Author Topic: Lapp knot  (Read 20384 times)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: Lapp knot
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2010, 05:54:24 AM »
I have just further tested the Lapp knot and what I will call, for the nonce, the anti-Lapp knot  multiple times with my 1/16 inch 1.6 mm cord and my test rig (foot bar and dowel handle with rings and substantial  rope leads to shorten the test specimen).

The Lapp Knot:


The anti-Lapp knot is very similar except that the RH standing part comes out of the knot, contrary to the Lapp knot, on the same side of the knot as the LH working end.

Whoa, this is an easy change to state :
the LH SPart is the upper strand instead of the lower
(and thus the two tails are on opposite sides).  The reader
can SEE this at once -- just loading the other end.  Your
words coerce a re-tying of the "RH" side to be seen.

As for Roo's limited vision on value, he should read my post to its end,
and realize the considerable value of the simple, "obvious" extensions
(neverminding whether someone has put them in a book or on-line
(well, they are on-line now)).  And lapp it up!

.:.  The Extended (or "Multiple") Lapp Bend -- the best of new knots!


--dl*
====

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1874
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Lapp knot
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2010, 03:03:29 PM »
As for Roo's limited vision on value, he should read my post to its end,
and realize the considerable value of the simple, "obvious" extensions
(neverminding whether someone has put them in a book or on-line
(well, they are on-line now)).  And lapp it up!

.:.  The Extended (or "Multiple") Lapp Bend -- the best of new knots!

If the justification is some double version or versions (yet to be diagrammed) of the Lapp Knot, it had better have some very good justification beyond novelty or modest increase in security/stability.  Otherwise you'll end up unwittingly promoting the single version to a whole host of people who may not realize its problems.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2010, 03:07:38 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


dmacdd

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • My Knot Pages
Re: Lapp knot
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2010, 03:33:15 PM »
The Lapp Knot:


The anti-Lapp knot is very similar except that the RH standing part comes out of the knot, contrary to the Lapp knot, on the same side of the knot as the LH working end.

Whoa, this is an easy change to state :
the LH SPart is the upper strand instead of the lower
(and thus the two tails are on opposite sides).  The reader
can SEE this at once -- just loading the other end.  Your
words coerce a re-tying of the "RH" side to be seen.

I agree. My description of the anti-Lapp knot, while correct, was not as kind to the reader as yours above.   An alternative reformulation: "The anti-Lapp knot is similar, except that the horizontal U of the LH cord is turned upside down, so that the standing parts come out of the knot on opposite sides."

And a drawing or photograph would have been even better.  So see the attachment.

jarnos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • personal homepage
Re: Lapp knot
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2021, 02:05:16 PM »
Mark Gommers tells in his Bowline Analysis (version 3.0 thereof) when talking about ABoK #1034 1⁄2 what he calls Tail outside Bowline:
Quote
Point of interest: Geoffrey Budworth, in his book ?The Complete Book of Knots? referred to
this particular structure as a Lapp knot (at page 35). The history of the
?Lapp knot? was described in the April 1996 edition of ?Knotting Matters?
where it was apparently used in Lapland for tasks such as hitching reindeer
to sledges and suspending sheath knives. Budworth also comments that
this knot was often called a ?false sheet bend?.

Jarno Suni

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
Re: Lapp knot
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2021, 09:34:09 AM »
Any of the simple end connection forms where one side is simplest bight, is as family to me
that starts with SquaREef(?*) family, that have the primary lock force dialed down to Zer0 and with 2 bights/host, no locks/hitches or such actions with PRIMARY force, only deflected.
>>so should NOT be used on a linear pull, only against radial swell, where the PRIMARY force can then power the locking factor agaisnt host.
.
The rest of larger family to me form a locking hitch around the bight host, with primary force side
>>except this Lapp
>>in any mixed Bend (thus not Square sub-family that is not Bend and needs matching rope/s)the locking side would always be the smaller/tighter; to impose it's tension X rigidity divided by size(so smaller is greater) against the host bight side.
>>bight side is the free escapee side, the other the lock, Square by this measure has 2 escapees w/o lock against Linear pull.
Another thing about the Lapp, in shorthand to self, i reference when tying in a binary of weave vs. pass in crossings.
>>rest are weave, turn, weave.
>>Lapp does a pass, turn, tuck(counter-intuitive to years of weave, turn, weave)
.
You do want the tails on same side, so don't pit primary force vs. secondary force (after arc) as hold
>>but rather secondary vs. secondary for the stop, not on primary side of SPart vs. Spart, but rather after arc by each side.
i think of primary as 220v and secondary as 110v, and say not to try to control 220v w/110v (SquaREef as Bend)
.
Lapp Knot never scored with me as a working class knot;
but, have seen it's weakness , be a strength in a breakaway/fuse context if set to fail right, perhaps w/falsie; not sure, too long ago.
Also, a knot-part that doesn't 100% stop force, then doesn't concentrate the stop/ wear in that position, if setting up the next force catch for follow up buddy to shut down flow entirely, but spread out.  Like RT rather than Turn on smaller host to share the wear.
In working knots i consider RT as a Real Turn, choice to use just single Turn a purpose full downgrade to perhaps pass more force to the next position(or quickie, or short rope; but purposeful downgrade).
.
One of the reasons i evaluate Linear inputs of termination(Hitch) or continuance (Bend) , things w/SParts:
first by Primary Hook of SPart of linear input converted to radial control thru Primary Arc as the ruling primary Hook ruling rest of structure in tension and rigidity;
Is because can't escape that model even in these simplest beginning lessons, with everything else stripped away to minimum, Hook model logically persists, as primary, even if only , conversion point to radial control the whole mechanix rides on for control/stop.






* if us Americanos would have renamed Reef to about anything but Square; i would always call Reef in respects, but also the reminder and flavor of where much came from of these things, the work, sweat comrade etc. of what was l-earned to pass on. 
BUT, i say Square, because it is so important to have knot framework SQUARE geometry to purpose, and pulling out of square on same axis in Thief, or cross axis in Granny, or both as rollout in Grief, is the real lesson. 
.
And this is a beginner's knot of passage it seems, and the focus should be on the key geometry (squareness etc.), even if not shown as geometry to get on the truest track from the word go.  That is much of reason for my trying to show definition of pivotal principles is to steer towards them from start, never conflict to give truest consistent view over growth.  Working it backwards, making more sure evolves to destination.  Another reason for comparison's of Ancient stories like Samson, Achille's Heel, Greek/Roman Column and other 'heritage' and story lessons framing at times.
.
Many, many unspoken lessons in SqReef family!
« Last Edit: August 01, 2021, 05:21:48 PM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
Re: Lapp knot
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2021, 01:02:55 PM »
This is how i look at any bight based knot/Bend, chasing the forces in electrical pressure, rather than tension pressure imagery.  Naming them as High, Low and No voltages, w/arc and nip as conversion points/boundaries.  i find this key to viewing Square family, Sheet Bends, Lapps, Surgeon's etc.

.
Applied to Sheet Bend tail in or out:

.
Then to the Lapp Knot here:

These show similar 'voltage' patterns to Sheets, but then also bring forth the view by comparison of weave or not.
i assume when tying i want WE(Working End) to weave into and out of arc Turns as a default mnemonic shorthand.  Meaning i don't note if i am supposed to weave, just assume and simply note the exceptions that don't.  This lowers the tying memory overhead, but also gives a different view of the funcionality.
.
Sheet Bends weave into and out of the arc/Turn of a passive bight with the active lock side.
About matching Lapp, does not weave, but rather pass other rope parts until serves around arc and then passes rope parts again, until a final single tuck to secure.
A tuck is as WE serves under an existing , therefore greater tension AND thus also greater rigidity rope part to me.
A weave is more of where WE pass over an existing rope part on host, that has tucks on either side.
>>Kind of like a linear answer to RT of 3arcs listed radially on host
>>weave gives a more 3arc rappel rack function, as a linear listed gauntlet of arcs
But still, to the same 3arc sciences have tried to show.
.
With everything the same between tails same side forms of Sheet Bends and Lapps;
To weave or not, seems to be the single binary coin flip of determinant change defining between.
.
Lapp proper not as secure, but not then locking as hard as Lapp.
Tail in or out argued as best or not for Sheet Bend;
BUT Round Turn (RT) instead of simple Turn for lock side is a game changer for both problems.


In case the skull and cross bones as like ABoK w/Danger Will Robinson warning is unfamiliar or forgotten:
60's "Lost in Space" series, kinda about others that left the safety of the ground for whatever dangers
voice by famous announcer Dick Tufeld, Bill Mummy as Will, plagued by dangers and the Eddie Haskell-ish Dr. Smith
« Last Edit: August 04, 2021, 01:10:14 PM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: Lapp knot
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2021, 12:08:19 AM »
This is how i look at any bight based knot/Bend,
"Bight hitches", I call 'em --using "open" (just
one bight end loaced) or "closed" (load both ; an eye).

You need to run this experiment to the next leve
--to "double" versions.  There, the sheet bend gains
not so much (though one has other variations for this
(ABoK #488, i.p.!)), and the Lapp, plenty : slack security
and stability, and with forcible loosening by pulling the
tails apart to prise out some SPart, enuff to loosen further!

(-;

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
Re: Lapp knot
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2021, 11:09:07 AM »
For me 'Bight Hitches' (guess we should not use any contractual form..) start with Bight_Hitch_0 of non-hitch of the SqauREef fam; where neither is a lock/hitch both are just the bight of matching forces, so no primary force not applied in lock of added hitch.  To me the bight is as a locked slip, bight is the escapee and hitch the jailer.  SquaREef has no jailer/lock, just 2 potential escapees.
.
The solution is to use SquaREef as in Round Binding, so turns the pull from flat linear to 90degrees around half arc, changing the direction of the lock that is not working 90 degrees as do to accommodate  antiBowline.  And as with the changed direction of loading and lock in antiBowline, the SquaREef now locks with primary 220v raw alpha force where did not before.  But is not greater over lesser, is of matching/matching locks to each other.  In Sheet for unmatched Bend, we would always make the smaller/denser/stiffer side the lock.  With SuaREef must be matching, so there is neither advantage nor disadvantage as each half locks.
.
The all around clamping of RT 3arcs cures many things for us i think.  Don't need to worry about tail in or out of Sheet Bend/Bowlines and is not just a sincere arc pull with just minimal force back from SPart side to perform grab.  RT upgrade gives real, compounding grip by comparison.  For me corrects Lapp and Sheet/Bowl shortcomings when 1 Turn used in the lock.  i mostly consider a single arc as a get by or purposeful pass of less buffered force to the next position.  As from a VERY key lesson (again TYSM) of
ABoK Lesson#1669: "If the rope is weak and the hoist is heavy, a Round Turn on the Standing Part adds materially to the strength of the knot"
>>can be diminished by overly spiderly pre-fixxing to subsequent lower tension for performing this #1669 utility , if the pre-fix is of
ABoK Lesson#1720: "If a spar is small a RT is preferable to a single turn. It makes a stronger knot and dissipates the wear.".
Drops the usable tension for the RT around SPart trick.  So reduces the RT grip around SPart that performs more of a pull along SPart, that shearing across the support column of the SPart.
.

i prefer Sheets w/RT lock, slipped for ease and the slip crosses self for extra bulk, similar if ever use Lapp.
i like grooming the RT lock long, pulling to set from BE backwards to maintain more of a long gauntlet of 3 arcs as like short rappel rack , like a linear RT theory, buffering to harshest deformity of the arc of change.  And when really concerned even kinda extrude the 3arc longer linear into the bight side as well, setting backwards so it too locks down to gauntlet of 3 linear arc list pf softer deformity before the major deformity of the arc of conversion U back around.  Only done that in a Sheet Bend actually, but would faithfully mirror 'down' to lesser Lapp.  The Linear list of 3arcs also comes into play to upgrade SquaREef not in Sheet Bend direction, but rather to Surgeon's etc.
.

i kinda call this Sheet version with RT each end for gauntlet of 3 arcs rappel rack effect buffering force to the harsher 180 U turn radial arc from each end of pull a Slipped Double Bull Sheet(careful how you say that, but still more polite than bight hitch contraction..), because we came to call the twist to short 2 arc gauntlet of Bull Hitch a Bull nose if theory applied farther than Bull Hitch.  This fully weaves into and out of the 180 U turn arc too. Extra swell arc from crossing of the BE slip is very purposeful and in fact might use it as a tightening crank to the 'off'/Omega/secondary/post arc/110v side of that arc of conversion.  This gives more deformity so more grip, after the first 2 pre-fixing arcs list, as then presents the greatest deformity of the arc in continued progression.
.
But anyway, Lapp study is not isolated to Lapp for me, but is piece of puzzle position to this whole 'fam' .  Just as SquaREef is puzzle piece that shows with neither side as lock, so is a 'Bight Hitch' of value:0 and appropriately in the list of these at array position _0 on that list..when not wearing horse blinders to limit peripheral range depth to myopic scope.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 11:10:15 AM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~