Author Topic: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler  (Read 33623 times)

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2004, 08:49:34 PM »
This is the first I've heard of stable/unstable forms of the Double Dragon, and I must confess that I'm not seeing why the form described above is more stable.  Do these pictures capture the form of the DD which you are saying is more stable?





As the owner of the http://www.layhands.com/knots website, I want to make sure that my information is accurate and useful (bearing in mind that my website is aimed at the "average person" who uses knots infrequently).  My pictures of the DD were based on Paul Kruse's pictures, which can be seen at http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/doubledragon.html.

BTW, if you spot anything at my knots website which is inaccurate/questionable, I'd appreciate hearing about it!

Dave

Dan Lehman

  • Guest
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2005, 05:01:44 AM »
Quote
This is the first I've heard of stable/unstable forms of the Double Dragon, and I must confess that I'm not seeing why the form described above is more stable.  Do these pictures capture the form of the DD which you are saying is more stable?

Dave, in the double version, the instability is diminished to the
extent of perhaps insignificance; in the single version, however,
it's a real concern.  Knowing one double version can lead one to its
cognate *single* form (which can seem fine to quick consideration).
.:.  Thus, for that "average person" who uses knots infrequently,
one can be concerned about an inadvertent slip or adventure into
the single form, and ... .  Perhaps not just average persons:
you have slipped (pardon the pun) into just this case with your
Exploding version--a slipped SINGLE (unstable) Dragon.  That knot's
[cf www.layhands.com/knots/Knots_Hitches.htm#ExplodingDragon]
Fig.5 shows the distortion its instability can yield (more likely in
stiffer ropes, which cannot be so snugly set, and in stretchy
ropes where
distortion is aided by the yield of the material.

Quote
BTW, if you spot anything at my knots website which is inaccurate/questionable, I'd appreciate hearing about it!

Okay, though you might be surprised!  One big blooper I noticed in
looking over your site is that in the table of knot strengths you
have startlingly different values for a couple testings of the (nominal)
"Figure Eight Knot":  that should make one double-check what's what!
This line in the table has mixed data for the loopknot with the stopper,
relying too simply on the fickle name similarity (nomenclature
in knots is a mess!).  The two low values are stoppers, others loops.
That was interesting to see, for I was not aware previously of testing
of stoppers.  As with hitches, though, one must wonder what sort of
object is associated with the knot (such details weren't revealed).

A major objection I'll make is against the Highwayman's Hitch:
this knot readily capsizes, and that so many knots books present
without a note of serious caution baffles me.  You do give the warning
"it doesn't appear to be secure enough to handle a heavy strain on the rope"
which is good.  But why bother with it at all?  Because someone
--indeed, many someones, have it in THEIR knots collections.
Clyde Soles's The Outdoor Knots Book has a simple but effective
variation of it, which has been discussed on rec.crafts.knots.

And, hmmm, the Tarbuck Knot:  when you read such assertions as
"Do not use this knot as a hitch around a rigid rope or rail to resist
a lengthwise pull (illustrated in at least one manual). It seems
like a good idea, but it should be remembered that the knot relies for
its grip on creating a dog's-leg kink in its own standing part (fig. 4).
This is impossible if the line is tied to a separate and unyielding
foundation." (The Complete Book of Knots, p.67)
why do you repeat it, instead of thinking "Huh?!"???  Afterall,
what part of this knot actually does the work of gripping?
--the coils, as in other friction knots.  And how does this knot differ
from the Rolling Hitch (which carries no such qualification),
or other such hitches?  (If that qualification applies to any of
these knots, it's to that "Midshipman's Knot" (p.65), which
you show tied to a rigid object.)  Your putting a stopper on the
Tarbuck's nice, but is likely more needed in other knots such as the
Tautline, 2HHitches, Clove, Magnus, & Rolling (i.e., that version
of Clove w/extra turn(s)).  Also, the stopper should be tied snug
to the knot body to prevent ANY retreat of the stopped end;
this need shows the unique benefit of the Overhand knot (vs. the
Fig.8, Ashley's (shown w/Tarbuck), etc.--which would require
working the knot to bring the stopper snug).

All for know,
cheers,
--dl*

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2005, 05:39:56 PM »
Quote

you have slipped (pardon the pun) into just this case with your
Exploding version--a slipped SINGLE (unstable) Dragon.

I had originally described the "Exploding Dragon" as being a slipped Perfection Loop, but Paul Kruse pointed out that it's really a slipped Tugboat Bowline.  Paul refers to the Tugboat as a Dragn' Bowline because it is an essentially useless and unstable knot (http://www.igkt.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1081027782;start=10).  He did agree that the slipped version of this knot (which I called the "Exploding Dragon") is more stable when dressed correctly due to the two strands running through the center of the knot (as the Double Dragon has), but it has been on my mind to remove the Exploding Dragon from my website after learning more about the Tugboat being regarded as useless and unstable.  Brion Toss had good things to say about the Tugboat, but his Tugboat doesn't seem to be the same as Paul's Dragn' Bowline (http://www.igkt.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1081370822;start=8 ).


Quote

One big blooper I noticed in looking over your site is that in the table of knot strengths you have startlingly different values for a couple testings of the (nominal) "Figure Eight Knot":  that should make one double-check what's what!

Yes, the more I dug around the Internet and books and articles, the more surprised I became at the small amount of test data out there concerning knot strengths.  And the data that I found is very inconsistent, often without describing the types of rope used and the types of tests conducted.


Quote

A major objection I'll make is against the Highwayman's Hitch: this knot readily capsizes, and that so many knots books present without a note of serious caution baffles me.  You do give the warning "it doesn't appear to be secure enough to handle a heavy strain on the rope" which is good.  But why bother with it at all?  Because someone--indeed, many someones, have it in THEIR knots collections.

That's a good point, because after seeing the Highwayman's Hitch in a number of websites and books, I was surprised at how easily it capsizes.  My original thought was that if it is being described in so many places, then does this mean that people find it useful?  My conclusion is that just because people have described it, this doesn't mean that anyone actually uses it.  I did add a warning about it, as you pointed out, but I'll probably remove it.


Quote

And, hmmm, the Tarbuck Knot:  when you read such assertions as "Do not use this knot as a hitch around a rigid rope or rail to resist a lengthwise pull (illustrated in at least one manual). It seems like a good idea, but it should be remembered that the knot relies for its grip on creating a dog's-leg kink in its own standing part (fig. 4). This is impossible if the line is tied to a separate and unyielding foundation." (The Complete Book of Knots, p.67) why do you repeat it, instead of thinking "Huh?!"

It's funny that you mention this, because "Huh??" was my original reaction to Geoffrey Budworth's statement (which you quoted).  But I figured that if he felt that a warning was necessary, then it would probably be best to pass along the warning and let people form their own conclusions.

Dan Lehman

  • Guest
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2005, 08:10:55 AM »
Quote

I had originally described the "Exploding Dragon" as being a slipped Perfection Loop, but Paul Kruse pointed out that it's really a slipped Tugboat Bowline. ÊPaul refers to the Tugboat as a Dragn' Bowline because it is an essentially useless and unstable knot (http://www.igkt.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1081027782;start=10).

As noted variously, there are different knots that come by that name
(a regular problem), some stable, others not so.

Quote
That's a good point, because after seeing the Highwayman's Hitch in a number of websites and books, I was surprised at how easily it capsizes. ÊMy original thought was that if it is being described in so many places, then does this mean that people find it useful?

It's more of an insight into how little examination such things are
given, alas.
Quote
My conclusion is that just because people have described it, this doesn't mean that anyone actually uses it.

Like the Poldo Tackle, a reportedly ingenious structure awaiting a
purpose!  (-:
Quote
I did add a warning about it, as you pointed out, but I'll probably remove it.

Rather, CORRECT it!  --break the cycle of bad knots with a decent one.
Simply change image to match this change in text, and you'll show
the hitch presented in Outdoor Knots[/u]by Clyde Soles:
[for image-2] ... then take the main part of the rope and put a bight
aroundthe first bight (picture 2). Now take the end of the rope
and push a bight through the firstbight (picture 3), ...
.
This way, the heavily loaded SPart bears on the nip-bight instead
of on the slip-tuck, and the latter is less severely nipped
and the structure more stable.
One could also altering step 3 so that one will "take the end around the
SPart and back around the object and push it through the first bight"
--an alteration that improves the Highw.H. too.
Further security can be had by pushing a follow-on slip-tuck
through the bight of the usual finishing slip-tuck and locking
the earlier on the later (which can usually remove the loosening
problem if the angle of the loaded SPart changes).

.:.  In sum, the idea behind the treacherous Highwayman's H. is good,
but the particular, parroted knot is lousy.  It's fairly easy to
build surer ones.  A knot known as the Macreme' Hitch was used for
a while in the novel recreation of canyoneering,but has
apparently lost favor, as getting it to work consistently with a lot
of rope paid out (over rocks) was problematic.  That knot, however,
anticipated the accidental loading of the wrong end by having a series
of such slip-tucks, requiring the loading of alternate ends to
release.  (All for the sake of leaving no trace.  :o)

Quote
It's funny that you mention this, because "Huh??" was my original reaction to Geoffrey Budworth's statement ...

Good!  Keep questioning.

(-;

Breton

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2005, 11:50:43 AM »
At the risk of going well-off thread, the Highwayman's Hitch could well do with being forgotten, IMO.  It was taught to Commando Forces  during WW2 for a specific purpose (nothing to do with horses).  It was intended for use with a standard 6 foot toggle rope.

Although taught as a 'Highwayman's Hitch', there are significant differences (use of a martyr and an overhand locking knot) so we might perhaps re-name the version shown in 'Get Tough'and elsewhere as the 'Commando Knot'.

knudeNoggin

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 111
Highwayman's Hitch--History & Future!?
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2005, 10:17:55 PM »
Quote
At the risk of going well-off thread,

Let me assist in that--have a new Subject to itself!

Quote
the Highwayman's Hitch could well do with being forgotten, IMO.  It was taught to Commando Forces  during WW2 for a specific purpose (nothing to do with horses).  It was intended for use with a standard 6 foot toggle rope.

Where can one find this information?  My recollection is that the
knot is given by C.L.Day's Art of Knotting & Splicing, with the myth(?) about
being used by a notorious robber (himself somewhat of a myth).  Day's work is ca. post-WWII by just a couple years--enough
time to build a myth that passes him?

So, how did the commandos use it?

Quote
Although taught as a 'Highwayman's Hitch', there are significant differences (use of a martyr and an overhand locking knot) so we might perhaps re-name the version shown in 'Get Tough'and elsewhere as the 'Commando Knot'.

I don't follow this:  what are the differences with the knot (too) commonly
shown.

*knudeNoggin*

Fairlead

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
  • IGKT Member since 1984 - IGKT Librarian
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2005, 12:51:55 AM »
At the risk of going well-off thread, the Highwayman's Hitch could well do with being forgotten, IMO.  It was taught to Commando Forces  during WW2 for a specific purpose (nothing to do with horses).  It was intended for use with a standard 6 foot toggle rope.

Breton,
I don't know where you got this information from (but having researched this subject I am anxious to find out) but....There is no reference to the Highwayman's Hitch, or anything like it (Lever Hitch is nearest) in the Royal Marine Training Pamphlet. No. 1 - Use of Toggle Ropes - 1944.  And IMHO it would be very difficult to tie a HWMH in only six feet of two and a half inch (circ) rope.

Gordon

Breton

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #22 on: January 12, 2005, 11:42:40 AM »
Information on this subject today can be found in Fairbairn's 'Get Tough' by Paladin Press (also available in various non-copyright forms on the web), Section 26 (p80, et seq).  
CAUTION: This is not a book for the squeamish. It is the unarmed combat syllabus taught to thousands in the Army (not just RM) commandos, SOE and various raiding forces from 1940 onwards.  In it's basic form, the knot may easily be tied with a single 6' toggle.  

Is that RM pamphlet generally available, Gordon?

knudeNoggin

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 111
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2005, 02:23:46 AM »
Quote
Information on this subject today can be found in Fairbairn's 'Get Tough' by Paladin Press (also available in various non-copyright forms on the web), Section 26 (p80, et seq).

Well, I see that the use of the knot is quite different from a slip-free
hitch:  rather, the would-be slip-tuck's eye is used to secure a person's
arm!  One pulls this part tight on a prisoner's arm (the knot having been
tied around the other arm, say), then ties off the ends (with a Reef).

*knudeNoggin*

Mike

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2005, 07:23:35 AM »
im confused. could someone post a picture of the unstable version of the DD and the stable version so I will know wich one I should learn.

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2005, 07:15:45 PM »
Quote
im confused. could someone post a picture of the unstable version of the DD and the stable version so I will know wich one I should learn.


Mike,

In the Double Dragon, the working end of the rope goes twice around: http://www.layhands.com/knots/Knots_SingleLoops.htm#DoubleDragon.

However, I had played around with a slipped version in which the working end goes once around, then a bight is pushed through the knot in order to slip it.  This version is quick and easy to tie, and it "explodes" (comes completely apart) when the end is pulled (hence the name "Exploding Dragon").

I asked Paul Kruse about it (the guy who named the Double Dragon), and he felt that it had similar strength as the Double Dragon due to the two strands of rope which passed through the center of the knot.

I think the issue which Dan brought up was that it is easy to tie this "Exploding Dragon" improperly, leading to a very insecure knot.  At least, that's what I understood from his comment:

Quote
Dave, in the double version, the instability is diminished to the extent of perhaps insignificance; in the single version, however, it's a real concern.


Dan, correct me if I have misquoted your concern!

Since this "Exploding Dragon" is easy to tie improperly and insecurely, I removed it from http://www.layhands.com/knots.

Dave


Dan Lehman

  • Guest
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2005, 12:58:19 AM »
Quote
im confused. could someone post a picture of the unstable version of the DD and the stable version so I will know wich one I should learn.

As previously written, the DD is pretty stable in EITHER version
--the double wrap providing good support (do pull that snug).

But in the SINGLE version--which the Exploding (i.e., slipped) was--,
the stability issue arises.
Now, for a picture, go to the DD link and see the orientation of it
that would be UNstable were one to pull out the 2nd wrap of
the end (try it and see).
In the tying step shown in the 2nd photo (from left), where the end
has begun to wrap a bight, one would lay the end OVER that bight
and wrap the opposite direction for the more stable version.
Paul has warned against the Single D. based on the orientation used
for the DD; but going this opposite way yields a Single D. that is
adequately stable in many materials.
(In dressing this other version, the end as it enters the knot after forming
the eye--here I'm not referring to Dave's shown tying method with the bight,
but just to the finished knot, in analysis--will lie against the standing
part.  The bitter end will be pinched between these two parts.

--dl*

Dan Lehman

  • Guest
Re: Double Dragon vs. Double-tucked Angler
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2005, 01:06:53 AM »
Quote

However, I had played around with a slipped version in which the working end goes once around, then a bight is pushed through the knot in order to slip it.  This version is quick and easy to tie, and it "explodes" (comes completely apart) when the end is pulled (hence the name "Exploding Dragon").
...
I think the issue which Dan brought up was that it is easy to tie this "Exploding Dragon" improperly, leading to a very insecure knot.

Well, that the knot properly tied enough will STILL be vulnerable to
distortion, capsizing.

Quote
Since this "Exploding Dragon" is easy to tie improperly and insecurely, I removed it from http://www.layhands.com/knots.

But you could simply replace it with the other version, and therein remark
about the stability, and even show the stable Single D.
The issue is better addressed outright, showing all, than by only taking
away the dangerous form.  (writes he not doing the maintenance! :-)

--dll*