Author Topic: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend  (Read 71287 times)

B.M.

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #90 on: November 15, 2010, 09:21:39 PM »
I've been back and forth with both methods now, and I find the alternative method (first tying an overhand knot and threading the working end through) by far the easiest for me to remember.  Maybe it's slower since it has to be done in two steps, but it makes it easy to remember both the bend and the loop since they are tied with the same technique.  The 6+9 method is best suited for the bend, and I screw it up half the time I try it, and it requires that I have to remember two ways to tie the same (in essence) knot.

BM

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #91 on: November 25, 2010, 03:24:35 PM »
I didn't find any of the two patterns really easy, but in the course of trying to learn them, I found a way to tie the knot in a way that is easier for me.

  • I start by holding the standing part of the line with my left hand, with the end pointing right.
  • Then, by twisting the end, I form a round turn counter-clockwise behind the standing part, end now hanging down. (image 1)
  • I pass the end through the round turn from front and pull rather tight, with my thumb along the standing part as a guide and to hold the thus formed overhand open.
  • Then, from above, I pass the end along my thumb.
  • The end is then taken over the running part of the loop that has formed, and through the round turn from behind (in opposite direction from before).

Of course, any pattern devised will do the same thing, as this is indeed a mirror of the first scheme, but I devised this as a simpler way to set it into the hands rather than just remembering a pattern.  And of course, the tying method can be applied also to the bend; it is identical with what is shown on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgzH9YP_vaw&feature=related
The difference is that I start the first overhand a bit differently, not turning the thing over but maintaining its orientation, and use the thumb as a guide, which for me makes it easier to follow.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2010, 09:45:19 AM by Inkanyezi »
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Transminator

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #92 on: November 26, 2010, 10:44:20 AM »
I've been back and forth with both methods now, and I find the alternative method (first tying an overhand knot and threading the working end through) by far the easiest for me to remember.  Maybe it's slower since it has to be done in two steps, but it makes it easy to remember both the bend and the loop since they are tied with the same technique.  The 6+9 method is best suited for the bend, and I screw it up half the time I try it, and it requires that I have to remember two ways to tie the same (in essence) knot.

BM

Have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FNj-Q-3pQ4

With this method you only have to remember one way of tying both the bend and the loop and I find it fairly easy.

Seaworthy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #93 on: June 29, 2014, 11:10:59 AM »
For those familiar with both the Zeppelin Loop and the Zeppelin Bend (or for those at least willing to learn them), I'm looking for your objective opinion.

Which method of tying the Zeppelin Loop do you find easiest and most memorable?

Option 1, The Alternative Method at the bottom of the page:
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html

or

Option 2, which approximates the bend method at the top of the page:
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html

There is no rush.  You can take all the time you need to toy with both approaches.   Thanks in advance.   :)

I know this is an old thread Roo, but here you have a someone who is experienced only in tying a limited number practical knots for sailing purposes, trying out this loop for the very first time this morning and reporting back.

Firstly, Method I and Method 2 are identical to me apart from having the initial overhand reversed (in Method one the tail initially goes over the SP and in Method 2 it goes under the SP). Otherwise it is just a case of Method 1 drawn as a stylised diagram and Method 2 as depicting the actual loop you would tie with line.

I find it far easier following an illustration as shown in Method 2 (more like a photo of the real thing), BUT it is a reverse of how I usually tie a Zeppelin Bend and therefore it is harder to remember.

Let me see if I can explain coherently:
I tie a Zeppelin bend with the 6 on top and the 9 on the bottom.
Method 1 has the 9 on the bottom (so fits in with the bend).
Method 2 has the 9 on the top.

So, the easiest way I find of tying it and remembering it is to use Method 1, but drawn in the style of Method 2.

This is also "oh so easy" to remember as it is very much in the manner of how I tie a bowline (that beloved loop that is so ingrained in my memory tied from all 4 directions):

Photo 1:
- Start with a reverse bowline (ie initial turn to the left not right) and

Photo 2:
- Continue to form an overhand, then form the big loop anticlockwise as you would for a standard bowline

Photo 3:
- Then the rabbit goes out of the top hole

Seaworthy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #94 on: June 29, 2014, 11:23:31 AM »
Continued:

Photo 4:
- Form your 9 as you usually would in a Zepp bend. Apart from the big loop at the bottom it now looks identical to a Zepp bend with the tail of the 6 already poked through.

Photo 5:
- Lastly poke the tail of the 9 through the two overhands as you would in the final step of the Zepp bend.

Photo 6:
- Tighten up.

Seaworthy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #95 on: June 29, 2014, 03:03:09 PM »
I have had a bit more of a play :).

If you learn to tie the Zeppelin as an overhand to start with (as above) then bring the tail of the other line up through the top right hole and form the '9' from underneath (also exactly as above), then the Zeppelin bend and loop are tied almost absolutely identically (one differs from the other only in that a seperate line is used for the '9' rather than the tail of the first line).

Seaworthy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #96 on: July 27, 2014, 08:09:04 AM »
This is for those interested in seeing the Zepp Bend in action underwater.

Two nights ago the wind whipped up unexpectedly and we needed to let out more scope. Rather than hauling up some of the chain to undo the snubber and reattach it after more chain was deployed, I added an extra length of line to extend it.

At 2am I needed a quick, easy, reliable bend (that could be subsequently untied) for joining the nylon snubber to some spare braided polyester line. 'Reliable' is the key. With nearly 20 tons of boat and the wind gusting 25-35 knots this bend needed to be very secure.

Note the thinning of the standing end of the nylon line as it stretches under load. The polyester line shows minimal thinning. The stretch helps absorb the shock loads and that is why nylon is the choice for snubbers.

The chain on the bottom is the loose portion between the winch and the soft shackle securing the snubber. The force of the wind is stretching the line nearly horizontal (it was roughly 10-20 degrees in the gusts as there was little catenary effect then).

The bend does not look very symmetrical simply because the nylon snubber was very stiff following months of use underwater.

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #97 on: July 27, 2014, 09:40:57 PM »
  The previous post is irrelevant to the contents of this thread,
As is yours.  I'd ask for any moderator to remove your deposit from the punch bowl.
Quote
which are about the so-called "Zeppelin loop"
It's so called because of it's undeniable relation to the Zeppelin bend.

Quote
The Zeppelin bend is a genuine Zeppelin-like knot
What a useless tautology.

Quote
, while the fake, so-called "Zeppelin" loop is not
Multiple people have indicated how tired they are of your pointless rejection of the Zeppelin Loop name.  It gets you nowhere, makes you look like a kooky zealot, and you never offer any "real" Zeppelin Loop, because you know what messes the alternatives are.

Quote
difficult to tie
And yet we have this very lengthy thread of people willing to tie it.

Quote
and untie loop
False. 

Quote
to learn the fake and forget the real
This forum would be greatful if you forgot your fake appearance-based analysis of knots, and started real, reproducible, performance-based analysis of knots.

If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #98 on: July 28, 2014, 10:39:19 AM »
   This mediocre and difficult to tie and untie loop is a perfect example of how misleading and dangerous the parroting of a knot can be, on the one hand, and how useful and revealing the understanding of a knot is, on the other. Of course, anybody who is really familiar with a genuine Zeppelin knot, as the Zeppelin bend is - not only with one of its tying methods, but also with its mechanism, with the structure and the way it works - will never buy the so-called "Zeppelin loop" - which is not a Zeppelin-like knot, and which, moreover, is difficult to tie, AND to untie ( because it is a not-PET eyeknot, and also because it is based on two overhand knots, which can clinch too tightly around themselves after heavy loading, a disadvantage from which a genuine Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, for instance, will never run the danger to suffer from...). Another, not so-evident shortcoming of this low quality merchandise is that, if the first overhand knot, the one tied on the Standing Part before-the-eye, happens to "close" first ( and it does so, most of the times, if this is not prevented manually and properly, during the tightening and shrinking of the knot ), the second overhand knot, the one tied on the continuation of the returning eye leg, may remain slack, thus making it redundant, and not contributing in any constructive and beneficial way to the distribution and absorption, within the nub, of the tensile forces coming through the Standing End. (2) 
  How did this whole ridiculous story emerge in the first place ? Somebody who was parroting knots, had this descent of the Holy Spirit, his moment of "Eureka", his great, ingenious idea : The Zeppelin bend is easy to untie, so, if we want an eyeknot that will be also be easy to untie, the only thing we have to do is to "convert" a Zeppelin bend into a loop, by joining the Standing End of the one link with the Tail End of the other.
  Ingenious or knot I am not qualified to judge, but what I can tell, for sure, is that this idea was the most stupid idea, regarding knots, I had ever met in my life !  :)
   We do not want an eyeknot that looks like a Zeppelin knot ! We want an eyeknot that is easy to untie, like a Zeppelin knot ! Why a Zeppelin knot is easy to untie ? THAT is what we should understand first, and only then "translate", so to speak, this understanding in the case of a loop, and tie a loop that will be easy to untie.
   Anybody who is really familiar with a Zeppelin knot, in general, and with the Zeppelin bend, in particular, will see at a glance that the two overhand knots of each link can not clinch too tightly around each other, and make the knot difficult to untie, for two simple reasons : First, they are not loaded through both their ends : in a bend, each link is loaded only by one end, not two, so each overhand knot is loaded only by one of its two ends, meaning that it will not be prone to jamming. Second, they are minimally interlocked, they are not entangled the one over and around the other, so that when the one "closes" tightly, it will force the other to "close" tightly, too. The parts of those overhand knots that are most heavily loaded, their first curves ( where the segments of the rope are loaded by 100% of the tensile forces coming through the Standing Ends ), are not interweaved within each other : the first curves are not "hooked" within each other, they remain adjacent but only parallel to each other, and they are independent, regarding how much they may shrink and how compact they may become - so the 'closing" of the one overhand knot tied on the first link does not generate, or interfere with, any "closing" of the other overhand knot tied on the second link. The two first curves stay close to each other only because they are hooked around a third agent, the pair of the Tail Ends that penetrate them both, NOT because they are hooked around each other ! That fact is what I had described by the whimsical ( yet revealing the truth about its mechanism, so useful, indeed ) description of the Zeppelin bend as a "rope-made hinge". The pair of the first curves works like the "knuckles", and the pair of the Tail Ends works like the "pin"/pivot/axle. 
   So, the Zeppelin bend is easy to untie because the Tail Ends are not loaded, and because the heavily loaded first curves are not "hooked" within each other. THOSE are the characteristics a genuine, not fake, Zeppelin knot should have, in order to be able to be untied easily. And THOSE characteristics are exactly what the fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop" destroys completely, in its effort to mimic, blindly, the superficial, skin-deep appearance of the Zeppelin bend, its "looks", and not its essence, its mechanism. By loading the second end of the most important overhand knot, the one tied on the Standing Part before-the-eye ( and thus loaded by the 100% of the tensile forces ), and by interweaving within the nub the now highly tensioned by both ends segment ( which previously, as a Tail, was used to be loaded only by one of its ends), BOTH properties which had allowed the knot to be easily untiable in the first place are lost for ever, in one single stroke of a genius, yet stupid transformation ! In this relic of a genuine Zeppelin knot, this fake, torn apart copycat, the so-called "Zepelin loop", the "looks" of the "parent" Zeppelin bend are retained, but the mechanism which prevents the two overhand knots to clinch tightly around themselves and each other was torn apart : so much for the genius knot-parroting-tyers, who blustered troothlessly that I am the one who makes "fake appearance-based analysis of knots"(sic) !
   The negative publicity against the few more-Zeppelin-like eyeknots we have (1), try to blur one thing : that we do not need the appearance of a real Zeppelin knot, as the Zeppelin bend is, in order to ascertain a easily untiable eyeknot : we need its essence. Its essence is the absence of convoluted around each other overhand knots ( or, for that matter, fig.8 knots as well ), because, under heavy loading, they can not be untied as easily as the bowlines, for example, which are based on more "open", not clinching around themselves nipping structures. ( Moreover, I have seen that the overhand and the fig.8 knots can close too tightly, even if they are tied at the continuation of the returning eye leg, which is loaded with 50%, only, of the total load - so these "closed" structures should better be avoided even there.)
   So, the Zeppelin bend  is a Zeppelin knot - and that is not a tautology : it reveals that the "Zeppelin" mechanism is present, and not destroyed in any stupid way, in the Zeppelin bend. And the fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop" is not, and that is not an opinion, it is a fact, that is based on the differences of the mechanisms, despite the "similarity" of the superficial appearances.
   Regarding how "mess"(sic) is a Zeppelin-like eyeknot, which is PET, and it is not based on an overhand knot tied on the Standing Part before-the-eye ( so it can be released instantly, the moment the Tail End / pin / pivot / axle is pulled out, and its nub can not "close" too tightly ), the interested reader can judge by himself, looking at the attached pictures. The slipped tail can be avoided, of course, but I had included it because it makes the pin / pivot / axle stiffer.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095   
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4606.msg29767#msg29767
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 02:25:32 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3787
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #99 on: July 28, 2014, 02:28:28 PM »
you never offer any "real" Zeppelin Loop, because you know what messes the alternatives are.
  So, the secure/locked bowlines are "messes"(sic) !
Or you misunderstand what he meant:
that the alternative "zeppelin(-like) eyeknots" are messes.

Indeed, some that I've presented are bulkier, by
virtue of bringing --for the very sake of being more
"zeppelin=knot-like"-- both eye legs into the body
as is the SPart --i.e., making the complementary "q"
to the "b".  My most recent discovery, though, is not
so bulked nor so awkardly so as one of the earlier
ones (which I deemed most *pure*) --and is both
TIB & PET (= "PEtIB"   ;D  ).


--dl*
====

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #100 on: August 03, 2014, 10:43:23 PM »
   This mediocre (λογόρροια removed) ---
  Anybody who is really familiar with a Zeppelin knot, in general, and with the Zeppelin bend, in particular, will see at a glance that the two overhand knots of each link can not clinch too tightly around each other, and make the knot difficult to untie, for two simple reasons : First, they are not loaded through both their ends : in a bend, each link is loaded only by one end, not two, so each overhand knot is loaded only by one of its two ends, meaning that it will not be prone to jamming. --- (more λογόρροια removed)

Again, as it is not the first time, you falsely refer to the appearance, and not the function of the knot - whether the eye-knot or the bend.

There is no "hinge" in the structure, only the appearance of one, and the workings of the bend and eye-knot are essentially the same, seen from the standing part. Any further tightening of the knot under load does not depend on the load on the eye-leg of the first overhand. In both knots, bend or eye, there is negligible slippage under load. When you observe it from the eye-leg of the first overhand, you might perhaps be able to understand, that as long as nothing can be pulled out from the nub at this end, any load on this part will not draw the first eye-knot any tighter. The only force that tends to draw it tighter is the load on the standing part, as long as there is no slip in the part that emerges from the first overhand.

The only difference from the bend, as seen from the standing part, is that the knot distorts a bit, due to the off-center load of the eye leg that comes out from the first overhand knot. If there's no slip, the knot will not draw up any tighter. The first overhand of the bend will draw up in exactly the same way as the eye-knot, the difference that as it is symmetric, the same goes for the other end. The eye however has only half the load on each of its parts, and thus will not draw up as tight as the first overhand. Nevertheless, the relative tightness of the knot, in both cases, depends on the load. I have had zeppelin bends tied in small stuff draw up very tight, so that some difficulty is experienced in untying.

In use, the eye-knot does not jam any more than the bend. It is quite as easily untied, although, for obvious reasons, the first overhand cannot be undone before the eye is opened.

Maybe you should open yours?

Anyway, zeppelin is but a name, only a name. The knot probably has nothing whatsoever to do with airships, and we don't really know the origin. We use the moniker for a knot that is tied with two overhands in a particular way, with a screwed symmetry. The knot structure is the same in the loop and the bend, and that is why we use the same name, discerning it by the addition of 'loop' or 'bend'.

The loop form does not deserve any bad-mouthing. It is a valid knot, just as much as the bend, and by using "loop" or "bend" as determinant, it is quite clear which knot you refer to.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 10:47:26 PM by Inkanyezi »
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

enhaut

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 163
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #101 on: August 04, 2014, 02:51:27 AM »
This is a quote from "Complete Guide to Knots and Knots Tying 2001, by Goeffrey Budworth regarding the Zeppelin Bend;
"This is one of a family of bends comprising two interlocked overhand knots. It is both strong and secure, and the fact that both working ends stick out at right angles to their standing parts is only a minor snag that may be somewhat unsightly but is rarely inconvient.
 The American naval officer and aeronautics hero Charles Rosendahl required his massive dirigible Los Angeles to be moored with this bend-and no other- in the 1930's; and the US Navy continued to employ it
for lighter-than-air ships until as recently as 1962"

For me the correct way of making the Zeppelin into a loop is the method showed below, but again as Xarax pointed out there is always a flaw one overhand knot works harder than the other, there is no balance.
I agree with you when you are stating the the loop works anyway!  It does.

Please excuse the pictures' quality, the flash is obvious!
Ps
As for the logorrhea, for my part I know what it means and in my language it is even more brutal and precise;

[MEDECINE] Besoin morbide de parler sans arret, qui survient surtout dans les etats de choc, d'excitation ou les etats maniaques.

[Soutenu] Discours abondant, confus et interminable.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 02:54:53 AM by enhaut »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #102 on: August 04, 2014, 03:38:29 AM »
For me the correct way of making the Zeppelin into a loop is the method showed below,
Since the standing part of a loop is expected to take 100% of the applied load, that image would be the loop version of whatever you'd want to call the inverse of the Zeppelin Bend.  Just as the inverse of the Zeppelin Bend jams badly, so too does the loop version you show.
I'd like to take this occasion to gently steer this thread back to its topic which was asking about the preferred method of tying the Zeppelin Loop.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 11:44:37 PM by SS369 »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #103 on: August 04, 2014, 05:06:43 AM »
  The loop "corresponding" to the reverse Zeppelin bend, shown at the attached pictures.
  In general, the "corresponding" loop should retain the same two loaded ends of the parent bend, and add a third one - by loading one of the Tail Ends of the parent bend. Moreover, the Standing End of the eyeknot should take the place of a Standing End of the parent bend - and not of a Tail End. This way, we can hope, at least, that the geometry of the "corresponding" eyeknot will not differ very much from the geometry of the parent bend - because the loaded third end, which will replace a Tail End of the parent bend, will become an eye leg, and an eye leg is usually loaded with the 50%, only, of the total load.
  In a fake "Zeppelin" knot, when we pull the unloaded Tail End out of the nub, the knot does not fall apart, as it should had happened, had it been a genuine Zeppelin eyeknot. When we pull the pin out of a hinge, the two "knuckles" are released, because they are not connected to each other with anything else. Similarly, if we pull the Tai End out of the nub of a genuine Zeppelin knot, the first curves of the two links will separate, because they are not "hooked" within each other : they are adjacent, but only parallel to each other, and the only thing that keeps them close to each other is this perpendicularly placed pin, which is able to confront the dominant forces acting on it, the shear forces. ( Of course, when I am talking about shear forces, I "falsely refer" to the "appearance", and not the "function" :) - because whoever claims this, has evidently not yet learned what is a mechanism, a loaded structure, and a shear force... A rod "looks" like a rod, when it is tensioned and when it is compressed, so it remains "the same structure" - and that is why we always call it "a rod"- and not "a wire" or "a column", for example... Yeah, a rod is a rod is a rod, and a Zeppelin Lulu is a Zeppelin Lulu is a Zeppelin Lulu... :))   
   I have seen that the "common" fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop" is more difficult to untie than an equally loaded Zeppelin bend - as it was anticipated, because, as it is loaded by both ends, the first overhand knot "closes" around itself more tightly than any overhand knot in the "corresponding" Zeppelin bend. Alan Lee has even shown telling relevant pictures, about which the faux bijoux sellers prefer to remain silent...
   We have dozens of easy-to-untie symmetric bends that can be "converted" into "corresponding" loops. The Zeppelin bend is not the only one which is completely altered and deteriorated, as a mechanism, when one of its Tail Ends is loaded - but, taken into account its unique balanced form and its hinge-like function, which is the main cause of the easiness of its untying, despite its interlocked overhand knots, it is probably the most severely affected one... From all those bends, the genius knot tyer who was trying to "transplant", blindly, the easiness of their uniying to a "corresponding" loop, has chosen the one in which, during this "transplantation", the very cause which was responsible for the easiness of its untying in the first place, is now lost for ever !       
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 01:43:46 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: For those familiar with Zeppelin Loop & Zeppelin Bend
« Reply #104 on: August 04, 2014, 08:42:18 AM »
Discours abondant, confus et interminable.
J'suis d'accord.

And it should be noted that most any expression in any language could have more than one very precise meaning. A medical term has its precise meaning among medical professionals, but may have alternate meanings in other contexts. AFAIK this is a general discussion about a particular knot on a board about knots, not a scientific discussion between medical professionals about the psychological conditions of their patients. Horses for courses, anything should be interpreted in context.

What I was trying to convey, was that all that verbiage about hinges and stuff is completely irrelevant to the knot discussed. As long as its working end, or the loop leg, does not slip out of the knot in its own direction, they cannot contribute to any tightening of the knot. It is only the load on the standing part that tends to draw the first overhand any tighter. Like any knot in flexible rope, it totally depends on friction, and it can be drawn up more tightly, provided sufficient force is applied.

The topic - how to tie - is another. I still have my preferred way of tying both the bend and the loop, as it facilitates tying blindly, in the dark; my "rule of thumb". Using the thumb as a guide, and holding the stuff firmly in the hand, is very helpful when I have to trace with my fingers the maze that will finally make up the knot. The whole thing may be mirrored easily as well, facilitating swapping with which hand to work.

That is indeed different from the schemes mostly shown, as it includes the hand all the way through tying movements. It is more like a choreography than a series of static patterns. Of course the same could be done without the "rule of thumb", thinking of overhand knots, but I find it far simpler to include body parts in the forming of the knot. I take the working end around my thumb after twisting up the loop that will form part of the first overhand, and then I reeve it through said loop and continue with the second overhand, following alongside my thumb in the first of its moves. It's a dance performed with hands and rope, using the thumb as guide, and once mastered, it can easily be performed without the aid of vision.

The only difference from the loop when forming the bend is that it is not the working end of the same rope that will follow the thumb when the second overhand is formed, but the working end of the other rope.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 09:06:18 AM by Inkanyezi »
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/