Zeppelin 360 bend

[agent_smith]

I am presenting what I am calling a Zeppelin 360 bend.

This forum went offline for about a week - and so I have been in contact with Xarax and Dan Lehman privately.

Xarax provided this link: https://forum.igkt.net//index.php?topic=1980
However, some of the images are lost.

Has anyone got copies of the original images from Xarax?

I am trying to establish the history of the Zeppelin 360 bend.

I like it .
For me, it is an improvement on the original Zeppelin bend.
And thats saying something!

Yes Dan, I know you will chime in and admonish me for wanting to make a claim
and/or trying to establish the history of this 'bend'.
Be that as it may, I really need to know please.

[Dan_Lehman]

Xarax provided this link: https://forum.igkt.net//index.php?topic=1980
However, some of the images are lost.

I have presented the "360" structure you give for Thrun's Joint
some decade+ ago, in chatter w/EStar (Evans Starzinger),
looking for e2e joints that would work in HMPE.  I applied
the "360"ing to #1452, AND THEN made a 2nd tuck of the
Tails through the 360'd nipping loops --which EStar said
did NOT not slip <egadz!!?> !!!

In the cited thread above, Xarax goes one turn further,
getting "540"ing, where the line collars itself (not the
reciprocal collaring of each to the other); this makes
for an overly bulky knot, IMO.  (He also shows the knot
w/0 540 but doubled collars, something I too have fiddled.
I suggested --by tying modification-- the Thrun Joint (Zep)
360 --to wit ::

I'm a little surprised at your no-difference results; in any case,
it is only the first (double collar) version I'd use.  You might try
an in-between version, where the main loop goes not 180deg
or your 540 but 360 degrees, to collar the opposite line.

This confirms that his images --1sTwo visible outright to me, today,
and the 3rd via download; the 4th is lost-- presented by X. do NOT
hit the "360" on the head, but certainly could inspire someone to
go the not-quite-so-far reach, as you've done.

I am trying to establish the history of the Zeppelin 360 bend.

Then look to my presentation of the technique on #1452; THAT
puts the structure out to be used one whatever it fits, as desired.
AND anticipates (unless mine followed?) X's 540 (and so on & on ...).

... admonish me for wanting to make a claim

We don't need or have all so much to do with per-knot "claims" such has this.

and/or trying to establish the history of this 'bend'.

Noting that we STILL are looking for the history of the
knot you've amended --Thrun's Joint hits solid ground
for Bob Thrun's discovery AND presentation of it;
but what of the presentation that got it renown as
"the Zeppelin Knot" ?!  THAT remains ungrounded.
Maybe that "Joe Collins" --whom I recall Roo finding
nominally among USNavy personnel at that time--
discovered it for himself somewhere along his being,
and thought to invent a myth via Boating's article
to popularize it?  Or ... <some otherwise> ?!
(I can say that I also discovered it, ca. 1986?,
well antecedent to above disclosures,
working from fiddling w/SmitHunter's Bend.)

(-;

[agent_smith]

Dan,

I have presented the "360" structure you give for Thrun's Joint
some decade+ ago, in chatter w/EStar (Evans Starzinger),
looking for e2e joints that would work in HMPE.

Okay - in reading your text, it appears that you are the originator/creator
of the Zeppelin 360 bend?
Have you got the original photo, or the URL link to your post?
For completeness of my records, I need a proper reference that I can point to.

I am intending to update my technical paper on the Zeppelin bend and need full and proper references.

...

per Dan Lehman:

In the cited thread above, Xarax goes one turn further,
getting "540"ing, where the line collars itself (not the
reciprocal collaring of each to the other); this makes
for an overly bulky knot, IMO.

We are in agreement, the 540 version is a step too far...

But, one of Xarax's images is missing - the 'B" image.
Maybe he did present it? I cant track down his "B" (4th) image.

the 4th is lost-- presented by X. do NOT
hit the "360" on the head, but certainly could inspire someone to
go the not-quite-so-far reach, as you've done.

Indeed, I was looking at all the alleged 'improvements' to the original
Zeppelin bend and none really captured my interest.
About a month ago, a picked up some cord and started fiddling.
And this is when I found the 360 variant.
I like it very much - it is a worthy enhancement, and it is rock solid secure.

Dan,
If you did make the 360 discovery yourself, I take my hat off to you.
It is going to be published in my updated paper on the Zeppelin bend.
But I want to include full and proper acknowledgements to those who discovered it.

...

Noting that we STILL are looking for the history of the
knot you've amended --Thrun's Joint hits solid ground
for Bob Thrun's discovery AND presentation of it;

Well, the trail stops at Bob Thrun.
I have searched high and low, but the trail ends at Bob.

However, it always bothered me that Desmond Mandeville made a claim
that his 'Poor mans pride' knot was named in 1961.
His 'Poor mans pride' was none other than the Zeppelin bend.

If this is true, this pre-dates Bob Thrun by some 5 years.

Sadly, Desmond passed away in 1992, so we cant ask him.

[agent_smith]

I've managed to track down Xarax's 'Double Zeppelin bend' variations.

It looks like he didn't tie and present the 360 version.
I am surprised Xarax didn't discover this for himself... and I have to admit
that I am sceptical that he missed it.
In other words, it is more likely than not that Xarax did discover and tie
this excellent variation himself.

Although Dan is making some comments that he discovered it.

I am sure that Dan will make noise that making claims about 'new'
knots is absurd.
My reply to Dan (in advance) is that we need the innovators and explorers.
The human race flourishes on new discoveries and technical innovation.
We need to create the environment for new discoveries and innovation.
Without it, the human race will stagnate and decline.

I look up to the USA as a nation that creates the environment for great innovation.
Think Elon Musk and what he has done for the space industry.
There is no other nation on Earth where these conditions exist.
And I'm a patriotic Australian (not a US citizen).

The IGKT forum apparently is the only place where technical innovators
can present their creations and share their ideas.

[siriuso]

Hi,

Xarax's Double Zeppelin B2 Bend is found. It looks like the recently presented Zeppelin 360 Bend.

I have included some Zeppelin-like bends in my folder "Bends Classed By Starts". You may find the tying methods in the folder "My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots".

By this post I found that I have to add Double Zeppelin B2 Bend, and the Double Zeppelin B Bend should be renamed as Double Zeppelin B1 Bend.

Happy Knotting
yChan

[agent_smith]

Thanks siriuso (yChan),

Have you got the IGKT forum link for this?
I need it for my records (I'm updating my Zeppelin technical paper soon).
I need the discovery date...

I had suspected that the great Xarax had already discovered this excellent variant.
I'm sure he will be pleased that you found the original photo (many are lost forever).

I wonder if Dan will chime in with his own claims?

Mark

[siriuso]

Hi Mark

I do not have the IGKT forum link for this bend. I got the pictures in my collection which are copied from the forum's posts many years ago.

The picture was posted together with the B1. It should be in the same thread, but not sure the thread and the B1 and B2 were firstly posted.

Happy knotting
yChan

[agent_smith]

I've done some more detective work - hard given the nuances of this forum where many images are dead and gone forever.
My research leads me to conclude that Xarax was first to present the Zeppelin 360 bend on Aug 05, 2010.
At that time, Xarax referred to it as a Double Zeppelin B2.
And by the way, I have asked for, and received permission from Xarax to rename it the Zeppelin 360.
This is because he also presented a 'Zeppelin 540' (where the continuation of the S.Parts perform a 540 degree turn around the central tail segments (toggles).
In my personal view, the 360 variant is superior.

Some further info with respect to the Zeppelin 360 bend:

Dan, you yourself are appearing to make a counter-claim for the Zeppelin 360.

As I understand it, you have a dislike for the phrase 'counter-claim' (right?).
There is nothing sinister with the phrase 'counter-claim'.
It simply means that you are disagreeing with one persons claim, and preferring your own claim.

Xarax gave me this link: https://forum.igkt.net//index.php?topic=1980 (dating to Aug 05, 2010)
Unfortunately, the "B2" image is dead.
yChan found an image of the "B2" (Zeppelin 360) from Xarax - but no date.

Your posts in relation to 'Estar' are at this link: https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=4777.0 (Feb 08, 2014)

However, I managed to find the following evidence:
Quote from: Dan_Lehman on August 05, 2010, 06:46:46 PM
  You might try an in-between version, where the main loop goes not 180deg or your 540 but 360 degrees, to collar the opposite line.
In reply, Xarax pointed to this link:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13796#msg13796
This link provides the "B2" version of the Zeppelin (Aug 05, 2010) - which pre-dates Dan Lehman by 4 years or so.
yChan kept a copy of the image of the "B2" version - and it is confirmed to be the Zeppelin 360.

For thoroughness:
Dan Lehman's post is here: https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=1980.msg13804#msg13804  (at reply #4)
Quote

Xarax, showing a supposed "front" & "back" view is kind funny
for this particular knot (needless, i.e.)!

I'm a little surprised at your no-difference results; in any case,
it is only the first (double collar) version I'd use. You might try
an in-between version, where the main loop goes not 180deg
or your 540 but 360 degrees, to collar the opposite line.

Although Dan's terminology is awkward in my view.
He writes:
"where the main loop goes...360 degrees, to collar the opposite line."

This is an example where language nuances can be problematic.
The word 'loop' is awkward - 'loop' has a very specific meaning.
Perhaps Dan meant; 'the continuation of the S.Part'?
And; 'collar' also has a special meaning.
Collars typically and generally form around an S.Part.
However, a collar can also form around the leg of an 'eye'.
Therefore, one could write something like; "Perform a U turn to make a collar around the leg of an eye".
Dan specifically writes; "to collar the opposite line ".
I think he means:
The continuation of each S.Part performs a 360 degree turn around the central tail segments (toggles), and then exits to collar its opposing S.Part.
And so the example of writing "to collar the opposite line" is imprecise (the word 'line' is open to interpretation - S.Part is better)..

My point is that using words to describe a complex 3D object can be problematic.

[Dan_Lehman]

Lotta citations, references, image-holes and not ... a lot,
here.
You might make the finding that circa 2010 in discussions
on the IGKT forum featuring ... , the idea to turn the
tear-drop U-turn of interlocked OHs into a (hoped-to-be)
better nipping "loop" (& loop & a half (540)) arose and
flavored knot presentations.  --NB : the general idea
to use such a structure, NOT the particular instantiation
in Thrun's Joint.  "The idea to ... occurred to some of
the active knot fiddlers, and X. presented it for the Thrun's Joint
(aka "Zep.") <here>, and later D. showed it for #1452 <there>!"

I can only infer that somehow I did not look at X's "B2"
photo when I suggested the 360 "in between" structure;
later in the same thread X. refers to B2 as being just
such a thing (w/o remarking at my remark as being
made in ignorance of his prior (now lost --or found
saved (yea!) by yChan) "B2" image.)
.:.  It is surprising (but, alas, well possible) that I
would miss that "B2" image when remarking; it is
also surprising that X. would miss taking me to task for it!

*I* can attest to honestly proceeding in *building*
the "Ashley's Bend Bowled Over & Re-tucked" as being
just that --my deliberate, rationalized amendment to
the source knot.  --something I might do thinking it
"new" even when my old knot-sketches showed the
same thing having popped up in older fiddling !! (<sigh>).

One point I make is that the novelty is not the particular
knot per se but the structural component of the modification
--which can be made for any of the like knots --:: one needn't
require an image for every bloody thing possible (the quintuple
OH is readily imaginable, along with the other n-tuples).


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Dan,

When I tied the Zep 360 about a month ago, I was highly sceptical that Xarax might have missed it.
I thought to myself - "No way! There's no chance that he (Xarax) missed this one."
And searching was problematic, and many dead trails.
Of course, I was wrong to think that he missed it!
Xarax had already made the discovery back in Aug 2010.

What troubles me is how did this brilliant variation escape my attention for almost 15 years?
And furthermore, many historical images of knots are now lost forever.
Fortunately, yChan kept photo records - so thanks to him I was able to close-in on the detective work.

I don't like the 540 Zeppelin - for me it is a step too far.
But the 360 Zeppelin is one of the finest enhancements I've seen of an already well established and famous knot.

per Dan Lehman:

It is surprising (but, alas, well possible) that I
would miss that "B2" image when remarking; it is
also surprising that X. would miss taking me to task for it!

Well, in my private communications with Xarax he is somewhat unflattering with his words
that you might be trying to make a claim of originality.

Xarax has always preferred photographic evidence or evidence in a publication.
I concur - word descriptions alone can be problematic (as I pointed out in a previous post).

[alanleeknots]

              RE- Reply #7
Your posts in relation to 'Estar' are at this link:https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=4777.0 (Feb 08, 2014)

Thanks, Mark, for posting the link above,
And I found dead images below. Just wonder if Dan can make these "Zeppelin Bowleds" alive again.

Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
? Reply #8 on: February 10, 2014, 07:40:20 PM ?

* knots-Zeppelin_Bowled_Over_retucked-M750-1.jpg (59.02 kB, 750x563 - viewed 820 times.)
* knots-Zeppelin_Bowled_Over_retucked-M750-2.jpg (77.75 kB, 750x563 - viewed 810 times.)
* knots-Zeppelin_Bowled_Over_retucked-M750-3.jpg (55.54 kB, 750x563 - viewed 854 times.)
* knots-Zeppelin_Bowled_Over_retucked-M750-4.jpg (59.03 kB, 750x56

                    Thanks alanleeknots.

[Dan_Lehman]

I'm a little surprised at your no-difference results; in any case,
it is only the first (double collar) version I'd use. You might try
an in-between version, where the main loop goes not 180deg
or your 540 but 360 degrees, to collar the opposite line.

Although Dan's terminology is awkward in my view.
He writes:
"where the main loop goes...360 degrees, to collar the opposite line."

Only you can find it awkward, where contrary this the
two parts --each arguably adequate alone-- combine
to assuredly convey the intended sense.  The 360 is put
smack at the point where 540 is given, and applies just as
that does --same points of reference in counting degrees.
"to collar the opposite line" is very comprehensible to
collaborate the 360 ; you must make special effort to get
lost by this statement!
And my realization of the "360" comes at this time, at least.

--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Only you can find it awkward, where contrary this the
two parts --each arguably adequate alone-- combine
to assuredly convey the intended sense.

Of course, I am judging you based on our knowledge of knots in the year 2024.
Your original post was made back in Aug 05, 2010 (some 14 or so years ago).
If I could converse with your prior self by going back in time, I would say something
like; "Hey Dan, I think you meant to say S.Part (instead of line)?"

And your use of 'loop' - I would use my time machine to say to your previous self;
"Heh Dan, I think you meant to say turn (instead of loop)"
And with this particular knot - a 360 degree turn.

"to collar the opposite line" is very comprehensible to
collaborate the 360 ; you must make special effort to get
lost by this statement!

Yes - a very special effort to get lost indeed

Using my time machine to talk with your former self:
I would have said; "to collar the opposite S.Part!"

Over the years in this forum, I have found that you are very
particular/demanding in how you use language.
You normally have no qualms admonishing me for inaccuracies
with the English language.
Its interesting when the shoe is on the other foot...!