International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => New Knot Investigations => Topic started by: Dan_Lehman on February 08, 2014, 05:14:16 AM

Title: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 08, 2014, 05:14:16 AM
In another thread** there was a search for a working
end-2-end knot for the high-strength, low-stretch,
and very slippery HMPE (Dyneema & Spectra).
Many thought-to-be-secure knots came to grief.
** cf.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSESSID=33c50dae35643514476b1012c83bcd8a&topic=4756.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSESSID=33c50dae35643514476b1012c83bcd8a&topic=4756.0)

Among these was Ashley's bend #1452 re-tucked,
which I thought should work, as it nipped the tails
between the U-turns of the (heavily loaded) S.Parts
and not just once but (in the "re-tucked" version) twice!
Alas, my eyes were opened wider by its slipping!
Has this HMPE cordage no respect for a knotter's
hard efforts?

Beyond the structure of interlocked overhands's
nipping the tails I wanted to try also that of two
turNips (nipping turns) 'a la bowline --these, I reason,
differ from the former in making full encirclings of the
nipped tails, and so should each (each end) bind
the surrounded tails better --and enough to hold,
especially if the tails are re-tucked.

I began various ways of bringing two turNips together,
but settled on an interlocking, as it helped keep the
material in place for continued tying, and maybe
gives some shared nipping of S.Parts and smoothing
of their turns to boost strength?  Something told me
that in fact my supposed bowlinesque knot was also
related to Ashley's, and indeed one can see it as
simply furthering that knot's initial flow of S.Parts
into full turns and then the colloaring; so, I'm calling
it "Ashley Bowled Over", with "-1452" & "re-tucked"
as qualifiers.  (There should be similar versions for
other interlocked-overhands end-2-enders #1408 &
zeppelin & ... .)

Attached are photos of my initial sketch of two stages
of forming the knot, and a photo of the knot tied in
some handy but not-already-tied-up-in-*new*-knots
PP ropes (yellow laid, orange kernmantle).  (The sketches
are intended to be helpful; that latter, colorful.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: allene on February 08, 2014, 05:33:25 AM
I will test this knot tomorrow.  But I do want to point out that there were two knots on the previous thread.  One I called my first bend and it slipped but was nonetheless fairly strong and could be untied.  But you may have missed the second one which I called the variation on my first bend.  It did not slip, was stronger, but could not be untied.  My point is, a reasonably easy to tie knot that did not slip was also presented in that thread.  This knot was not difficult to tie either.  It is much bulkier than either of my first bends, however.

I tested it with Lashit, not the best but easy to test.  It was very strong and did not slip.  I test it by comparing two knots. I put this knot up against my first bend variation and my knot broke first.  I will see if we can get some more testing on it.

Allen
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: allene on February 08, 2014, 06:14:31 AM
I find this knot interesting.  The tails are in the center of a spiral constricting loop which causes them to be held very tight well before there is any force that would tend to pull them out.  Also, there is a lot going on in the center so the standing ends come in and make a most gentle bend making a large full circle before they experience a sharp bend.  It is really big though :-)
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 08, 2014, 07:49:43 AM
Quote
But I do want to point out that there were two knots on the previous thread
Oh, goodness, two-per-minute via Xarax!*   ;D
Yes, I think I'd inklings of that, though got to the
"coming back full circle" to an original suggestion.

(*One or more of what Xarax has newly posted under
the "Rectangular Bend" thread look to offer a way
of employing double nipping loops to lock the tails.
Some of the dressing & setting can be tricky.)

The tails are in the center of a spiral constricting loop
which causes them to be held very tight well before there is any force
that would tend to pull them out.
Yes, that's my design goal, here.  Among the
versions that might be devised are altering the
particular comings'n'goings / directions to try to
avoid *sympathetic* pulling on adjacent parts
that would aid their movement to slip.  I was
working in a braided B&W line that made it esp.
hard to tell what was what (in contrast to the
clear images w/contrasting-colors rope shown
by Xarax, e.g. --though even then, it can be
difficult if the knot's not "exploded" for view).
I think that one part has potential "assist" in
such adjacency, but the tails go opposite this.

But, yes, again, the thought was that in the
mere U-turns, although tails were trapped
--by virtue of both "U"s-- there was less
compressing about them than will come if the
binding is opposed "O"s that contract.

Quote
Also, there is a lot going on in the center so the standing ends
come in and make a most gentle bend
making a large full circle before they experience a sharp bend.
Whereas I think that greatest strength in some
materials might come from making compression
against the S.Part over a broad area, off-loading
force (so to speak) gradually, the slickness of HMPE
suggests that it's a joke to try for this --or to of
necessity use a huge quantity of rope & binding,
as each part will do only so little, given slickness--;
so, back to just going for a larger radius of bending.

Quote
It is really big though :-)
At least until push comes to shove, at forces way
higher than conventional materials experience.
(It used to be said, by way of explaining why hi-mod
cordage did poorly with knots in strength (this assumes
that the knots hold, of course), that the material,
the fibres, were "weak in compression".  I suggested
that this wasn't fair, and that the fibres sustained
forces higher than conventional materials, in
absolute terms --force per diameter, i.e.--
, but that
they were sooo much stronger in tension that the
rupture forces worked out to a small percentage of
that.)

Incidentally, eyeknots have seemed to be stronger
than end-2-end knots in some testings : e.g., there
was a fellow using a truck's force to do A-vs-B testing
of end-2-end knots and he used fig.8 eyeknots (of
some orientation), and they never broke !!! (!?)
One way of mimicking the workings of an eyeknot,
where one might reason that the S.Part can be more
gently/carefully handled because the TWO eyelegs
oppose it and they can compromise as they need only
sustain 50% (together, 100%),
is to have each end begin an eyeknot and then reach
out to complete it in the other end's beginning,
reciprocally.  "Twin bowlines" as show in ABOK
is a paradigm of this.  Oddly, in the aforementioned
testing, this structure was tested with fig.8 knots
and yet ... the specimen-anchoring fig.8 knots
--and, IIRC, some other(!)-- survived, the "twin fig.8s"
end-2-end stucture being what brokef!  That doesn't
make good sense to me, beyond some statistical
anomaly, as such an end-2-end knot should have
the same behavior as the eyeknot!?
(I.e., the fig.8 eyeknots never broke and yet
some end-2-end knot was stronger than essentially
the same fig.8 tied in end-2-end function.  One
could surmise that in end-2-end knotting there was
some imbalanced loading not found in the eyes.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 08, 2014, 07:30:54 PM
  Speaking only about the un-re-tucked bend shown in this thread ( which, somehow, "resembles" the Ashley s bend, that is true, but which is topologically different = its links are topologically equivalent not to the overhand knot, but to the unknot, as one can see in a glance ), I wish to point out that it is just one click simpler to tie than the re-tucked alt. Carrick bend tied by allene, and just one click more complex than the "parent" Ashley s bend (*). Personally, I do not like those bends where the tails are hanging between the legs of the Standing ends like this - but it is only a matter of taste, I guess. ( However, in this particular bend, the fact that the pairs of the continuations of the Standing and Tail ends have the same orientation, may be proved beneficial, as the author of the bend has noticed ). Also, although the entangled intestines of this over-bowled bend are not overhand knots, one can consider this topology not as a disadvantage ( the Standing parts are already over-convoluted ), but as an advantage, in comparison to the Ashley s bend - because it can be utilized to tie the PET corresponding eyeknot, if this will be ever needed. ( Eyeknots do not slip as easily as their corresponding end-to-end knots, so I believe that the additional security of this bend would be an overkill ).

  I had not the motive to show, among their simpler relatives, the first-collared-then-retucked ( though the central opening ) knots, based on the re-tuckings of a Carrick-like "base", in (1) :

   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086

  At that time, I had to confront somebody who tried to teach me English ( his English, to be more precise...), so me, the poor third world native would become able to understand his suggestion to move those bends to the Fancy and Decorative knotwork Forum  :) :).
   Using the labels suggested in the above cited thread, that can describe the path of the Working end in all those bends generated by the re-tucking of this Carrick-like"base", I would had described this bend as uSE C - uSE C ( under the Standing End, re-tucked through the central ( C ) opening ). See the oSE C - oSE C, at (2), already mentioned AND shown at (3) - but it seems nobody listens to pictures !   :)
   The nipping mechanism may be seen more surrounding, but I am not sure that it would be more constricting. Apparently, a surrounding, more O-shaped nipping loop seems a safer bet than a one-sided, more U-shaped one - but is it ? We have seen exactly the same situation in the case of the "Link bowlines", and my impression was that the surrounding rims can actually "protect" the penetrating Tail ends, not choke them ! The added material tends to form a halo that can act as a shield, and absorb some of the nipping forces, before they reach the Tail ends at the core of the knot. Some portion of the nipping forces and the friction they induce would be distributed and absorbed within the contact areas of the two embraced O-turns, and they will never reach to their final destination, the penetrating Tail ends. Moreover, as the contact areas between the rims of those interlocked O-turns and the Tail ends are now more extended, the local deformation of the strands are less pronounced, less deep. The rims of the O-shaped nipping turns may be less able to bite hard and deep into the body of the Tail - so these Tails can slide out of the core more easily.
    Why I do not speak about the re-tucked version of this bend ?
    First, because there are dozens and dozens of re-tucked simple bends ( even much simpler than this ) that we have not tied. Many of the simpler, un-re-tucked bends incorporate locking mechanisms most knot tyers have never examined, and perhaps have never tied, or even seen. I think it is more prudent to start from the simpler bends and go to the more complex ones, otherwise we will shift the goalposts each time something catchy pops out.
   Second, because there are many ways one can re-ruck a bend, because the already formed base knot has many openings through which we can drive our Working end. The re-tucking-through-the-central-opening may even be inferior to others, because we do not know if it is better to confront slippage with the Tails as a pair of adjacent and parallel segments of rope, or as two segments going through different openings. So, we have first to test the un-re-tucked bend, and all the un-re-tucked simple bends we know, and only then run to take refuge under the shirts of this or that re-tucked fat lady s dress... Otherwise the proprosal of a re-tucked bend  may reveal that we are not sure about the mechanism we proprose, so we buy some insurance premium !
   Third, because re-tucked knot hasn't interested me enough to venture into its tying. The re-tucked bends may be more secure ( and we do not even know if this security is worth the added material, i.e., if they are more secure proportionally to the added material and to the added tuck ...), but they are NEVER more pretty ! They often become too fat, and they acquire a wide cross section that makes them unsuitable for many applications. With knots, if we do not follow the "Less is More" dictum as far as it can get us, we better start seizing, splitting, gluing, etc...
 
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18725#msg18725
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30891#msg30891

( * ) The classic or alternative Carrick mat is one tuck more complex than this particular Carrick-like "base" / mat.
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 09, 2014, 07:21:58 PM
   No, I would knot be dragged into the trap of paying back using the same coin - and one reason for it is that, doing this, we would inflate the value of the currency ( among other things, which are already inflated too much...) - and this added inflation would depreciate the value of $  Dan Lehman ow[e]s to me.

... IMO the knot shown is riduculous to proprose...

   However, I have to admit that the situation, and the particular word used for the "proprosal" of the beautiful Oyster bend ( M B5-D2 Threefold - Fourfold )[ of course, this bend was not "proprosed" because it is beautiful, it was "proprosed" because it is a most jamming knot, in a hope that knots which jam when tied on ordinary material, ...

Xarax, you'd do better to show the rationale given
for my assertion above, via a fuller quotation --to wit:
Quote
But IMO the knot shown is riduculous to proprose
at this time of results shown by EStar & Allene --there
is a 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.

Unless I missed it, this debated knot was untested,
so we are left at the state of analysis; I see no reason
to change mine.  I owed only a rationale and that was
paid, in full.

---------------------------

Quote
   Speaking only about the un-re-tucked bend shown in this thread
Yes, it occurs to me to realize that in relation
to Ashley's #1452 I have first proposed the
method of making more secure by re-tucking
the tails, and now have added to that the
*rounding* of the S.Parts' central nipping --and
that one might hope that the latter change alone
suffices to achieve security!

Still, though, the interlocked S.Parts form a Grief
knot / What knot
and jam, alas.  (Yet one more path
a knots explorer might take to reach this knot.) Should
testing show promise for the nipping loops (not only with
security, but with strength --that broad curvature ...),
we might move on to seeking a non-jamming variation.

An obvious hope for a non-jamming variation on this
theme is the zeppelin knot bowled-over & re-tucked.
Yes, Allene has tested a simply re-tucked version
("the zeppelin slipped"), but not one that has been
"bowled over" --having the superior? nipping.
And whereas one might also wonder if the re-tucking is
superfluous for security given the "bowling over," there's
likely the need for extra diameters to round out the S.Parts'
curvature in order to get strength making the knotting
worthwhile (oh, it might be needed in an emergency
regardless, yes).

Looking further at the bowled-over & re-tucked zeppelin knot
in my hands now, I'm thinking that this is The Winner.
--definitely easier to tie than the Subject end-2-ender,
and I think will be able-to-be-untied-after-loading, too!
(As well as having a popular myth of superiority to fulfill.)


Quote
( which, somehow, "resembles" the Ashley's bend, that is true,
but which is topologically different = its links are topologically equivalent
The behavior of the material depends on geometry
not topology; "bowling-over" #1452 changes the latter
while retaining much of the former.  That is what I mean
to say in its naming.


--dl*
====
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 09, 2014, 08:26:16 PM
... this debated knot was untested,
 I owed only a rationale and that was paid, in full.

  The Oyster bend ( M. B5-D2, Threefold - Fourfold ) was also not tested ( and it is still not tested...), yet you dismissed it beforehand... And the 88 bend which was tested, and did not slip, was just ignored - as it happens too often, unfortunately.
  I agree you offered a rationale for this knot - moreover, I acknowledge the fact that this rationale, regardless of what I think about it, was also productive, and had lead you to this interesting knot - because, evidently, you had not read many posts of the thread where I had described the bends one can tie by re-tucking the particular Carrick-like mat ( shown there, and at the attached pictures ), one of which is the bend you propose here ( namely, according to the labelling used at that thread, the "Ashley Bowled Over" is the uSE C-uSE C, as one can see in a glance - "similar", in a sense, to the oSE C - oSE C, also shown at the attached pictures ). At that time, neither you nor me knew that the beautiful bend shown and discussed at the first posts of the thread was the "Illusion" (M. B 25 ) - you, because you had forgotten to do your homework, and me because I was not aware of Miles book.
   My point was that I had "proprosed" :) the Oyster bend for one reason, just like you do now, for another : The Oyster bend was the most jamming bend I could thought of, so it was very reasonable to expect that a bend which jams so tightly, when tied on ordinary materiasl, will slip less than others, when tied on very slippery materials.
  (  I had deleted the irrelevant re. the proposed knot, first part of my previous post ).
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 09, 2014, 09:03:29 PM
   An obvious hope for a non-jamming variation on this theme is the zeppelin knot bowled-over & re-tucked.

  Those "bowled Over" bends, are bends where the Standing Part turns 180 degrees more before it collars one of the two Standing ends - if, in the ordinary "parent" bend, the Standing Part collars the Standing End of the same link, in the "bowled over" version it collars the Stranding End of the other link, and vice versa.
   In the oSE C - oSE C bend shown in the previous post, those additional 180 degrees are achieved without a collar - at that time, I thought it was too much, regarding the amount of the required material, to turn the Standing Part 190 degrees more, AND to place a collar... and that was one reason I had not presented any pictures of the uSE C - uSE C bend. ( The other was the warm reception of all those bends by one of the self-appointed Keepers of the Practical Knot Temple  :) ).
   Is this "bowled Over Zeppelin bend" the bend we had discussed at (1), also shown at the attached picture ?

  You might try an in-between version, where the main loop goes not 180deg or your 540 but 360 degrees, to collar the opposite line.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13796#msg13796
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 10, 2014, 07:40:20 PM
   An obvious hope for a non-jamming variation on this theme is the zeppelin knot bowled-over & re-tucked.
...
   Is this "bowled Over Zeppelin bend" the bend we had discussed at (1), also shown at the attached picture ?

  You might try an in-between version, where the main loop goes not 180deg or your 540 but 360 degrees, to collar the opposite line.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13796#msg13796
Quite so, and well shown there!

And if you combine the "doubling" manifestations
of your 1st & 3rd images in the OP you have by
the latter "bowling over" and the former "re-tucked":
QED !  (I do think that the doubled tail diameters
rounding the S.Parts' compressing should show
significant strength gain; I have struggled to get
the mere 2 diameters to produce curvatures that
looked good, IMO.)

Further, albeit inferior to your photos, are these four
of mine, showing the "bowled-over zeppelin re-tucked" (BOZr).
The materials are from commercial fishing : a hollow,
compressible braided side-by-side fibres polyester &
polypropylene (PS & PP), resp. white & black; and
a kernmantle rope of PP with 5 (I think) slightly
twisted core sets of fibres.  (This particular rope is
firmer and I'll presume stronger than a similar-looking
line in which there are simply parallel PP fibres, of the
same color (so far as I've seen).

The first image shows a recently loaded (detached) knot;
the S.Parts flow to the outside/exterior collars
(i.e., this is most of what one can see of the B&W rope).
The second image shows this knot flipped over and
slightly loosened, to try to see its innards (and the B&W
rope now shows the re-tuck's collar on the outside).
The third is of the tightened knot from the side,
to gain some appreciation of the curvature of the S.Parts,
of the bulk of the 4 dia. of tails being nipped/compressed.
And the fourth shows a loosened knot from its side.
(eh   :-\ )

This knot had been loaded via a pulley to about 100kg
(200+ #)?!  I loaded it further --800#?-- and was
able to untie it easily; but this is a zeppelin in some
traditional materials, not something subjected to the
diabolical static strength & slickness of HMPE!


--dl*
====
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 10, 2014, 08:05:46 PM
... this debated knot was untested,
 I owed only a rationale and that was paid, in full.
...
 because, evidently, you had not read many posts of the thread
where I had described the bends one can tie by re-tucking the particular
Carrick-like mat ( shown there, and at the attached pictures ),
one of which is the bend you propose here ( namely, according
to the labelling used at that thread, the "Ashley Bowled Over"
is the uSE C-uSE C, as one can see in a glance - "similar",
in a sense, to the oSE C - oSE C, also shown at the attached pictures ).
The knots shown here (above) look obviously
vulnerable to slippage, as the movement of the
initial tuck will bring with it the re-tucked tail;
the collars, additionally, look more *broad* than
*U*-sharp, facilitating movement.  And I don't
see any of these befitting my knot-name well.

Quote
At that time, neither you nor knew that the beautiful bend shown and discussed
at the first posts of the thread was the "Illusion" (M. B 25 ) --you, because you
had forgotten to do your homework, and because I was not aware of Miles book.
You produce knots prodigiously, and I cannot follow
at your pace; and the degree of examination that
one might need in order to fully *know* a knot (!)
can be considerable --such as might be only shown
by hard loading as done in testing.  We should thus
hope to gain by careful testing and analysis of that
an improved understanding which will enable us to
make better assessments.

Quote
My point was that I had "proprosed" :) the Oyster bend for one reason,
just like you do now, for another : the Oyster bend was the most jamming
bend I could thought of, so it was very reasonable to expect that a bend
[that] jams so tightly, when tied on ordinary materials, will slip less than others,
when tied on very slippery materials.
No, I don't think it follows that a jamming knot
per se has a better claim to security under load
than any other; and given the results of the testing
presented to us, we could see some feared jamming
knots failing --a quadruple fisherman's (triple grapevine)
no less !!  (Whereas jamming indicates that the knot
grips the S.Parts to prevent their loosening, and such
friction might serve to reduce the transmission of
force through the knot ... to pull out tails, it's not
likely that HMPE has such friction on the S.Parts
to achieve much benefit in this regard?!)


--dl*
====

ps : Hey, at least I've put up some photos!
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 10, 2014, 10:40:44 PM
...the collars, additionally, look more *broad* than*U*-sharp, facilitating movement. 

  They do not look like "collars" at all. They look more like ( parts of ) secondary nipping loops, placed on top ( or better : around ) the previous main ones.  In the uSE C - uSE C retucking of this particular Carrick mat you show, when the Working end passes under the Standing End ( so : uSE ), it makes a sharper U turn ( because it turns around the Standing End, and the Standing End only, at some distance from the main nipping loop ), so this U turn looks more like a proper collar, indeed.
   However, if you insist in the "Ashley"- based moniker, you have to characterize "collars" the "collars"(? ?) of the Ashley s bend as well... We have seen such a not-bowled-over collared Ashley s bend, where the Working Ends make collars around the Standing Ends of the same link before they are rucked through the central opening ( in the bowled-over version you show, they make collars around the Standing End of the other link ), at (1). See the attached pictures.

   I mentioned this technique, of driving the Working End around the Standing end before retucking it, and I described it as an easy to remember and to tie way to enhance the security of simple bends :

 
  If a known simple bend slips when tied on Dyneema, the most easy to remember ways to enhancing it are :

1. Re-tuck its Tail Ends once more through the same openings they were tucked in the first place.
2. Retuck its Tail Ends through the central opening of the bend.
3. Un-tuck the Tail Ends once, drive them turn around the Standing ends ( so they make a 180+ degrees turn, a collar, around the Standing ends ), and re-tuck them through the same openings they were tucked in the first place.
4. Use the Tail ends to tie half hitches around the Standing ends.

   When the individual links of the bend follow a certain easy to remember and to tie pattern, we can enhance the anti-slippage capabilities of the parent bend by just following this same pattern once more. Even very simple bends, when they are modified this way, can become disproportionally more secure, in comparison to the complexity and/or material such a modification has added on them.

  Your "Bowled-Over" versions can be described as fruits of yet another method :

5. Add 180 degrees at the turns the Standing parts make around each other.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3251.msg19547#msg19547

...I don't think it follows that a jamming knot per se has a better claim to security under load than any other; and given the results of the testing
presented to us, we could see some feared jamming knots failing --a quadruple fisherman's (tripe grapevine) no less !!  (Whereas jamming indicates that the knot grips the S.Parts to prevent their loosening, and such friction might serve to reduce the transmission of force through the knot ... to pull out tails, it's not likely that HMPE has such friction on the S.Parts to achieve much benefit in this regard?!)

   Perhaps...but I thought that it was a reasonable and falsifiable assumption, from which one could start testing the dozens of dozens bends we already know - before we proceed to their retucked versions. So, there was a method in my "proprosal" after all !
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 10, 2014, 11:18:40 PM
  Hey, at least I've put up some photos !

  Great ! Now you have seen how easy it is ( even if you had to insert "some strangeness in the proportion" - or was it "wildness", to counterbalance the glossy floor ? ), please, do it again ! It does not bite !

  As the parent Zeppelin bend requires one only tuck ( the Working end penetrates the two parallel bights of the two links in one go ), we can say that this Double Zeppelin bend is as easy to tie as the re-tucked alt. Carrick ( mat or bend ) tested by allene. My preference for the Zeppelin-like, rope-made-hinges makes me bet on the Double Zeppelin !  :)
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: allene on February 11, 2014, 02:32:28 AM
Interlocking figure of eights.  I thought it might not slip because figure of eight loops do not slip.  But I was wrong.  It slips.  I still think you need to grab the line in two places.  The first reduces the load on the second and the second prevents the slipping.  I do not think a single grab can work.
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: allene on February 11, 2014, 05:08:10 AM
On this thread I tested the initial bend.  Strong and did not slip.  I also tested the bend in the pictures just above where I gave my test results.
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: allene on February 11, 2014, 05:45:07 AM
May I refer you to reply #1 where I said I tested the knot and also to reply #10, just before my reply to it, #12.
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 11, 2014, 04:36:40 PM
  Regarding the 5 easy to remember ways to enhance the security of a simple bend :

1. Re-tuck its Tail Ends once more through the same openings they were tucked in the first place.
2. Retuck its Tail Ends through the central opening of the bend.
3. Un-tuck the Tail Ends once, drive them turn around the Standing ends ( so they make a 180+ degrees turn, a collar, around the Standing ends ), and re-tuck them through the same openings they were tucked in the first place.
4. Use the Tail ends to tie half hitches around the Standing ends.
5. Add 180 degrees at the turns the Standing parts make around each other.

The 3 can lead to the same knot as the 5, or not - and vice versa. The 5 in the case of the oSE C - oSE C, shown in previous posts, has not produced the "collared" uSE C - uSE C, The "Ashley s bowled over" bend.


Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 11, 2014, 05:18:20 PM
  Regarding the 5 easy to remember ways to enhance the security of a simple bend :

1. Re-tuck its Tail Ends once more through the same openings they were tucked in the first place.
2. Retuck its Tail Ends through the central opening of the bend.
3. Un-tuck the Tail Ends once, drive them turn around the Standing ends
  ( so they make a 180+ degrees turn, a collar, around the Standing ends ),
   and re-tuck them through the same openings they were tucked in the first place.
4. Use the Tail ends to tie half hitches around the Standing ends.
5. Add 180 degrees at the turns the Standing parts make around each other.

The 3 can lead to the same knot as the 5, or not - and vice versa.
The 5 in the case of the oSE C - oSE C, shown in previous posts,
has not produced the "collared" uSE C - uSE C, The "Ashley s bowled over" bend.

And these five can be found wanting, as you note
--that they don't lead from #1452 (and like knots)
to the "bowled-over" structure that seems to be
succeeding.  (Now, some knots might begin with this,
so we should amend the title of these rules from what
can be done TO a given knot for enhancing, to what
can exist IN a knot that will give it security.)

Some of the above Five seem to be a matter of somewhere
making a sort of *nip*; and this can be seen as simply
adding some more-of-the-same friction by means of
more area contact!?  And others add a U-turn, which
gives both frictional resistance, and also some resistance
via bending-flow.  Whereas with the bowled-over
structure, we are --what?-- not so importantly adding
real estate to create friction --though that IS done--,
but creating greater pressure/compression at the
central friction-generating, nipping point?!
--and that into this pressurized zone, we tuck the
last-chance-at-slippage tails for nip!?

That the ("merely" might we venture?) re-tucked
#1452 has the "last-chance-..." aspect but lacks
the "bowled-over" pressurizing (and its added contact)?!

Incidentally, we might *see* by means of fitting theory
to observation as best we get from EStar's nice pics of
the quadruple fisherman's knot slipping that the
draw of the S.Parts --here, though, it seems to be of
just one side, mostly?-- pulls the tail into the knot
from which it marvelously escapes courtesy of the
strong pull of force flowing so frictionlessly around
the core(!!) --AND it flows so *immediately*, because
of the near-nothing elasticity of the material : the
pull at point-A affects point-B immediately, lacking
the elongation of near-point-A material that in
other materials would give some delay.

I have to wonder if a properly tied blood knot
--or one w/simple re-tucking--
would hold, and to what benefit for strength
(none for untying!)?! 
I'm appalled that I cannot find
on the bloody darn Net a presentation of the proper
tying and formation of this knot!!!!!  It should be
formed like the double harness bend --and, yes,
there are tails-together & tails-opposite symmetries--
but with many, full wraps --wrapping around both of
the S.Parts, TOWARDS the final, center tucking point,
not away from it.  @(*$&^*#&
(This system won't allow me to express my anger
at the Net echoes of stupidity!)
 >:(   >:(   >:(    >:(     >:(      >:(    >:(    >:(   >:(

DFred, who's doing all the latest revising of Knots
on Wikipedia?  I do not have the time or presence
or number of fingers to go plugging all the leaks
of knot stupidity into our land!!


--dl*
====
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 11, 2014, 05:24:28 PM
On this thread I tested the initial bend :  Strong and did not slip.
I also tested the bend in the pictures just above where I gave my test results.
Ouch, I'm getting dizzy zipping back'n'forth to find
apparent NEW information edited into OLD posts!
(A post beginning "I will test it tomorrow" sees me
looking AFTER it for the results, and only now do I
see that you did in fact test and did get good results.
My surmise on not seeing a clear response was that
you in fact got such good results to not have a knot-B
to rate it with (except as superior) and were pinging
EStar in order to try to calibrate the new high.  And
maybe so?   ;)  )

Quote
You got to be kidding, right?
 You posted a photo and I tied it.
What else could I be talking about?
Um, apparently a response to a now ghost post
which makes one wonder indeed what you are
talking about.  (The QUOTE button is your friend,
most esp. w/Xarax.)

Meanwhile, though, I'm surprised that there was
EVER any doubt that the fig.8'd #1452 would slip,
when the re-tucked knot did --the openness of the
fig.8 cries out "slippage!", no?  (Which fig.8 knot has
held, btw : the eye knot, maybe; but an end-2-ender
(loaded how : inner course, or outer?) ... ?)

Above is shown a version of the zeppelin knot that
should be most enticing, as it has the attributes of the
extended #1452 that look good, AND ADDS to those
the (we'll hope) ability to be UNtied after loading!
(As well as being easier to tie & recognize.)

(The ease of untying I'll hazard exits and comes
from less tight binding of a wrapped tuck around
the S.Parts' coil; it occurred to me to wonder if
that binding however in some way contributes
to strength, by pressure early on the S.Parts :
but I think that the slickness of HMPE just won't
notice anything but huge pressure,
and it can't be huge at this final-tucking point
or the tail would pull out!  .:. So, we shall hope
that the bowled-over zeppelin re-tucked secures
the whole boatload of desiderata for us!
[And isn't d. a delicious mouthful!   ;D ) )

Maybe we're onto some firmer ground, at last!
And can also now remember to ask, What about
eye knots?
--where I think one has reason to hope
for better results, as there is just the lone S.Part
to treat, and the rest of the knot can make more
compromises so to do this.  (And then we can ask
how eyes interlocked say with the granny structure
fare re strength --or maybe an extended carrick mat
for the eyes-joining structure, which should bring
thoughts of one of the (lengthy) eye knots favored
by anglers for the HMPE "gel spun" super-strong lines.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: allene on February 11, 2014, 05:44:02 PM
Some various answers are below.

I actually did the testing about 10 minutes after I posted reply 1 so just edited it.  Sorry.

The figure eight that held was a loop, an eye knot if you will.

My last bend was sort of an interlocked eye knot although there was more to it that that.  The problem is that we knot that if you secure an eye knot to a ring and if that ring has the same diameter as the line, then you have lost about 1/2 line strength in the bend but as you also have half the load, you are fine.  But it looks like interlocked eye knots compress the line down to way below nominal line diameter and the structure fails there.  I produced a knot that didn't slip, but it broke before my first bend slipped so why bother.

I also posted a modified bowline that does not slip.  Seemed like there was less interest in it.  Estar proposed a kind of halyard bend that is very strong and does not slip.  But these knots are only strong around metal rings, not around other line. 

Perhaps I will delete my reply to the ghost post :-)  That should confuse people even more as it has been referenced.

Allen
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 11, 2014, 05:57:27 PM
I'm surprised that there was EVER any doubt that the fig.8'd #1452 would slip...
 ...when the re-tucked knot did..

  I do not understand what do you mean here, but I, for one, had not any doubts... I had posted this bend as just an example of a fig.8 ed Ashley bend, but allene has not understood this. After an exchange of posts, when the issue was settled ( I was as dizzy as you about the sequence of posts ), I saw no reason why I would spoil your thread with irrelevant posts - but you have not understood that !  :)

  Have you made any experiments I had missed, which proved this new theory of yours, that a re-tucked knot, without collars, is always more secure than a non-re-tucked one, with collars - and so, if the re-tucked knot un-collared knot slips, the un-retucked collared one should slip, too ? If you did, I will be able to find it, I suppose, because, in contrast to you, I search and find things - and in contrast to me, you never post anything irrelevant, never !  :) :)
 

 
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: allene on February 11, 2014, 06:41:39 PM
Odd. I can see it.  How about this one.   But if it doesn't work, just to to this page http://www.animatedknots.com/fig8follow/index.php?LogoImage=.&Website= (http://www.animatedknots.com/fig8follow/index.php?LogoImage=.&Website=)

(http://www.survivalworld.com/images/knot-images/figure%208%20loop%204.png)
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 11, 2014, 07:03:14 PM
   I believe I know this knot, so I would nt need to see it dancing !  :)
   Eyeknots are more secure than the corresponding "parent" bends, simply because they can slip in one, only, way !  :) So, the fact that this knot holds, while the much more convoluted triple fisherman s does not, is not such a surprize, after all...
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 12, 2014, 04:40:16 PM
   Eyeknots are more secure than the corresponding "parent" bends,
simply because they can slip in one, only, way !  :)
You are forgetting what was shown in the Brion
Toss video of the almost mirrored bowine --and which
behavior he'd reported on some time ago, in a
SAIL magazine article : that eye material can
slip through the knot and out ... the S.Part!

 ;)
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 12, 2014, 04:58:30 PM
Odd. I can see it.  How about this one.
Apparently a response to a quick remark from X.,
who --same with me-- saw only a blue box'd '?'
until ... it all loaded; I now see it, too --but maybe
my system is too slow for its "dancing"(!) (and at
the referenced site).  Thanks.

Now, note that the fig.8 eye & end-2-end knots
are often presented in the pure "flat" form in
shown by Grog before drawing it up (which he
did on my advice in that particular way --a way
that is not commonly shown or done, to my
observation : more often it would be the tail
of that orientation that is loaded!)

The end-2-end knot tied in Grog's-shown orientation
will tend to assume about a 45degree angle to the
axis of tension; loading the other ends will produce
a knot that is more aligned (and whose end-most
turns are lacking tension).  Thus, one can observe
photos of tied knots and get an idea of orientation.)

Quote
The figure eight that held was a loop, an eye knot if you will.
FYI, I've pushed "eye (knot)" because IMO "eye"
is more narrowly defined and should be understood.
"loop", in contrast, is used to denote the form of
line made e.g. as the initial step of tying a bowline
in the rabbit-&-tree manner, it is the thing formed
by tying ends of a line together (e.g. by EStar in the
end-2-end knot testing), or it might mean . . .
an eye knot!  Thus, I've tried to move away from
that overloaded term "loop" (which I now use mostly
for the first sense cited above; "round sling" can do
duty for the 2nd).

NB: The knot shown by Grog is symmetric; that in
your 2nd reference looses the form with its eye
legs falling out of the orientation seen at the
opposite end (where S.Part makes its U-turn).
(I think that torsion can lead to this if forming
the knot by working with a bight (doubled rope).)

Typically, only "fig.8" is given as knot indication,
and one is left to guess the geometry AND which
end is loaded!  No one seems to notice this point
of differentiation, though, but are often happy to
quote test results as though they're definite!

As for using eyeknots qua end-2-end structures,
there is the potential to interlock the eyes with
some structure such as a carrick mat or to
have each knot's tail complete the *eye* in the
opposite knot --the "twin <eyeknots>" structure.
(In the case of a bowline collapsing its *eye*
--in HMPE-- such a structure would see the knots abut.)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 12, 2014, 05:06:30 PM
You are forgetting ...
eye material can slip through the knot and out ... the S.Part !

   Right !
   I am always forgetting it, because it is so counter-intuitive... Things that I see only in video can not really be imprinted on me. I wish I had a proper laboratory, to see this with with my own eyes, to get a feeling of this miracle ! Now, it is just another piece of information my brain can put aside...
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: estar on February 15, 2014, 05:18:53 PM
Dan asked me to test the Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked.

I first tested it bowled over but not retucked - it slipped at 680lbslbs (in 1/8" amsteel, tensile 2500lbs).

Then I tested it both bowled over and retucked - slipped at 825lbs (photos below).

I then tested a sample to slip, and stopped the pull and let it sit for 30 minutes and it then held and broke at 1305lbs, which is 52% of tensile, which is equal to our other best non-slippers (ESTAR and Polamar).

Note: the numbers above are the loop load/2
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 15, 2014, 05:56:24 PM
  e-star and allen-e, you are doing an excellent work, and we all appreciate it much more than you can imagine. The whole history of bends, especially those tied on very slippery and very strong materials, can change its path because of you. You have stumbled upon something that should have been addressed and possibly resolved years ago by the knot-tying community. However, if your work is not systematic and organized according to some minimum standards - and I know enough about this matter to tell that it is not - I am afraid it will run the danger to be less appreciated than it should, and even to be forgotten soon. You have been called by the Fate to play an important role. You can follow this call, or not, it is your call !
  I have said it many times, and I will repeat it, because I love knots, and I try to ignore what knot tyers think=believe about each other. Start from the best, more comprehensive book/collection about knots we have, the "Symmetric Bends", by Roger E. Miles. Do not read the mathematics of it, although I understand that e-start, at least, can do I, in just a few hours. Start right from page 78, and finish at page 98 - 20 small pages with 60 clear tying diagrams, of about half of the most simple bends we have. Start testing them = collect the data of equivalently prepared and repeatable experiments, on Dyneema 1/8" ( or 1/4, if you have the equipment), say, three times each. When you finish, proceed with 3 more tests of half of them, those which slip and/or break at higher loads. Then, do it again and again and again. You will end up with 4 bends, and you will have turned the first page in the history of bend testing on slippery and strong materials.
   ( And, please, use International System of Units, which, contrary to the Queen s orders to Her Majesty s subjects, does NOT contain libs !  :) )     
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: allene on February 15, 2014, 06:26:53 PM
Dan asked me to test the Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked.

I first tested it bowled over but not retucked - it slipped at 680lbslbs (in 1/8" amsteel, tensile 2500lbs).

Then I tested it both bowled over and retucked - slipped at 825lbs (photos below).

I then tested a sample to slip, and stopped the pull and let it sit for 30 minutes and it then held and broke at 1305lbs, which is 52% of tensile, which is equal to our other best non-slippers (ESTAR and Polamar).

Note: the numbers above are the loop load/2

I wanted to put these results in the context of my first bend.  The bowled over and retucked knot slipped at 33% of line strength.   This is essentially identical to the result with my first bend at 32%.  But my first bend can be untied.  The first bend variation, which cannot be untied, did not slip and broke at 39%.  My first bends are also smaller easier to tie knots.

Allen
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: estar on February 15, 2014, 08:03:32 PM
For my part - we have already found a 'bend' that never slips and breaks at about 50%, and which is relatively easy to tie - which is back to back estar's.  It's only weakness (in my mind) is that it cannot be untied.

So, in my mind 'the search' is for something either easier to tie or which is a no-slipper that can be untied.

 But honestly, the only real practical application (on a sailing boat anyway) for bends in bare dyneema is to make fixed loops which are too short for an end to end splice, and un-tieing is really not all that critical feature for those.  More important is low profile compactness and the back to back estar scores decently on that.  So, practically speaking I am happy with the solution we have already found.  I am skeptical that we will find a better practical solution for this application, but if we do, I expect it will be more along the lines of the long low profile fishing bends (like the blood - Dan I would love to see some pics of what you consider "right" for a blood)  than the shorter/rounder general rope bends.

By the way, one comment on testing these knots . . . the slip load is very hard to quantify.  It has a high variation, and in many knots varies quite a bit depending on pull speed. As I have said before, I am really only comfortable rating slippers as low/medium/high, and not very comfortable with the load specific numbers (which you all want). To get good (statistically understood) slip numbers I would have to do a minimum of 10 pulls (and 30 would be better), and have a mechanical very controlled standard 'pull rate'. I am not going to do 10 or 30 pulls times a whole range of knots simply because of the time and cost of this line . . . and I am not going to build a precisely controlled speed puller. For no-slippers, the breaking strength by comparison is easy to measure with low variation and high repeat-ability.

I guess we will all have our favorites.

Here's a pic of back to back estar's, which I did this morning just as a control for the Ashley bends, it is just about to break at 52% (the 95% CI is 50--55%):
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 15, 2014, 08:52:44 PM
... 'the search' is for something either easier to tie or which is a no-slipper that can be untied.

 Or for something that breaks above 50 % ? How do we know that the 50% is the maximum we can achieve ? Easy answer. We do not.

...the only real practical application (on a sailing boat anyway) for bends in bare dyneema is...

  One thing we should NOT take for granted nowadays, is what will be the practical application of whatever in "a sailing boat" - sailing boats are vehicles, they do not remain the same ! Unless somebody can claim that the mechanism used to adjust the inclination of the fully submerged foils in the America s Cup sailing boats last year were foreseen by anybody !   :)
  Noope, nobody can predict which the practical applications of a knot will be - and one GREAT example of this is the use of the reef bend on the tube of a bicycle !  :) (1). We do not want to learn about knots, because we have a fixed idea about a fixed mechanical problem of a fixed mechanism which we want to solve with a knot... We want to learn about knots because we like to do it - and because knowledge is a the most practically useful thing the Universe has created !  :)

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4762.0

I am skeptical that we will find a better practical solution for this application, but if we do, I expect it will be more along the lines of...

  Expectations should be based on adequate experience, and nobody has adequate experience with bends tied on such material. Of course, if you had discovered the wheel, you could be sceptical about better practical solutions, indeed !  :) However, there are HUNDREDS of back-to-back-hitches /nooses that have not been tested by anybody, for example. And, of course, HUNDREDS of re-tucked simple bends as well. I admire the boldness of the scepticism of somebody who believes that something will never be improved - but I trust more somebody who does not believe in beliefs... :) 

 
many knots varies quite a bit depending on pull speed.

  Among other things. Alternating loading should also be considered. The force by which the bend was pre-tensioned in the first place, during its dressing, would also play a role, IMHO. So, one should always pre-tight the bends he is going to test with a certain, always the same, load.
  I think that nobody yet has been convinced that the bends tied on thin and thick lines will behave the same way - although I, for one, hope that this is the case, indeed, and that the mere scale of the ropes we test will be irrelevant, provided all other things remain, proportionally, the same. JP has reported some results, but he has not repeated them on thicker lines.

 
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: estar on February 15, 2014, 09:20:17 PM
mmmmm . . . might I say that you are perhaps being a little condescending in your post

... 'the search' is for something either easier to tie or which is a no-slipper that can be untied.

 Or for something that breaks above 50 % ? How do we know that the 50% is the maximum we can achieve ? Easy answer. We do not.

Actually empirically what we know is #1 that no knot has tested statistically above 50%, #2 That the 5 brummel, which is a tuck type splice, is 80% of line strength, and the full bury splices are 100%. And theoretically what we know is given the specific dyneema bend radius strength curve, we can quite strongly argue that no knot with a bend radius of 1:1 in it will ever be stronger than 50%, and I would suggest it is impossible to design a knot that does not have a 1:1 bend radius in it.

...the only real practical application (on a sailing boat anyway) for bends in bare dyneema is...

  One thing we should NOT take for granted nowadays, is what will be the practical application of whatever in "a sailing boat" - sailing boats are vehicles, they do not remain the same ! Unless somebody can claim that the mechanism used to adjust the inclination of the fully submerged foils in the America s Cup sailing boats last year were foreseen by anybody !   :)
  Noope, nobody can predict which the practical applications of a knot will be - and one GREAT example of this is the use of the reef bend on the tube of a bicycle !  :) (1). We do not want to learn about knots, because we have a fixed idea about a fixed mechanical problem of a fixed mechanism which we want to solve with a knot... We want to learn about knots because we like to do it - and because knowledge is a the most practically useful thing the Universe has created !  :)

I did not say we will not find other applications for loops.  I said there were not other applications for bends, because an end for end splice is the better solution whenever it is possible.  That is just a plain fact.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4762.0

I am skeptical that we will find a better practical solution for this application, but if we do, I expect it will be more along the lines of...

  Expectations should be based on adequate experience, and nobody has adequate experience with bends tied on such material. Of course, if you had discovered the wheel, you could be sceptical about better practical solutions, indeed !  :) However, there are HUNDREDS of back-to-back-hitches /nooses that have not been tested by anybody, for example. And, of course, HUNDREDS of re-tucked simple bends as well. I admire the boldness of the scepticism of somebody who believes that something will never be improved - but I trust more somebody who does not believe in beliefs... :) 

hmmm . . . first, you have no idea how much experience I have testing bends in this material.  I would suggest it is 'adequate' to express some skepticism. And second, I said that an important criteria for success was a low profile result.  That makes my following comment about looking at long fishing knots over rounder knots almost by definition. 

 
many knots varies quite a bit depending on pull speed.

  Among other things. Alternating loading should also be considered. The force by which the bend was pre-tensioned in the first place, during its dressing, would also play a role, IMHO. So, one should always pre-tight the bends he is going to test with a certain, always the same, load.
  I think that nobody yet has been convinced that the bends tied on thin and thick lines will behave the same way - although I, for one, hope that this is the case, indeed, and that the mere scale of the ropes we test will be irrelevant, provided all other things remain, proportionally, the same. JP has reported some results, but he has not repeated them on thicker lines.

 Look in theory you should control for "everything", but in practice you need to focus on what is really driving variation. I don't know how much experience you have doing pull tests, but I now know what makes for important statistical variation and what does not. In this slipping case the important factor is pull speed.

I recently did some scaling tests.   I can summarize them if you are interested.

 
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 15, 2014, 10:47:54 PM
empirically what we know is #1 that no knot has tested statistically above 50%...

  In your mind, as you rightly said ! :)
  If I had seen two, or a dozen white swans all and all in my life, empirically what I "know" is that no swan is black - and I might even claim, sceptically, as you do, that there will never be any black swan anywhere in the Universe - because, as Leibniz said, this World is the best, so it is the only possible !  :)

  So, when you will test the 60-120 known simple bends I have suggested to you, and the 60-120 centrally re-tucked versions of them, then you will "know" something...
  You have tested what you said is "THE Sheet bend", and "THE fig.9 knot", without even realizing that there are TWO Sheet bends, and THREE fig.9 knots, for KnotGod s sake... And I do not even count how many different dressings / loadings combinations "THE fig.8 knot" can have... So, I guess that, although you have done a wonderful job, you have still some distance to cover before you start claiming that "we know".

I would suggest it is impossible to design a knot that does not have a 1:1 bend radius in it.

? ? ? You would nt bet on this, I suppose...  :) Because I know dozens of such bends !  :) Does the retraced overhand knot = Water bend, for example, have a 1:1 bend radius in it ? Or, for that matter, most the fig.8 knots you had mentioned ? I guess I have not understood what you say/mean here.

I did not say we will not find other applications for loops.  I said there were not other applications for bends, because an end for end splice is the better solution whenever it is possible.

   So, because spices are the better solutions, we have to abandon all end-to-end knots at the ends of a loop, and/or apply only the particular hitch-to-hitch bend you propose - because :

the only real practical application (on a sailing boat anyway) for bends in bare dyneema is to make fixed loops which are too short for an end to end splice, and un-tieing is really not all that critical feature for those... So, practically speaking I am happy with the solution we have already found.  I am skeptical that we will find a better practical solution for this application, but if we do, I expect it will be more along the lines of ...

  Your reasoning is not very convincing here, I am afraid - and the retreat to the splices sounds almost as a desperate defence.
  We have to test all the closed, by end-to-end knots or hitch to hitch knots, loops we know, before we can "know". If you abandon knots, you may even abandon splices and search for a nice cheap glue, or a mechanical fastener. Practically speaking regarding you, you do deserve to be happy. However, practically speaking regarding our knowledge about knots, we are veeery unhappy / sorry we know next to nothing !

I don't know how much experience you have doing pull tests, but I now know what makes for important statistical variation and what does not. In this slipping case the important factor is pull speed.

1. NONE   :)
2. So, the other factors I had mentioned do not contribute in an "important" statistical variation? In what sense ? How you know before hand what is "important" in a distribution, if you do not know what form this distribution should have ? If you say they will not vary the results more than, say, 1%, I will agree - provided that the differences of the pull speed factor would be, say, ten or fifteen times more ( 10% - 15%)- but is this the case ?

hmmm . . . first, you have no idea how much experience I have testing bends in this material.  I would suggest it is 'adequate' to express some skepticism. And second, I said that an important criteria for success was a low profile result.  That makes my following comment about looking at long fishing knots over rounder knots almost by definition. 

  I apologize for anything that have said and it sounded like I think it sounded to you. I am sure that you have dozens, if not hundreds of times more experience than me - but this is still not adequate, I am afraid !  :) :)
  I read your site, and I see the number and kind of bends you refer there - and I would suggest this reading is "adequate" to express scepticism about your knowledge of bends - which, I repeat, may well be much more extended than mine s. However, I happen to know that there is no One Sheet bend, One fig.8 and One fig,9 knot, and to know the 120 known bends - while you do not... So, we(plural) have many knowledge to exchange, before we can claim that we "know".
  First, you mentioned the "facts", now you mention the "definitions" ! My feet have not started trembling, though...  :) Have you measured the maximum width of the cross sections of even the very few bends you have tested ? If yes, where are the NUMBERS ( in cm, of course ..., not in Hers Majesty s inches :)). And of HOW MANY BENDS have you measured the maximum widths of the cross sections ? How have you strengthen your belief that the minute sample of bends you have tested is "adequate" to jump into such broad conclusions ?
  Of course, a long-long-long fishing knot, tied by spin-spin-spin entangling, would be sleek, strong and will not slip. So you propose to tie the dyneema bends with fishing knots, and fishing knots only ? If so, I have to pull out my fishing knots memories, which I had buried dozens of years ago. Now, I eat fish in the restaurants - I even would not allow cooking of fishes in my apartment, because I can not stand the smell of the fresh fish more than 1 minute.  :)
 
  Frankly, I would nt expect a sailor be a fun of fishing knots !  :) :) :)
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 15, 2014, 11:15:11 PM
... both bowled over and retucked - slipped at 825lbs (photos below).

  Oh ! I am sure Dan Lehman would had preferred a lower maximum load, if it would be accompanied by an acceptable, at least, looks - but, with this mass body ratio, what would he expect ? I suggest bicycling, mush uphill bicycling !  :) :)
  The "bowled over and retucked" whatever should better be stored in the not-bowled basket under our desk, we call waste basket... :)

   P.S. I see that this fat ugly tangly has been tied in two parts of the same loop ? As a friend of mine once pointed out to me, there can be some kind of invisible interference we can not predict or explain between those two knots, so the pull on the one is absorbed earlier or later within the nub of the other, vibrations and minute variations of tension could spread from the one to the other, etc. I believe that it is better to test loops with one only bend on them - and with their two tips wrapped around bearings, not pins that can not follow micro-rotations of the loop while it is tensioned, so they "protect" the bend(s), as it has been reported.

Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 16, 2014, 12:58:23 AM
But honestly, the only real practical application (on a sailing boat anyway)
for bends in bare dyneema is to make fixed loops which are too short for an
end-to-end splice, and un-tieing is really not all that critical feature for those.
More important is low profile compactness
Let me ask : would this application be able
to use a "loop" that was built by knotting
both sides of a mid-section of line --rather than
just the two tails?  In that "the chain is no
stronger than its weakest link," I've wondered
making both *sides* of such a "loop" participate
in the knotting, which might enhance strength
and security aspects; but which would mean
that the end points of the loop were fixed
(think "dog bone" for structure; each half
being a sort of loop).  As an example, the
opposite-to-ends side could form a loop
(overloaded term, "loop", argh) /circle, 'a la
bowline and then each tail could respectively
be tucked through this in a bowlinesque way.
(Now, I think that this particular knot is NOT
so secure; but it's just an example ... .)

If such a structure (which might place the knot
closer to one end, to provide large/small loops)
is feasible, this might be a direction worth
pursuing.

Quote
Here's a pic of back to back estar's,
Thanks.  And if you can zoom in for a more
revealing photo (esp. of a highly loaded knot,
to see what's going on in compression and
nip), that'd be a bonus.


--dl*
====
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 16, 2014, 06:47:54 AM
   P.S. I see that this fat ugly tangly has been tied in two parts of the same loop ?
As a friend of mine once pointed out to me, there can be
some kind of invisible interference we can not predict or explain
[but can conjecture, like the existence of unicorns]
between those two knots, so the pull on the one is absorbed earlier or later
within the nub of the other, vibrations and minute variations of tension
could spread from the one to the other, etc.

[and butterfly-wing vibrations in South America could do magic!]
 I believe that it is better to test loops ...
[vigorously vicariously]
Ah, yes, such doubts and expressions of Reality
defiling the imagined ideals of Statistical Purity
have been uttered before.  I can imagine that
such Perfect testing is critical for critical uses
in a Perfect World, where knotted material
wouldn't be subject to imperfect loading
and maybe salt water spray containing
tiny particles of deep downunderness
and micro-(or nano-(!)organisms
of diabolical biological effects
and unknown unknowns
and exceptionally
imperceptible
dynamically
asymmetric
harmful,
unideal,
nasty,
bad,
X!


 ::)
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 16, 2014, 02:14:56 PM
  I can not recognize what is on a man s or Dan Leh-man s mind... However, I can tell that its contour reveals a body mass index which requires cycling, much uphill cycling, in order to lose some redundant weight.
  I, too, have tied many bowl-like bends, but I dared to show only those which, although they are certainly not slim, and may be characterized portly, are NOT ugly. The old Strangle bend (1), or the recent "yet another bowl" (2), for example. I am sorry, but the "bowled over & re-tucked" whatever IS ugly, and it is not a matter of politically correctness to recognize and tell this. ( The "bowled over." ( = bowled over, period ), before it swallows its Tails, is OK ).
   I did not say this because of the particular application e-star and allene had in their minds - on board of a sailing ship, when the ship itself and the rope is moving, it is better if we tie slim knots, with a small cross section, for many reasons. I said it because we have to draw some lines, place some limits on the volume of the practical knots we are ready to tie, just as we place limits in their complexity regarding their tying, for example. I think that the "bowled & re-tucked" whatever crossed the limits I have in my mind !  :) And I was not polite or politically correct enough in the way I said what was in my mind, because I am still behaving according to the feeling this "riduculous"(sic) characterization Dan Lehman had used (4) for the most beautiful Oyster bend / Threefold ( M. B5)(3) I had proposed to test, because of its tightness. The "fat ugly tangly"(sic) was just another knee-jerk reaction to the reminiscence of this "riducurlous"... Mea Culpa.
   Now, here comes the interesting question. Let us suppose that, in order tie a end-to-end knot between two Dyneema lines, we discover that we really need something of volume or tying complexity beyond the limits we have in our mind. What will we do ?
   As far as it concerns me, I have answered this question in another occasion - in the case of midline-to-midline bends. If we will be forced to tie a very bulky knot, we simply will NOT tie ANY knot, we will solve our rope-joining problem with some other means. However, the re-tucked alternative Carrick mat of allene is not a very bulky knot, and I am sure that there are dozens of acceptably bulky knots that can do the job, without having to go fishing. To me, a practical knot is something that can, in theory, be used in practice. I do not believe that people will ever tie very bulky or very difficult to remember how to tie and to actually tie practical knots. In our mind, a practical knot is not just any entangled segments of ropes. It is a "small" lump along the line - if this lump is bumped, the definition of the practical knot itself is bumped, and, at the end, we will start to consider, as practical knots, the tangled spaghettis in our bows...   
   
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2154.msg16858#msg16858
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4786.0
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30861#msg30861
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30865#msg30865
 
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 16, 2014, 02:42:39 PM
there can be some kind of invisible interference we can not predict or explain between those two knots,
[but can conjecture, like the existence of unicorns]

...vibrations and minute variations of tension could spread from the one to the other, etc.
[and butterfly-wing vibrations in South America could do magic!]
]

  I believe that no scientist worth its salt would ever think to test two connected things, the one next to the other, when he can well test each one separately. I am not saying that the influence would be huge - I am just saying that there can be a influence, and that, at least before we do some tests, it is better not to underestimate its magnitude beforehand. I imagine that those two knots can, somehow, work ij tandem, and each one can absorb some vibrations or sudden increases of the tensile forces that would had made the other break - because we can not be sure that both knots were dressed or pre-tensioned in the exact same way.
  Of course the bump that made Dan Lehman mind vibrate was not this absolutely reasonable comment on the cautious way we have to perform our experiments - it was my characterization of his "bowled over and re-tucked" whatever, that made his square-wheeled bicycle or his unicorn to jump up, and drag his mind with it. Did it step on any other soOo elegant "superbowled-over & re-re-tucked" knot of his ? Who can tell ? Who can read what s on a man s mind ?
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on February 16, 2014, 03:27:59 PM
   Why is this "Bowled-over & re-tucked" whatever soOo bulky ?
   The answer is simple : Because it is NOT a "re-tucked" simple bend, it is a re-re-tucked simple bend ! Re-, Re-, Two times ! ( After some more, we would had started to listen the music of it in our ears... :)). As I had shown in (1), and one can see in the attached picture, this bulky tangle is the result of two reiterative, adjacent tuckings, on the simple Carrick-like mat of two most simply interlinked bights shown below. For comparison, the "Illusion" (M. B25)( = lR-uL, i.e. re-tucked through the lR = left Right opening of this mat, for the one tail, and through the uL = upper Left opening of this mat, for the other tail ), is re-tucked once. ( See the third attached picture ).
   It is like you eat two full bowls of spaghetti each time, and you still wish to remain slim. This is the kind of magic which may be current in South or Central America, but is not allowed in the KnotLand. If you re-tuck too much, you become over-weighted. We should be happy that there are some limits in the complexity of the possible practical knots, otherwise we wouldn't bother to tie them - as nobody bothers to tie the 177.147 different distinct tie knots (1).
   
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18601#msg18601
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4778.0
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on May 06, 2014, 04:46:12 PM
   Another thing one may "add" to Ashley s #1452 bend ( other than 180 degrees additional turns of the segments around the central opening, as in the bend shown in this thread ), is shape "8" collars around the Standing Ends. We have seen something like this some time ago : see the attached pictures presented at (1), and also the knots presented by Luca at (2).

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3251.msg19547#msg19547
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4798
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on June 30, 2014, 12:15:11 PM
  The "Double"/ bowled Zeppelin shown with pictures (  not only "described" with hieroglyphs, as it happens too often ! ) at Reply#8  ( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4777.msg31022#msg31022 ) may be considered as a delayed incubation of the idea expressed at :
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13804#msg13804

...it is only the first (double collar) version I'd use.  You might try an in-between version, where the main loop goes not 180deg
or your 540 but 360 degrees, to collar the opposite line.

   At the posts referred below (1), I, too, has tied some double collar variations of the Hunter s bend in the past, which may look "similar" ( but they are not : The Zeppelin and the Hunter s bends are topologically and structurally very different knots, so not "similar" at all ! ). In the back of my mind, the purpose of the re-tucking was to force the first curves of the Standing Parts become rounder and wider - so it was related to the strength, not to the security of the knot. I would nt believe that such a complication would be dictated by the so low friction coefficient of those extra-ordinary materials...
  The main thing which is "doubled" ( well, almost doubled - it is bowled over 1.5 times ) in this enhanced Zeppelin bend, is the nipping loop, not the collar. The same "duplication" can be attempted in all the numerous variations of the Hunter s and the falsely tied Hunter s bends. However, those four interlocked double nipping loops, although they do not affect too much the easiness of the parent Zeppelin bend s untiability ( they do, but in an acceptable degree, I think ), they make the already too tight, and prone to jam, Hunter s bend, even more problematic... and the same should be said for the re-tucked True Lover s bend (2), and the Strangle bend (3). We should better think twice before we interlock double nipping loops (4).

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1919.msg16649#msg16649
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1919.msg16652#msg16652
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1919.msg16661#msg16661
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1919.msg16662#msg16662

2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1919.msg16374#msg16374
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2154.msg16858#msg16858
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4150.msg25169#msg25169



Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Luca on November 23, 2014, 02:19:36 AM
Hi,

This bend to me appears as a sort of "tressed" version of the double Zeppelin (B2) shown by xarax in this post: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13796#msg13796
The bend is absolutely no tested,so I have no idea whether it may add something to the version linked above.  :-\
Below I propose two possible dressing: the first is the more spontaneous result by following the method( maybe tricky,but not so tricky!) proposed in the diagrams in the fourth pic;I like the way in which the working ends are "nipped",but the second,more..ehm.. "slim",dressing,however, could be more stable and maybe strong, but they are only my impressions (or imaginations! ::)).In any case, the first dressing seems to have a greater benefit in stability in the case in which also the collars are doubled (third pic below:one pound of Zeppelin all for free! ;)) as shown at reply #8: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4777.msg31022#msg31022 .

                                                                                                                            Bye!

(http://)

(http://)
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on November 23, 2014, 04:12:00 AM
    Going further all the way, the "kinky" dressing starts to look like the knot shown in the attached picture. The optimum "right" 90 degree angle between the axis / pin of the hinge, and the first curves / knuckles of the hinge, has disappeared, and instead we see a 60 degrees angle - so, at the point of contact between the first curves and the Tail ends, we will have friction forces, not only sheer forces... The bend became less Zeppelin-like !  :) (1)
   
    In knots, rope segments should either bite each other / meet at right angles, or caress each other / be parallel. There is no point of one segment "jumping" over the other ( unless it is a riding turn, and squeezes it on the hard surface of a pole, as it happens in the "snug" hitches ). Such a "kink" neither generates enough friction, because the segments can easily slide on its other s surface ( if we want maximum obstruction of movement, we better have segments squeezed onto each other, while the meet at right angles ), nor it enables an unobstructed flow of the lines inside the nub, which will re-distribute the tensile forces on a greater area.
    Another disadvantage of this dressing, is that the knot becomes less easy to inspect - which is a great plus of all symmetric knots, in general, and of the Zeppelin bend, in particular.

    So, noope ! Stick to "parallelism" !

   ( I have abandoned Lee s Pretzel hitch nipping turn + shape "8" collar structure eyeknot, AND the Girth hitch nipping turn + shape "8" collar structure eyeknot, because of the presence of those annoying "kinks" ! Read :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg28493#msg28493
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4009.msg27385#msg27385   )

   1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg30245#msg30245
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Luca on November 24, 2014, 12:00:33 AM
Hi xarax,

If you have written about the bend in your black and white photo you are right 100%, but taking a look at the bend shown in the pathetic imitation :-[ of your picture attached below... probably you would continue to be right!But maybe "a little less" ...
The setting shown here corresponds to the result that I get spontaneously using the method described above (no, it is not true, I confess: I gave a pull on the tails!):the kinks are less kinky,the tail ends exit(almost)perpendicular to the standing ends(but I must say that I do not know what can happen under heavy loads),and some curvatures of the collar are less sharp.
But the fact remains that the flaws you explained,mentioned just in an embryonal way in my first post,are present, although to a(much?)lesser extent.
So probably, if one wants to apply to the "normal" Zeppelin bend only a doubling of type B2, the "standard" B2 is perhaps the best solution, because more stable (but the "normal" Zeppelin it is even more), more self-dressing (but even here I give a little pull on the tails ...),and surely more easy to inspect.
But the problems of stability of the "tressed" version seem to disappear after the moment in which one applies also the doubling of the collars(and even the kinks seem to be even less evident!);therefore the basic question might be:using Dyneema rope,which may be the comparative results of tests made in the Estar way,between the double collared "standard" version B2 and the double collared "tressed" version B2?

                                                                                                                              Bye!
(http://)
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: xarax on November 24, 2014, 01:07:14 AM
...you would continue to be right! But maybe "a little less" ...

  Pay attention to my first sentence :
  Going further all the way...
  In your picture, you show a knot where you had not - a knot where you had remained in the same in-between, intermediate stage, which eventually, at the very end of the transformation, will lead to the knot I show.
  The "jump" of the one segment over the other, which will produce the "kink", has not been finished yet in your knot : when it will be finished, when the riding turn will be transported all the way, to the other side of the turn underneath it, you will get the knot I show.
   Imagine the central pair of the Tail Ends as an axle. The three turns "revolve" around this axle, so they will be adjacent and in contact to this axle more than to themselves. Under heavy loading, I do not believe that the "kink" would remain in the form you show. It seems to me that the form I show is the final stage, and the form you show is only an intermediate, not very balanced one.
   If you tie the knot in Spectra/Dyneema, perhaps we can settle this. Perhaps we will see that both forms, the form you show and the form I show, are equally stable, so we will both be right 100% !  :)

I confess: I gave a pull on the tails !

  Aha !  :) In a heavy loaded bend, the effects of this pull will be "swallowed" by the effects of the pull of the Standing Ends, which will force all the turns to turn around the central, less loaded and more immobilized part, the pair of Tail Ends. So I think that we will get three turns which will be as much embracing their common central axis as they can, i.e. we will get the form I show.

   the tail ends exit (almost) perpendicularly to the standing ends

   "the tails ends still exit perpendicularly to the standing ends"... is the correct expression ! Wait and see what will happen next ! The pulling of the turns will force them to settle, the one next to the other, on the surface of the axle, as I show. 

  the flaws you explained... , are present, although to a (much?) lesser extent.

  Because you have not yet gone "further, all the way" !  Your embryo will grow up !  :)
Title: Re: "Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
Post by: Luca on November 24, 2014, 03:45:51 AM
Unfortunately these days I do not have access to my "laboratory", but I found a piece of "rope" that served as a handle of a cardboard shopping bag : the material is very elastic and extremely compressible, stuff that proved to be very suitable for distort a knot (if it has to distort) with the sheer force of the arms.I think that the result of the "test" visible in the first pic below is "OVER all the way"!And give you rightness more or less all along the line ...
However, the "test" on the re-collared version(second pic) gave good satisfaction on my assumptions about his acquired stability.
So,given  his stability(yes,still not seriously tested),it is stronger(I don't think) of the bend at reply #8?Or Is less prone to slip?(maybe I guess,unless it does not break before...)  To posterity the arduous judgement!

(http://)