International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => New Knot Investigations => Topic started by: X1 on October 25, 2012, 02:01:43 PM

Title: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on October 25, 2012, 02:01:43 PM
   The only thing that is not convenient in the G Zeppelin bend, is that it is made by two overhand knots. So, it cannot serve as a base for a bowline-like end-of-line loop, without significant changes, which reduce its simplicity in the utilization and loading of the material as well as its beauty and ease of inspection, offered by this simplicity.
   { I am always interested in bowline-like end-of-line loop knots, because they are more convenient in their use, as they can be untied in one step - leaving no knotted trace on the standing part, that should be untied in another, second step. When used as mooring knots, bowlines have the great advantage that they disappear as knotted bulks of rope material from the mooring line the same moment the tail is released from the standing part and the loop is released from its anchor point on the dock. A rope with a knot tied on it, while the ship has lost its anchor security and has started moving, is a dangerous thing. The loose knotted rope can be re-attached somewhere, and this can cause severe problems during this sensitive phase.}
   I thought that if we transform the topologically-equivalent-to-the-overhand-knot links, to topologically-equivalent-to-the-unknot, this might lead somewhere. So, I untucked the standing ends of a G Zeppelin bend, twisted the collars to one particular direction, and then retucked them again - through both collars this time. The overhand knot disappeared, as it was planned, and I was left with the bend shown at the first two attached pictures. I do not remember to have seen it somewhere, but my sources are limited. I am also almost sure I myself have not tied it, but there are hundreds of bends out there, so I might have seen it and then forgoten it.
   Why this bend is related to the G Zeppelin bend ? Not because it is derived from it, of course. Because its mechanism is similar with the hinge mechanism of the original G Zeppelin bend, where the two bights are not hooked the one into the other ( as it happens in all the other interlocked overhand knot bends), but they are interlinked through the intermediate pivot, made by the pair of tails. I believe that it is exactly this hinge mechanism (a mechanism based upon shear forces that act perpendicularly on the axes of pivots), which is responsible for the easiness of untying of those bends, even after heavy loading.
   I have not loaded this bend to the limits of the rope strength, and I would be glad if some member of the Forum would do this, and report his results to us here.
   A related bend, the "slipped overhand knots bend", based on a similar hinge mechanism, was presented  elsewhere (1) ( See the third attached picture). The Hugo bend is not very different, but I believe it is prettier - although, of course, it cannot be compared with its ancestor.
 
1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3716.msg21527#msg21527
2.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Eckener
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on October 25, 2012, 02:53:54 PM
   Another dressing of the same bend is shown in the attached pictures. It may be argued that the tails are nipped in this dressing once again, relatively to the the simpler dressing of the bend shown at the previous post. However, the hinge mechanism that keeps the two bights interlinked together, works also as a very effective " lock" mechanism of the tails. So, I do not believe that the more complicated dressing presented here would be really necessary.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: Dan_Lehman on October 25, 2012, 03:59:05 PM
The principal benefit of seeing these end-2-end knots
is that by comparison they make the TIB zeppelin
eye knot perfectly beautiful!!

Thank you for that (though it already looked okay, IMO).

 ::)
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on October 25, 2012, 05:01:15 PM
   I have not presented this bend as a beautiful one !  :)
   You see, the children of good-looking parents are seldom prettier than them.
   Is your beloved TIB "daughter" an exception ?  :)

   
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 04, 2012, 01:56:56 PM
   It may sound a little too abstract or general to some, but ALL bends ( end-to-end knots) belong to three, and three only, broad categories. *(1)
   The most important part of any bend is its Standing parts first curves. It is there where the loaded bend will make it or brake it. So, it is reasonable to classify bends according to the specific characteristics of those curves, and not of the rest of their two links entanglement.
   The first curve of each link of a bend can make a turn ( can bend ) around :
   1. The other link s straight part of the standing part - the straight continuation of the standing end.
   2. The other link s first curve of the standing part.
   3. The other link s tail.

   In that sense, the Zeppelin bend, along with the Hugo bend presented in this thread, are members of a very small class of bends, which I use to call "rope-made hinges". The first curve of each link does not turn around the straight segments of the other link s standing part, and it is not hooked with the other link s first curve : it turns around a "pivot", made by the two tails. The "slipped overhand knots bend" (2) is another - and I do not know if even the "Oval bend" (2), belongs to this class or not. ( I do not mention the simplest bend possible, the Symmetric Sheet bend, which, together with the Whatknot, belong to a very special class ).

    So, I see another "benefit"  :) of the Hugo bend, which other people do not : it illustrates the almost unique character of its ancestor, the Zeppelin bend, as a rope-made hinge - the mechanism which is the main reason for its superb knotting qualities.

*(1) We are interested on the class of symmetric bends here, which includes the great majority of bends. - i.e. the bends where each link s shape is / can be considered as, a symmetric transformation of the other s.
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3716.msg21527#msg21527
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3741.0

   
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 05, 2012, 07:28:16 PM
   Pictures of the Hugo bend - a crossing-knot, bowline-like (PET) end-of line loop based upon the Hugo bend. We see that the initial high symmety of the Hugo bend is disrorted a little bid, because the loop is loaded with the un-symmetric distribution of the whole load of any end-of-line single loop ( 100% at the standing end, 50% at each leg of the bight). However, the Hugo loop is very secure, and very easily untied, even after heavy loading - as all the Zeppelin-like and most of the bowline-like knots do.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: SS369 on November 06, 2012, 01:23:31 AM
The Hugo Bend B is my pick so far. Here is a 400 lbs. loaded example using 6mm BW accessory cord.
I had no problem untying it whatsoever.
I have tried it using 5mm Dyneema and the stiffness of the cord makes tying and dressing more challenging, but it performs nicely at the load levels I can achieve.

S
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 06, 2012, 02:24:47 AM
   Thank you SS369,

   At the unloaded bend, we can see the wide first curves of the standing parts - something that, along with the fact that the two links are topologically equivalent to the unknot ( i.e. they are not overhand knots, or fig.8 knots, or something even more complex ), distinguishes this bend from the parent Zeppelin bend. I wonder if the radii of those curved segments will remain relatively large in a heavy loaded knot as well - which would mean that this bend might be stronger than the Zeppelin bend. Your picture is not very informative about this, I am afraid. We should had tied the Zeppelin bend and the Hugo bend(s) on the same material, and had submited them to the same heavy loading, so we could compare them.
   If the rope is very stiff, I guess that the tails / "pivots" of the simpler Hugo bend can withstand the local strong shear forces, and they will not slip, although they are nipped at one only point.  Of course, i Io not know if that will be the case with Spectra/Dyneema ropes - I had never tested any knots tied on those materials...
   Now you made the first step, could you, please, try the Hugo lbowline-like crossing knot loop using the same materials, and see how it is behaving ?
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: SS369 on November 06, 2012, 02:47:18 AM
    I wonder if the radii of those curved segments will remain relatively large in a heavy loaded knot as well - which would mean that this bend might be stronger than the Zeppelin bend. Your picture is not very informative about this, I am afraid.

   Now you made the first step, could you, please, try the Hugo lbowline-like crossing knot loop using the same materials, and see how it is behaving ?

Please let me know how I can make my picture(s) more informative.

I will be trying the loop version soon.

SS
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 06, 2012, 03:23:09 AM
Please let me know how I can make my picture(s) more informative.

   You could possibly offer your readers a pair of X-vision glasses, for example...because those standing part first curves are deeply buried in the knot, and they can not be seen.  :)
( And using close-up pictures, of short-tailed knots, tied on cordes of two different colours, would also help...) :)
   I like the symmetric bends turned-into-loops, when the loop is at least as good as the bend ! On the contrary, I feel really sad, when a fine ( superb...) beautiful bend is turned onto a mediocre, ugly loop - as it happens with THE Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, and all those pseudo-Zeppelin loops ( some of them not even bowline-like (PET). I feel that knots should be respected - their individual character, mechanism, silhouette, should be approximated with attention to the details, and care.
    Have a look at the Teedledee bowline (1). It is on the same level with the Tweedledee bend (M.A24), so the existense of the loop does not offend the parent knot, the bend. The same can be said, - although some might argue differently, and they might be right - for the Double Harness bowline (2).

   1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3989.0
   2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3984.0
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: kd8eeh on November 06, 2012, 04:24:12 AM
looking at this picture, i noticed some resemblence to a jar sling knot, only with the overhands offset a little.  it's probably nothing, but if i tie a jar sling knot as a bend, i get this.  is there anything curious about this relationship?  also, i tried to shift the overhands one more turn over and make the closest thing i can, and i was left with another hugo bend, but loaded on the tails, with the main strands being the new tails. 
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: SS369 on November 06, 2012, 05:12:22 AM
Please let me know how I can make my picture(s) more informative.

   You could possibly offer your readers a pair of X-vision glasses, for example...because those standing part first curves are deeply buried in the knot, and they can not be seen.  :)
( And using close-up pictures, of short-tailed knots, tied on cordes of two different colours, would also help...) :)
   

But you did such a good job of the loose knot I felt it would be redundant. ;-)
But you are correct in that my photo was not up to snuff. Just had the semi-smart phone available at the time.
Oh and wouldn't xray glasses come in handy!

Point was that this knot performed well and my photo and report showed the compactness when tight, was easy to untie and was indeed tied, not just viewed.

SS
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 06, 2012, 10:54:00 AM
i noticed some resemblance to a jar sling knot. 
if I tie a jar sling knot as a bend, i get this. is there anything curious about this relationship?

  What you show is Mike s bend (1), and you have noticed its relationship with the jug sling, as described by Mike himself at (2). To me, yes, it was curious / unexpected ! Mike s bend is a very interesting bend, with very wide first curves - only its initial form is a little unstable : the two links can slide within each other, and the tightened knot can lose the perfectly symmetric geometry of the loose knot.
   Perhaps I have to say something at this point : when I declared  :) that all bends belong to three, and three only, classes at Reply#4 (3), I knew that there was a class of bends which can not be included in any of those classes in a strightforward manner, but I had left the issue for later. It is the Axis class of bends ( Axis knot ( M. A22), Mike s bend, Pretzel-to-Pretzel bend), shown at the attached pictures. I believe that those bends belong more to the first class ( the first curve of each link turns around the other link s straight part of the standing part - the straight continuation of the standing end), than to the third ( the first curve of each link turns around the other link s tail), although this is not so clear as in other bends, indeed.
   At the Hugo bend as well as at the Zeppelin bend ( and, possibly, at the Oval bend), the first curves do not turn around the straight segments of the standing parts, but around the tails, and around the tails only. This is the difference I had pointed out, which distinguishes those bends from the members of the Axis class of bends.
   
1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3585
2.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4089.msg24520#msg24520
3.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg24704#msg24704
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 06, 2012, 11:06:02 AM
my photo and report showed the compactness when tight

  Yes, indeed, and I thank you for this. It is nice to know that a knot one presents in this Forum is going to be tied by at least one other person !  :)
  Is this a good thing ? ( Not that ! :)). I mean, is it good for the Hugo bend to become so compact when tight ? Because one would argue that, in this compact, form, in this small overall volume, the previously noticed wide curves, which were supposed to be one of the two advantages of this bend compared to the original parent Zeppelin bend, are no more... That can be said also for Mike s bend ( read the previous post), which also shows a tendancy to lose its very wide turns when tightened and compactified. If we will not going to have any wide curves, why are we going to tie those bends in the first place, and not something else, much simpler ?
Title: Walking Beauty (M. A16 - ABoK#1063)
Post by: X1 on November 08, 2012, 02:21:11 PM
   One other bend where the first curve of the one link turns around a tail, and it is not hooked to the first curve of the other link, is the Walking Beauty ( M. A16 - ABoK#1063)( See the attached picture ).
   However, on closer inspection, one can see that this bend is, in fact, a variation of the Hunter s bend, not of the Zeppelin bend. The two first curves are embracing each other, they are not parallel to each other - although they are not "hooked" directly to each other, in the strict sense of the word. We can not characterize this bend as a  rope-made hinge" , but it is true that it is untied very easily, due to this configuration of the standing parts first curves - just as it happens with the other bends discussed in this thread.
   I do not like the Walking Beauty - not, of course, because it is a beauty, but because it walks... :). The two links can not form a stable, compact whole, without being pretensioned quite forcefully. So, when unloaded, this bend remains in a loose, unstable form most of the time, especially if it is tied on stiff material.
   Trying to improve this, I un-tucked the tails, and re-tucked them again through the same bights they were going through in the parent Walking Beauty - but at the other side of the other segments that also penetrate the same bights. That is, a simple change that does not alter the locking mechanism of the bend at all - the tails penetrate the same nipping bights, following the same orientations as before, and they remain crossed with the same other segments into the same positions.
   As expected, what emerged was a Hunter s bend variation, that I had labelled as "top side twist", presented at (1). This is a proof that the Walking Beauty is not related to the Zeppelin bend, but to the Hunter s bend - and, as the Hunter s bend, it is not a " rope-made hinge" .

1.   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19163#msg19163
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: Luca on November 14, 2012, 05:48:23 PM
X1 Hi, and thanks to you for all in this forum! :D

   the Zeppelin bend, along with the Hugo bend presented in this thread, are members of a very small class of bends, which I use to call "rope-made hinges". The first curve of each link does not turn around the straight segments of the other link s standing part, and it is not hooked with the other link s first curve : it turns around a "pivot", made by the two tails. The "slipped overhand knots bend" (2) is another - and I do not know if even the "Oval bend" (2), belongs to this class or not. ( I do not mention the simplest bend possible, the Symmetric Sheet bend, which, together with the Whatknot, belong to a very special class ).

 
   

I think that this category of bends perhaps may include only knots that have the same type of high symmetry of the Zeppelin bend [symmetry that is not noticeable by looking at a single side of the knot,but it that turns out rotating the knot around an axis,or around the axis perpendicular to it, each of the six faces (front/back, top/bottom, right/left) of the knot, noting  in this way,that the opposite side to the other is a mirror version (I apologize in advance for how I wrote this stuff)].
I think this has to do precisely with the fact that the tails of each of the links make the first curve(or round turn)up/down(or around),at his own Spart, before touching/crossing the other link.
I should clarify my ideas before speaking in depth about these things, such as how become the symmetries,crossing (or not crossing) the(simmetrical) links of a bend,but for now the gist of my argument is this: rope-made hinge = Zeppelin-like simmetry [but no Zeppelin-like simmetry = rope-made hinge (For example, the Double Harness bend with opposite ends,I do not think that falls into the category)].
Is right?   

                                                                                                     Bye!
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 14, 2012, 06:05:15 PM
...rope-made hinge = Zeppelin-like symmetry
   Is [that] right?   

   No !  :)
   And I have a fresh proof for this !
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4116.msg24851#msg24851

...the Double Harness bend with opposite ends
   I do not think that it falls into this category.
   Is [that] right?   

   Right - for both Double Harness bends. Me too. But only because the first curve of each link turns around the other link s straight continuation of the Standing end. Symmetry has nothing to do with it. A hinge is a hinge is a hinge, be it more symmetric, less symmetric, or asymmetric, like the bend mentioned above.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: Luca on November 14, 2012, 07:26:39 PM
...rope-made hinge = Zeppelin-like symmetry
   Is [that] right?   

   No !  :)
   And I have a fresh proof for this !
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4116.msg24851#msg24851

...the Double Harness bend with opposite ends
   I do not think that it falls into this category.
   Is [that] right?   

   Right - for both Double Harness bends. Me too. But only because the first curve of each link turns around the other link s straight continuation of the Standing end. Symmetry has nothing to do with it. A hinge is a hinge is a hinge, be it more symmetric, less symmetric, or asymmetric, like the bend mentioned above.

O.K.,but my idea was based on this (and actually I should first specify):

  *(1) We are interested on the class of symmetric bends here, which includes the great majority of bends. - i.e. the bends where each link s shape is / can be considered as, a symmetric transformation of the other s.

                                                                                                       Bye!
   
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 14, 2012, 08:05:27 PM
   I am interested in symmetric bends, and symmetric bends only - not for their aesthetics, but because of the fact that the rope segments of each link are evenly loaded, so they would reach their strength limit at about the same time - in a symmetric bend there would be no "weak link" ( I believe that this is a reasonable expectation, even after we take into account some more subtle effects, that can lead to a symmetry breaking). Moreover, I believe that any mistake in the tying of a symmetric bend would be noticed immediately, because the result would be evidently asymmetric, and would be caught by the eye at once. It is easier to spot an asymmetry within a symmetric background, than the opposite.     
   However, there are many degrees of symmetry !  :) Most of the known bends are symmetric ( for example, the Hunter s bend ), some are more symmetric than the others ( for example, the Zeppelin bend ), and some are maximally symmetric ( for example, the falsely tied Zeppelin bend ). We cannot judge or predict anything by the degree of symmetry alone. The Zeppelin bend is perfect, but the falsely tied Zeppelin bend, which is even more symmetric than the Zeppelin bend, is a lemon. If we cannot judge or predict something by taking into account a certain characteristic of it, what is the purpose of taking this characteristic into account in the first place ?
   The characteristic that I had proposed, the way the first curves of the Standing parts are attached into the body of the knot, has to do with the first curves, and the first curves with the strength of the knot, and the strength of the knot with the great disadvantage of all knots, for which we seldom speak : that they reduce the strength of the rope on which they are tied to about 50 %. That is the reason I believe it is not a secondary, irrelevant property of the knots, and it makes some sense to base our classification on this, indeed.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: TMCD on November 16, 2012, 01:26:01 AM
I too like symmetrical bends, they are not only fun to tie but are also pleasing to the eye. My two favorite bends are the Zeppelin Bend being number one followed by the Double Harness Bend at number two. The Zeppelin Bend gets MUCH love as it should but the Double Harness Bend is probably a pretty special bend in it's own right and is undervalued.

I'd like for someone with the capabilities and resources to do some testing on the Double Harness Bend. Ashley flatly states it's more secure than the Harness Bend but doesn't provide much else. I don't think he included it in his bend tests in the book?? I've always thought of the DHB being about equal to the Double Sheet Bend in security but it's probably stronger. 
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 16, 2012, 03:05:40 AM
My two favorite bends are the Zeppelin Bend, being number one, followed by the Double Harness Bend at number two.

  As there are many knots ( so, far more than we need ) and more than one knot tyers ( so, far less than we need ), I seldom agree with somebody 100 % !  :) So, I would remember this day...
  I prefer the more symmetrical DH bend ( the ABoK#1420 ), although the other one, in both variations, is probably more "practical".
  Also, I have to mention that I have another bend at number 0  :)( because it is not a "practical" bend ), the Symmetric Sheet bend. 
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: Dan_Lehman on November 16, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Quote
I am interested in symmetric bends, and symmetric bends only
--not for their aesthetics, but because of the fact that the rope segments of each link are evenly loaded,
so they would reach their strength limit at about the same time - in a symmetric bend there would be no "weak link"
( I believe that this is a reasonable expectation, even after we take into account some more subtle effects,
that can lead to a symmetry breaking).  Moreover, I believe that any mistake in the tying of a symmetric bend
would be noticed immediately, because the result would be evidently asymmetric, and would be caught by the
eye at once
. It is easier to spot an asymmetry within a symmetric background, than the opposite.

I've tried to point out, previously, that these two assertions are
not assuredly true --indeed, that re visible recognition is clearly
quite false (both (a) that symmetry is readily perceived, and (b)
that asymmetric structures are difficult to see as correctly formed).

Re the assertion of symmetry's effects on knot forces, one must realize
that the actual nature of joined rope ends will often differ and such
difference can lead to different behaviors under force; it can in any
case be that one part gets the jump on the other in tightening,
and that such imbalance aggravates itself (the more one end
impedes by a tighter nip the other end's part getting equal force
delivered to nip the first, the first's advantage will be furthered).

It is also conceivable that differently shaped parts in an asymmetric
end-2-end knot nevertheless have similar strengths --and I put
forward the butterfly knot as a possible case in point (as well
as a variation derivable from the zeppelin knot).


I've always thought of the DHB being about equal to the Double Sheet Bend in security but it's probably stronger.

How can you hold this opinion?
Surely the DBH shows an entanglement/knotting
that goes beyond that of the DSB --with increased
pressure upon the nip of the tails, which receive force
only after the line leading to them makes fuller curves
than for esp. the bight-half's tail of the DSB (which,
you should note, has been found to slip).

Quote
Dave Richards notes that there was evident slippage in the cases of [static 12.7mm rope]
with the fisherman's knot and the double sheet bend, [dynamic 10.5mm rope ] with the
(single) sheet bend, and [accessory cord, 7mm] with both sheet bends (single & double);
he thus tied off the tails with either 2 half-hitches or an overhand stopper.

Now, Richards didn't test the DBH --of either form (tails together
or opposite); and there are options to how one places the tails,
as X1 has elsewhere noted).  But to my mind, there should be
a belief in its greater security based on appearance and analysis
of that, than of equal --esp. with regard to security when slack,
being jostled about and all (and consequently, much greater
difficulty at being untied).


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: TMCD on November 16, 2012, 07:50:42 PM
I stand corrected, Dan's statements certainly make sense regarding the DHB VS. the DSB. I would have to assume the DHB is considerably more secure AND stronger than the DSB, not sure why I even compared the two really.

Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 16, 2012, 08:11:57 PM
these two assertions are not assuredly true
--indeed, that, re visible recognition, is clearly quite false
(both (a) that symmetry is readily perceived, and (b) that asymmetric structures are difficult to see as correctly formed).

   Yes, they are not assuredly true.
   No, it is not clearly quite false !

   Moreover, they are much more true than they are quite false...
   I could refer to scientific studies that measure the great ability of the "eye" to recognize, subconsciously, in fact, almost to measure   - the asymmetries of a human face, and perceive as "beautiful" a face with less asymmetries (1). If we take 100 pictures of women, and merge them to one, where each characteristic would be the mean of all, the resulting face would be judged as beautiful by the great majority of men. Why "Because the asymmetries would have been smoothed out .

It is also conceivable that differently shaped parts in an asymmetric end-2-end knot nevertheless have similar strengths

   Yes, it is conceivable, indeed, but, statistically, it is highly improbable.

   We have seen that even minor differences in shape lead to great differences in strength - and you go even beyond this, and you point out, correctly, that some other subtle results can distort the symmetric distribution of forces even in the cases of identically shaped links. The conceivable possibility that all those differences will cancel each other out, and the two links will be left with similar strengths, would materialize very rarely, if ever.

1. Jones, B., Little, A., Penton-Voak, I., Tiddeman, B., Burt, D., & Perrett, D. (2001). Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: Support for a "good genes" explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship . Evolution & Human Behavior, 22(6), 417-421.

   P.S. The Alpine Butterfly bend and all the variations of the Zeppelin bend are suredly more or less symmetric bends - the single or double Sheet bend, and the bends presented at (2) and (3) are clearly not.
1.   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3656.msg21113#msg21113
2.   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4116.0
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: Luca on November 17, 2012, 12:36:35 AM
Hi X1,


   However, there are many degrees of symmetry !  :) Most of the known bends are symmetric ( for example, the Hunter s bend ), some are more symmetric than the others ( for example, the Zeppelin bend ), and some are maximally symmetric ( for example, the falsely tied Zeppelin bend ).


At the end,I continue to keep wondering if it is possible that there is a symmetric bend,that does not have the same kind of symmetry of the Zeppelin bend,that it can be considered a rope-made hinge.(EDIT:maybe the very beautiful bend by kd8eeh is an example of this?):

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4016.msg24885#msg24885


                                                                                                          Bye!
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 17, 2012, 03:36:46 AM
I continue to keep wondering if it is possible that there is a symmetric bend, that does not have the same kind of symmetry of the Zeppelin bend, that can be considered a rope-made hinge

  Me too ! :)

  The falsely tied Zeppelin bend is such a knot, that is for sure. It is also more symmetric than the Zeppelin bend. Also, the "slipped overhand knot bend" is a rope-made hinge, evidently. The two variations of the recently presented ZB bend and the three Double Zeppelin bends, too.
  The SS bend and the Whatknot are close ( In fact, the SS bend can be considered as a more symmetric Whatknot  - because the Whatknot itself is symmetric, although it does not look so ). The Oval bend is fifty-fifty. The Hugo bend is 75% (?)... :)
  Some of the pseudo-Zeppelin loops shown at (1) can be considered as rope-made hinges. The Angler s loop, and a couple of the Lee bowlines also use the tail as a pivot - although not only as a pivot. 
  May be you can explore the bends and loops you know, and discover some more that I have escaped my attention or have been deleted from my memory.  However, we should not be too confined in any theoretical scheme. The only real benefit would be the deeper understanding of the mechanism itself, that can lead to the discovery of knots we do not know yet - or to an explanation, even prediction, of something that was not explained or predicted, in the behaviour of knots we already know.
 
 1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.0
     
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: Dan_Lehman on November 17, 2012, 07:17:40 AM
these two assertions are not assuredly true
--indeed, that, re visible recognition, is clearly quite false
(both (a) that symmetry is readily perceived, and (b) that asymmetric structures are difficult to see as correctly formed).

   Yes, they are not assuredly true.
   No, it is not clearly quite false !

   Moreover, they are much more true than they are quite false...
   I could refer to scientific studies that measure the great ability of the "eye" to recognize, subconsciously, in fact, almost to measure   - the asymmetries of a human face, and perceive as "beautiful" a face with less asymmetries (1).

You have quickly --or is it adroitness, here?-- forgotten the
issue : ease of recognition ... --not what is perceived as beauty.
So, studies show "great ability" of the eye to recognize asymmetry:
QED for me?!  --not what you meant to say, but said it anyway.

And above, you note that recognition ...
Quote
of high symmetry of the Zeppelin bend
is not so readily apparent, as it is ...
Quote
[symmetry that is not noticeable by looking at a single side of the knot,

QED II (for me, not you).

Quote
It is also conceivable that differently shaped parts in an asymmetric end-2-end knot nevertheless have similar strengths

   Yes, it is conceivable, indeed, but, statistically, it is highly improbable.

   We have seen that even minor differences in shape lead to great differences in strength - and you go even beyond this, and you point out, correctly, that some other subtle results can distort the symmetric distribution of forces even in the cases of identically shaped links. The conceivable possibility that all those differences will cancel each other out, and the two links will be left with similar strengths, would materialize very rarely, if ever.

Where have we seen these results?!

Rather, the improbability is that one will match in tying
--if even having *symmetrically natured ropes* (where two)--
the symmetry of ideal,
and that these subtle differences will deny the ideally
symmetric knot of its supposed perfect equalization.
What is at question, then, is more a matter of stability,
and there's nought to say that asymmetry will be weaker
--one can't take a thing (supposed strength of a shape) and
just put it into a different context and expect the same
result (that the shaped thing really has its same shape).

(E.g., CLDay reports that testing showed overhand knots
to be stronger in one handedness vs. the other --or maybe it
was that the fisherman's knot so orienting them was so--;
that could (mis?)lead one to conclude that the opposite-handed
(i.e., with component overhands of each handedness)
fisherman's knot would assuredly be bad, as it has one
component of either handedness; but that's omitting the
fact that in so orienting the components to be opposite in
handedness, one builds a different knot --those components
are in a different (albeit similar) context!  Now, frankly, I'll
guess that it is enough similar that the has-the-weaker-form
condition yet is determinant, but it bears testing; maybe that
weakness is slightly ameliorated --or maybe aggravated!)

Quote
Facial symmetry and judgements of

Send them a Janus bowline !   ;D


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on November 18, 2012, 12:23:33 AM
the issue : ease of recognition ... --not what is perceived as beauty.

   I can not say that a symmetric thing is more easily recognizable than an asymmetric one. In fact, I had never said such a thing.
   However, that was NOT the issue, but you have forgotten it.  :) The issue was to determine if a thing/knot we know in advance that is supposed to become/look symmetric at the end of the tying procedure, will be easily recognized as mistakenly tied if it will be mistakenly tied, or not. And if a thing/knot that we know in advance that it is supposed to become/look asymmetric in the end, will be easily recognized as mistakenly tied, if it will be mistakenly tied, or not. I have argued that, if the thing/knot that was supposed to become symmetric at the end, turns out to look  asymmetric, and ugly, because it was tied wrongly, that would be recognized with great ease, at a glance. It will be like a fly in the ointment ... On the contrary, if a thing/knot that was supposed to become asymmetric at the end, is wrongly tied, it will most probably look asymmetric- so it would not differ from what it was supposed to look ! How would the eye be able to distinguish between an ugly, asymmetric thing, and another ugly, asymmetric thing ? It is like some ointment on the fly... It will not, so the knot tyer runs the danger to tie the knot wrongly, and, because the end result will still be ugly and asymmetric, fail to recognize it ( the mistake, not the ugliness ! )
   You see, beauty has played an evolutionary role as well - to say nothing about the beauty in the symmetries of the natural laws.
   Beauty matters !  :)

And above, you note that recognition ...
Quote
of high symmetry of the Zeppelin bend
is not so readily apparent, as it is ...
Quote
[symmetry that is not noticeable by looking at a single side of the knot,

   Yes, but the fact that the Zeppelin bend is more symmetric than the bend presented at (1), is noticeable at a glance !
   So, if you say that the more or less apparent symmetry of the Zeppelin bend, or of any other symmetric bend, is LESS apparent than the asymmetry of the knot presented at (1), you should/will visit an eye doctor sooner than later !  :) QED ( for the doctor...)

these subtle differences will deny the ideally symmetric knot of its supposed perfect equalization.
  I do not deny this... but I had never spoken of "perfect equalization" . It seems that you find hard to deny the simple comparison of the differences between the relative strengths of the two links in the cases of a symmetric and of an asymmetric knot, and you call the cavalry of the absulute !  :)

Send them a Janus bowline !   ;D

You take a Janus bowline, and I will take the Tweedledee bowline...
(We will share the Athena...)

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4116.0
Title: Re: Walking Beauty (M. A16 - ABoK#1063)
Post by: Dan_Lehman on November 19, 2012, 03:27:26 AM
   One other bend where the first curve of the one link turns around a tail,
and it is not hooked to the first curve of the other link, is the Walking Beauty
( M. A16 - ABoK#1063)( See the attached picture ).
/.../
   I do not like the Walking Beauty - not, of course, because it is a beauty,
but because it walks... :).  The two links can not form a stable, compact whole,
without being pretensioned quite forcefully.  So, when unloaded, this bend remains
in a loose, unstable form most of the time, especially if it is tied on stiff material.
...

Hmmm, in a quick check in flexible solid-braid cord,
I was liking the slack-secureness of this knot, seeing
that loading didn't increase that security --i.e., didn't
over-tighten (jam) it.  I'll take your word that in some
firmer material, such security doesn't come easily.

However, OTOH, I also like how this knot can be left
less tightened, for pure ease of untying --after, e.g.,
use to join bigger ropes used for towing a vehicle out
of being stuck.  I like how the SParts are deflected
around the twin wraps and then make their U-turns
which nip the tails --thinking this initial bending over
twin (not a single) parts of rope is kind to the rope
and efficient in strength.  And then, as noted, this
loose form will be readily untied.

.:.  So, a tool to be used appropriately.

--dl*
====
Title: An intelligent discussion on bends (end-to-end joining knots)
Post by: agent_smith on November 20, 2012, 12:42:53 AM
Have to say that I really like this thread - there is some really interesting technical content here.
For example:

Quote
It may sound a little too abstract or general to some, but ALL bends ( end-to-end knots) belong to three, and three only, broad categories. *(1)
   The most important part of any bend is its Standing parts first curves. It is there where the loaded bend will make it or brake it. So, it is reasonable to classify bends according to the specific characteristics of those curves, and not of the rest of their two links entanglement.
   The first curve of each link of a bend can make a turn ( can bend ) around :
   1. The other link s straight part of the standing part - the straight continuation of the standing end.
   2. The other link s first curve of the standing part.
   3. The other link s tail.

And, the thread has hasn't degenerated into a slanging fest (which has really brought my interest back to the IGKT forum again).

I have to study this material and see if any of it can be tested.

Mark
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on May 29, 2013, 12:56:25 PM
 Just another example of a true Zeppelin-like knot, a rope-made hinge where the two main bights of the two links are not hooked the one to the other, but connected through their tail pair, which play the role of the pivot.
   A slightly different dressing of the same knot, is shown in the fourth picture. A great advantage of the Zeppelin bend, is that the "pivot" remains almost perpendicular to the axis of the loading - therefore it confronts shear forces mainly rather than oblique friction forces. When this beneficial orientation is compromised, and the pair of the tails is not at a right angle to the pair of the standing ends ( like it happens in the bend shown in this post), the "pivot" has to withstand stronger friction forces, and function as a "wedge" - just as it happens to most other bends.
  I publish it to show, just another time, what is the main characteristic of the genuine Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend - and what the fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop" does not have... while the loops presented in (1) do . However, I have seen that it has recently became something of an easy ( and cheap !  :) ) fashion, for people that have not been able to understand what a Zeppelin-like knot is, to advocate this fake / so-called "Zeppelin loop" here and there in the Web, in poorly written "so-called articles" like this lamentable one :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin_loop 
( Notice that, in this ONE SINGLE LINE "ARTICLE", there is only ONE SINGLE REFERENCE - a truly notable contribution to the case of the so-called "Zeppelin-loop", indeed !  :)

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.0

Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 03:23:27 PM
this fake / so-called "Zeppelin loop" here and there in the Web,
Regarding the Zeppelin Bend (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/Zeppelin.html) and Zeppelin Loop (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html); identical knot bodies and practically identical properties = unrelated in your world?  Must be a lonely place.

Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 05:47:03 PM
A loaded eye leg hanging from the tail of the ex-Zeppelin bend is such a ugly thing...
 
Having 50% of the main load on one tail doesn't make the knot jam and it slightly increases the security of the knot form.

It seems like a fair trade to me.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 06:49:11 PM
just as dozens of other bends, you seem not to be aware of...
These unnamed dozens usually have other defects, such as instability, insecurity, unjustifiable complexity, and so on.

Quote
   it slightly increases the security of the knot form.
Really ?
Yes, really.

Quote
So the Zeppelin bend is not secure enough ?
There's nothing wrong with improving security.

Quote
Or you have not been able to find the dozens of dozens of other secure bends that can be turned into secure loops ?
See my first point.  When these unnamed "dozens" are actually named, they usually aren't very impressive.

Quote
Do you consider as an "invention" of yours the simple fact that a loaded tail makes a bend, ANY BEND, even more secure ?
No.  What a weird response.  Some bends capsize when you pull on their tail.  Some jam.

Quote
There are dozens of dozens of end-of-line loops,
The unnamed ghosts are multiplying!  I guess I should expect that they remain unnamed.  The last time you named your ultimate loop, it was an order of magnitude more complicated than the Zeppelin Loop, while being quite a bit less secure. 

Quote
that are secure and do not jam
Says the poster who prefers not to test knots.

Quote
, and dozens of them are even bowline-like, i.e. post-eye-tiable
When you're at the end of the rope (such as when tying an end loop), it is a trivial matter to tie an overhand knot.   Even for unusually large loops, an overhand knot tied near the end of a rope can be rolled quickly to another position if you know where to place your fingers.

Quote
- and I have even shown some of them that are secure, do not jam, are post-eye-tiable, AND they are tiable in the bight
While this is a different topic, why aren't you using the Butterfly Loop as an on-the-bight loop (or some other standard) instead of one of your usual unvetted, complicated creations?
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 08:24:30 PM
   118,  plus the bends of Ashley, plus the 60 bends of Miles, plus the dozens of bends and loops by Dan Lehman and Alan Lee, to name but two individuals, all those bends turned into loops by your ingenious "connect the dots" way, makes dozens of dozens. However, for the devoted believer / prophet who is interested only in the ONE, his own ONE, and himself, numbers greater than ONE do not exist - they are ghosts, and should be expelled to the eternal fire... :)
Your last ultimate loop knot didn't pass muster.  But since you have so many unnamed contenders, why don't you test them against each other and sort them and when you find your next ultimate loop (singular), start a new thread to dazzle us. 

I'd like to give you some criteria:

1. Simplicity
2. Simplicity
3. Did I mention simplicity?
4. Security (slack shaking, unusual load paths, etc).
5. Jam resistance (try small diameter nylon rope)
6. Easy to check
7. Efficiency of rope usage


Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 10:02:24 PM

   Reply, by xarax : ( The reader should judge if it was an "immediate" reply, or not...)
   June 09, 2011, 06:08:49 PM
   
   I believe that the lR-uL bend is the most interesting one, as the two overhand knots are maximally interlocked : The extend of the contact between the two links is quite large, probably more than adequate for securing the tails into the knot s nub. Also, I like the front/ back side symmetry, which makes the knot very easy to inspect ( as it is the case for the Zeppelin bend). I have also tested in slippery monofilament material, and it holds very well. It is only one tuck more complex that the Carrick bend, and its first curves are much wider, so I guess it will have a greater strength ( The Carrick is not such a strong knot).
   I do not know if you have tied this knot... If so, what are your first thoughts about it ?

    Reply, by roo :
    [silence...]
   
Please.  You heavily edited your original response many days later (June 18!) and you know it.  Your original response was that you refuse to respond.

After this disgusting attack is there any wonder why people might not want to dialog with you?  I don't think I can count the number of threads where the only person responding to you is, well, you.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 10:16:46 PM
   Of course not ! I could nt edit your reply, which is absent !  :) However, two years may be within the "immediate" limits, by your "rational" arithmetic !  :)
   And this was the ONLY time you asked something without a clear provocative manner ! What has happened to the other dozens of dozens knots I have presented  ? Have I edited your silence there, too ! I have admitted that I am not the chosen ONE of KnotGod, as you believe you are, so I am not good at miracles !  :)
   Do your homework ! It is never late ! You are left YEARS behind... Give it a try !
I've pointed out this to you before (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3555.msg20310#msg20310) as just one example of my critiques:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1094.msg7456#msg7456

No silence there.

I also find it absurd that I'm supposed to know when you've secretly changed the entire content of your posts days or weeks later and respond accordingly. 
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 10:40:15 PM
I've pointed out this to you before as just one example of my critiques:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1094.msg7456#msg7456
No silence there.

 :)  :)  :)
 You are the ONE ! You quote the very FIRST post I have submitted, FIVE YEARS AGO ! About a simple "connect-the-dots " Hunter s loop - is this "connect-the-dots" riddle the most difficult thing you can solve, I wonder...  :) And then, for the NEXT FIVE YEARS, for hundreds of posts, silence... Have you been traveling to Mars and back or something ?  :)
 
Maybe you should do a forum search before you keep repeating the same falsehoods.

For more examples:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1906.msg13150#msg13150

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3571.msg20436#msg20436

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1931.msg13347#msg13347
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 11:03:23 PM
  . For every one you have been silent, I will charge you 5 dollars - I am such a generous person !  :)
Wow.  Nice non-apology. 

I don't know why you think I'm under some sort of obligation to evaluate everything you post. 
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: Wed on May 29, 2013, 11:06:22 PM
Going separate ways and cool off for a few days, is long overdue.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 11:19:09 PM
I was discussing drnihili's yet-to-be-pictured knot, not the knot xarax posted.

You DO NOT collect 10 dollars for "critiques" on other people s knots !  :)

There are multiple layers to that thread.  One response was evaluating your submission, one wasn't.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 11:38:15 PM
Going separate ways and cool off for a few days, is long overdue.

   Thank you Wed. However, I guess this is a thread I have started, and the evil impostor has not written ONE f word about ANY subject or knot presented here
   
What are you talking about?  I responded directly (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg27722#msg27722) to your "fake" Zeppelin rant.

Calling me names is unnecessary.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: roo on May 29, 2013, 11:47:06 PM
You know what a rant is ? THAT is a rant : Enjoy yourself !

I'm not claiming anything.  I'm asking a question.  There is a difference.  If you are annoyed by questions of practicality in a Practical Knot forum, the question will not arise in the Chit Chat forum or the Knot Theory forum or the Fancy and Decorative Knotwork forum.

Translating via Google (I don't speak your native tongue):
Δεν είμαι διεκδίκηση τίποτα. Ρωτάω μια ερώτηση. Υπάρχει μια διαφορά. Αν είστε ενοχλούνται από ερωτήσεις του πρακτικότητα σε ένα φόρουμ Πρακτικές Knot, το ζήτημα δεν θα προκύψει στο forum Κουβεντούλα ή το Knot Θεωρία forum ή το Fancy και Διακοσμητικά Knot φόρουμ.
If that's the worst you can find, I'll take that as a compliment.  Notice there's no name-calling and not even so much as an all caps shout.  Your record (what hasn't been deleted) is more problematic:

1. There will be no more mass deleting of posts, thank you.

2. I am not the Web Admin. I am the Webmistress.

3. My job is not unpaid.

4. You are now trolling and I do not tolerate trolls [1]

This is your final warning.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29.

Xarax, you are a charlatan and also a nuisance. It is still not acceptable to take someone else's image and post it as though it were yours.

I never threatened you, I didn't call you names, but you are constantly answering with profanity, namecalling and ethnically derogatory remarks when you are caught pants down with your stupidity. The reason for respecting the rights of other people of course is that we should be civil in the forum, and that also requires respecting each other's rights. I won't take anyone to court for copying my images save cases where there would be an economic outcome. But I will still scorn anyone, who, unable to make a decent image himself, nicks those that someone else put down the effort to make.

[...]

In plain English, most of the time you're a PITA, and largely you do not contribute in a constructive way. Maybe the best way to react to your profanity would be blowing you raspberries at the computer screen, so childish has the forum become at your grace.

I think the ban is way overdue. It was like wathing a bad instant replay, the same thing over and over and over, but when the violence indicator in the way of a veiled threat of harm with the comments of guns and killing people came into play, it should have been stopped right then and there. JMO

With all due respect, I suggest that you better reflect on both the actual
issue and the "speaking" you claim is so well done here.  Yes, this debacle
went on too long and way beyond the pale of civility and reasonable
behavior; if anything, the action [ban] is overdue, which we may understand
comes from exactly a reluctance to be heavy handed that is here decried.

[...]

Then, beyond all this, there was the repeated posting of the
most bizarre nature, invoking demons and excrement and so
on, ascribing scatological and other derogatory attributes to
those of a contrary opinion.  Do not pretend that this was just
some tit-for-tat exchange --it wasn't.

i]"knots solve some problems, not in serious, life threatening situations any more..."
"They do not solve any major problem, they are not useful in any serious situation."
"we do not need them to solve problems posed in critical situations -(like the situations addressed by Heraklas, at 100 AD, read the reference in the relevant thread )"
"Do I actually use them, to solve crucial every day problems ? No !"
"their (critical) applications as tools is an art that belongs to the past."[/i]

???  I recently read a case where a climber applied a Prusik Hitch somehow to save the life a climbing buddy.  (He called it a Prusik hitch anyway.)  Apparently, all the other tools on the rope had failed.  The climber buddy was slipping to his death, and the climber needed to apply a knot then and there QUICKLY.  This case isn't the only one of it's kind that happens regularly.  I won't bother to find the case because you'll dismiss it somehow.  So, I don't want to waste my time.

Further, in average rock and tree climbing, application of properly tied knots is a life or death matter.  It doesn't get anymore critical and serious than that.  No, the stimulation you get from analyzing knots as structures is NOT as important, sorry.

  Most people, knot tyers included, believe that a knot is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. [...] 
  This is not a "wrong" attitude, it is just a restricted, narrow and naive attitude [...].
  We have attempted to discuss this issue in the Forum in the past, but it seems that when a view happens to be defended only by the "minority", the "majority" is suddenly turned into something of a mob - perhaps because established religious fundamentalists can not tolerate heretics !

   Personally, I do not accept ANY advice, from Moderators who allow members to have THIS as their "signature" :
 If you wish to add a troll (such as my stalker) to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".
Who would be upset about instructions on blocking a troll?  It sounds like an admission of guilt if there ever was one.

   Climbers are sooo poor knot tyers ! They know only a very small number of knots ( and they even naively believe that these knots are the only ones, and the best possible ones, suitable for them, simply because they do not know anything else...), they do not know ( and they do not want to learn ) how those knots "work", they do not know ( and they do not want to try to figure out ) how to improve them, and, last but not least, they just do not care about knots !

xarax your conceited garbage gets moderated once (I think it was twice actually in this thread but it's all running together so I'm not sure now) and you post it back up?  Mods, I will refrain once, but this is absurd.  He would be banned anywhere else. ...

That heading pretty much sums up why I am not going to interact on this site anymore. That this site condones the actions of a troll does not mean I have to. [...]

Since I believe most know what an internet troll is, I will start by saying that to allow consistently argumentative, unfair, out of context, disruptive, provocative, deluded, offensive, harassing and inflammatory posts against other forum members is to ask for trouble.  Yes, the conventional wisdom is "to not feed the troll".  In the case when one's posts are continually the target of trolling, this is easier said than done.  It is unfortunate that so many threads have either been ruined or highly tainted by trolling.  Removing the affected threads is probably a good idea, but, it is an unfortunate loss and addresses the symptoms and not the causes.  The root cause remains a threat.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: SS369 on May 30, 2013, 12:00:00 AM
So, after the intermission break, I would like to ask an on topic question.

Just another example of a true Zeppelin-like knot, a rope-made hinge where the two main bights of the two links are not hooked the one to the other, but connected through their tail pair, which play the role of the pivot.
  >>>  A slightly different dressing of the same knot, is shown in the fourth picture. A great advantage of the Zeppelin bend, is that the "pivot" remains almost perpendicular to the axis of the loading - therefore it confronts shear forces mainly rather than oblique friction forces. When this beneficial orientation is compromised, and the pair of the tails is not at a right angle to the pair of the standing ends ( like it happens in the bend shown in this post), the "pivot" has to withstand stronger friction forces, and function as a "wedge" - just as it happens to most other bends.

Is this indeed another dressing or is it tied differently? I have not been able to manipulate the fourth version into the previous one.

SS
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: SS369 on May 30, 2013, 12:34:33 AM
Looking at version 4 I see a figure 8 based Zeppelin.  Loads nicely and unties easily as the "original" does, but I am unsure that the added complexity (not much) adds any great attributes.

In my mind it does beat the Flemish bend.

SS
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: X1 on May 30, 2013, 12:52:07 AM
   Noope !  :) On closer inspection ( because the "intermission" deleted the "recent files" from my brain disk...), I see that both forms are fig. 8 based Zeppelins, as you say - so they are but different dressings of each other, indeed. Starting from the "simple" last shown form, just push the tails towards the other link s standing end. You can do it in two ways, because each tail can go "over" or "under" the other - but the form shown in the first three pictures ( the "blue" tail goes "under" the "yellow" one ). is the more stable one. ( See at the second attached picture the other side of the loose knot - so, at this picture, the "blue" tail goes "over" the "yellow" one ).
   If the tails had been crossed, i.e. in the two X - forms of this knot, the pictures would have been much different.

   I am unsure that the added complexity (not much) adds any great attributes.

  It adds nothing, that is for sure !  :)  I have just tied it as an example of a genuine "Zeppelin-like" knot, like the Hugo bend -  and as a simpler alternative to the "Slipped overhand knots bend", shown in the first attached picture. I want to find out every true Zeppelin-like knot there is ( they are not so many...)- not the fake ones, like the so-called "Zeppelin loop".
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: Luca on November 03, 2013, 01:03:04 AM
Hi,

A rope made hinge-bend that "resembles" the two bends above:Two overhand knots that intersect themselves only during the time to become (at least topologically) two Slipknots.

                                                                                                           Bye!
(http://)
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: xarax on November 03, 2013, 02:33:56 AM
  A Zeppelin / Hugo - like bend, no question about that. However, in contrast to the other similar bends shown in this thread, this is an unstable knot - KnotGod knows why... In such simple "loose" knots, even the smallest detail can make a huge difference. It may become stable, if the tail of each slip knot link is driven through the collar of the other, as shown in the attached picture.
 
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: Luca on November 04, 2013, 11:54:33 PM
Thank you for the photo of the retucked version!
Is certainly true that to this bend can be given a few different forms, but, although I have no tested seriously, it seems to me that has no particular stability problems if loaded normally,but I admit though, that if it is loaded for example by the tails, Indeed, the situation becomes different: perhaps you are referring to something like this?

                                                                                                                  Thanks and bye!
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: xarax on November 05, 2013, 05:51:32 AM
  Perhaps I used the wrong word..."Unstable" may not convey well what I mean :
  Starting from a loose knot, if we pull the standing ends and the standing ends only ( and not the tails ), because the continuations of the tails do not "communicate" more directly with the standing ends ( due to the presence of those intermediate 270-degree sharp turns / collars ), they can remain slack. ( This means that this knot will not dress itself automatically, as the Zeppelin bend does : at some point during loading, we will have to pull the tails as well ). In each link, the slack within the continuation of the tail can only be consumed after the consumption of the slack within the collar. So, the pulling of the standing end does not result in an immediate, directly proportional tensioning of the continuation of the tail. As a result, the pressure from the main bights can force them to bulge, and be dragged into an oblique angle in relation to the the axis of the loading - away from the optimum right angle ( where the main forces they had to withstand, as parts of a genuine Zeppelin-like knot, were the sheer forces, not the friction forces.)
   On an oblique rail  / tail pair  :) , the side-by-side main bights will slide towards opposite directions, until the whole knot will settle in a new stable configuration, resembling the spread-out Cube bend ( M. B18) and the similar B binder :
   1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4122.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4122.0) 
   So, surprisingly, it seems that the insertion of those 270 degree collars in between the standing ends and the tails, instead of making the knot more stable ( as it usually happens when the lines follow more convoluted paths inside the knots ), it disturbs the initial balance of the original Zeppelin bend, and makes it less stable !

P.S. I have seen that the Zeppelin-like bend shown in Reply#46 behaves in exactly the same way, regarding its vulnerability to obliqueness during self-dressing... although it is supposed to be more stable, as the links there are the topologically more "complex" overhand knots, rather than the "simpler" slip knots, as in Lucas s Zeppelin-like bend here. However, the twisted, 270-degree collars are present in both knots, and, as I tried to explain above, I believe that this is the real cause of the problem : the continuations of the tails are too independent from the rest of the knot, they do not communicate with their bights very easily. On the contrary, in the slipped overhand knot Zeppelin-like bend, the continuations of the tails "communicate" directly with their corresponding bights through simple, U turn-like collars - so any slack left in them can be consumed by those bights in no time.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: xarax on May 06, 2014, 07:46:06 PM
  [/ QUOTE ]
 ... The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.

 [ QUOTE ]

   Ha, Ha, Ha, Haaa !  :), :), :), :) :) :)
   
   ( In the rhythm of Beethoven s notes, on Schiller s "Ode an die Freude" (Ode to Joy) - to use the German nomenclature, which is "a la mode" nowadays...  :))
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode_to_Joy

  Yet another dressing of the same knot is shown in the attached pictures. The pair of tails now are twisted 180 degrees inside their castings, so many lines of the knot s nub are now parallel to each other.
  As a side-effect, the knot is not sooo ugly now, as the original one was claimed it was ( in comparison to an ugly/tangly Zeppelin TIB eyeknot )
 
The principal benefit of seeing these end-2-end knots is that by comparison they make the TIB zeppelin eye knot perfectly beautiful!!

  In the first sight, it may appear similar to the "Loose knot" (M. B15), but it is different, because it is neither "loose", nor B! ( By "B", Miles denotes the bends where the links are topologically equivalent to the overhand knot). ( A really "similar" Zeppelin-like bend, in form and in function, was presented by Luca and Valentine. See the third and fourth attached pictures ).
  It can serve as a basis for a bowline-like, PET eyeknot, similar to the one shown in Reply#5.
  It is a genuine Zeppelin knot, because it is a rope-made hinge : if we just pull and remove the pair of tails, which play the role of the pivot of this hinge, out of its casting, the knot falls apart instantly, because the first curves are not "hooked" to each other : they are only linked indirectly, through the tails, around which they can revolve almost freely.
   Should I compare the Hugo eyeknot to the fake, so-called "Zeppelin" loop, which is neither Zeppelin-like, nor PET ? I already did ! Right in the first lines, but I will repeat this detailed comparison, for the sake of the salesmen and consumers of the faux bijoux, the lamentable knots spread all over the web...
   https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=faux+bijoux&sa=X&hl=en&gl=uk&authuser=0&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=8CppU6e8OMao0QWo24HoAQ&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=612

 [/ QUOTE ]
 ... The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.

 [ QUOTE ]

   Ha, Ha. Ha. Haaa !  :), :), :),  :) :) :)


Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: xarax on August 05, 2014, 06:01:50 AM
   I post pictures of the loose and the compact fig.8 Zeppelin bend, in the mirror symmetric of the form the knot was presented earlier in this thread.
Title: Re: Hugo bend (a descendant/heir of the Zeppelin bend)
Post by: xarax on August 22, 2014, 09:40:34 AM
   A picture of the Hugo bend (B) presented at Reply#1, where the two "open" ( = topologically equivalent to the unknot ) links are shown more clearly. ( In the ascendant Zeppelin bend, the two links are "closed", because they are topologically equivalent to the overhand knot - although the first curves of them are also parallel, i.e. they are not "hooked" to each other ).

   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg24519#msg24519