeppelin" loop, Alan Lee presented some pictures of tests made by him, and he concluded that, under heavy loading, the so-called "Zeppelin loop" can not be untied easily. He explained this as a consequence to the fact that the so-called "Zeppelin loop" uses an overhand knot tied on the Standing Part, which "closes" around itself, and becomes difficult to untie.
   In response to this, a member of the Forum I would prefer not to repeat his name, replied that Alan Lee loaded the knot above the "working load" of the rope he used, so he was not allowed to conclude anything about how easy to untie this knot is, because one is not allowed to load the ropes and the knots so much. So, he implied that the "working load" should be considered a limit, regarding strength AND easiness to untie : When a knot is tied on a rope loaded with a load equal to the "working load", and it does not break, we can say that it is a strong knot. Also, if a knot is loaded with the "working load", and then it is easy to untie, we can say that it is a knot easy to untie. So, we should examine, regarding hoe easy we can untie it, the so-called "Zeppelin loop" only when it is loaded by the "working load", not more.
   I have questioned this, on many grounds, as one can see if he reads my replies. In summary, I think that knots and ropes are often loaded by loads well above the working load, either accidentally, or on purpose, when the situation demands it, and the risks coming from the heavy loading are more than the risks of not using the knot at all. In those situations, it is even more important to have a knot really easy to tie and to untie, because these are, by definition, dangerous, critical situations, and the easiness to tie or untie a knot under such conditions is a matter of security, in the broad sense. In boating and sailing, for example, I have repeatedly found myself in such emergency situations, where I was forced to load a knotted rope far beyond the "working load" recommended by the manufacturer, and then I had to untie it in a hurry.
   Neither the member of the Forum who first "invented" this restricted definition of a knot easy to untie even if it is it easy to untie when it is loaded with no more than the working load, nor dan Lehman who tried to defend whatever this member says ( as he always does, for unknown to me reasons, which, I want to believe, they are NOT financial ), nor anybody else, ever replied anything to this. However, the definition of the load under which a knot is easy to untie each time, is a debatable issue. I had, in the past, proposed five distinct classes of loadings, as percentages of the MTB of the rope, and the classification of knots in the corresponding class of the higher load under which each knot is easy to be untied.
   Then Dan Lehman though that he could defend his mate in another way, and shifted the goalposts again...He discovered a post in an arborists site, where a member had presented a comparative test about the strength of the so-called "Zeppelin" loop, in comparison to the fig.8 loop, and presented numbers of loadings under which those two loops broke. On THIS test, and on THOSE numbers, on subsequent posts there were conclusions about how easy is to untie any of those two loops ( no number was offered, of course, not any description of the methods of the test which has supposedly lead to the examination of how easy is to untie those two loops - a test which was concluded after it produced four ( FOUR !) numbers, regarding strength, and strength only ). Notice that the comparison was about those two loops, an issue which was not raised in this thread - but which was though by dan Lehman that it could be utilized somehow, for his knotting or other purposes.
    Never ever had I claimed that the so-called 'Zeppelin loo" is more difficult to untie than the fig.8 loop ! I had said that the so-called "Zeppelin loop" is not so easy to untie as the genuine Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, or any of the bowline, PET loops which do not have an overhand of rig.8 knot tied on the Standing part. Also, I had said that, even if this overhand or fig.8 knot is tied after the eye ( Post Eye ), on the returning eye leg, the loop may become difficult to untie. The fig.8 knot has, obviously, not one, but two fig.8 knots tied on it, so it should be expected that it would be difficult to untie.
   However, this is irrelevant to the subject of this thread, and it was only used by dan Lehman for his own purposes. He cited a phrase, in this irrelevant thread in the other Forum, which I have to repeat :
     The ZL is stronger or as strong as an F8 and can be untied much easier. The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.
   WHO actually wrote this sentence, we do not know - we can not judge from the texts ( but he does - perhaps he wrote it by himself, and he is afraid, for unknown to me reasons, to admit it...). However, THIS is not the issue - as the poor man tried to present...

   The issues were, and still are :
   
   1. If THIS "conclusion" is corroborated, in ANY way, by the four ( FOUR !) numbers on strength ( STRENGTH ) presented by the "tester" .
   2. WHERE, on earth, had this "most of the bowlines"(sic) came from ! The "tester" and dan Lehman never ever spelled a word about HOW are those four (FOUR!) numbers tell anything about the "most of the bowlines". They had never ever explained which of the DOZENS bowlines they mean, and in which calculation, of which numbers, does this quantitative adjective "most"(sic) refers.
   
   Judging from the absolute silence of dan Lehman about those issues, I have to conclude that, either the "tester" and Dan Lehman are the same person, or they are connected by some relation, unknown to me ( like the relation between dL and the other member of this Forum ), which I HOPE it is not financial. Dan Lehman feels the need to defend his mates by everything he is able to discover, and, in doing that, he hits below the belt anybody he finds in front of him. He recently tried to do the same thing to Alan Lee - but I am not going to defend Alan Lee, of course : he is a superb knot tyer, whose work speaks for itself. I feel sad for Dan Lehman s recent decent into the pit, because he could had been such a great teacher of knots, and, at the bitter end, he became the worst of all - but that is not the first time he disappointed me...
   I would be glad to see REAL, scientifically sound tests of the so-called "Zeppelin loop" , in comparison to any other of the many loops we know - and iff it is proved, indeed, that :
 
   The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie (sic),
 
   then I would be the first proponent of this knot ! I have a great respect for the "experimental method" called science, and I will not allow myself be driven away from the TRUTH, for selfish reasons, as dan Lehman, unfortunately for him and us, did...
   However, even before those test, I would be also glad to BET on this ! Whoever of those brave knot testers and their lawyers ( who, nevertheless, are afraid of loading the ropes more than the "working load", because they fear the rope "can recoil after rupture and leave a nice hole in their [pretty, I presume] face" (sic)  ) wishes  to put his money where their mouth is, is challenged to join ! We will tie ALL the bowlines we know, each and every one of them, even if they are going to be a lot ! We will test them under ANY loading, be it the 1 / 4 or the 3 / 4 of the MTB of the rope. And we will examine how easy or difficult they are, regarding tying and/or untying, in comparison to the infamous so-called "Zeppelin loop".
   Whoever dares to tell that I am talking BS, and that I am deep into the manure pit, and my ass is flaming, he should first be sure that the S or the M are not his, coming out of his A ! Oh my KnotGod, I am soo tired from the cowards !   
       
   
   

[xarax]

   I had decided to end this meaningless tit-for-tat, but there is something that made me think it should probably be more fair to give it another try...
   I was really surprized by the language dL used against me. ( Not by his overall behaviour, where he always defend, by anything he can think of, right or wrong, anything my prominent opponents in this Forum say against me, right or wrong - roo and Inkanyezi, for example...). I had not expected from hit hits below the belt - although he did just that once, when he revealed/utilized publicly fragments of a PM I had sent to him.
   
   Now, he accuses me of something I would never ever even imagine to do : to deliberately cut, truncate, censor a quote by somebody - that is, to twist his words, in order to prove something. He accused me of concealing a part of his post, where he wrote that the "conclusion" about the easiness of untying the ZL loop was coming from the "tester" himself, Ron, and not from the "replier", and that I had not revealed ( what he claims it was ) Ron s line.

   I did not : I simply quoted directly the first part of his reply, where he, dL, stated that the line

   Now we have a reliable and strong loop knot that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.

   was written by the "tester", Ron, and not by the "replier", for a SECOND time - although he had acknowledged his mistake, after the first time ! That was sooo silly, and was done in such an obviously stupid way, I thought I had to SHOW the part itself of dL s post, where he did it again, to laugh at it ! That was the most funny, hilarious thing about dL reply, and that was what I had wished to emphasize. So, that part was the only one where I used the [QUOOTE] - I did not wanted to use the [QUOOTE] for the whole dL post, with all the other things he has written - included the nice adjectives he  had used against me...

   dL tried to capitalize on this, telling this :

? ? ?  Ooops, seems X. cannot quote this far,
 as it puts the lie to his BS!

   However, in the part of my reply he shows, HE DOES NOT SHOW the remaining, subsequent part, where I quoted the original post of Ron s="tester" s / "replier" s too, with the "conclusion" - and HE DOES NOT SHOW the remaining, subsequent part where I said that we simply can not be sure who wrote this "conclusion, because the [QUOOTE] labels, in the original post, do not help us in this, and that, in the end of the day, THAT does not matter, and it was not the issue of the discussion. ( The issue of the discussion was if that "test", with its four numbers, was about, and if it was telling anything about, the easiness to untie the ZL, or not...).
   So, HE is the one who cuts, truncates and conceals part of his opponents post, not ME ! 

   Now, I was frustrated sooo much with this nasty trick he used, and with his language, that I had deleted all my other replies and written a new one, the one at my previous post. Unfortunately for me, I had not kept a record of the post where I wrote what I say I wrote, so I can not now PROVE what I say...
   However, the poor man is unlucky - because something happened that makes me be sure that I HAD quoted, indeed, the passage from his and "testers" = Ron s / "replier" s posts he claims/pretends I did not : I had re-produced the [QUOOTE] word, and the editor of our Forum interpreted it as a quote, so the whole remaining post was shown as a quote ! To fix this, I was forced to add a second O into the [QUOOTE] word, just as I do here...and THAT I remember very well ! So, I am sure, for a second, technical reason, that I had quoted his and "tester" s = Ron s / "replier" s line, indeed - because for a first, moral reason, I was sure right from the start - I simply am not a liar, and a crook , but I can not tell the same for my opponents !

   So , I ask from the Moderators to retrieve and present my deleted relevant post, the one with the many [QUOOTE]s I had inserted. There anybody will SEE, with his EYES, if I had cut/truncated/hidden, and if I had replied to dL / "replier" s / "testers" s = Ron s lines, or not.
   
   HOWEVER. this man who accuses me of not cutting/truncating/hiding his lines, DO IT ALL THE TIME with my lines :

    He quotes THIS :

As for the remaining rabble, what more can be said?

  First, ... the cited "wise" pseudo-conclusion...
  Second, ... which was not measured with any means ... .
  Third, "security" ... .
  Fourth, the "most" bowlines is a joke ...., and nothing more, I am afraid.

While I won't dare hope to overcome the self-delusion
expressed above, I have yet hope that others will be
able to see clear, and so post these words here.


--dl*
====

   Notice his "conclusions", and the words " rablbe"(sic) and "delusion"(sic) .

   Although my post was THIS :

  First, as the title itself tells, the test was about the so-called "Zeppelin" loop, in comparison to the retraced fig. 8 loop - so irrelevant with was claimed by the cited "wise" pseudo-conclusion...
  Second, the test was about the strength of those knots, not about the easiness to untie them - which was not measured with any means. It is true that, to measure it, one would had needed some sophisticated laboratory instruments - but that does not mean that, in the absence of such instruments, one can say anything it happens to cross his mind !
  Third, "security" was examined in its narrow sense, as something that is related only to slippage. In fact, in the real world, in order to speak about security, in a broader sense, we should also take into account how easy is to tie or to untie a knot, because, in some dangerous situations, time can play a major role.
  Fourth, the "most" bowlines is a joke ! I am sure that the "wise" knot tyer, who replied in such a superficial way, does not know more than a small fraction of the bowline-like knots, and that he had tested not more than a small fraction of this fraction !
   In short, the above reply of what was really reported in the article by the tester, is but a wishful thinking of its author, and nothing more, I am afraid.

   The reader can compare the two quotes, and he can judge if what I have written my post was "rabble"(sic), coming from a "delusion"(sic), and if dL had the courage to reply to ANYTHING of what what I am saying to this post, or not.

   To return to the infamous "test" , by which dL hoped he will be able to pronounce some words against what is shown by Alan s pictures and what I said by me :

   ALL loops based on an overhand knot ( or, for that matter, on a fig.8 knot ) tied on the Standing Part ( so, loaded with 100% of the total load from the Standing End side, and with 50% of the total load from the eye leg side ) are NOT as easily untied as the bowline-like loops - which are based on nipping structures topologically equivalent to the unknot.
   It turns out that an overhand knot ( or a fig.8 knot) can clinch too tightly, even when tied on the returning eye leg / Tail End - i.e., as a "collar structure", which is loaded only with 50% of the total load from the eye leg and with 0% of the total load from the Tail... If such a knot can be less easy to untie when it is loaded less, it will not become more easy to untie when it is loaded more ! 

   I had posted a reply, in two parts, on the Forum where this test was presented. The interested reader can read it, at :

   http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/the-zeppelin-loop-vs-the-f8-in-pulls.15928/page-2

[alanleeknots]

Hi All,
 
       I don't understand this, I have heard lots of good things about this Zeppelin loop,
       to me this is as someone tries very hard to persuade people to use it.
   
       Here, I rig up three versions of this class of loops with the best way I can.
       All three of those loops have U shape collars a little longer than the "Zeppelin loop".
       Their nipping loops near the side of the Standing Part side have a more bow-like shape
       which can push the collar a little more upwards. One has two rope diameters in the nipping loop,
       the other two have three. Also, as they are tightening, they allow more time for the second
       overhand knot to tighten up around itself, so the nub becomes more compact, and look more secure.
       
       For now I can not test it, because the scale of the crane I use is not working properly.
       In a week I will be at home, and I will see if I have time to build another heavy multiple force device
       that can deliver 1500 lbs. of load.
       
       Just by the look at it, and by pull test by my hand, all three are way better than the "Zeppelin loop".
       Not that I like this kind of loops, I am just curious and I want to find out how much they can improve,
       and how heavy the load can it support before they jam.

       謝謝  alan lee

[enhaut]

@ eric22
Hi,
I dont know about the loops efficiency; but your presentation is great
And exploded version and a closed one on the same image does the trick for me.
Thanks

[Dan_Lehman]

   I had decided to end this meaningless tit-for-tat,
but there is something that made me think it should probably
be more fair to give it another try...
   I was really surprized by the language dL used against me.
( Not by his overall behaviour, where he always defend,
by anything he can think of, right or wrong, anything my
prominent opponents in this Forum say against me, right or wrong
--roo and Inkanyezi, for example...).

X., your continued casting of discussions into the realm
of heroic struggles against "opponents" --whom, it can
be seen, you often poke at with obvious barbs intended
to provoke (the most frequent of which might be your
ever-present "false zeppelin loop" decrying)-- became
wearisome long ago.  Seeing everything as ad hominem
deprives you of seeing points, alas (right or wrong points).

I am sorry for my angry words, but they were honest
reactions to your continued biased writing; most obvious
was the mis-quoting and not-seeing of Ron's vs. non-Ron's
replies : you could tell the latter (and so caught my mistake
on the one quote), but somehow became unable to discern
the former (which is every bit as clear, as I laid out in
bracketing the start & end delimiters of quotations).
And even after I admitted my mistake on the first, you raised
it again as though an undressed wound (while ignoring the
valid quote, pretending it undeterminable).

And then all the imaginative ad hominem construction
of bias & persecution and ... --egadz.

 - - - - - -

Let us return to the piquing point : that assertion that
all eyeknots with an overhand knot base are harder
to untie than the bowline(s).  I reject this assertion.
Some have reported that bowlines can jam, and some
have here said the same for the zeppelin loop (by which
name of common usage --following a construction method
that is broadly understood (nevermind finer arguments re
merit of whatever title)), which others believe to be false.
Having recalled that there had been break tests using this
eyeknot, and that the tester found it to be easily untied,
I presented that report.  Loading the knot to near rupture
is an ultimate test; it is one test, and of few instances,
but I don't find chance playing a role to somehow let
just those cases be easy ... .  We do need to mind that
testing occurs in particular materials and particular
knot-tying and particular loading.

Roo's suggestion that going over reasonable loading
should be seen as stepping into a new region of use,
and maybe beyond the realm of expectations, strikes
me as worth regarding.  Here, again, though, there
are such varieties of "safe working load" or "normal
working conditions" --but we know that they exist,
and that some extreme circumstances might not
be held to count against a knot; that everyday,
normal usage is of interest, and so How does this
knot in this application perform? is the pertinent
question to answer.

Now, Alan ("eric22") did not come to an opinion
en vacuo, but had some of his own testing to consider;
he found the ZL to be hard to loosen, if loaded
heavily, at least.  Reflecting on this, I got some rope
and tried my own pretty heavy loading, and although
I wasn't able to replicate the loaded geometry that
Alan's knots have, I too found that the knot was
less then easily loosened --and could wonder about
e.g. the probably heavier loading that would come
in an FF1 ("fall factor 1" : falling the length of rope
in system --in rockclimbing, it's possible to fall about
double this, as an extreme) with an adult male's weight.

So, this left me on diminished island of support
against the challenged assertion!  But I am not
wedded to defending the ZL (or allegedly for some
the Divine Z!).  And I tried the end-2-end knot
of interlocked overhands that I would favor for
making an eyeknot : the "Ashley's bend" #1452
(correctly dressed for being easy to untie).  THIS
eyeknot is pretty easily loosened, although there
is the potential for the SPart to pull the collar
around it tightly as the SPart strand in high
tension shrinks in diameter (elongating) such
that the collar pinches it and then holds tension
upon relaxing of the SPart, which enlarges
outside of this pinch and has a stopper effect!
--such effect I have found in a bowline, btw.
Still, one has good hope to be able to overcome
this jam, as the collar holds much room for
loosening.

First, as the title itself tells, the test was about the so-called "Zeppelin" loop,
in comparison to the retraced fig. 8 loop
--so irrelevant with [what] was claimed by the cited "wise" pseudo-conclusion...

Not at all : it hardly matters what testing delivered
the near-rupture, severe force to the ZL, only that
it was sustained, and yet found to be unjammed.

Second, the test was about the strength of those knots,
not about the easiness to untie them
--which was not measured with any means.
It is true that, to measure it, one would had needed some
sophisticated laboratory instruments
--but that does not mean that, in the absence of such instruments,
one can say anything it happens to cross his mind !

By your logic, we should all be silent --you, first
of all in your original assertion, as you have not
done this well-instrumented testing of all possible
knots ... !
In fact, the general claim is one that can be
evaluated with manual effort at untying, where
the test is more of a pass/fail one, and not really
concerned with matters of degree : "easy" or "hard"
(or "jammed/'welded'") are the choices.

Third, "security" was examined in its narrow sense,
as something that is related only to slippage. In fact, in the
real world, in order to speak about security, in a broader sense,
we should also take into account how easy is to tie or to untie a knot,
because, in some dangerous situations, time can play a major role.

What matters to one application might not to another.
The issue here regards ease of UNtying; of the tester,
it was mostly strength & loaded-security (which ought
to be pretty obvious on examination alone, for the ZL).

Fourth, the "most" bowlines is a joke !
I am sure that the "wise" knot tyer, who replied in such a superficial way,
does not know more than a small fraction of the bowline-like knots,
and that he had tested not more than a small fraction of this fraction !

And yet he had tested the ZL, and per the choices
of easy/hard/jammed made a finding.  --without doing
the impossible of testing ALLLLL .... !


--dl*
====

[xarax]

...you often poke at with obvious barbs intended to provoke ( the most frequent of which might be your ever-present "false zeppelin loop" decrying

   I have not denied THAT !  I sometimes try to use ( without much success, I have to admit, because I am not used to it... ) the same time-honoured technique of knot tyers : repetition ! I hope that, by repeating over and over again the same thing, I will succeed to implant a seed, at least, of doubt, deep inside the souls of the "Z"L believers - where I have seen that no reasonable argument had ever reached... It is boring, I know - but I think that it is no more boring to others, than the repetition of the "Z"L propaganda is to me - so, we are even. 
   What else can I do ? There are dozens of easy to tie and untie PET loops out there, but, all of a sudden, a certain mediocre overhand-knot based loop becomes the bread and circuses of knot tyers, to satisfy their appetite for fast-knot-rumination... And here comes a lamentable 4 (= four ! )-numbers "test" about the strength of the "Z"L, in relation to the fig.8 loop, and the "conclusion"  which states the most silly thing I had ever read about the bowlines :
    "The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowline and it's just as easy to untie." (sic) 
   Notice the ridiculous use of the words "more" and "most" - the "most" been more ridiculous than the "more", indeed.

which is every bit as clear, as I laid out in bracketing the start & end delimiters of quotations

(while ignoring the valid quote, pretending it undeterminable).

NOOO ! It is not ! because you NEVER had seen, or admitted, the obvious : that, in Ron s post, where the infamous passage is repeated, the ORDER of the QUOTES is WRONG ! Which tells me that we can not be sure who said what ! The first "QUOOTE", should hade been a [QUOOTE] ( = start of the quote ) - but, instead, it is a [QUOOTE/] ( NOTICE THE "/" after the word !)(= end of the quote ). ALSO, the second "QUOOTE" should had been a [QUOOTE/](= end of the quote ) - but, instead, it is a [QUOOTE]( = start of the quote ). KnotGod, Why, on earth, had You abandoned me ? 

   [/ QUOTE ]
 The ZL is stronger or as strong as an F8 and can be untied much easier. The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.

 [ QUOTE ]

   The QUOTE is NOT valid, and I had not "pretended" it is undeterminable ! IT IS undeterminable !
   Simple common sense would tell you - if you have enough of it...- that is improbable, for Ron, to repeat, for himself, THE SAME EXACT WORDS said by somebody else - which words, also, tell something sooo false !
    However, the crux of the matter was not there ! You said that I had hided Ron s quote, on purpose, as a f... liar, ( the "word "lie", which may mean nothing very important to you, means MUCH to me  - and you dared to write it with capital letters, big fonts, and red colour ! ! ! )( not to mention anything about the BS, and the manure pit where it was best for me to put a lid, so I will not miss anything precious ).
    I had not ! I replied in two things, in two separate paragraphs, the one after the other, and I had repeated the rest of Ron s (or whatever else s) quote, word to word, AFTER the first quote - but you failed to notice that ! Instead, you were quick to call me a liar - which was something that makes any ad hominem response by me not only justified, but deserved as well.

   ( However, I appreciate the fact that you had admitted your words were "angry", and that you are sorry for this - I will not continue this vendetta any longer ! Peace on Earth !   )

[xarax]

...the piquing point : that assertion that all eyeknots with an overhand knot base are harder to untie than the bowline(s).  I reject this assertion.

   OK ! And "I" reject the opposite ! ( even if it is not so clear, and uses the "most", instead of the "all". I believe that a 100% wrong thing remains too wrong, even if we are only talking about "most" of it...)
   So, tell me, WHO is less wrong ? Who rejects a more wrong assertion ? 

Some have reported that bowlines can jam

   WHO ? WHERE ? HOW many tests had they performed ? I hope more than 4 ( = four ) ! 
   And WHICH bowlines ? There are dozens of secure bowlines out there - we are speaking about bowlines, in general, of course, and not about THE bowline ( the "common" bowline ).
   However, what made me angry, indeed, was the ridiculous word "most" ! If the "tester" had simply said : "the bowline" or "some bowlines", I would nt had started this vendetta ! 
   I had devised what I think is a new secure bowline just a few days ago ( the Ampersand bowline ) - and Alan Lee does the same thing, almost each and every week ! Had Ron included those bowlines in the sample, when he "concluded" that the "Z"L is just as easy to untie as "most" bowlines" ? If yes, then HE is the real Oracle, and you are just a speaker on behalf of him !  The man does not know yet the bowlines that will be devised, but he can speak about them ! He sees into the future ! I have sooo many things to ask him, other than the easiness or not of untying knots, of course  ! 

the tester found it to be easily untied

   Compared to WHICH knot ? If he had simply said that he had compared it to the fig.8 knot, which he had also tested, I would nt had challenged his findings. I believe that the fig.8 knot, which uses an even more self-enclosing, more complex, topologically, knot than the overhand knot, is more difficult to be untied than the "Z"L, indeed.
   However, he had NOT tested ANY bowline - so, not even FEW, and, of course, not MOST of the bowlines !
   If he had performed a decent comparative test between "some", at least, bowlines, and the "Z"L, I would nt had destroyed the keyboard, by the angry way I type those replies !

I tried the end-2-end knot of interlocked overhands that I would favor for making an eyeknot : the "Ashley's bend" #1452 (correctly dressed for being easy to untie).  THIS eyeknot is pretty easily loosened,

   OK ! So, I should had said "All but ONE ! " 
   My word "all" was not meant to be exclusive, because, as I had said time and again :
   "Topology does not determine geometry uniquely".
   So, the fact that a knot uses a knot topologically equivalent to the overhand or the fig.8 knot, can not tell EVERYTHING about its geometry ! ( Which geometry, by its turn, is what determines the easiness or not of untying the knot ). My assertion was meant to be read in a general way - otherwise I would had been forced to DESCRIBE the difficult-to-be-untied GEOMETRIES - which is a pretty difficult thing to do ! ( Although, regarding the jamming geometries, I had attempted this, too, and I now believe that I can predict in many, if not "most" cases  , if a certain knot would be easy to untie, or not.)
    I would be glad if somebody would test all the "corresponding" eyeknots of the end-to-end knots shown by Miles, for example. Then we would see if most of the eyeknots based on links topologically equivalent to the unknot ( the PET loops ), would be more easy to untie than the eyeknots based on links topologically equivalent to the overhand or the fig.8 knot.
    My gut feeling, my present understanding of the rope mechanics, and my experience till now, tells me that, in such a competition, the PET loops will win the overhand and fig.8 knot-based loops hands down ! Am I sure ? Yes - to the degree I am ready to BET on this... If I will be proven wrong, it will not be my first time - but I am not trying to persuade people about this, by 4-numbers irrelevant tests, or by just remaining silent, or even by hiding, all the loops that may prove me wrong !
   It is almost a fashion for supposedly knowledgeable knot tyers, to systematically remain silent about the dozens of fine bends and loops we know, and promote some faux bijoux, like the "Z"L. I, for one, will not buy those BS ! If somebody comes and tells me that he tested a loop corresponding to a certain bend, and he found it as easy to untie as a certain bowline, then I would be the first to take this into account - because, contrary to "most" knot tyers, I was not so lucky to have been offered or found the Holy Grail, either of the bends, or of the loops !   

it hardly matters what testing delivered the near-rupture, severe force to the ZL, only that it was sustained, and yet found to be unjammed.

   Of course, if the test of the easiness to untie was done at near-rupture forces, it would suffice - but we had NOT been told this, had we ?  We do not know in which, exactly, stage of the loading, under which percentage of the MBS, the supposed testing of the easiness-to-untie has been performed. I had mentioned this in my reply to Ron, but I have not received any convincing answer - perhaps because I had not received ANY answer whatsoever ! 
   HOWEVER, listen what you say ! "found to be unjammed" (sic) ! WHO told that a knot that is not jammed, is easy to be untied ? Neither Alan Lee, nor me ! A knot can be difficult to be untied - and can be more difficult to be untied than the bowline-like loops (that was my assertion...) - even if it does not jam !

And yet he had tested the ZL, and per the choices of easy/hard/jammed made a finding.  --without doing the impossible of testing ALLLLL .... !

   You are quick to try to escape, but I am not soooo slow as you wish to believe  ! 
   I will repeat it : It was NOT his finding that the "Z"L was "easy-to-untie"(period) that made me angry !
 
   It was that he "concluded", without ANY test, that " the"Z"L is just as easy to untie as most bowlines ".
   
   He had NOT said in which percentage of the MBS or his rope he tested ( IFF he tested...) that "easiness".
   He had NOT said HOW he tested ( IFF he tested...) that easiness.
   He had NOT said that he had tested ( IFF he had tested...) EVEN ONE bowline.
   He had NOT said WHICH bowline he had tested ( IFF he had tested any ).
   Last, but not least :
   He had NOT said WHAT he means by this ridiculous "most bowlines" !

   The fact that he can not test ALL bowlines, does not mean that he should not test ANY ! And it also does not mean that, if he had tested one or two ( when, how, which ones, under what load, he fails to report...), he could claim that he had tested "most" !

   I rest my case. It was NOT difficult to pulverize such a ridiculous claim, based on 4 irrelevant tests, of course. However, I guess it had been as difficult as it was shown, for you, to defend roo, and his faux bijoux - and it WAS difficult for me, to write thousands of words, in a language I do not know well, trying to defend common sense...
   If I was the one who had performed those "tests", and had been so foul to publish them, and so silly to "conclude" such nonsense, based on no knowledge of the bowline-land, and on any testing on any of them, I am sure that you would had decorated me by all those nice, polite words you use, even against much more sound claims....
   In fact, I feel really sad for the poor people that are tying mediocre knots all their lives, and will never feel the joy of a GREAT knot, like the bowline or the Gleipnir... because they will never spent a few hours studying them, and so they will never UNDERSTAND them. If they miss this joy, I, too, do not understand why they are tying knots in the first place...

 

[alanleeknots]

Hi All,
       Have some free time and got these 3 double overhand loops tested, loop 1 jam at around 1700 lbs.
       loop 2 jam at around 1900 lbs loop 3 jam at around 2300 lbs.
       Just to make sure to have more accurate reading, again I carefully tested the Zepplin loop,
       for soft rope after loaded 1200 lbs. is manageable to untie and it jam at around 1300 lbs.
       for blue water rope after loaded 1400 lbs. also managerble to untie and it jam at arond 1500lbs.
       
       All 3 loops can support more load and the second overhand knot are more tighter then Zepplin loop.
       There are no good reason for me to like all theses loops here. For Zepplin loop is the worst worth one among almost  all,
       beside the name "Zepplin" really have no much to offer.

       謝謝 alan lee.

[alanleeknots]

        One more picture here.

[xarax]

[The] Zeppelin loop... besides the name "Zeppelin", it really has no much to offer.

 And yet it has - a soft pillow, for the believers ( and the ignoramuses of the many much better secure bowlines ), to sit on ! 

[roo]

Hi All,
       Have some free time and got these 3 double overhand loops tested, loop 1 jam at around 1700 lbs.
       loop 2 jam at around 1900 lbs loop 3 jam at around 2300 lbs.
       Just to make sure to have more accurate reading, again I carefully tested the Zepplin loop,
       for soft rope after loaded 1200 lbs. is manageable to untie and it jam at around 1300 lbs.
       for blue water rope after loaded 1400 lbs. also managerble to untie and it jam at arond 1500lbs.
       
       

Could you let us know the working load limit of the rope you are testing? 

[alanleeknots]

Roo,
      The Bluewater safe line is 7663 lbf  minimum breaking strength,
      the soft rope is 3000 lbs. breaking strength  and 300 lbs. safe working load.
     
      謝謝  alan lee
     

[roo]

      the soft rope is 3000 lbs. breaking strength  and 300 lbs. safe working load.
     
     

If you take 1/5 of the 3000 lb as the safe working load, it'd yield 600 lb.  So it seems all the loops you're testing recently are performing well.