International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => New Knot Investigations => Topic started by: allene on January 22, 2014, 07:39:02 AM
-
I will give this new knot thing another try. This is a bend that does not slip in dyneema. Every conventional bend I have tried slips and I have tried a lot. It starts life out as a carrick bend but with one of the loops backward so that the two working ends point to opposite sides of the knot. Then the two working ends are tucked through the center from opposite sides.
-
I am the person with the L-36 and the web site L-36.com. Thank you for the comment. Estar tested the above knot and in his test, unlike mine, it slipped but it did so at 68% of line strength so he considered it a success as this is a reasonable value. It is a bulky knot but easy to tie. By conventional, let's just say all the bends in Animated Knots, knots generally known to sailors, climbing knots, fishing knots, and many knots from Ashley. It was a great surprise to see that the double fishermen's bend slips.
We are looking for a bend that does not slip in Dyneema and I welcome links to any candidates. I will test them and any that do not slip in my setup will go to Estar so he can put some efficiency numbers on them. His setup can test up to 10,000 pounds and is calibrated.
Allen
-
Estar posted how to tie the knot
http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/modified%20Carrick.pdf
I might add that all the knots we have found or "invented/discovered" have been complicated knots with lots of twists. What we like about them is that they are easy to tie and don't slip in Dyneema. The fact that they are complicated knots with lots of twists seems to be a requirement. I would love for someone to prove this wrong. I am willing to test any candidates. Any that pass the slip test can be tested to failure and have the efficiency rated.
Allen
-
Hi all, I am the guy with the test bench. I am happy to test things that people are interested in, but I don't do a lot of different forums/thread . . . so you may need to e-mail me (estarzinger at gmail dot com) to get my attention.
While we are on this thread . . . I will mention that I have developed a useful and simple sliding loop knot that does not slip and holds relatively high strength and can be easily tied to a fixed padeye (unlike the Polamar). It is a modification of the buntline . . . picture of how to tie it here: http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/modifiedbuntline.pdf. It is a nice looking and relatively simple knot.
I have a page on the same site that is documenting my test results to-date at: http://www.bethandevans.com/load.htm
-
I would like to defend my knot. But first, I tried the tweedledee knot and it slipped easily, hardly any force compared to knots that do not slip. Thinking I might have tied it wrong I did a second sample taking extra care. Same result, slipped easily.
If you look at my knot from what I can the front, you may notice that going from either standing end, that the line goes through three loops before it experiences a bend. We know that this is a feature of a strong knot and this knot has been shown to be strong. If you look at the back of the knot, you see that there is a twist structure where the two lines cross each other. This structure should experience a fair force under load which creates a lot of holding friction. In addition, the two working ends exit the knot in opposite directions so there is friction between them. On knots where the strands exit the knot together, they can pull out without the friction between resisting the slipping.
But I go back to the main points. It is easy to tie and doesn't slip, or at least if it slips, it is at a very high load.
Allen
PS. The triple fisherman's knot slips. It was tested.
-
If you wish to find candidates as substitudes of the triple fisherman s knot, you came to the right place ! :) - although, as written in Mozilla < about:config > page , Here be Dragons ! :)
Just to clarify, the triple fisherman's knot slipped in our testing. We did not consider it a satisfactory knot. I am, however, looking for bends that are strong and do not slip. I guess since the testing showed that the knot I submitted slipped at 68%, perhaps I should just say a strong bend that will hold up to a high efficiency.
So, please give candidates and we will test them.
Allen
-
I was e-mailed some pictures of the "Hunter S Bend".
I just pulled it in 1/8" amsteel. It slipped at 910lbs, which is 36% of tensile.
-
And I pulled a "Bowline B Bend" which slipped at 1450lbs.
I should note that the pull numbers I am quoting here are for the loop. So the bends are only carrying half that load.
-
Just for reference, the triple fisherman slips at 1840lbs.
-
^^ do realize the rope I am testing is dyneema "Single braid" - pure dyneema - that is there is no polyester cover.
I believe most climbing accessory cords/slings have a polyester jacket, which is much less slippery. And all these bends would hold and not slip in it.
However, the Dacron cover does create another problem/weakness, which is (at least for the similar sailing lines I have tested) that the polyester jacket breaks at about half the rated line strength and then the dyneema core pulls out.
Just for reference, the tweedledee slips at 890lbs in this rope . . . we don't need to debate whether that is 'easy' or not.
-
^^ in sailing, unlike in climbing, we do not have the 'human body breaking' limit, and we like to use really small lines with high loads. We also like lines that don't stretch and don't adsorb water. This dyneema single braid is "perfect" except it is so damn slippery. fortunately it is about the easiest stuff in the world to splice, and that is usually the answer, but occasionally we need knots. We have found fixed loops that will hold (water bowline and figure 8/9), compact sliding loops (Polamar and EStar). For gripper hitches, the icicle hitch and prussic 'sort of' work/hold in it. But no excellent bends so far - right now if we need a bend the only simple secure answer we have is to put two loops together - the modified carrick that started the thread is the best holder I have tested.
-
^^ do realize the rope I am testing is dyneema "Single braid" - pure dyneema - that is there is no polyester cover.
I an GLAD we can test our bends in such clear, pure one-material rope - because this shows the characteristics of the knot per se, as a shape made of some material, and not as a knotted material ! When we will find a knot that does not slip, then we can consider the same knot tied on a less slippery material, or with a cover of a different material, etc. If we do not study the knots when tied on slippery materials, but only the knots when tied on ropes covered with Velcro, or immersed in glue, we would nt learn much about the geometry of the knots themselves, would we ? To test the bends I was tying, I often used some amount of oil or another lubricant, because this can reveal the weakness of a bend which can otherwise remain hidden. I do not doubt that the industry will find a not-so-pure way to conceal the weakness of the knots tied on such materials - but I, for one, I will never use a bend that depends on a cover which could possibly be detached at any time under a fraction of the force required to break or even to slip..
I have a theory, which can/will be tested some time, I guess/hope. If a knot slips more than another, when it is tied on a most slippery material, it will still slip more than the other, when it will be tied on a less slippery material. I believe that the main property that makes a knot slip is its 3D shape - ceteris paribus, it is the geometrical shape of a knot that mostly determines its knotting properties, so, the same knots tied on two different materials will retain the same hierarchy, regarding their ability to hold, on both of them. It is a theory, that should be, and it is, falsifiable, of course ! Hic Rhodus hic saltus ! :)
-
I am the person with the L-36 and the web site L-36.com. Thank you for the comment. Estar tested the above knot and in his test, unlike mine, it slipped but it did so at 68% of line strength so he considered it a success as this is a reasonable value. It is a bulky knot but easy to tie. By conventional, let's just say all the bends in Animated Knots, knots generally known to sailors, climbing knots, fishing knots, and many knots from Ashley. It was a great surprise to see that the double fishermen's bend slips.
We are looking for a bend that does not slip in Dyneema and I welcome links to any candidates. I will test them and any that do not slip in my setup will go to Estar so he can put some efficiency numbers on them. His setup can test up to 10,000 pounds and is calibrated.
Allen
A solution for very low friction line was found in this thread:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2013.msg14229#msg14229
It may not be the prettiest thing in larger line, but it's drop-dead easy to tie.
-
^^ it is unclear what solution is being suggested here but we do have experience with the Alpine Butterfly knot. That knot can be tied as a loop or as a bend (cut the loop after tying and it is a bend). As a loop, it does not slip. As a bend, it slips.
In the other thread Estar suggested that the full extend of the slipperiness of this line may not be appreciated. I think the general feeling in the industry is that you cannot tie knots in it. I have not seen any recommendations on knots, except the diamond knot but the efficiency there in a soft shackle is something above 25% which, while fine as a soft shackle, is nothing to write home about as a knot.
I continue to think the knot I posted is a significant new knot.
Allen
-
I am happy to test any knot but you need to know that we have already tested quite a few. This is not a complete list but I know these have been tested: Hunter, Zepplin, Sheet, Fisherman's (2 and 3), and Alpine Butterfly or Strait bend. I just added the tweedledee bend to the list. They all slip.
What would you suggest we test next?
In terms of triple fisherman's and its recommendation, I do see that. I also followed the chain of references in the article and could not find any that came back to the kind of line we are using. For example, the vague reference to the climbing and rescue community left me cold as they would never use this kind of rope. That said, I did find research in the climbing community recommending triple fisherman's knot on dyneema. Perhaps that research is what was being refereed to. However, that was climbing webbing, not 12 strand single braid. The reference you site from Blue Water is also not anything like the line we are using. That TITAN CORD is a combination Dyneema and Nylon and appears to have a tightly woven cover. Not near the same line.
Just to be clear, this is the line we are talking about http://www.samsonrope.com/Pages/Product.aspx?ProductID=872
Estar found a knot that doesn't slip at all. http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/bend.pdf It looks very strong but I have not heard numbers yet.
Allen
-
I have a bend that does hold - it's a modification of the blood knot (pictures here:http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/bend.pdf). It is a bit more complex than is ideal, but it is "low profile", and is the only bend I have tested that does not slip.
It is 100% in 'loop configuration' (as I was reporting all the other bend numbers - not sure if I made that clear), so 50% as a straight knot (that's two pulls). I think 50% is roughly as good as it gets in dyneema.
There are two slightly different ways to tuck the tails back - one way they slip at about the same loads as the triple fisherman, and the other way they hold, and unfortunately I am not sure which way I photographed. I will have to do some checking tomorrow.
Also, two Estar's might be quicker and easier to tie than this, and we know they don't slip and are strong and low profile
-
Estar just indicated that he has been testing loops so it seems like my knot is not 68% but rather 34% as it is only taking half the force because of the loop. The blood knot above is 100% or 50% on the knot. I have asked for clarification but wanted to alert any readers here that the strength has most likely been overstated.
You should get some of this line and try and tie a knot in it and see if it slips. I think it would be useful for you to understand how slippery it is. I will send you some if you like.
Allen
-
What would you suggest we test next?
I have already shown the Strangle bend ( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30732#msg30732 ) - so we go one only step beyond the Fisherman s knots. I try to compare smaller apples to larger apples - this is why I had made this suggestion. Next, one more step further from this, where the wraps are interweaved a little more, is the also very simple and easy to tie Trefoil bend, shown at the attached pictures. Test them, and then we will see. I will not present you some really big guns we have :) - we will use them later. The true reason is that I try to figure out the Achilles" tendon of this material... By comparing results of tests on similar bends, I believe will gradually be able to understand more things.
There are members of this Forum who have used Dyneema ropes, and know some things about knots tied on this material. Personally, the only thing I know for sure is that the recommendations for the use of the triple Fisherman s knot are quite common - I believed until now that this bend was extensively tested on exactly the material you cite. I have even tried to guess some more convoluted bends that could serve as substitutes of the triple fisherman s knot - and, to read my hand-weaving, vague arguments ( in the absence of a test rig, I could nt do anything else...), and get an idea of some big guns, see :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3668
I have completed some testing using a 500 pound test version of this line called "Lash It" I am able to make loops with that so that I can pull hard enough to cause the knot I submitted to slip. When I used figure of eight loops to terminate my knot, the figure of eight knots would break before my knot slipped. The funny thing is that when it slipped, a puff of smoke came out of the knot!. I then made a loop with the trefoil knot and interlaced with a loop with my knot. Kind of a tractor pull to find the strongest knot. The trefoil slipped without any noticeable slippage on my knot.
Allen
-
Estar tested the above knot and in his test, unlike mine, it slipped ...
Before my sleepy eyes fail fully,
IIRC of EStar's on-line documentation,
his supposed zeppelin bend was NOT that,
{{edit to correct: EStar has it right, at www.bethandevans.com/load.htm (http://www.bethandevans.com/load.htm)
so, "sleepy eyes" was seeing things!
But awake eyes now sees there the "tails opposite" version
of the sheet bend, which is generally regarded
as the inferior version --tails should be on same side.
So, its slippage in this version is less a surprise.
Also, I'd never orient the butterfly like that;
a better orientation should see higher values.}}
but a sadly too common misrepresentation
of it. The initial structures of the two ends
should form what can be seen as "p & d"
not "p & b" --the draw on the loaded ends
will rotate the nipping turns in the same
direction, not opposite.
NB: the butterfly eye knot is asymmetric,
so testing of that should indicate which end is being
loaded; and the dressing of the knot as I see it
most often is not what I'd expect to get more
strength (but I must admit that the good strength
it sometimes gets, thus, doesn't leave much room
for improvement!). In forming the eye knot by
what has been jocularly called "the twirly flop"
method, there is a natural tendency by torsion
for the eye legs to cross in their exiting
of the knot, not be pressed against each other
in a plane including the axis of tension.
(In introducing this knot to climbers back in 1928,
Wright & Magowan specifically pointed out this
crossing as desired; I don't recall that they had
a testing basis for so desiring, but maybe just
a sort of "go with the flow" pointer, to say "yes,
it should go like this".)
As for slippage of the double grapevine (a name
I favor for it better matches to parts of the knot
--the "double", i.e.), Xarax's alarm should be ameliorated
by realization that those who make the recommendation
for its use do so on the basis of their testing the
material in which it's recommended to be tied
--i.p., HMPE-cored, polyester-sheathed small cord.
And they have break tests of that, not slippage.
YMMV, again.
(I sure would like to see video of it slipping,
though, as seen for the dbl.bowline "#1"!)
Thanks much for all the testing & exploration!
Cheers,
--dl*
====
-
I have a bend that does hold - it's a modification of the blood knot
(pictures here:http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/bend.pdf).
NB: what you show (as do many others, I know)
is not a blood knot, really, unless you get
those turns to capsize into wraps around straight
S.Parts (i.e., the loaded ends)! This is sadly something
lost to the knot-parroters who've seen such images
in fishing-knots books and taken them into rope
and ... the transformation might not occur.
It's a distinction of what Barnes called "in-coil"
& "out-coil"; in nylon fishing line, upon setting,
the result is the same --in-coil. (And, surprisingly,
there is enough force transmitted into the wraps
to leave indentation impressions on the S.Parts,
with break coming at the center of the knot
where the tails caused a deflection --and not
at the hard (1-diameter) turns of the S.Parts
where they turn back & wrap!)
I suggest that you endeavor to get this arrangement
in the HMPE line, perhaps must adding a 2nd tucking
of the tails, for security?
You've essentially tied extended anchor/fisherman bends
of each end around the other.
It is 100% in 'loop configuration' ..., so 50% as a straight knot (that's two pulls).
I take it that you are making a statement of
equality here, not reporting separate test results?
Beware this apparent (logical!) equality, as it might
be more the case that the naive adding of the 100%
side and the whatever-% knotted side is more to
the truth of closed-loop sling strength, practically
--the point being that with knot compression that
side will lengthen and lighten its load, and equalization
around the pins or whatever is pulling the sling apart
might be inefficient and so indeed the unknotted side
could shoulder a bigger portion of the load, and both
sides reach their resp. maximums, say 100% + 60% !
(I believe I've read reports where the break came at
the pins, not at the knot, too.)
I think 50% is roughly as good as it gets in dyneema.
If not better than it gets! ;)
--dl*
====
-
I can only test one thing against another so that is what I do. I am using smaller line now but not mixing results, all results I give of one vs another are in the same size line. I am not picking line for any other reason than this is what I can test. That said, I tested my knot against the four knots here http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3668 and mine is in the middle. The first two knots slipped first but in the second two, mine slipped. I did not test the last two against each other as I find them just too hard to tie to be practical on a boat.
PS. This is a reply to post #29. Sorry, I am not familiar with how your forum works.
-
Estar, when, in the files I had send to you, you find a bend that slips below 50% of the MBE, just throw it out of the window !
Just a note that Estar is testing loops (that is what we call them) so when he says it slips at 38% of line strength, the knot is slipping at 19% of line strength. This is slippery stuff.
-
I am a bit less enthused about the modified blood knot this morning - I have tested 12 pulls, and it slips (at about the triple fisherman slip load) in about 1/3 of them (that may or may not be due to the capsize issue mentioned above). Practically speaking it will be easier and more secure (and equally compact) to tie two EStar loops, so for now that is the best solution I have found.
As to those suggesting we look at 'simpler' bends . . . I would love to find one that works . . . but I have now tested quite a few and just can't see how we are going to find one "simpler' than (for example) the triple fisherman that will work. The EStar is the "simplest" knot I have found that holds securely in this stuff. It is my benchmark for now.
The EStar tests at 50%. The only thing I have tested higher is the Polamar at 54% (Just barely statistically significantly stronger). But you cannot (easily) tie the Polamar as a bend.
For those questioning the triple fisherman slipping. I have a series of photos below. #1 is no load, #2 is 1300lbs of load after it is all tightened up and the tails start slipping (I put some new black marks on the tails at this point to watch them being sucked into the knot), and #3 has one of the tails almost into the knot. It does this every-time, consistently.
-
the Strangle bend - shown in the attached pictures - , because the wraps of the one link squeeze the ones of the other. Could you, please, try to pull this bend - because I am dying out of curiosity ! :) Of course, I suppose you would set and pre-tighen the bends a little bid, before the final loading.
The strangle bend slipped against my knot.
-
Diamond Bend
Diamond bend slips against my bend. It also took me 15 minutes to figure out how to tie it. I must say that this class of knots, at least with just trying to tie it by following these pictures, could never be tied on a moving boat at sea. Perhaps there is an easier way but as they slip against a very easy to tie knot there really isn't a point. That, of course, does not apply to the two knots that did not slip against my knot so if there is an easy way to tie those two I would love to know what it is.
Allen
-
^^ it is unclear what solution is being suggested here
It's in the linked post:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2013.msg14229#msg14229
Sandra made a diagram of the tying procedure for this extended Stevedore bend (if you wish to call it that) later in the thread.
Strangely, it can be untied when needed in rope. Again, simple but obese.
-
Those knots are complex in their form, but simple in their tying - and, as symmetric, instantly inspected. The idea was to re-trace the path of a symmetric stopper. Just tie the stopper, as the one link of the bend, on the end of the one line, and retrace its path, without any further thinking, with the end of the other the opposite way - that is, just follow what the first line had followed as it closed in itself.
That is how I tied them. I call them retrace knots, like a water knot. It is probably harder with the line I am using which is very small.
I still find this category of knot difficult to tie. The benchmark is a bowline, which I just tied one handed behind my back without looking. The bend I proposed takes two hands so it isn't as easy as a bowline. But you need to be able to tie a knot in your shower standing on one of those exercise balls with the water on of course :-)
Allen
-
^^ re-tucked water knot slipped against my knot.
-
I am a bit less enthused about the modified blood knot this morning
--I have tested 12 pulls, and it slips (at about the triple fisherman slip load)
in about 1/3 of them
(that may or may not be due to the capsize issue mentioned above).
What I mentioned about "capsizing" / transforming
cannot occur in your knot with its tucked tails;
rather, it should occur --a design goal, i.e.--
for the blood knot, and hence my suggestion
for revision (tie "in-coil" (working end wrapping back
over the overlapped S.Parts to the center tucking
point), and make an extra tuck in hopes of locking).
For those questioning the triple fisherman slipping.
NB : what you show here is the triple grapevine hence
quadruple fisherman's knot ! (And we can see
why I favor the former name --it matches the visible
wraps (triple ; a (single) fisherman's knot has none,
not one). The pre-loaded knot looks as though it could
be better tightened? Still, the slippage is so eye-opening,
knots-thinking-shattering!! Thanks.
Note that the tails of these knots could be taken
through their opposite halves; I've no idea if this
would enhance security. It certainly would complicate
tying the knot, as one cannot form one half and then
the other, as this novel tail-tucking needs part of the
"other half" to be formed, into which to tuck.
Let me suggest a relatively "simple" knot --the base
is the overhand : Ashley's #1452, sometimes presented
as Ashley's bend. I'll ask that it be tried, as is,
and then with the simple securing measure of putting
in a 2nd course of tails tucking --which bulks its central
turning-around mass to four diameters, and puts
double collars against the SParts' entry.
((Sorry, don't have a good image for that in 100kb
or less, so let's look at the similar Ashley's #1408.))
I can't imagine this slipping (to become untied ; slipping
to generate heat on rapid loading and ... , maybe);
but then I couldn't imagine a multiple grapevine
slipping, either (or the rope flowing out of a dbl.bwl
from collapsing the eye!).
From the original knot shown in the attached photo,
just take each tail and *trace* the finish of the
opposite tail --e.g., the white tail will turn clockwise
and lie atop the yellow tail in making the 2nd tuck;
the yellow will reciprocate, running counterclockwise
behind the white tail's initial tuck & exit. (And this
extension --the 2nd tucking-- can be tweaked to
try to work out the best version, if it looks fruitful.)
--dl*
====
-
Thank you. You keep testing everything against your knot, and not against each other, and doing so you deprive us from valuable information
I tested the two knots that made mine slip against each other. I made a loop of each knot and larks head knotted the two loops together. It broke at the larks head. I was not going to re-tie those things so did not report it.
I tested the strangle against whatever knot you asked me to. One of the knots suddenly exploded and the test piece fell. I am reasonably sure the strangle survived but not 100% so again I did not report this.
These knots are pretty hard to tie and not suitable for sailing imho so my motivation to do multiple tests when I screw up is limited.
Allen
-
^^ It would help if there were instructions like in animated knots, or like the pictures Estar posted.
-
Thank you. You keep testing everything against your knot, and not against each other, and doing so you deprive us from valuable information
I made a loop of each knot and larks head knotted the two loops together.
It broke at the larks head.
Please explain the eye-2-eye joint:
"larkshead-knotted" could mean
(as it does in rockclimbing circles
(where "larksfoot" seems embedded in UK jargon,
from an old knotsbook error))
making the structure in one eye through the other
--which structure can, and often naturally does,
capsize into what resembles the square/reef knot--,
or that each eye is formed into said hitch
through the other (which is more difficult to tie).
One of the knots suddenly exploded and the test piece fell.
BTW, what sort of recoil are you seeing with this
very low-stretch HMPE line? I know that you've been
cautioned about it and probably didn't need the advice,
but is this low-stretch material all so fierce? --fierce
enough (!)? --or relatively benign? Nylon, of course,
is rubberbandishly fierce.
--dl*
====
-
Larks head, Luggage tag, girth. All depends on where you learned the knot. I learned in kite flying
The Lashit is 500 pound rated. It has no recoil but the staset I pull with snaps by me when things let go. When I test larger line, I tie a safety line at the far end and it grabs the line. However, my normal test line is holding up my fence until the cement dries and I am using the safety lone as the test line. Bottom line is the snap isn't great and it doesn't go where I stand.
-
Can you post a picture or specific link to what you want tested? The threads have variations. O want to make sure I have the right ones.
-
Larks head, Luggage tag, girth. All depends on where you learned the knot.
I learned in kite flying.
But to the question : what do you mean by it?
Again, did you luggage tag one eye through another
--ONE eye doing the knotting, not both--;
or did both eyes form the whatever-called structure
through each other's structure's then-formed hole?
(To the naming, one can see some discrimination
between the cow hitch in which just one end is loaded,
and the girth hitch in which both are (perhaps most
frequently seen of shopping tags, and attachments
of round slings in climbing).
)
--dl*
====
-
^^ two loops are joined and the result looks like a square knot. Call it what you want. Everyone calls it something different as far as I can tell.
Allen
-
which one is the strongest and least likely to slip?
-
after watching this thread, and pulling some of the suggested bends . . . my conclusion is that we will not find a "simple" bend that does the job in this material, and that we already have a solution that is better than a complex bend . . . Two EStar's tied together . . . does not slip, breaks at about 50%, is 'relatively' compact, and we all already know how to tie the buntline so it is easy to learn/remember.
-
Good day Allene and Estar.
Thank you for your interest and work on this.
I'd like to throw in a few possibilities for your search and testing. You can view these and their tying at this site http://www.southee.com/Knots/Knots_Bends.htm (http://www.southee.com/Knots/Knots_Bends.htm). The knots I am pointing to are #'s 17, 18, 20, and 22. Near the end of the page.
SS
-
^^ those look promising and I think I have tested 17 and it does not slip. It is nice to see a way to tie it that is more straightforward than the follow me method, which I found almost incomprehensible. I will test these suggestions tomorrow along with the figure 8 knot previously referenced.
Allen
-
I have 4 tests to report. The above referenced knots. I did not build #17 to see if it is what I already tested but #18, 20, and 22 slip against my knot. I think #17 will not slip if it is the same knot I already tested.
The figure of eight traceback knot, not sure which one I tested, was interesting. Hard to call a winner. At first, the figure of eight traceback slipped, then it locked up and my knot slipped and failed. On another test, it was the other way around. I am unable, with my setup, to pick a winner here. My setup does a lot better when one knot fails easily, such as all the simple knots suggested.
Allen
Knot 17 slips at the same point as my knot. The knot with the longest tails won. I think it is worth further testing.
-
^^ two loops are joined and the result looks like a square knot.
Call it what you want. Everyone calls it something different as far as I can tell.
Allen
Allen, this is not really a matter of "calling":
it is a question of the fundamental geometry
of what this *knot* is that we're calling --however
we choose to name it! And, no, actually, the result
--at least when used commonly in tape by rockclimbers--
doesn't always look like a square knot : sometimes
(and quite surprisingly seemingly most of the time w/KPowick!?)
it can stay as one sling girth-hitched to an eye
--the former collaring itself, the latter pure bight/eye!
(Kolin Powick did an examination of sling joints,
and to my amazement he had seemingly just one
pair collapse into the like-a-squareknot form!
Which form in this common case of slings, we should
observe, is asymmetric in shaping of the two pieces!)
Btw, I vaguely recall some old data sheet from one
of the then major rope companies stating that the
joint of two bowlines joined as you have done
proved stronger than if simply reeved eye through eye.
(And I'll surmise that in both cases the breaks came
at this joint, not in the bowlines.)
--dl*
====
-
Knot 17 slips at the same point as my knot. The knot with the longest tails won. I think it is worth further testing.
The end-2-end knot I recommended above (post #47),
Ashley's #1408 (and simiarly his #1452, which is
more commonly presented) with the extended tucking
I describe should hold. Or else it will exhibit a new level
of rope fluidity, I think! The draw of the two S.Parts,
turning jointly in one direction, should bind the tails
ever more tightly together; that even this structure
(which, note, stands in contrast to the opposite-directions
rotation in Shakehands, the #18 you tested)
could slip is understandable; but I think that one further
tucking of the tails through that heavily loaded central
nipping circle should see the knot draw up and lock.
(Maybe it will lock to the point of being hard to untie.)
Note that the aforecited on-line document gives
Ashley's #1452 / Ashley's Bend as its #3. BUT
it gets the dressing wrong, or of an inferior form:
the tails as show in the red & blue diagram should
be dressed & set to cross in that relation,
not align abutting each other and not crossing
as the photograph of the completed knot shows!
(That version is also secure, but IMO produces a
less appealing curvature of the S.Parts, and will
not so readily feed into the extended tucking
that I recommend.)
--dl*
====
-
Allen asked me to test two things:
(a) One was a bend suggested above - it's number 17 here (Sennit Knot). I am out of the amsteel at the moment so pulled it in endura braid (a very similar dyneema single braid) it slipped at 815lb. For reference I tested a double fisherman in this line, which slipped at 615lbs. The slipping loads have quite high variability - there is probably a significant difference there, but it is still only 29% of rated strength (Note: that is the loop load - the knot load would be about half - see comments below, but those are for dacron so the frictional effects would be smaller here)
( b ) The other was to test the breaking strength of the modified carrick bend in dacron line. I used stayset and tested the Zeppelin, regular carrick and modified carrick. These were 'straight pulls' and not loops. If we set the Zeppelin strength at 100%, the regular carrick was 75% (significantly weaker than the Zeppelin) and the Modified Carrick was 105% (the same as the zeppelin).
While I was doing that, I did some extra pulls to provide a little test data toward the question that we have debated in the other thread, about frictional effects. I did a 'straight pull' on the zeppelin, lets say that is 100% strength. If I do a 'loop pull" (that is the line is a loop around two smooth pins tied with a zeppelin) it is 222%, you would expect 200% without any friction, so the friction of the pins is adding 22% 'protection' to the zeppelin weak point. When I do a 'loop pull' with one end cow hitched around one pin I get 232%, so 32% added 'protection' of the knot by friction.
-
The end-2-end knot I recommended above (post #47),
Ashley's #1408 (and simiarly his #1452, which is
more commonly presented) with the extended tucking
I describe should hold. Or else it will exhibit a new level
of rope fluidity, I think!
Well, then you will be able to learn something today . . . it slipped at 630lbs, about the same as the double fisherman I just tested (post above). 630lbs (27% of rated line tensile) was the 'loop load', so the knot load would be (very roughly) half of that. I have pictures . . . but they just show the tails sucking into the knot.
Just FYI . . . The knot as shown in your picture, without the extra tucks, slipped at 295lbs.
As I noted in a post above, the breaking results have very tight standard div's, but the slipping loads are much more variable. My suggestion is that it is best to take the slipping loads as mere indications of 'high' 'medium' or 'low' slipping. If I were doing 30 or 50 pulls each knot we could narrow the slipping mean, but I am only doing 3 or so pulls with these knots that slip so easily and clearly less than our benchmark knots.
-
The end-2-end knot I recommended above (post #47),
Ashley's #1408 (and simiarly his #1452, which is
more commonly presented) with the extended tucking
I describe should hold.
It slips. I also did a little extra tugging on this knot to try and lock it. I was pulling against my knot and also did a little extra tugging on it.
I used the Ashley Bend in animated knots as a starting point and tucked exch working end along the exit path of the other working end.
Allen
-
I found a knot that did not slip. It is the knot I opened this thread with but with an extra hard pull on the ends before testing. I put the ends in a vice and pulled with hand pressure on the loop that had the knot in it. One could also use pliers and pull on the ends themselves. This locks the knot and it does not slip. I tested a loop with two of my knots in it. This is a very easy knot to tie and now with the extra locking it does not slip.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-VfWe0BldQs4/UuKeWdu4flI/AAAAAAAAN0g/5J0BPIm9wv4/w600-h450-no/myknot.jpg)
Allen
PS. After breaking the loop, I untied the surviving knot with the aid of a marlin spike. I pressed the spike through the center of the knot, and after that it is easy to remove the two ends and untie the knot. The knot has a natural detent where the marlin spike needs to go so not that difficult.
-
Hi Allen.
I found a knot that did not slip. It is the knot I opened this thread with but with an extra hard pull on the ends before testing. I put the ends in a vice and pulled with hand pressure on the loop that had the knot in it. One could also use pliers and pull on the ends themselves. This locks the knot and it does not slip. I tested a loop with two of my knots in it. This is a very easy knot to tie and now with the extra locking it does not slip.
Do you think that if the same tightening of all the parts of other offered possible candidates were to be employed, it could alter the outcome somewhat? Not that I think a knot has to be super-tightened necessarily, but if the mod carrick is done that way and it helps then it may stand to reason that another may fare better too in your testing.
PS. After breaking the loop, I untied the surviving knot with the aid of a marlin spike. I pressed the spike through the center of the knot, and after that it is easy to remove the two ends and untie the knot. The knot has a natural detent where the marlin spike needs to go so not that difficult.
So did you find that the specimen exhibited detrimental qualities that might be inhibiting the reuse of the rope?
SS
-
^^ I did the tightning on the modified Ashlet bend but pulling on a tail tends to open, not close, that knot so the answer is, it would depend on the knot. I do think it would change the results. Consider the test where one knot slipped, then the other, then the first stopped and the other one broke. Clearaly something strange was going on there.
In terms of was the line damaged. It is definatley flatter where it was in the knot I took apart. But remember that the force I applied was just about to break the line at that knot so one would expect some damage. I mean, an identical knot in the same line broke on the other side of the loop.
Allen
-
Estar did some testing on one of the earlier knots and tied a half hitch on the tail. My knot does not slip if you do this but one that, in my words, "slipped easily", just pulled the half hitch into the knot and continue to slip. I would assume the extended figure of eight, which is the strongest knot I tested, could be tightened and would respond well to a half hitch in the tail.
That said, I added another tuck to my knot and now that combination does not slip. It may be much more difficult to untie however.
To tie it, just do the knot I started this post with then tuck the tail out the opposite leg. Be careful to maintain the over2-under-0ver-under arrangement when you do the second tail.
It is more complicated but still easy to tie.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0aR_kMkIbWU/UuLUXRomgJI/AAAAAAAAN1E/IBP1IOalOrQ/w600-h501-no/no_slip1.jpg)
-
I do not know if it is "still easy to tie", but it is still asymmetric - without any particular reason, except from the fact that it had happened to be born so in the first place...
After the side-by-side "8" shaped links bend, it was expected that you would tie a side-by-side Pretzel links bend... :). A more symmetric ( although still not perfectly so...) solution to the problem of interweaving two Pretzel-shaped links in a end-to-end knot, is shown at the attached pictures. ( To interweave symmetric Pretzel shaped links you have to orient them face-to-face, as in the many such bends you can find in the Forum, if you search for the word "Pretzel" - see, for example, the bends at (1)-(5), Some of them were described as "decorative" bends (6),(7), but they might serve as practical bends, too, if all simpler solutions will be proved inadequate when tied in Dyneema... However, with so few bends that were tested till now, I believe it is too early to jump into such conclusions. )
There is only a thin line separating the practical knots from the decorative ones, which seem something in between knotting and knitting. Personally, I do not like any knot which needs more than two tucks - if I will have to decide between a tuck-tuck-tuck knot and a spin-spin-spin one, perhaps I will decide in favour of the later, as suggested by roo... :). After all, it is easier to spin the end of a line, than to drive it through the correct openings - while you are " in your shower, standing on one of those exercise balls - with the water on, of course :-)". I have to repeat once more that a symmetric knot is much easier to inspect, because even one wrong tuck will "break the symmetry", so it will be spotted at a glance. Especially if/when we are forced to tie complicated knots, symmetry is a safety factor - and divides the information we need to remember to tie the knot by two ! :)
Although you do not follow any particular method, you start to point higher :). Go on !
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3585.msg20496#msg20496
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4188.msg25686#msg25686
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4203.msg25704#msg25704
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4293
5. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4705.msg30503#msg30503
6. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3671
7. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4215
-
I tried a symmetric version first but it slipped easily. Seemed to lose something. But the bad part is that the knot slipped for Estar at 40%, which us pretty good but still disappointing.
-
The end-2-end knot I recommended above (post #47),
Ashley's #1408 (and simiarly his #1452, which is
more commonly presented) with the extended tucking
I describe should hold. Or else it will exhibit a new level
of rope fluidity, I think!
Well, then you will be able to learn something today . . . it slipped at 630lbs,
about the same as the double fisherman I just tested (post above).
630lbs (27% of rated line tensile) was the 'loop load',
so the knot load would be (very roughly) half of that.
I have pictures . . . but they just show the tails sucking into the knot.
Actually, they show more : they show that the
knot wasn't correctly tied --there should be equally
two turns of end tucks showing on either side
of the line, but there are three on our/viewer's side
(only the leftmost turn runs behind the line, the
others are over). Still, you have extra tucks
one way or another, and that they can all slip
--and so evenly, as seen in both tails--
is indeed a(nother) eye-opener! Egadz!! :o
One throws away the old playbook!
> Just FYI . . . The knot as shown in your picture,
> without the extra tucks, slipped at 295lbs.
I thank you very much for this extra information.
One could endeavor to engineer the knot so
that tail-tucks went in opposite directions,
in hopes that maybe removing *sympathetic*
movement might help, but I want something
simpler and more sure.
I can think of one simple adjustment to the
interlocking of overhand knots such we have
in #1408, Shakehands, #1452, zeppelin :
at the point of the "U-turn" of the overhands,
continue turning and make a full loop (as with
a bowline) and then to the collaring, now
thus around the opposing S.Part. Might this added
surrounding of constricting parts succeed?
(Although in the above cases even though neither
individual S.Part surrounds --they make 180deg turns--,
they jointly surround. Still, the full turn seems
a significant adjustment.
(And the mirrored bowline held, yes?)
--dl*
====
-
One thing to ask in this exploration of end-2-end
knots for HMPE is What are the expected purposes
for these knots? I.p., I thinking that in general
one won't want to use knots, but there might be
some emergency cases in which they're needed;
and in these cases --some, at least-- aspects of
beauty & compactness might be irrelevant. E.g.,
it might be that coming up with a simple knot
that works with the tails stoppered will be
a good thing to know.
Beyond this, of course, if we can find something
neater, great. But if making, say, a blood knot
and tying off the tails in a (joint) overhand stopper
works, that'll be good to know.
--dl*
====
-
I wish to make two points. 1) This line is usually spliced. It is dead easy to splice and very secure when spliced. However, the recommendation for the bury is 72 diameters so the splice is long. If both ends need to be spliced, that is 144 diameters so in a 3/16 line that is over 2 feet. Some applications do not have that kind of room so in these, we are looking for knots. For example, my halyard goes into a sheave just a few inches from the where it is secured to the headboard. The sheave cannot take the added diameter that comes with the splice as it was initially made for wire. I need a line that is as strong as wire and this is the only option. I used to do something very complicated but have switched to a soft shackle tied to the halyard with the Estar knot. A nice solution.
Second point. At this point we know of very few knots that do not slip. There are more loop knots but there loads are divided so I think non loop knots are more challenging and that is what I am focusing on. There are basically two and while neither is a bend, I think I can see a characteristic of these that is important. The simplest of them to analyse is the new knot that Estar discovered that I named the Estar knot in his honor. This is what I observe about that knot. There is a single loop responsible for the force holding the line. The basis of the knot is the buntline knot and the loop is basically a clove hitch. That knot has known good holding power but it slips with this line. The second point to observe is that the tail is put through this single area of high stress that holds the knot. The tail has less of a load on it but it needs to be constrained or the knot slips. Putting it through the high force area gives the holding force on the tail to prevent the slippage. All the knots that have lots of tucks and turns, including mine, slip. They lack that point of high concentration of holding power that can keep the tail from slipping. I think that you have to deform the line to keep it from slipping and beyond that, you have to grab onto a lightly loaded part of the knot and deform that. You have to grab the tail really hard. You can also lock knots and they won't slip. This also deforms the line. If the line is deformed, slipping now involves extruding material or moving the deformed area. This is much harder than moving a smooth surface against friction (or lack thereof). Writing this makes me think of ice skates. If you want to prevent slipping on ice, you need to deform it because doing it with friction takes 72 diameters and you just can't make a knot that long.
I tried yet another knot and am waiting for Estar to test it, if he isn't fed up with testing my slipping knots and ready to get on with life. It is a bend where the holding force is a clove hitch and the tails go through the opposite strands hitch. It satisfies the two conditions above. It looks a lot like both the Estar knot and a double fisherman's. It held in my testing but then so did some other knots that slipped in Estar's testing.
Allen
-
Hello Allen and Estar. Thank you for your interest in bends on slippery lines. Thank you for sharing your research capabilities. I suggest you advance on your successes with Modified Carrick Bend. The Carrick Bend takes part in the polyhedron geometries of the Turks-head knots. Seeing Carrick Bend as the incomplete form of the 4 lead x 3 bight Turks-head Knot will then present a path to continue Carrick Bend into sufficient security. This method is available on any single-line Turks-head knot used correctly as a bend. In every case, as with Carrick Bend, there is both a path to sufficient security and a standard for correctness, in faithfulness to the polyhedron/Turks-head form.
-
Hi all, I am the guy with the test bench. I am happy to test things that people are interested in, but I don't do a lot of different forums/thread . . . so you may need to e-mail me (estarzinger at gmail dot com) to get my attention.
While we are on this thread . . . I will mention that I have developed a useful and simple sliding loop knot that does not slip and holds relatively high strength and can be easily tied to a fixed padeye (unlike the Polamar). It is a modification of the buntline . . . picture of how to tie it here: http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/modifiedbuntline.pdf. It is a nice looking and relatively simple knot.
I have a page on the same site that is documenting my test results to-date at: http://www.bethandevans.com/load.htm
Greetings estar and allene,
A knot related to the EStar Knot which has the Clove oriented opposite to that of the EStar (i.e. the Clove is rotated around the axes of Standing Part and Tail) may also show good test results. You can tie this knot by taking the Buntline's tail over the Standing Part and continuing as for the EStar on the opposite side of the Standing Part.
Your test results would be appreciated.
alpineer
-
^^ That is how I tie it. I like the flow of the knot and the crossover on the shackle. I had not noticed that Estar tied it the other way. That said, my theory on why these knots work would say there would be no difference between the two. The theory says it is deformation that holds the knots, not friction. I believe that the Estar holds because there is a stress concentrator in the clove hitch and that deforms the tail and holds it. Some evidence of that is that a knot like the extended figure of eight slips and yet a much simpler knot like the Estar does not. Hard to think of a knot with more friction than the extended figure of eight and yet it slips. My theory is that it takes a mechanism other than friction, or a different friction mode depending on how you look at extrusion, to hold this line.
Allen
-
The theory says it is deformation that holds the knots, not friction.
Your theory is good ! :) ( You should only describe it differently, because friction is a consequence of deformation, too, although in a microscopic scale).
When the one line is squeezed on an other, their surfaces are deformed - the saddle-like shapes that are generated play the role of obstacles, of "dents", which increase the amount of forces required for any lengthwise motion predicted by the theory of friction of solid, non-deformable bodies.
We can actually see this by measuring the friction between two lines when they meet each other at different angles. When the angle is more acute, so the area of mutual contact is more extended, the lines can slide along each other easier, because the deformations / obstacles on their surface are less pronounced - they are more extended, but less deep. When the angle approaches the right angle, the contact area is smaller, so the same perpendicular force can allow the lines to bite each other harder and deeper - so they can not move lengthwise as easily as it would had been predicted by a theory of friction which does not take account the local deformation on the surfaces of the bodies.
-
I am waiting for Estar to test my latest version but in any event I have more to report. I started by observing that on the Estar knot, the constriction is a clove hitch. I then tied a knot a little like a fisherman't knot except clove hitches and then took the tails and tucked them back through the opposite clove hitch. This knot was tested and did not slip, but it was not strong. So why the difference between the strength in the Estar and this latest knot? The answer was obvious once I looked at the Estar knot. The Estar is a loop and the load on the clove hitch was half the line load.
I tried a couple of variations but the one I am about to describe was stronger than back to back Estar knots and dead easy to tie. Tie interlocked Buntline hitches and tuck the tails through the center. No slip and in a loop, stronger in the test I did than back to back Estar knots. I await confirmation testing from Estar. I tucked the tails through in opposite directions and in a way that looped around the clove hitches. There are probably 4 ways to tuck the tails.
Allen
-
Tie interlocked Buntline hitches ...
It should be examined if it would be better to tie possibly tighter hitches, instead of the old Buntline hitch : the "Buntline extinguisher" = Constrictor noose (1), or the "Serpent noose" -shown at the attached pictures.
-
Both versions with the buntline hitch slipped on Estar's setup. I guess I can prove that a knot slips, but I cannot prove that it does not slip.
The constrictor replacement slipped when the tails were taken through the center, both loops.
What we need is a good noose but we also need a lot of holding power on the tail. Gripping the tail seems to be what keeps the knots from slipping.
So far the "best" bend is what Estar is calling the first in the series. It is the one that is similar to a double fisherman's but with clove hitches instead of just loops. It does not slip but it's efficiency is only 35% ish. By contrast, the double Estar is 45 to 50%. The best we can hope for is 50% so 35% is not unreasonable. Strength is usually not an issue with this line as it is typically used for its stretch characteristics and ends up being way stronger than it needs to be. For example, I have a long line that I call a preventer. It takes a shallow angle to the thing it is holding so a small stretch can cause a fair movement in the boom, which it is intended to hold. By the time you satisfy that, the line is strong enough to life my 12,000 pound boat.
Anyway, I am sidetracked. The feeling is that no slip is more important than stretch as the only thing that is going to possibly load the line significantly is probably a shock load and we know from testing that the faster you load these lines, the more likely they are to slip.
I guess I could try the constrictor replacement with the tuck through the opposite constrictor. That is the next test. It just isn't as easy as tucking through the center.
Allen
Correction, I tried the second one. Just tried it with the tuck through the opposite loop. Not to hard to tie and didn't slip for me.
-
Hello estar and Allen.
Since the hunt is still on and you seem to be willing to configure and test all manor of tangles, give this a try if you'd care to.
As with your tying two clove hitches, use prusiks on the opposite lines and tuck the tails through the gap between them, draw them together tight, cinching the tails before loading the sling.
SS
-
Since the hunt is still on... use prusiks on the opposite lines and tuck the tails through the gap between them
The hunt, SS369, not the fishing ! :) :) What you describe is a fine fishing knot ! We would better remain in the area of max-two-tucks ( tuck-tuck ) or max-two-spins ( spin-spin ) knots, and exhaust all the possibilities there, before we retreat to fishing or decorative knots - tuck-tuck-tuck ( 3 times )or spin-spin-spin ( 3 times ) tangles. A simple rule of thumb for what a simple easy-to-tie-on-board bend is.
-
Hi xarax.
I think that what I suggested has merit considering the examples of what has been tried and that Allen and estar are not novices to knot tying. Two prusiks, as I have offered is not in the realm of the unthinkable, nor are they so complicated that one can not inspect them easily. and they have the tails tucked between them to provide additional locking (potentially, using that slippery material). Those knots are something they and others know.
It produces a nice, linear knot with the double standing part gripping (good enough deformation) that seems to be a good thing.
And if it does not work, perhaps the suggestion can be a springboard to something that does. And multiple lines of thought here are not inexcusable.
Let's not put limitations in the way.
So if fishing yields the end result or hunting produces a desired outcome,,,, game on. :)
SS
-
Although this may not work, again it may lead to something which does. Tie an ordinary reef (or square) knot but tuck the 2 tails down through the knot by lying the knot flat and taking the tails through from top to bottom (or around and back up again). When dressed and tensioned the knot compresses the tails very tightly - this works in nylon monofilament fishing line (treated with soap for least friction) though it is fiddly to tie in something so thin it is easy to tie in cordage/rope.
Barry
-
Two prusiks, as I have offered is not in the realm of the unthinkable, nor are they so complicated that one can not inspect them easily.
No... but just COUNT the number of tucks and/or spins ! :) When you go over 2, you return to your drawing board - until all really easy-to-tie AND simple topologically and/or geometrically knots are exhausted. A fishing or decorative knot can be very nice, as you know, and, of course, very secure. Nobody said that such a knot is difficult to learn or remember, or that it will not work, but that is not what we need ! Most, if not all, convoluted enough fishing knots are easy to remember ( as they are relying on mere addition /repetition of spins, mainly = spin-spin-spin-, etc... ) and they will work, just because they are meant to work, they are designed to work on very slippery fishing lines, Spectra / Dyneema included.
I do not put limitations, and I had often been criticized for tying too complex knots ! :) I just suggest to start from the simple and proceed to the more complex, because we are looking for the simpler, or one of the simpler, knots that will work, not any, however convoluted tangle, that works... If you are just hungry, before you go fishing, see if there is any fish already cooked in your refrigerator.
-
I am only offering possibilities, since I do not own any of this slippery material to try, yet.
As well, I am trying to use relatively common knots to keep in the theme of this post. Knots most likely to be easily configured by the interested.
The simplest affair would be to choose the least complicated knot that slipped least, so far, and just add a stopper type knot (or back up type) to both tails. Not elegant, but will work.
Example: Choose a Sennit bend. Nice neat streamlined bend. Add a stopper, say a double overhand. The combination should work while maintaining a non-bulky profile. This being a criteria, the non-corpulence, I have set for my own exploration here.
I just suggest to start from the simple and proceed to the more complex, because we are looking for the simpler, or one of the simpler, knots that will work, not any, however convoluted tangle, that works...
Same type of thinking, just the other direction. We should end up somewhere middled. :)
SS
-
The simplest affair would be to choose the least complicated knot that slipped least, so far, and just add a stopper type knot (or back up type) to both tails.
This is addition of knots ( = compound knot ). I prefer the addition of tucks - provided that, if possible, we will not go over 2, in total...
The simplest affair would be to choose the least complicated knot that slipped least, so far, and just symmetrically re-tuck it.
Same type of thinking, just the other direction. We should end up somewhere middled. :)
I wonder what kind of creature can be caught by a hunter and/or a fisherman ! :) :)
-
This is addition of knots ( = compound knot ).
To me, most bends are compound knots (not all). Or composites of knots. (Dan, be nice.)
The simplest affair would be to choose the least complicated knot that slipped least, so far, and just symmetrically re-tuck it.
That remains to be seen with testing.
I wonder what kind of creature can be caught by a hunter and/or a fisherman ! :) :)
As long as the prey can offer sustenance..... :)
SS
-
tuck the 2 tails down through the knot ...
taking the tails through from top to bottom (or around and back up again).
Through which opening of the already tied simple knot ? When we are talking about re-tucked simple knots, we need to show pictures, or describe them accurately - there are many ways you can re-tuck an already convoluted tangle with many crossings, many openings through which you can drive the ex-tails.
Picture attached showing the loosely tied knot with the tails taken around and up from below the original knot.
-
Thank you, Sweeney.
I had once used to call this bend, along with some other similar ones, a "Reef-Ashley hybrid", because of the way the Tail ends act as pivots within the knot s mechanism, leaving the nub towards the same direction ( in a Thief-Zeppelin hybrid, they leave the nub towards opposite directions ). See :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2085.0
I believe this is a more systematic enumeration of all possible Zeppelin-like such bends ( 20, in total ) which I now call & bends, from the general shape of their links :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4445
Personally, I prefer the more symmetric / balanced Zeppelin-like ( and Hunter-like ) orientation of the Tail ends, from the Ashley-like ( and Alpine butterfly s -like ) one. ...
-
I have tested this latest knot in 7/64 Amsteel with a very fast pull, about 3 seconds I would estimate. It did not slip. I also tried to test it against a triple fisherman's but messed up so nothing broke. I think this is at about 1500 pounds, which would be a very strong knot but it could have been lower. It is hard for me to know because my setup is only A-B. If Estar isn't totally sick of bends, I will get some calibrated data at some point. Here is a write up of the knot http://l-36.com/bend_knot.php (http://l-36.com/bend_knot.php)
It is pretty easy to tie. Easier than the ones with the buntline hitch. I think having the constriction be a single loop rather than the two loops of the clove hitch is helpful. Being based on a hitch should give it the added strength. At least I hope so. This is probably the last knot we are going to test.
-
More test results. First, I am basing this knot on a suggestion by Xarax on the Serpent noose and the work of Estar, the Estar knot, and all the testing he has done. The knot starts by interlocking two Serpent nooses and then interlocking the tails by tucking them through the loop on the opposite knot. This is a nice knot because the Serpent is just a figure of eight stopper knot around the bright and everyone knows how to tie that.
I tested it on 7/64 Amsteel. All I can do it comparison tests, go no go tests so there are not numbers here. Numbers need to come from Estar if he has any Amsteel left :-) I did 3 tests.
1) the knot did not slip in a 3 second pull. That was a straight pull with the knot between two splices.
2) On a spliced line with two knots, one the last bend (the name I am using) and a triple fisherman's knot. The triple fisherman's knot slipped.
3) On a spliced line with two knots, one the last bend and the other back to back Estar hitches. The line broke at the Estar hitch.
I am done, this is the last bend I am testing. Thanks to this group for explaining that you need an understanding of what is going on. I developed theories that seem correct in that they led to this knot. Of course, with the guidance of Xarax and others on this site.
Two basic theories.
1) This line is so strong that the energy released by friction in snugging up most any knot will cause surface liquefaction and the knot will slip. To create a non-slipping knot, you need to grab the tail very hard and you need good holding power on the main part of the knot. These are two processes. The first part of the knot reduces the tension in the tail and the tail holds the knot so that when it starts to slip as it locks up, the tail holds, and the knot does not slip.
2) You want to use basically a double hitch structure so that the tension on the constrictor is half what it is in a linear knot like a fisherman's knot. We know from other work that this 1x radius bend of the line as it is doubled over its mating hitch does not hurt the strength of the knot. The reduction in strength is about 50% but the line is only half loaded there so it is just not a concern.
I await the efficiency numbers from Estar but either way this is the last bend I am investigating. It is as good a bend as I can think of for Amsteel.
Now, the question has come up what this might be used for. Some times we want small loops. Loops too small to get the 72 diameters needed for a splice. If this knot has an efficiency near 50% as I expect, then a loop can be made that is as strong as the line it is made of. This line is so strong that this is almost always just fine. If you need more strength go up a size. Afterall, you could make a loop out of 1/8 inch Amsteel that is 2500 pounds. Most things you would be holding down 1) want larger line just to make it easier to work with and 2) the thing being held would blow up first. But it is nice to have a knot that is strong and will not slip.
Allen
-
The average failure is at 39% of breaking strenght on a sample of 5. This is a vast improvement over the triple fisherman's bend. In the test, two slipped at 35% but held after a 30 second pause and went on to break at around the 39% number. The fisherman's slip as low as 25% by comparison.
The test was done on 3/16 line and the average break was at just over 2,000 pounds on a straight pull which means a knot between two eye splices.
Improving on what was (is) the industry standard has to be good enough. Thanks to everyone here for all the great ideas and coaching.
The failure was probably at the 180 degree bend and probably caused by the line compressing to less than 1 diameter. It would have to stay at 1 diameter to reach 50%.
-
Now that I am done with these bends I come back to questioning the first knot that I opened this thread with. I just did two tests. I tested the initial knot that I presented against the last knot. They both started to slip at the same point. That was the first time I had the last knot slip. I paused 30 seconds and pulled some more. Both held and the first knot won.
As the goal was ultimately to improve on the triple fisherman's knot I did a bake off on 7/64 Amsteel between the first knot and the triple fisherman's knot. No contest, the triple fisherman's knot slipped and the first knot did not.
I have come full circle. I like the knot I started with. It has these advantages: 1) You can look at it and see if it is tied correctly. 2) It is a better looking knot. and 3) It can be untied after being loaded up.
The disadvantage is that it slips at some unknown value when pulled really fast. But not as soon as the triple fisherman's knot.
Humm...
-
The average failure is at 39% of breaking strenght on a sample of 5. This is a vast improvement over the triple fisherman's bend. In the test, two slipped at 35% but held after a 30 second pause and went on to break at around the 39% number. The fisherman's slip as low as 25% by comparison.
The test was done on 3/16 line and the average break was at just over 2,000 pounds on a straight pull which means a knot between two eye splices.
Improving on what was (is) the industry standard has to be good enough. Thanks to everyone here for all the great ideas and coaching.
The failure was probably at the 180 degree bend and probably caused by the line compressing to less than 1 diameter. It would have to stay at 1 diameter to reach 50%.
Forgive me if I missed it, but did you ever try the extended stevedore bend (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2013.msg14229#msg14229) from the teflon floss thread?
(http://idiomdrottning.org/twistydore.png)
-
^^ I think so. I know I tested one dental floss knot.
I am going to repeat here that I am settling on where I started with the knot I submitted first. When is slips in tests, it slipped at about the same point that the new knot does if not higher. Test showed it slipping at 40%. My test show it slips less than a triple fisherman's. It can be untied and is stronger than the last knot if both knots are pulled slowly. What's not to like. So after dozens of tests, I am back where I started. I am also done testing. I found a knot significantly better in Dyneema than a triple fisherman's. Easy to tie, can be untied. Good enough.
Allen
-
Two prusiks, as I have offered is not in the realm of the unthinkable, nor are they so complicated that one can not inspect them easily.
No... but just COUNT the number of tucks and/or spins ! :)
When you go over 2, you return to your drawing board - until all really easy-to-tie
AND simple topologically and/or geometrically knots are exhausted.
The testers should be exhausted before any of this is
done; and we shouldn't be so stupid as to just toss
out another & another-like-it-but-different knot tangle
on hopes that by some magic it might work (although
it brings nothing, structure-wise, new to the test bed).
And we do want to have a knot that doesn't require
copious amounts of rope!
Re-tucked zeppelin? They've already done #1408
(roughly) and #1452, which slipped without hinting at some
promise if only ... <slight revision>. To these, though,
what I wonder about is the variation in which such
interlocked-overhands knots made the U-turn a turNip
--i.e., turn 360 degrees and collar thus the opposing
S.Part. For there is some hint at least that the turNip
has some grip that can be enhanced by repetition.
(Recall that the in the Brion Toss videos one sees the
double bowline slipping, and a not-quite mirrored bowline
holding to rupture.) I'd hoped that the cooperative
surround-&-nip-the-tails #14xx structures would get
sufficient nip esp. with the 2nd tuck; but maybe it's
the quick transfer of force that moves the 1st tuck
and thus quickly simultaneously is moving the 2nd
as well --no pause of stretching yield (and the movements
go in same direction, adjacent). !? <argh>
Roo has urged that offset fig.10, "stevedore" knot;
I wouldn't expect this to be at all strong enough for use
(breaking before some others slip?!), but the particular
nipping structure is something I'm trying to incorporate
into some other structure (such as the blood knot)
--and keep running into the makes-bulky/awkward problem.
--i.e., a sharp U-turn that nips the tail(s) enough to give
resistance that then enables the rest of the knot to
be tightened further.
HMPE is so slick but also so static that force gets
transferred/conveyed throughout the knot such that
it is frustrating the binding. Contrast this with tying
the highly elastic physical-therapy tubing, where one
would need to deliberately haul hard on parts, and
possibly try to lubricate the material, even, so as
to deliver some setting force, tightening into the
full knot!
Then, again, I wonder if even should it suffice to hold,
would the blood knot with tails knotted jointly into
an overhand stopper prove to give too much movement
on in-practice loading on further tightening such that
heat then dealt a lethal blow? But this is not a trim knot;
just maybe one that can do the work, in a pinch.
(NB: the blood knot can be tied so that the tails
exit together, same direction (what I have in mind for
the stoppering of the tails), or in opposite directions
(which I've seen done even though it amounted to
an asymmetric knot --a half-turn difference between
halves-- in some commercial fishing joining of heavy
(3mm?) monofilament nylon line.
--dl*
====
-
btw, here is my writeup. http://l-36.com/no_slip_knot.php (http://l-36.com/no_slip_knot.php). Done, out of line, ready to move on. I am sticking with the knot I started with. Better than the triple fisherman's and can be untied. I think that is a good thing. Many of these retucked knots, including the somewhat stronger variation I show on this page, cannot be untied.
In terms of the Brion Toss video. Rate of pull has everything to do with determining if these knots slip. That knot slips if pulled quickly. That pull was slow. My modified water bowline does not slip even if pulled quickly. Knots did not slip for me and slipped for Estar. Testing is very subjective. What is the goal. My goal was a knot better than the triple fisherman's, easier to tie, and can be untied. Achieved goal, time to move on.
Allen
-
HMPE is so slick but also so static that force gets transferred/conveyed throughout the knot such that it is frustrating the binding. Contrast this with tying the highly elastic physical-therapy tubing, where one would need to deliberately haul hard on parts...so as to deliver some setting force, tightening into the full knot!
+1 ( :) )
-
Retucked Zeppelin against my first knot with variation. I used that because the Zeppelin double tucked would not be a knot you could untie so I wanted to compare like knots. The zeppelin slipped.
OK, that was too easy. So I did a loop with my first knot, the one that can be untied, and the double tucked Zeppelin. the Zeppelin came undone and my first knot held.
It is unreasonable to test 80 knots when all the similar knots are not even close to strong enough.
Allen
-
you claim that it slip less and/or it is stronger... Why
Because I tested it :-)
I do not believe that you can just add twists and tucks and create a knot that will not slip in Amsteel or your extended figure of eight would not slip. That said, even the knot I presented slips if you pull it fast enough. It just slips less.
We have a knot that does not slip in Amsteel that has been used for a long time and had very high loads put on it called a diamond knot. My knot is a bend version of that knot. That is why I started with it. A diamond knot starts out life as a carrick bend and gets two tucks. It doesn't work as a bend very well so I moved the tucks until I got a nice looking bend.
So what is the goal here? It is not to test all possible combinations of two strings or even the known universe of bends.
Let's start this way. I have proposed two knots. One can be untied and one cannot. One is slightly stronger than the other. They are both stronger than the industry standard triple fisherman's knot which cannot be untied.
If you can propose a knot that is stronger and simpler than the knot I presented, I will test it. THEN you can propose a simpler one that might be stronger and I will test that as well. I am tired of testing weak knots. Propose your strongest knot that is simpler than the one I proposed. Your move.
Allen
-
I decided to try your two knots but I cannot figure out how to tie them. I spent some time trying and colored one of the lines to help. I googled the "Oyster Bend Knot" and found a link titled "how do you tie an Oyster bend. It referred to Abok 1427, which was no help. If you assert that these are simpler knots, you are going to have to show how to tie them. If they are harder to tie, they are not simpler.
Allen
-
Sir Xarax, it's well nigh high time for you to step up to the plate and begin testing these knots with the material in question. Allen has been doing so. What's your reason for not doing so yourself? Being the author of many suggestions proffered here, I think you're a most suitable candidate.
-
I found these pictures when I google the knot. But I could not tie it. As an example of instructions on how to tie a knot, let me show you what I posted for the knot I presented.
http://l-36.com/no_slip_knot.php (http://l-36.com/no_slip_knot.php)
That is a step by step tutorial of how to tie the knot. Contrast that with your ability to tie it given just the picture below. And this picture is more open and I would say easier to follow than the pictures you posted. I have some difficulty following which strand goes over some of the hidden strands. I have to look at both the front and back to figure that out and as I can only keep three things in my mind at one time I get lost. I ranked at in the top percentile group in tests on 3-d reasoning so I can imagine that I am not the only person who would have a hard time.
(http://l-36.com/image/no_slip_knot_IMG_8390.jpg)
-
Sir Xarax
A "free" man, but not a Sir ( or a Lord, or a Von, or a De, etc...) ! :)
What's your reason for not doing so yourself ?
The most basic one : I can not ! :) I was not born to be an experimentalist... Perhaps having an idea of the talent this job requires, and the long, hard, lonely work which, most often, is not even conclusive, makes be reluctant to attempt it...You know, people can not do much different / dis"similar" things - do you know a car designer who was also a car driver ? An artist who was also a scientist ? Unfortunately, there were never many people like Fermi ( for example ( ? ? ) ).
-
Allen, those are fine pictures, for KnotGod s sake ! Beautiful, clear pictures, that show the tying of this knot in a step-by-step, unambiguous way ! I would be happy if I was able to tie such knots, and test them, and take such pictures, at the very start of my knot tying pass-time !
P.S. Two more old pictures of the Oyster bend. I do not have anything else in my files - if you wish, I can take new, decent pictures, but I have to wait the sun - which now is on your neck of the woods !
-
In terms of the Brion Toss video. Rate of pull has everything to do with determining if these knots slip. That knot slips if pulled quickly. That pull was slow.
Allene, do you recall what slipped --was it the
un-stoppered tail (making the usual single tuck
as for the water bowline), or the amazing eye-collapsing
flow-through of material seen in his dbl.bowline test?
For the former case, the mirrored bowline has the additional
tail tuck. (Although I think you might've said that you tried
this one, as well. Brion did NOT (at least not in that video).
Btw, I was happy to see either you or EStar remark over
in the SailingAnarchy thread that the stated allowable
range of rates of pull per some standard was HUGE
--and it has been put forward in the thread as though
it would resolve differences of results, egadz!
Do you have a known rate that we can keep track
of for reference? (I don't think exact readings are
so important as a ballpark, roughly <this rate> vs.
<that rate> idea of what small/large differences of
rate show in results. And as for rockclimbing loading,
you're surely well slower than what they'd experience.)
--dl*
====
-
See the attached pictures, and, please, be a little patient. Our brain has not evolved to grasp 3D shapes, especially when we see only 2D projection of them !
Speaking for yourself, I'll accept this --"+1" :P
But IMO the knot shown is riduculous to proprose
at this time of results shown by EStar & Allene --there
is way to clearly an easy slippage path for the well-rounded
turns and oblique tucks of this knot : I wouldn't expect it
to come close to holding.
THIS much analysis we should do before wasting away
one more precious bit of time, effort, & material. Stop
and take stock of what has, what hasn't slipped (and
how!). Re "how", we might be chary in some cases of
whether inaccurate tying allowed some transformation
of form --capsizing, such as can happen in normal materials
with the venerable bowline apparently (see the many
images of this in Knots in the Wild thread), or some
straightening of a part expected to by its curvature achieve
some effect.
Btw, Allene & EStar, on the slipped knots, are you seeing
any evidence of the material melting?
--dl*
====
-
One factor which should be considered, and which may be critical, indeed, is the force with which we pull the Tail ends during the set-up and the dressing of a knot - because any practical knot will be disentangled, if it will be tensioned when it is still just a very loose arrangement of lines in space, ...
I don't think in this case there is much lattitude for
transformation, though I remarked about it above.
But angling knots designed for the then-new, slippery
nylon monofilament are often given with prescribed
setting that not only loads various ends but does so
frequently at relatively high loads!
HMPE takes such high loads as to preclude this.
--dl*
====
-
In terms of what slips. On the latest pulls I have done the knot doesn't so much slip as explode. I have taken to taping them to the test line so that I don't have to search all over for the test sample. On the ones that did slip, that didn't explode, they just pulled apart as I cranked on the winch. They did not capsize. But these were the stronger knots, like my first knot against the variation, or against the last knot. I can't really say for sure which ones explodes and which slipped but the last one I remember testing was my knot against a triple fisherman's and the fisherman's exploded. By that I mean that it seemed to break but then looking at the remains, it has slipped. By the way, I don't think there is an uglier knot than the last knot I did. And the first knot with variation stips at a higher load than the last knot broke at. So not slipping is not the total end all.
Allen
-
Allen, those are fine pictures, for KnotGod s sake ! Beautiful, clear pictures, that show the tying of this knot in a step-by-step, unambiguous way ! I would be happy if I was able to tie such knots, and test them, and take such pictures, at the very start of my knot tying pass-time !
P.S. Two more old pictures of the Oyster bend. I do not have anything else in my files - if you wish, I can take new, decent pictures, but I have to wait the sun - which now is on your neck of the woods !
There are only two steps in your step by step pictures. Step one: tie the knot. Step two: tighten it up. Did you see the nine steps I posted for tying my first knot? That is what I call step by step. Does that make it more clear what I am trying to say?
Allen
-
Again, I will test your knot if you show me how to tie it. Here is one thing that came up in my search for the Oyster Knot. It is not your knot but it is a good example of what instructions on tying a knot look like http://www.animatedknots.com/ashleystopper/index.php?LogoImage=LogoGrog.. (http://www.animatedknots.com/ashleystopper/index.php?LogoImage=LogoGrog..)
-
^^ I understand what you are saying. Therefore, I am not testing that knot.
Cheers,
Allen
-
^^ I just want you to understand that the reason I am not testing the knot is that I could not figure out how to tie it. I cannot test it if I cannot tie it. I am not being stubborn.
Allen
-
OK. Here is the Ashley s method. ( I can not show the picture of p.125 of Miles for the B5, because his book is only 20 years old ! ) :)
One can try it with any number of turns he wishes - as long as they are three ! ( The simpler ABoK#776 / B4 = 2-fold / 2 strand Matthew Walker knot is a very unstable knot...)
-
Sorry, not good enough. I tried. Three turns and tied what I thought I was seeing and what I got looks nothing like the Oyster Bend. It doesn't even look like a bend.
Allen
-
More pictures of the 88 bend, to see how the strands are interweaved within the nub.
The good thing with the pictures is that they offer the impression of a 3D "object", which the tying diagrams do not.
-
Let's stick to your best shot and not switch knots. I don't think the picture is correct. Please clarify.
(http://l-36.com/knots_2/knot3.jpg)
-
Bingo ! You have spotted the mistake at a glance ! That proves my conjecture that symmetric bends are always easier to inspect ! I wish I would be able to see DL s bicycling in 8-shaped rims of wheels right now ! :)
Follow the other pictures - never tie asymmetric bends, at least when you are not asleep ! :)
( Of course, it is not "my best shot" :). There is no silver bullet in the KnotLand ! Personally, I have tried to tie possible replacements of the triple Fisherman s knot only once, in the thread you have read, with the retraced convoluted stoppers. I remember that the one I thought it was more balanced was the retraced fig.9 bend. All the bends I show to you in this thread have been tied and tried for and on climbing ropes - I just pick the ones which I believe they can offer us some valuable information about the behaviour of this peculiar material...)
-
"Other" is such an all inclusive word. The other picture I am looking at seems to have the same characteristic. I think this this is a good demonstration of the need for some instructions. But barring that, which is correct, under both or between?
-
The other picture I am looking at seems to have the same characteristic.
No, no other picture has the same characteristic. The Standing Parts do not go in between the bights of the "8' shaped links, in any of them. That is why the Tail ends end up at this angle, in relation to the Standing ends.
Here is the correct picture for this bend. When it is 6.30 in the morning, without sleep, you can show asymmetric bends !
-
I tied this knot http://l-36.com/oyster_bend.php (http://l-36.com/oyster_bend.php) and pulled it against the variation of my knot shown here http://l-36.com/no_slip_knot.php (http://l-36.com/no_slip_knot.php). In Lash It, neither knot slipped. The Oyster Bend broke first. I am unable to gain more data than that. I do not find it simpler to tie but that may be because I am familiar with tying carrick bends. Finally we got one that did not slip and it was fairly strong.
As I said to Estar, I cannot tell if knots do not slip. I can only tell if they slip. There are knots such as the ones I submitted, that do not slip in Lash It but do slip in larger line.
Allen
-
You "First" bend is nothing but a symmetrically ( = good ! ) re-tucked through the central opening ( = not so good, I am afraid...) Carrick bend. It is a very unstable, regarding its dressing, knot, which, although symmetric, is difficult to remain in a symmetric form while it is tensioned all the way - but I am talking only about the knot been tied on ordinary materials. Anyway, not an interesting knot - it should have been tied many times, but, evidently, it did nt survive the test of time.
Your "variation" / "Last" bend ( I hope that it will not remain so... :)), is an asymmetric variation of the side-by-side Pretzel bends I had shown to you many times. If this holds, a more symmetric variation will probably hold as well - and it will probably be stronger, too, because the distribution of forces within the knot s nub would be more even, and the loads will be spread over larger areas.
Mr. Find has unearthed that quotation, which proves that an experienced knot tyer never speaks about re-tucking a Carrick mat through the central opening this way :
I find it beneficial to re-tuck the tails through the interlocked SPart turns to obtain the interlocked-overhands knot Ashley's bend #1408 ! (Or to re-tuck them and get Harry Asher's "shakehands bend" (cf. #1031).
With variations on this theme, one can discover the superior Ashely's bend #1452 & #1453 as well.
And if one is fortunate enough to seek such benefits with the inferior version of the carrick bend, one will be rewarded with the superior Ashley's #1452!
If you wish to see all the possible single re-tuckings of a particular Carrick mat, pay a visit at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18601#msg18601
Re-tucking through the central opening ( C stands for central ) so we get a stable, re. its dressed forms, knot, is shown at the attached pictures and at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18725#msg18725
-
Why does the Twedledee bend slips "easily", while the 88 bend does not ? I believe that this is due to the fact that the oblique elements of the two 8-shaped links meet each other at an almost right angle, so the surface of the one bites hard and deep into the body of the other - a condition that deforms the two lines, and prevents their mutual lengthwise displacement more effectively than the increase of the pressure they are hold together. So, just constricting two lines is a less efficient mechanism than preventing them to slide on each other, by paying attention to the angle they follow as they reach to their contact point.
-
You "First" bend is nothing but a symmetrically ( = good ! ) re-tucked through the central opening ( = not so good, I am afraid...) Carrick bend.
No it isn't. I started trying that but it had all the bad qualities you innumerate. The first bend is a very stable bend, look more carefully.
Allen
-
Yes, I will, because after last night, I do not see very well... :)
It is the bend that starts from this stage ( shown at the attached picture), is nt it ?
Perhaps I should had written "alternative" Carrick bend ( ABoK#1428, M. A5), to distinguish It from the "classic" Carrick bend ( ABoK#1439, #1551, M. A6 ) you are familiar with.
-
Yes, that is it. A carrice bend can be seen here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Knife-lanyard-knot-ABOK-787-Carrick-start.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Knife-lanyard-knot-ABOK-787-Carrick-start.jpg) and as you can see the tails go in opposite directions and on the first knot, they go in the same direction. That makes the knot, after the tucks, act completely differently. It has none of the bad properties you mentioned. I believe you are talking about a tucked carrick bend. This is a different knot. I have never taken pains to dress it properly and it always forms itself into its proper shape. I just tied one in StaSet and no problem.
A carrick bend tucked has both tails going out the same side of the knot and the pull as a bend is not good. The standing end goes into the knot and immediately takes a sharp bend. On the first knot, the standing ends go in and are constrained by three loops which they pass through before turning around the third of the loops. As you know, having the entry line constrained by multiple loops before making a sharp turn is a good thing. On top of it not making a turn until it passes the third loop, the bend is not tight but rather goes around a bundle of three diameters.
Then on top if it being stronger than a triple fisherman's knot, it can be untied.
But I get it you don't value those qualities.
Allen
-
A Carrick bend can be seen here...
Beautiful picture ! :)
As you know, having the entry line constrained by multiple loops before making a sharp turn is a good thing.
It would be a good thing, if it could be constrained=nipped by "multiple loops"= nipping turns - but it can not. The continuations of the Standing ends which still carry the 100% of the loading, can only be forced to have some deflexions from a straight path, before they enter into a constricting = nipping loop. The good thing for the Standing part is first to make the sharp turn, and then only, at the second line of defence against slippage, to be constrained=nipped into/by multiple nipping loops. Any premature constriction of the Standing part before a sharp turn = a collar, is only a waste of the knot s constricting / nipping ability.
However, this is a subtle issue that should not be discussed at this point. If the bend holds, and if it is strong, we will see why...
-
I feel like I cannot make my points, which has a tendency to piss me off. I apologize for the sentence you ignored, which should have been deleted so consider it an error.
I see Ashley calls both variations Carrick bends. I have tied it both ways and it is obviously more secure the normal way. However, when tucked, it is more secure and much better behaved the way I tie it. The end knots have no resemblance to each other when tucked. My first bend has no resemblance to a Carrick bend when tightened up. It is a completely different animal.
I tied it just now with StaSet and I do not see how it would be possible for it to cinch up in other than the proper way. The carrick bend tucked looked like it could form up any which way, it is an ugly knot.
Have you tied my first bend and looked at it?
-
... it is obviously more secure the normal way. However, when tucked, it is more secure and much better behaved the [ alternative way ]
So, you say that the re-tucked-through-the central-opening ABoK#1428 / "alternative" Carrick bend is more secure ( = slips less ) than the re-tucked "Classic" Carrick bend - when tied on Dyneema lines of this size.
This may well be your most important contribution on this subject.
I hope you will test this on different sizes, and you will measure the maximum loads re. slippage and strength.
I have tied all the re-tucked-through-the-central-opening Carrick mats - and I consider that the bends generated by the re-tucking of the particular Carrick mat-like "base" shown at (1) belong in this class. However, I did nt like the fact that all the generated knots should be dressed very carefully, in order to not become "ugly knots", as you say. They do not seem to be self-dressing to me, not at all ! I have not noticed any difference between the Classick and the Alternative Carrick bend - but you should realize that I had tied them on stiff climbing ropes, which are not even close to be as slippery as a Dyneema line. Tied on such ropes, it is very difficult even to "clinch" to a compact knot - too much friction... So, your observation is very interesting - indeed, important news to me !
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18601#msg18601
-
I tied them on double yacht braid.
-
I might add. The tucked carrick bend not only is ugly but the two standing ends are not collinear, which bothered me. On the first bend, they are collinear. I think that might help them to dress themselves correctly. I will try it on heavy line later and report.
-
I must say when I tried the carrick bend ABoK #1428, tucking the tails through the centre and pulling on the standing parts did set the knot inevitably into the form shown. A bit of a lump but function takes precedence over appearance in a case like this I think. I tried the bend in:
550 paracord
1 mm polyester
10.5 mm semi-static climbing rope and in
plastic coated washing line (a tube of plastic with a polypropylene (?) core)
the result in each case was the same in that the bend drew up into its final form by pulling on the standing parts. Because I have no HMPE I cannot comment on the bend in this material BUT I tried the washing line because although it is not actually very slippery (unless wet) it is very springy and a large number of bends simply come apart unless kept under constant tension. Normally I would use a double fisherman's pulled tight but this new bend is a possible alternative and although it may weaken already pretty feeble line too much, a bend is normally only used as a short term fix when a line breaks. I also managed to undo it (just about impossible with a double fisherman's) so whilst it's not a bend for everyday use I'll keep a note of it on a just in case basis.
Barry
-
I tried it on both 1/4 accessory cord and 50 year old 1/2 inch yacht braid. I always get the same knot but I do see that if you pull the knot tight from the tails instead of from the standing ends, you get a completely different knot. It looks more like a ball of tangles than the knot I like. So it is important how you dress it and you have a good point. But the way I tie it, it is stable. The other way, I don't really know, but it does not look stable.
Allen
-
That is the form I get with only a moderate ( 1 kg ) pull of the Tail ends... :) . A side-by-side Pretzel-to-Pretzel bend -
no relation whatsoever with what you show...
Edit : Wrong ! It is the very same knot - I had just not submitted it to an adequate loading, re. the stiffness and the thickness of the rope, which would elongate it a little more, and it would make it look less "flattened". I am now convinced that this is the only stable form of this knot, so we do not have to worry about any dressing instability.
-
That isn't the knot.
When you get the general knot formed and everything tucked, insure that you dress things so that the standing ends go into the know straight past three loops but with the tail loops snug. Then pull on the standing ends. I will add this to my instructions. Try it.
Allen
-
Allan, Thanks for your effort in forums and your promotion of Anarchism. Will You consider these two bends. I would like to test if the continued bend is more secure than the bend not continued.
-
You did not tie my knot. Try again. My instructions clearly said if it doesn't look like the picture, start over. Look, you gave me knots to tie that were almost impossible to follow with the instructions given. I give you reasonably clear step by step instructions, others can tie it successfully in multiple type of line. The knot is stable in the form shown. Maybe there is a better way to instruct to tie it but I think it is clear what it should look like and a smart knot guy like yourself should be able to tie it.
-
Allan, Thanks for your effort in forums and your promotion of Anarchism. Will You consider these two bends. I would like to test if the continued bend is more secure than the bend not continued.
I tied both knots in a loop in Lash-it. Both knots slipped at the same time and the one with the shorter tail let loose first. Hope this is what you wanted to know.
-
Luca had tied the BadBrother. ( See the attached picture, and a one-tuck-less version of it, at (1)). A nice Zeppelin-like bend ! :)
Another "similar" bend is the Oval bend (2).
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4662.msg30153#msg30153
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3741.0
-
I tied several ball versions starting with the same basic lose configuration so I understand what you are saying. What I am saying it that none of those forms are correct for what I intend the knot to look like. There are many knots, I am sure, that have this issue although the only one I can think of is the luggage tag knot, you call it something that escapes me. That can be tied around another line and then you can change it to a figure of eight. Still an accepted knot. What I am saying is that this knot can be tied and done so repeatably. You can also tie it and make it come out wrong if you pull on the tails past the point of just sungging them up.
What I am saying is that my knot looks like the picture presented. If it looks like something else, it is not the same knot, it is something else. You might notice that Ashley said the Carrick bend has a different name when tied a different way (Josephine). All I am saying is the diamond knot looking arrangement you get if you tighten the knot from the tails is a different knot. It might be stable, perhaps a better arrangement, don't know, but it is different.
BTW. Your Oval bend slips when compared to my first bend. You should test them first. :-)
-
Ashley said the Carrick bend has a different name when tied a different way (Josephine).
You are right, but you use the wrong arguments and examples ! :) Ashley does KNOT say this... :) When you tie, or even read about knots, you should be a little more careful... Read again what Ashley does say, and you will understand you cut too many corners...
So yes, my opinion is that even two topologically identical knot can be different from each other, if they "lock" in a different geometrical form. Curiously, I was not able to persuade Miles about this... :). I believe that the fact that topology is a more basic property of shapes than geometry, and that Knot theory is a discipline of Topology, made him reluctant to accept this - and to miss the "bistable" knots. In an ideal world, with no deformation of the cross section and no friction, tensioned knots will settle in one, and one only, final form, where the rope length will be minimized. Just because of this, mathematical and ideal knots can only exist in "closed" forms, without ends.
As I tie this knot more times, I begin to like it more ! It is very convoluted, for my taste, but if this is the price to pay to Dyneema, let it be ! However, personally I need to know how all the known simple bends behave when tied on this material, before I will accept the need for a tuck-tuck-tuck knot...And I will have to tie and try the other "decorative" maximally interweaved fig.8-to-fig-8 and Pretzel-to-Pretzel knots, to see how they fold when tied on so slippery a material...
-
I am pleased you are beginning to warm up to my knot. I will point out that if you want to know how all the known knots do in this material you are going to have to get a test setup.
You have presented may knots that I have tested. All but one of them slipped far before mine. The one that didn't slip, broke before the first bend. And I would argue it was more complicated and certainly more difficult for me to tie, although perhaps that is from practice on my knot. Although you think my knot is twist and tuck, or whatever you said, it is very easy to tie.
To undo it, you stick a marlin spike through the center and then pull the tails out (remove spike first). The marline spike is particularly easy to stick through the knot there because there is a natural indent. Mostly when putting a spike through a knot, it is very difficult and you risk sticking it through your hand. Not on this knot, it is easy.
-
I tested two versions of the tucked reverse Carrick bend. One my first bend and the other a ball of twists formed by pulling hard on the tails. The first thing I noticed was that the ball of twists capsized into another form so I am not sure what it is. Then in testing, it slipped well before the first bend would have. Conclusion, tying it wrong is not a good idea.
-
The great advantage of this bent ( except from the fact that it is symmetric, as it should be...), is that, although it needs 3 tucks, it is very easy to remember and to tie. Also, the fact that the not-yet-retucked knot is an alternative Carrick bend, with whch every sailor is familiar, makes its tying method even more convenient.
If it will be proved that it does the same job, re. slippage and strength, with the triple fisherman s knot, it would revolutionize the tying of knots on Dyneema ! And if it will be proved that no simpler knot can do the same job ( which I still think it is very premature to claim...), the name of this bend will be written with gold letters ! :) I would t even think of tying a triple fisherman's knot instead of this, in applications where the wide spread tails / "ears" do not pose any problem.
Even if it remains somehow "flat", as in the picture I had it shown in a previous post, it would not slip more easily than if it becomes more elongated. We should not forget that the Carrick bend is an already retucked knot - while the Zeppelin bend, or the Double harness bend, for example, are tied with one only tuck. So, the retucked forms of all the Carrick bends are quite complex knots, and do not slip easily.
If Allen proves that the retucked "Classic" Carrick is much inferior to the retucked "alternative" one, as it seems he did, that would be very important - even if the knot itself will not be established.
We should wait for more detailed tests, on bigger lines. I would like to see numbers for the 1/8" and the 1/4", and comparative tests of this bend and of the current industry benchmark, the triple fisherman s knot.
Anyway, I am glad we can use this bend, too, as a benchmark, to continue searching for secure bends tied on this material, which nowadays has many applications.
As it happened with many bends where the working ends are retucked through the central opening, the Tails can cross each other in two different ways. I prefer the form of the knot shown in the attached pictures, where the two large rims remain in contact along a longer arc, because the Tails do not pass in between them. However, those pictures are pictures of a bend tied on ordinary material, and only moderately tensioned - tied on Dyneema, the image of a loaded knot may well be slightly different - however, I do not believe that it will deviate much from the basic contour lines it already shows.
-
Pictures of a simpler but somehow similar bend - because we had enough of all those complex bends that had filled the thread without any reason ! :)
It is the Snug bend ( M. B11 ), which can also be seen as a modification of the falsely tied Hunter s bend :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19167#msg19167
If the Snug bend is a good-looking bend - and I believe it is, indeed -, I do not see why the retucked alt. Carrick bend of Allen will be not ! :)
-
^^ Your photos of the First Bend, the one that opened this thread, look exactly like it always does when I tie it. If find this classic shape easy to inspect so I can tell if it was done correctly. I think I only did it wrong once and it was easy to spot. The four parallel strands on one side, two full in the center and one half on each end along with the crossed strands on the back side are what I always see. Nice job and great pictures.
The issues with the knot is that it can slip but it can also lock up. It depends, I think, on how fast you pull it. The numbers for slip were 35% on this and 40% on the variation where the tails come out parallel the the standing ends. The knot looks the same by the way, when tied with the variation but it cannot be untied like the standard. When pulled slowly, it was stronger but I would have to go back into the other thread to find the numbers.
Allen
-
I do not understand why on Earth had you referred to a tying method of the asymmetric knot - when you were tying the symmetric ? ! ?
All this time I was thinking and talking about the knot shown at :
http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/modified%20Carrick.pdf
as you told us, at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30712#msg30712
It seems we had consumed many bits and bytes without any reason...
Anyway, the symmetric knot is nice, indeed - and if it is adequately loaded, it does not retain this "flat" initial form it had in my first picture of the it, and it becomes much more elongated, and sleek. My problem is that, by using stiff and thick climbing ropes, and because I can not load them enough, for their size, I also can not force a complex knot s nub to shrink as much as I would had liked. Usually, in the case of simpler bends, even a knot that is lightly loaded, relatively to its size, takes a more or less compact form, which does not differ so much from the form of a more heavily loaded one. However, the friction forces generated inside this convoluted retucked Carrick are so great that, if the loading is not enough, the knot can remain "flat" for ever ! :)
-
oops. I did not catch that Estar had it wrong. Makes me wonder if that is why it slipped for him and not for me. Throws into doubt the data as well. I wish I had a calibrated setup...
Allen
-
^^ Could it be that the same properties of the knot that make it hard to load are what is making it not slip in Amsteel?
By the way, that picture clarifies why I was having so much trouble getting my point across. If you tie it like that, it does not have the nice properties I kept asserting. I feel really bad about missing that. I sent a note to Estar to see if that was the latest drawing and expect to hear tomorrow.
Allen
-
Could it be that the same properties of the knot that make it hard to load are what is making it not slip in Amsteel ?
Of course. ( On an ordinary material and under a moderate loading ) the fact that the tension induced from the Standing ends is already absorbed 100% before it reaches the Tail ends, proves that the friction forces within the nub are so great that the knot "locks" before it "folds", so it can remain "flat" and not become as compact and streamlined as we wish. On Dyneema and/or under heavy loading, it will fold before it will lock - but one has to tie it on Dyneema to see this, and I, for one, have not ! :)
-
Here is a video of the knot being made in double braid accessory cord. This should clear up a lot about the knokt.
http://youtu.be/o82mmdoIrvY
-
Estar will be retesting using the correct knot this weekend. We should be getting some better numbers. I ran a test of the version on the pdf against my first bend and the correct way produces a much stronger knot as would be expected. I hope you enjoy the video and will be interested in your comments.
Allen
-
Hello Allen.
Thank you for the video. It made it very clear.
I am supposing that prior to use/testing you would pull the tails to further condense the bend and eliminate movement.
Looking forward to the update from Estar.
SS
-
^^ In Dyneema, the knot tightens itself up so I have never done more than what I show in the video. The variation of the knot, with the tails going out parallel to the standing ends, can be tightened up and will not slip if you do so. The main version, the one you can untie and is simpler to tie, you want the tails snug but it is not clear to me that pulling them actually tightens the knot.
Allen
-
We have some data. The first bend slipped at 32% of line strength. The variation, with the tails coming out parallel to the standing ends, did not slip and broke at 39% so it is about 20% stronger. By comparison, the triple fisherman's knot slipped at about 25% of line strength. Amsteel and other Dyneema is considered a line that you cannot tie knots in so I am pleased with both these results. I created a video for making the variation. For making a shot loop, the variation might be a better candidate as you would not want to untie it, the added strength is a plus, and having the tails come out parallel to the standing ends is nice.
Another way to get a knot that will not slip is to use the first bend without the variation and pull it until it slips, then wait an hour or so and it will not slip when pulled again.
http://youtu.be/i8DTAw7dwV0
-
There are two remarkable things here, for knots tied on pure Dyneema :
1. The retucked-through-the-centre alternative Carrick bend ( ABoK#1428 / M. A5 ) slip less than the similiraly retucked classic Carrick bend ( ABoK#1439, M. A6 ).
2. The retucked-through-the-centre alternative Carrick bend ( ABoK#1428 / M. A5 ) slip less than the triple fisherman s knot.
So, the main question is : How much ?. And the secondary question is : What is the MBS of the knotted line in each case ?
I would like to see more data from more tests on those three knots, to get a more clear image. Oftentimes, more is more :)
-
(http://l-36.com/1429.png)
I see no resemblance to either of my knots to 1429.
-
I prefer to call it my first bend. I do not think this bend was anticipated by Ashley and it has no similarity to a Carrick bend when tied. The Carrick bend is just an intermediate step in the tying of the knot.
(http://l-36.com/image/no_slip_knot_IMG_8459.jpg)
(http://www.sailingcourse.com/videos/images/carrick-tight.jpg)
-
It has no similarity to a Carrick bend when tied.
Is a not-capsized Carrick mat a Carrick bend ? Does the Carrick bend, especially when it is tied on big ropes, as it often happens, capsize always ? The first seems only a matter of nomenclature, and nomenclature is not exactly the point where knot tyers agree most...I do not know the answer to the second question.
-
Does the Carrick bend, especially when it is tied on big ropes,]
as it often happens, capsize always ? ...
I do not know the answer to the [] question.
Do you know that it "often happens" --and if so,
how do you not know the answer ... ?!
Except in knots books, I've not seen any such
joining of big ropes --one way or another.
I've read that sometimes the lattice form of
the knot is made with tails seized to S.Parts so
to keep it open and easily untied (after cutting
the seizings); but I do not know whether this
knots-book assertion has any basis in fact, or
in any recent fact! (And I have trouble seeing
how the *knot* part is much needed, as the
seizings should be doing all of the work! Brion
Toss & I had some back'n'forth over this, and
other aspects of seizings.)
--dl*
====
-
Pictures of a simpler but somehow similar bend - because we had enough of all those complex bends that had filled the thread without any reason ! :)
It is the Snug bend ( M. B11 ), which can also be seen as a modification of the falsely tied Hunter s bend :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19167#msg19167
If the Snug bend is a good-looking bend - and I believe it is, indeed -, I do not see why the retucked alt. Carrick bend of Allen will be not ! :)
I have been playing around with the Snug bend lately, and the more I do, the more I like it. It seems a very under appreciated bend, simple, elegant, and secure. Flat on one side, with tails coming out as a pair from the top of the bend (as opposed to from the opposite sides), and it is thin (axially), all together which mean it can slip through many narrow crevice type spaces. Also not that hard to undo, just grab the tails and tug a few times in opposite directions should loosen it enough to pull apart with modest effort.
In particular I have been investigating different extra tucks, like these, which could make it suitable for secure bends in Dyneema:
-
Third tuck version:
-
Fourth tuck version:
-
Do you know that it "often happens" ?
Except in knots books, I've not seen...
I do not say what "happens" only for things that I have actually seen with my own eyes ! I say that there was a man on the moon, but I have not seen this event myself ! :) I say that there is a Dan Lehman who knows how to ride a bicycle, but I have not seen this - and I do not doubt that a bicycle, yes, he does know to ride... :)
However, I think that I have even seen pictures of such arrangements, entangled on marine and wire ropes- in books about boating / sailing. Now, sailors should not be trusted more than knot tyers, of course, but I do not see the motive that could lead to a fake picture. I hope you will search about this a little more - in books, I mean, not in the wild, riding your bicycle (1). :)
1. http://weburbanist.com/2009/03/03/futuristic-strange-concept-bicycles-designs/
-
Beautiful complex symmetric bends ! - as it should perhaps be expected, for symmetric retuckings of beautiful simpler bends.
Nobody has ever tied any of them, I believe - because nobody had ever searched for so convoluted bends - we used to think that the simpler bends were already too many, even for the experienced knot tyer s mind, and convoluted more than enough for the job, so any further retucking of them could offer very little, and it would not worth the trouble - and the added material. Now with the Dyneema revolution, we are back to the square one - or , for that matter, to the square zero, as shown with a picture at the previous post.
However, I am not yet convinced that all the simpler bends we already know are inadequately convoluted - nobody has ever tied and tested more than a handful of the 60 bends presented at Miles, for example, and Miles book is 20 years old... People seem to be ready to jump into conclusions and make general statement, indeed, they almost feel compelled to do so, especially regarding knots that have tied, but they do not feel obliged to see what other knot tyers have already tied before them. That is often a good thing, because it offers them the power of a fresh look, but I believe that, at this stage, we need more tests, not more ties. Of course, people that can not test, tie, and people that can not tie, only talk about knots - I know this because I have actually seen this, with my own eyes, in my case ! :)
To my eyes, the tuck B style looks more promising - as I have also tried to explain (1)(2), a few sharp turns and/or right angle crossings can do a better job then many constricting=nipping round turns/loops. I have thought that the fig.9 stopper, which has such properties, can be more effective than the almost equally complex double fisherman s knot, for example - so I tried to incorporate it in a fisherman s knot, and see what happens.(3)
I think we should not high-jack allene s thread any more, showing more and more "new" bends that should possibly be as efficient as the retucked alt. Carrick bend - or even more efficient. I suggest the previous posts be moved to a new thread, and we continue talking about those particular retucked Snug bends there.
"When the one line is squeezed on an other, their surfaces are deformed - the saddle-like shapes that are generated play the role of obstacles, of "dents", which increase the amount of forces required for any lengthwise motion predicted by the theory of friction of solid, non-deformable bodies.
We can actually see this by measuring the friction between two lines when they meet each other at different angles. When the angle is more acute, so the area of mutual contact is more extended, the lines can slide along each other easier, because the deformations / obstacles on their surface are less pronounced - they are more extended, but less deep. When the angle approaches the right angle, the contact area is smaller, so the same perpendicular force can allow the lines to bite each other harder and deeper - so they can not move lengthwise as easily as it would had been predicted by a theory of friction which does not take account the local deformation on the surfaces of the bodies."(1)
"Why does the Twedledee bend slips "easily", while the 88 bend does not ? I believe that this is due to the fact that the oblique elements of the two 8-shaped links meet each other at an almost right angle, so the surface of the one bites hard and deep into the body of the other - a condition that deforms the two lines, and prevents their mutual lengthwise displacement more effectively than the increase of the pressure they are hold together. So, just constricting two lines is a less efficient mechanism than preventing them to slide on each other, by paying attention to the angle they follow as they reach to their contact point."(2)
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30822#msg30822
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30894#msg30894
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4764.0
P.S.
As you can see, the Snug bend ( M. B 11 , p 89 ) can be represented as a tying diagram on a 5 x 5 square grid. I suggest we label the openings of the tying diagram with their position in the matrix - for example, the central opening is the ( 3, 3 ). Then, we can label the variations by denoting through which openings we have driven the ex-Tails, in order to retuck the "base" bend once more. We can use the + or - symbol to denote that the ex-Tail penetrates the tying diagram going from the one half-space to the other : + if it penetrates it moving "downwards", relatively to the diagram laying on a horizontal plane, and - if it penetrates it moving "upwards". This way we can avoid the "first", second", etc labels, and provide the adequate information so one can tie the knot, without having to look at a picture of it.
-
If it is deemed appropriate by the mods, I am happy for my posts to be split off into a new thread.
If so, I will respond to Xarax's thought provoking post there.
-
I thought you all might be interested in a comment I got from Brion Toss as his name was mentioned in this post.
"Allen, nice bend video. Sounds like an untieable version is the new Grail."
Allen
-
you claim that it slip less and/or it is stronger... Why
Let's start this way. I have proposed two knots.
One can be untied and one cannot.
One is slightly stronger than the other.
They are both stronger than the industry standard triple fisherman's knot which cannot be untied.
If you can propose a knot that is stronger and simpler than the knot I presented,
I will test it. THEN you can propose a simpler one that might be stronger ...
Allen, I liked your description of what you saw as making
your end-2-end knot work (which words I didn't find just
now, but in a lonnnnng thread) : the rather mild initial
bending of the line and the later sure clamp to secure them.
As you know, I've looked at the mechanism in the mirrored bowline
--the incompleted version which was tested by Toss-- where the
bowlinesque "nipping turn" (aka "turNip") is repeated as giving
some guidance on how to solve this problem. And, yes, I
was amazed that a re-tucked Ashley's bend #1452/1408 ...
would slip --quite!! But, still, along this line of re-tucking
through a central nipping area, I want to try a knot in which
the S.Parts make a full turn --they make U-turns when forming
the interlocked overhands of Ashley's--, in hopes that
in that there is better concentration of pressure for the
nip (and maybe some less holding open of it got where
the overhands' collars are held out?!).
To this end, I've just illustrated one such knot. It won't
win Brion's seal of Easily Tied (but then he had trouble
understanding my extended bowlilnes --and left the
intended mirrored b. w/o final tuck, alas),
but maybe it will show us something further in the
behavior of HMPE; and maybe with all the diameters
tucked it will bump strength? (Untying is sometimes
not an important feature.)
I think that I'll post it all under a new thread, later.
BTW, have you tried any OTHER MATERIALS to HMPE?
When Brion sent out a warning about knots not working
well, in his Sail article some years ago, he was finding
troubles with all "hi-mod" ropes at the time --HMPE,
Vectran, Technora, Kevlar (IIRC). While these might
be less slick, they are equally static and of high strength.
Cheers,
--dl*
====
-
I have only tried Amsteel, which is Dyneema.
-
Where is the new thread?
-
Where is the new thread?
It's "later" ! ???
Which is now, and voici : http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4777.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4777.0)
"Ashley Bowled Over #1452 & re-tucked"
;)
-
interesting simple knot。 what's the size of that dyneema rope? seems 3mm? 6mm string?
seems the instruction on how to tie it is wrong. why not correct it in the first post?
-
interesting simple knot。 what's the size of that dyneema rope? seems 3mm? 6mm string?
seems the instruction on how to tie it is wrong. why not correct it in the first post?
?!
I don't understand what you're referring to;
please give a quote of what you find to be a problem.
--dl*
====
-
interesting simple knot。 what's the size of that dyneema rope? seems 3mm? 6mm string?
seems the instruction on how to tie it is wrong. why not correct it in the first post?
?!
I don't understand what you're referring to;
please give a quote of what you find to be a problem.
--dl*
====
what Allen presented at reply 2 and later in reply 85 is different, and he later realized it.
i think he can include the correct one in first place. so no need to read all those reply to find it out.
? Reply #2 on: January 22, 2014, 05:58:32 PM ?
Estar posted how to tie the knot
http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/modified%20Carrick.pdf
? Reply #85 on: January 28, 2014, 09:23:29 PM ?
http://l-36.com/no_slip_knot.php
That is a step by step tutorial of how to tie the knot.
79
Re: Non slipping bend in Dyneema
? Reply #130 on: January 30, 2014, 06:46:25 AM ?
oops. I did not catch that Estar had it wrong. Makes me wonder if that is why it slipped for him and not for me. Throws into doubt the data as well. I wish I had a calibrated setup...
Allen
Re: Non slipping bend in Dyneema
? Reply #131 on: January 30, 2014, 08:24:42 AM ?
^^ Could it be that the same properties of the knot that make it hard to load are what is making it not slip in Amsteel?
By the way, that picture clarifies why I was having so much trouble getting my point across. If you tie it like that, it does not have the nice properties I kept asserting. I feel really bad about missing that. I sent a note to Estar to see if that was the latest drawing and expect to hear tomorrow.
Allen
....
all quotes above
-
Hello everyone. I'm new to the forum, and apologize in advance if I'm committing a faux pas by resurrecting an old topic.
Anyway, I've been experimenting with bends lately and had some success with Dyneema that I thought I'd share. Many of the bends I've evolved are in the class of "true lovers' knots" - that is, they consist of two interlocked overhand knots that draw up to form a visually pleasing whole. One of these (a modification of ABoK 1452 that looked to me like it had better nip and less fiber distortion) seemed a promising candidate for Dyneema.
So, I spliced an eye in a piece of 3mm Amsteel Blue (as an attachment point), and bent the other end to another length of 3mm Amsteel Blue with the aforementioned knot. I took the assembly to my splicing bench, looped the eye around a table leg, and tensioned up the line on my bench winch. Much to my dismay, the bend slipped. The knot rolled off the running ends, leaving two well-ironed and stiff bits of Dyneema.
Then I decided to see how well it compared to other mentioned knots, so I repeated the experiment with two interlocked buntline hitches. The buntline hitches also slipped, but under noticeably more strain. That is to say, the drawn-up buntlines worked better than my knot.
Reasoning that I needed a knot with a tighter nip rather than one with more crossings, I went back to the Angler's Loop (ABoK 1017, 1035), which I've also been using as a bend. I tied Angler's loops in the ends of two pieces of 3mm Amsteel Blue, and eye-to-eye hitched (ABoK 1495) them together. Back on the winch, I pulled the line until the attached end drew up so tight that it crushed the 2x4 I had looped the terminal eye splice over. The Dyneema was so taut that it sang when I tapped it, but the bend did not slip at all. The running ends of the Angler's Loops deformed from the constriction on them, but they held in place.
At that point, I wondered if the central square knot (from the eye-to-eye hitch in the loops) was contributing to the security of the knot, so I tried again without the loops. I bent the two lines each to the other in the form of an Angler's Loop (except that instead of making a loop, I brought in the running end of the other knot). This bend also drew up tight without slipping (and without any pre-tensioning). I pulled a little harder on the winch handle than before, and the line broke at the entry to one of the Angler's Loop knots.
I can't tell how much the knot weakened the 3mm Amsteel Blue, so I don't know how strong the bend is, but I'd definitely have to say that it is quite secure. There's no untying the knot once it has taken a load, but I think that's par for the course with any knot that holds in Dyneema.
Looking at the remnants of the experiment, it appears as if the two legs of the knots may not have been even, which leads me to wonder if a single bend based on the Angler's Loop may suffice. I doubt a single bend will hold (I expect the overhand knot to roll), but I'll have to try it to be sure. <edit> I just tried a single "Angler's Bend" (what I call it) and just as I expected, the knot did not hold. A repeat experiment of the "Double Angler's Bend" (again, what I call it) also held until the line broke. <end edit>
I hope you find my experience useful. If anybody wants, I can post photos of the knot (either here, or in another thread - whichever is the proper forum etiquette).
Regards,
Eric
-
Hi Eric
Welcome to the forum.
-
Hi Eric (NautiKnots),
I would like to see the photos please.
Can you show both loose and tight dressings. Try to photograph against a plain white background (dont have anything in the background because it add clutter and confuses the image.
Thanks,
Mark
-
Here's how to tie what I'm currently referring to as the "Double-Angler Bend", or "Dangler Bend" for short.
Step 1: Loosely tie an overhand knot in the working end of each line.
Step 2: Pass the working end of each line through the overhand knot of the other, on the same side that the other working end exits the overhand knot.
Step 3: Pass the working end of one line around behind the standing part of the other.
Step 4: Pass the working end up through the crown of the other line's overhand knot.
Step 5: Tuck the working end under itself, forming a half-hitch.
Step 6: Repeat steps 3-5 with the other working end.
To dress the knot, simply pull on the opposing standing parts. In stiff line, pulling the working ends may be necessary to snug the knot and one may need to balance the two middle legs. In Dyneema line, however, pulling on the standing parts is usually all that's necessary to balance the legs and snug it up.
-
Here are some more pictures, of the "Dangler Bend" tied in Dyneema SK-75 (3mm Amsteel Blue). Below are front and back side photos of the bend, and one showing where (in my previous experiment) the line broke under strain.
If you look closely at the third picture, you'll notice that the line broke at the entry to the knot (which is typical), and you can also see deformation in the working ends right where they exit the knots. That indicates to me that the strain is distributed throughout the knot.
I didn't pre-tighten the bend beyond regular dressing. Any imbalance between the two middle legs was taken up when the lines were tensioned, but the working ends did not get pulled into the knot. That is, it did not noticeably slip at all.
I have since tied an Angler's Loop and a Bowline together (using an eye-to-eye hitch) and pulled it to the breaking point. I expected the Bowline to slip, but it didn't. I suspect that a Bowline Bend (ABoK 1455) might also work reasonably well in Dyneema, especially if the two loops were eye-to-eye hitched. ABoK 1454 could be another alternative. In my test, however, the line broke at the entry to the Bowline, so my "Dangler Bend" might still be stronger.
I also tied both the "Dangler Bend" and allene's "Last Bend" (very carefully so I made sure the form and chirality matched his photos) in 3mm Amsteel Blue and pulled them until the line broke. It broke at the entry to the Last Bend.
Has anybody seen the Angler's Loop (a.k.a. "Perfection Loop) tied as a bend before? I haven't, but it seems as though someone must have tried it already. Likewise, tying it as a back-to-back bend (as Ashley did to the Bowline in ABoK 1454) seems rather obvious.
Regards,
Eric
-
Ok, I just went out and tried allene's "First Bend". I tied it inline with the "Dangler Bend" in 3mm Amsteel Blue. On the winch, I got the tension up very high, and then the "First Bend" rolled off it's tails.
I tried the "variation" against the "Dangler Bend" twice. The first time, when the tension got close to the breaking point, the variation slipped. The second time, I partially loaded the knot and pulled really hard on the tails with pliers to set the knot as firmly as possible. That time it held, and the line broke at the "Dangler Bend".
Watching the knots constrict under extreme tension, it appeared as if the "Dangler Bend" was showing more sign of strain than the "First Bend Variation". This leads me to suspect that the 'First Bend" and its variation (when they hold) are stronger than the "Dangler Bend", which (given the structures of the two knots) is what I would expect. The "Dangler Bend", on the other hand, seems to be more reliable. It doesn't need pre-tensioning nor a pause in loading to be secure.
I also think the "Dangler Bend" is simpler than allene's "First Bend", and easier to verify visually (but that may be just me). I am a fan of the Carrick Bend though, and appreciate using its form on slick stuff.
Practically speaking, I believe that either bend will suffice for typical working loads. How often do you load up Dyneema as tight as piano wire? Both bends held to the point that the line was actually melting under the compressive force.
Regards,
Eric
-
NautiKnots, you mention trying something similar
to #1452 : could you show an image of that?
It caught my interest, as you'll see in msg.#153 above
a URLink to a #1452 *improvement* (so I hoped! ;) )
which I presented as a hopeful knot for HMPE.
I'd like to see what you find in testing of that.
As for the angler's loops, I go with Ashley's (?) naming
convention of calling such knots "twin <whatever>"
--though we can see that the eye knots used could
be different (for whatever reason : different ropes, maybe?!).
I might have some newer ideas.
HMPE sure is a demanding material!
Thanks,
--dl*
====
-
We are looking for a bend that does not slip in Dyneema and I welcome links to any candidates. I will test them and any that do not slip in my setup will go to Estar
How about the vice-versa (http://knots-guide.blogspot.co.nz/2008/04/vice-versa.html)? How did that fare?
-
As for the angler's loops, I go with Ashley's (?) naming
convention of calling such knots "twin <whatever>"
--though we can see that the eye knots used could
be different (for whatever reason : different ropes, maybe?!).
Thanks Dan. I agree that "twin" might be a better appellation than "double" in this case - especially because "double" often indicates that an additional loop or half-hitch has been added to a knot (ala "double sheet bend" and "double becket bend"). "Twin" would avoid any confusion on that point - and I've already started experimenting with adding a half-hitch to (and thereby "doubling") the angler's loop knots to see if it makes them any stronger. I've also considered tying the two angler's loop knots in opposite chirality in order to make the bend more symmetric (although I doubt it would make any difference in the strength of the bend).
Would you suggest "Twin Angler's Bend", or perhaps "Twang Bend"? for short (and because the Dyneema "twangs" if you tap it under tension)?
I'll post my variation to "Ashley's Bend" when I get a chance to photograph it. The knot has some interesting characteristics.
I'll try the other suggested bends when I can - along with some stopper knots and knob knots.
Regards,
Eric
-
How about the vice-versa (http://knots-guide.blogspot.co.nz/2008/04/vice-versa.html)? How did that fare?
I tied the Vice-Versa and my two angler's loop knots bend inline with each other in Amsteel Blue and put it on my bench winch this morning. The Vice-Versa slipped at relatively low tension. The angler's loop knots weren't showing any sign of strain when the Vice-Versa came apart.
NautiKnots, ... you'll see in msg.#153 above
a URLink to a #1452 *improvement* (so I hoped! ;) )
which I presented as a hopeful knot for HMPE.
I'd like to see what you find in testing of that.
I tied the "Bowled Over and Re-tucked Ashely Bend" in 3mm Amsteel Blue inline with my bend below. I have to say that your bend is quite attractive. From the top, it looks like a symmetric diamond-shaped doubled 4-part button. The underside looks good too. The bend retained its form as I tightened up the line. It held pretty well (up until the angler's loop knots began showing signs of strain) and then it rolled off its tails.
I also tried two variations on the Angler's Loop knot. In one, I took an additional half-hitch through the overhand knot (i.e. I repeated the final half-hitch). In the other, I took a half-hitch around the standing end before hitching through the overhand knot. I first tried them against each other to see which was stronger. The first one broke. That initially surprised me (I thought it would be stronger if it held), but after examination, the half-hitch around the standing part straightened up the entry to the knot, which I surmise made it stronger.
Then I tried the winner inline against the Angler's Loop knot. I pulled the line so hard that I was afraid that my winch would pull out of the bench (the benchtop was flexing visibly). Finally, my first bend broke. The "doubled" (with the additional half-hitch) knot was just beginning to show signs of strain. It was only one try, but initially, it looks like this variation may be significantly stronger.
I'll take some pics of the bend and post them soon.
I hope that helps,
Eric
-
NautiKnots, you mention trying something similar
to #1452 : could you show an image of that?
Dan,
The knot I tried (that slipped in Dyneema) was a True Lover's Knot with Interlocked Crowns, which you can see at http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5921.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5921.0). It starts the same as Ashley's Bend (ABoK 1452) but the final tuck is in a different place.
Regards,
Eric
-
How about the vice-versa (http://knots-guide.blogspot.co.nz/2008/04/vice-versa.html)? How did that fare?
I tied the Vice-Versa and my two angler's loop knots bend inline with each other in Amsteel Blue and put it on my bench winch this morning. The Vice-Versa slipped at relatively low tension.
I dare say that with HMPE one must be more selective
at what knots to test : why should anyone think that
vice versa would succeed when much more *entangled*
knots have not?! (Btw, this knot is an asymmetricly loaded
reever bend which was introduced by Wright & Magowan's
1928 Alpine Journal article.)
NautiKnots, ...
I'd like to see what you find in testing of that.
...
It held pretty well (up until the angler's loop knots began showing signs of strain) and then it rolled off its tails.
Thanks much, and ... egadz. Well, it slipped for EStar, too.
But, my, all those tucks & turns ... !! ?!
I have one other ides, aiming for something simpler
--bereft "all those tucks & turns"--, trying to pinpoint
some aspect of security that can endure!
Consider the venerable fisherman's knot ("single"),
as show here:
https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/7342/which-is-better-a-single-fishermans-knot-or-a-double/16556#16556 (https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/7342/which-is-better-a-single-fishermans-knot-or-a-double/16556#16556)
CONTINUE from the finished/3rd state shown in the top image
of 3 stages of the knot by
(well, firstly, loosening each overhand enough
to open a bit of space in each SPart's turn,
anticipating the tuck ...
taking the left/green tail around back & diagonally upwards
--and red tail going opposite, also around back, diagonally
downwards-- to tuck out in those anticipating gaps of each
SPart's initial turn.
(The olive & red pass each other adjacent, olive above, red below.)
The point of this is to put what ought to be the greated
nipping force --of the SPart's initial turn (in this knot, anyway!)--
against the tail,
and then still there is the other nipping done by the overhand
components being pressed together and all.
The tail is alone in being crunched --no parallel part to shield
it from forces (in contrast to my doubly tucked tails in that
like-#1452 knot).
Does it help?
(It's hard to get a grip on what bedeviling behavior comes
from (thin?) HMPE !! Though I must remind myself that I'd
5 eye knots tested in 5/32" 12-strand Dyneema (coated, IIRC),
and all held to rupture, not slipping.
(Hmmm, looking at the knot in hand, I see that were one
to load it in reverse (i.e., load tails) it would be
a bowlinesque structure doing similar concentrated nipping;
though its turns look shaper and so ... weaker?)
Cheers, and good wishes for your test bed (maybe looking
for reinforcement!)
--dl*
====
-
An old thread, however, I am investigating bends that 'work' in dynemma. Please show me the Carrick Bend variation + tuck that allene had in mind and promotes. Old links here do not work for me. I have given up searching through dated pages looking for a valid image. Thank you in advance.
-
Hi, I regularly fly stunt kites on Spectra.
The standard way of securing, is to sheath the Spectra with a Polyester braid, then any knot will hold, even a simple OH on the bight.
The forces are quite light (only 100lb ish), but then the Spectra braid is only 0.8mm and without the sheath, nothing seems to hold for long.
Derek
-
Thank you for your response, Derek. I assume you were not just telling me to 'go fly a kite' ;)
The images in Allene's first post are now showing for me, go figure!? I will work out how to tie it from those images.
The reason for my query is that I have found a bend that appears not to slip and can be untied in 3mm SK75 Dyneema at high loads very close to breaking. I have trialled the knot in question a number of times, though I have yet to set up a test of it and report on it.
Allene's bend was just part of my background research on the topic of a "Non slipping bend in Dyneema".
-
Hey Mobius,
There are two videos about how to tie the bends on Youtube:
Regards
Stefan
-
Rogoshin, thank you for the YouTube links, that saved me quite some effort working out the tying method.
I ran a single trial of Allene's First bend in 3mm SK75 Dyneema. The First Bend held up until one of the Loop knots broke. The First Bend was first hand snugged and then tensioned to around 40kg, the tails were then marked to help me see any slippage. The knot I trialled did not slip and could not be untied after heavy loading.
-
Hi, I regularly fly stunt kites on Spectra.
The standard way of securing, is to sheath the Spectra with a Polyester braid,
then any knot will hold, even a simple OH on the bight.
The forces are quite light (only 100lb ish),
but then the Spectra braid is only 0.8mm and without the sheath, nothing seems to hold for long.
Derek
It must be noted that in ropes (>=5mm), such sheathing
isn't a guarantee of redress to HMPE's slipping in knots
--it slips within the sheath, which then bears the load
and breaks, leaving a slipped HMPE core to continue to
slip, or the test device stops pulling.
.:. puzzling material!
:-\