Author Topic: Lapp knot  (Read 19357 times)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4037
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: 1872
    • 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: 382
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, weave(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: July 16, 2021, 01:20:32 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.~