Firstly, I don't mean to discourage but rather to temper your enthusiasm about learning
of "inventers" of knots: expect that there might be several, and that sometimes the mere
finding of a knot
form doesn't reveal its full
use/potential--e.g., the Munter H./MB
is the form of the Crossing knot, but though Ashely presented the latter, he hardly hinted
at the use for belaying a falling rockclimber.
To Dan_Lehman (or anyone else who has answers!)...
.......................................
You can omit the "Alpine" and read about this in Wikipedia's entry, which I think carries
information I added, still. --at least in 1928, Wright & Magowan's report to the Alpine Club.
........................................
Tried Wikipedia search using "Butterfly knot" but no specific info came up....
I presume you meant "Alpine club" to mean American Alpine Club?
Do you have a www address for this information?
No, English Alpine Club.
Here is a URLink to printed pages of the full article, which includes these authors'
introduction of the
Butterfly (and their stated rationale for choosing that name):
http://tinyurl.com/ybrxop[2014-04-17 edit to try a working URLink, which offers 2 versions (hi/lower-res):
http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Alpine_journal/]
(sorry for the fine print; if need be, I could snailmail a slightly bigger copy)
Now, I'm not sure how far back one can trace
lineman use: IIRC, Charles Warner in his
chapter
Life Support Knots in
History & Science of Knots concludes that it's unclear
whether there was any actual use of whichever knot--confusion about what was used.
I am also conducting some research into the Rosendahl bend (also known as the Zeppelin bend).
Could not find an ABOK reference. The closest ABOK is the hunters bend at ABOK #1425A.
--or #1408. This isn't in
ABOK, and if you look on-line I think you can find a (MotherJones?)
reprint of the magazine article that apparently associated "Zeppelin" to this otherwise unnamed knot,
though the quoted advocate there I believe said that users referred to it as "R---'s" knot.
It was later "invented" by Bob Thrun (author,
Prusiking[/u]), and piqued his interest in learning
of its history--and this is the first publication of it that he has found.
(As I invented ('73) SmitHunter's bend, and seeing it on the cover of the
Morrow Guid to Knots piqued
my interest such that I wrote to this policeman Budworth in England and ... --the rest is history, or currency!
)
I am very interested in strong/secure/stable methods of joining two climbing or abseiling rope togther
- the Rosendahl appears well suited to such applications, perhaps superior even to the Double fishermans
(AKA Grapevine) ABOK #1415.
And the astute knots person should here quickly ask
Why?, meaning that folks have been abseiling
for decades, and it is pretty easy to find debates about the ARJ (Abseil-Ropes Joiner) knots in contention:
the Offset Overhand Bend (OOB, aka "EDK" = "European Death Knot", "Double Overhand", "Thumb Bend")
is recommended by some rope makers and the UIAA. Back it up with an Overhand in the thinner line around
the end of the thicker, and it's even dandier. Make a full round turn of the binding rope (one first holding the
opposed lines together where they enter from opposite directions)--which makes a Figure 9 in that rope--
and you have ample security against "rolling"/flyping.
Strength is simply NOT an issue--full stop/PERIOD!
Specifically, I have experimented with a variant to the Rosendahl bend by adding and extra wrap to both tails.
Which will increase bulk with the only measurable effect IN USE of being more difficult to haul down over rock.
(For another fun time, try making the each tail wrap around the opposite standing part before being tucked out
--giving the SParts a loop forwards vice their u-turn backwards.) Ashley's #1452 should do whatever you seek
with Rosendahl's, and #1425 will be much more secure when slack, yet still easily untied (takes more work,
but it comes).
I am going to commission some load tests with the single and double Rosendahl bends
and compare results with a control (same rope but unknotted) and then a round of field testing
with a backup belay safety line.
We'll await your report of results. It will be good to (1) take photos of the knots as tied, and as
tension on them reaches, say, 40% of the rope's strength. If you have to make a loop in order
to peform the testing, MAKE A KNOT IN EACH SIDE OF THE LOOP, so to remove the issue
of rope-lengthening from knot compression on one side only!! (and to have one
unbroken yet heavily loaded specimen surviving the test, and knowledg that TWO knots got
to XXX pounds load okay!).!!! (I.e., in some testing of the Grapevine the rope breaks AT THE
PIN, and it's speculated that this results from the material feed from a compressing knot
making the rope lengthen on that side and so move around the pin at high load.)
A further round of testing with an ABOK #1415 to compare and contrast against
the Double Rosendahl will also be done as a control.
Or, you might regard extant data on this knot sufficient to make conclusions, and instead
spend you precious resources on testing something not otherwise tested much, such
as #1425! (One fellow has done Knot-A vs. Knot-B testing of many knots, and 1425
(NOT "1425a", NOT SmitHunter's bend--the REAL/original "1425", by Ashley) fared well!
Dan_Lehman, have you any info of any existing data on the "Double Rosendahl bend?"
In the above testing this knot was entered and had mixed results vs. 1425a, 1452, & less well vs. 1425,
though IIRC there was the odd situation of A beating B 3-0, B beating C 3-0, and then A beating C only
3-1 or even 3-2 !? (I've seen volleyball matches like that.)
I am of course hoping to start a quiet little evolution (but not a revolution) in climbing
and rescue circles to finally challenge the conventional wisdom that ABOK #1415 is the
emminent joining knot. I am hoping that test data backed up with field testing will demonstrate
the "Double Rosendahl bend" to be a superior joining knot.
Then you are in for a rude awakening that test results have been in some sense obtained
through decades of usage, and NO KNOTS FAIL IN PRACTICE from weakness, in these
kernmantle user communities--safety factors better ensure this, for one thing!
More important considerations are: familiarity (the new always loses to the established, here),
ease of tying (sadly, familiarity biases this), interchangeability with users (do things like everyone
else and it's easy; go pioneering and it's a continual battle). And so on.
Not that some better thinking isn't needed (you will be surprised to read Wright & Magowan's
words--this is what THEY tried, in 1928: you can assess their success by considering how
well you know the Sennit & Reever bends, e.g.!).
You may have heard of a number of worrying deaths in relation to abseil descents where certain joining
knots have mysteriously failed. You may also have heard of the so-called Euro death knot (EDK) or perhaps known
as an overhand bend with both tails exiting together on same side. Others have tried to use a figure 8 again with
both tails together and exiting on same side (aka abnormal F8, flat F8, etc, ...)...
This I know well: there are more rumors per
rare actual incident than press reporters on a sex
scandal--all throwing wild assertions devoid of thought & research. I know of ONE mystery with the OOB,
and one death alleged for the Offset Fig.8 (and I disdain the names "flat" & "abnormal"--they are neither).
I've indicated above how to redress concerns for the OOB, and the 2nd works as well for the Fig.8.
FYI, one of the folks who examined the ropes of the British climber's death from the presumed capsizing
of the Offest Fig.8 continued to
recommend this knot for canyoneering ropes--he called the climbing
ones of the failure "cables" (stiff). The OOB is simplest, most compact, and well known (even if misunderstood
by many); getting either the back-up stopper or the full turn prelude seals this knot's fit for the purpose.
--though it hasn't stopped me from fiddling numerous competitors, still !!
motto: have rope, will fiddle--dl*
====
