Author Topic: Hunters loop ?  (Read 7290 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Hunters loop ?
« on: July 06, 2008, 11:13:42 AM »
0
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 02:00:43 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Re: Hunters loop ?
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2008, 05:52:11 PM »
Just as it is the case in Zeppelin bend ( Rosendahl's bend ) , one can consider a Hunters loop.
It seems to me more compact than Alpine Butterfly single loop knot, and equally easy to tie.
Any suggestions ?

And you're tying either of these non-Post-Eye-Tiable loopknots in preference
to say a Bowline because ... ?
(SmitHunter's will be prone to jam under much load (as the bend can).)

Note that Butterfly Bend => B. loopknot by  different path/rule than the other cases;
note that the Butterfly can take follow the same rule (in which case note that in being
asymmetric there are two cases to consider--and by any rule, for that matter),
and vice versa (but the other bends look pretty silly with the ends-connect-into-eye
version!).

The bend that H.Asher named "Shakehands" (which knot structure if presented with
different loading as Ashley's #1031/1048) lends itself to being a loopknot, and one
that can be Tied In-the Bight (there's also a LK corresponding to Rosendahl's bend
that is TIB).

... among other things ...

 :)

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Hunters loop ?
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2008, 04:25:31 PM »

3. The Hunters loop is very compact, as its corresponding bend. It consumes a small part of the rope length, and can be untied very easily.


I just tried it and it jammed very easily.  I'm glad I didn't start out with my normal heavy test load.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Hunters loop ?
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2008, 06:02:41 PM »
There are two variations of it, depending upon which ends of the bend you connect to form the loop. Which one have you tried ?

The most obvious one:  One of the free ends of the bend is still free when used in the loop form, and the other free end of the bend is employed in making the loop. 

I can't imagine leaving one of the standing parts of the Hunter's Bend free and still calling it a Hunter's Loop.

If you want to remove all ambiguity, you need to post a diagram or image.  It wouldn't hurt if you put a few hundred pounds of force through your loop tied in small nylon rope, too.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 06:06:26 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Hunters loop ?
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2008, 07:39:41 PM »
Could you please inform us about the strength of this loop ?

Sorry, xarax, I don't even do strength testing of knots when paid.   ;D

Anyway, such results would likely have multiple ranges of results based on material and rope type, among other factors. 
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Re: Hunters loop ?
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2008, 06:42:01 PM »
The most obvious one:  One of the free ends of the bend is still free when used in the loop form, and the other free end of the bend is employed in making the loop. 

I can't imagine leaving one of the standing parts of the Hunter's Bend free and still calling it a Hunter's Loop.

But this is exactly what is done for the so-called "Butterfly Bend" (aka "Strait B.")
in going from IT to the better-known LK (but, yes, the origin came the other way 'round)!

And as previously noted, there are some interesting other loopknots that might seem
better suited to the moniker, as found e.g. for Rosendahl's Zep. bend, where essentially
one of the bend's standing parts is conceptually (and then, acutally) doubled to become
the loopknot's eye (and so preserves the exact sort of loading profile as the bend!),
and one finishes the knot appropriately.  --less material efficiently than just making
the eye w/end of first-formed component and re-entering qua 2nd SPart of bend,
but, again, compelling from the aspect of loading, at least as a claimant on the moniker.

BTW, Ashley's original work contained what is essentially a variation of SmitHunter's
bend--#1453.  It is 1425a but where the rope leads to the other side of the SParts
in flowing into the respective collars around them.  It is less prone to jamming.
There is also a simple version of SmitHunter's bend where the ends sort of embrace
in passing each other, and this knot better resists jamming, as material of each end
gets pressed a little into the collars and keeps them open.  (So, ideally, 1425a would've
been (and there's enough page space) "1453a"!)

(Incidentally, the Bowline is often given as the loopknot corresponding to the
Sheet Bend; but as the bend is asymmetric, the Bwl corresponds to taking
one SB SPart qua LK SPart, and taking the other (the SB's bight half) one
is led to Ashley's #1058, a Fig-8-based LK !)

--dl*
====

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Hunters loop ?
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2008, 07:41:08 PM »
The most obvious one:  One of the free ends of the bend is still free when used in the loop form, and the other free end of the bend is employed in making the loop. 

I can't imagine leaving one of the standing parts of the Hunter's Bend free and still calling it a Hunter's Loop.

But this is exactly what is done for the so-called "Butterfly Bend" (aka "Strait B.")
in going from IT to the better-known LK (but, yes, the origin came the other way 'round)!


There is another, more important, difference.  Since the Butterfly Loop is a loop on the bight, there are really no unused ends, strictly speaking.

A Butterfly Loop with the parent line under tension and with the loop empty is identically load-configured to the Butterfly Bend. 

This would not occur with a Hunter's knotform as it cannot be tied on the bight.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2008, 07:42:10 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Re: Hunters loop ?
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2008, 11:28:22 PM »
There is another, more important, difference.  Since the Butterfly Loop is a loop on the bight, there are really no unused ends, strictly speaking.

A Butterfly Loop with the parent line under tension and with the loop empty is identically load-configured to the Butterfly Bend. 

Can be TIB, but that might be unknown at the time of consideration;
need it be deemed relevant?  (The like loading is certainly a compelling aspect.)
And, although there are many bends that can serve as mid-line LKs, should
they be discounted from this classifying consideration just because they
aren't TIB (long ago I played with making a mid-line LK with the Carrick
form, and even a sort of twin-eye knot, where between two such knots
spanned two eyes, anchored in each).  This is unlikely to be practical,
though if you knew where you wanted such a mid-line LK you could
certainly arrange to put such a non-TIB knot there, perfectly reasonably.

Which suggests a dilemma then, for the Ring Bend & Overhand Loopknot,
or is it the Offset Ring Bend (EDK) and ... !?  --pointing to a knot structure
that has all of those various loadings (probably more often used qua mid-line
LK than the Butterfly, unloaded and in some bridle (where angle of ends is
well less than 180 between them; I've measured as much as 140deg though
in lobster-pot bridles)).

All this points to a decision one might want to make about the rule(s)
for deciding how to group knots.  (The quite-like loading LK corresponding
to Rosendahl's Bend is TIB, but would hardly be considered for through,
end-to-end (SPart-2-SPart) loading.)

 :)