Whippings?

[Dan_Lehman]

An interesting point that I would like to make here about whippings on laid lines - most, if not all, book references to whippings show that whippings are made against the lay of the line.  I have never understood this until I came to see that those old salts took a whipping to be a merely shortened serving over the line and therefore followed the mantra of 'turn and serve the other way' without applying too much common sense.

Hmmm, I thought that Ashley'd recommended such direction for whipping,
but as it appears to be only as you report of other books --it is shown but
maybe not verbally specified!?  (I'm also now surprised that whipping doesn't
appear in ABOK until p.546 !)

I have tried, and I now recommend after literally hundreds of trials and at least a dozen years of practical applications, whipping the ends of laid lines WITH the lay.  This does two things:

It tightens the end of the line as the whipping is being applied, keeping the whipping secure
It produces a better working stitch in the wormed portion of the whipping

If anyone has any reasoned and practical advice to the contrary of this (I found that common whippings came undone rather readily when wrapping against the lay and I thought I was applying them too loosely) I would like to hear of your experiences.

If you notice my Extended Strangle + Sailor's Whipping (finish) in
my 4th/bottom photo --the close-up of two whippings, in monofil & mason line--,
the buried overhand crossing of the ends lies in the groove between strands;
the right end of the strangle-knot part is 4 wraps from the right side.  Those
4 wraps are of the sailor's whipping finish, whose effective end lies in the
groove below & out of sight here.  At the 5th wrap from the right is where
the strangle ends with one leg of the bight-end (here the bight-end was put
on the rope-end side, more difficult to work with, slightly, IMO) wrapping
away, against the lay, opposite the strangle's wrapping with the lay.
Note that, however, in my usual orientation of setting the stoppered (for
tightening purchase) short whipping end towards the rope end, one wraps
around against the lay.

.:.  In the end, either way, one hauls the strangle hard tight : I don't see
that it will matter how this whipping's put on --it will be very tight.

Btw, with mason line, I find that 4 overwraps is mininal to cover the double
overhand crossing that is buried, and 6 starts is about the limit before one
starts to seem too many; with monofilament, the crossing must be more
extended (stiffer), as 8 wraps seems about right (and is what is shown
on the blue CoEx rope --to which the sailor's whipping finish adds another 4).

Lindsey's rationale seems reasonable.  I'm surprised at Ink's test & finding
of a difference, given tightness of his setting.  (That blue rope is likely
more independent, as the CoEx is stiff and holds its lay.)

I tried making a whipping with the lay now, and I am not convinced. As I never did it before, I had no idea what the outcome would be, but after hammering to even out tension, I noticed that a distortion that I hadn't experienced before had occured. It seems as when the tension in the wrappings is released by the pounding, it contracts, and then the worming, or frapping, parts are not tightened, as when it's done against the lay, but they take a shorter route over the wraps, thus with less frapping action. When the tension of the wraps distort the frapping in the whipping against the lay, it gets more tensioned. I think I will stick to what I am used to.

I have come to doubt the effect of frapping turns -- they might bear
hard on the very edges of what they wrap, but otherwise they can
have little pressure on all internal wraps they "frap".  AND, further,
in the case of laid rope, if they are able to hold the whipping's wraps
down into a groove of the lay, then that whipping must be WAY WAY
less tensioned than anything I would put on --there is no pulling down
the span from strand-top to next-strand-top of a tight whipping's wraps.

With a lot of "play ropes", I have lots of chances to explore different
whippings --in form & material (esp. with the flat strips of PP twine).

--dl*
====

[squarerigger]

Hi Ink,

I notice that in all three of your whippings the first turn around the line does not seem to pinch or nip the line , thereby reducing its diameter.  Did you start at the standing part and work toward the working end or did you start at the working end and work toward the standing part?  As a comment, I am interested in your method of applying a whipping by 'hammering to even out tension' - what tension are you referring to and why is it being hammered?  I have always applied my whippings tightly by hand and have never had to resort to hammering.  I'll try to post some close-up photos of my own whippings for comparison.

SR

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

I start from the standing part, and I pull as tight as I dare. The pounding is not really needed, but I have mostly done it, as a habit, but sometimes I dont care to do that. it becomes a bit rounder after pounding, and it also shrinks a tiny bit. Maybe it is the elasticity of the polyamide that gives a bit at the ends of the whipping.

The turns are tight. I have tried to make as in the ABoK #3446, but the needle will not pass diagonally when a whipping is tight, so the stitches are per #3447. Formerly, I used a single twine, but after working at the riggery, I always use doubled, as that's what we did there. The twine we used at Benn's was sailmaker's twine, same type as dental floss but somewhat larger, waxed polyester floss. So far, none of those whippings has come loose. On the line that I used for the last samples, there was still one of those old whippings from twenty years ago, that I now cut away. The frapping was worn through, but it was still firm. That's the one on the picture below. And no, I didn't whip the thinner line.

[knot4u]

Am I the only one to always make palm and needle whippings, sewing through the strands?

I mostly heat seal rope ends.

Me too, but I should learn whippings for the knowledge.

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

When I worked in the riggery, I made lots of tailsplices, wire to fibre rope. They are still rather popular here, and sometimes people wanted to change a tail that they thought was old. Hence sometimes, rather good rope was destined for the dump, but I have always had an economic mind, so I saved quite a few of those discarded tails.

The one here is one that I salvaged from a halyard, and that I have used as a sheet for about ten years. It is rather stiff, and I made those whippings in 1989. The wax in the twine is long gone, it has not only seen sun and salt, but also the washing-machine several times. The rope is 12 mm double-braid polyester, and I guess that the first owner had it for at least ten years before he handed it in to change the tail.

[squarerigger]

Looking very good after that amount of time Ink!

SR

[Wed]

For the last few days I have resumed work on "Om knutar" by Hjalmar Ohrvall (sorry about the name, the forum doesn't do UTF-8)

Anyway, here is what Dr Ohrvall has to say about whippings (sv. taglingar):

Man l?gger ena sladden av garn?ndan p? trossen i dess l?ngdriktning, s? att garn?ndan skjuter ut ett gott stycke utanf?r trossen. Sedan l?gger man garnet i upprepade, fast ?tdragna rundt?rnar i riktning mot slagningen omkring trossen och den p? densamma liggande sladden av garnet, i det man b?rjar ett passande stycke fr?n trossens ?nda och fortskrider mot denna.

Swedish ... kind of.

One puts one of the yarn ends on the cable in it lengthwise direction, such that the yarn end sticks out a good deal outside the cable. Then one lays the yarn in repeated, firmly seized round turns in the direction against the lay around the cable and on it same laying end of the yarn, in that one starts appropriate bit from the cables end and continues to this.

English ... sort of

I have here used cable for both "tross" and "kabel". Please correct me. Image by Elli Ohrvall is well in the grey area of copyright infringement, but attached all the same.

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

I think "cable" should be reserved for cable-laid rope, and would say that Ohrvall's "tross" would simply be "rope". There is confusion also in Swedish about what "tross" is, as the ropemaker would use it for the full 220 m length of rope in the ropewalk, while cut lengths of rope would be "lina" or "rep", while the 220 m "rep" tightly coiled for storage is a "trossbunke". In the Swedish Royal Navy, "tross" is used for a certain large size of rope. I think that Ohrvall too is confused about the terms and should have used "taag" (a doubled as there is no å in the forum).

[Wed]

Actually, now I took the time to read what I'm working on ... Ohrvall mentions the Frendh word "trousse" to mean bunch. A "tross" is a rope with a circumference of 2,4cm (almost one inch) and larger. "Kabel" is generally that large too. He says a "kabel laid" rope is manufactured the same way but is harder, and the ducts are now made up of "trossar". Oh well, This is to be continued in a different thread.

However, what I found interesting about the quote was that he defines "against the lay", but not why.

[Dan_Lehman]

Here are a couple cases where whipping has been employed to repair
some broken tool, much as Inkanyezi repaired his flute; I show my
whipping of very flat-fibre strips of the cheap, littered polypropylene (PP)
(or is it polyethylene (PE)?) "baling twine" which comes in white, red,
orange, blue, and green (at least).

The knife had a short shank, perhaps no longer than the whipping,
and so had much leverage to break through the surrounding plastic
of the handle.  I think I had a piece of the broken plastic, maybe(?)
I employed some glue (what the heck...), but I relied on the tight
whipping to do the real work.  It is a translucent white twine fibre
beneath the showy red.  No particular technique was employed,
but there were parts of the "reverse groundline hitch" back'n'forth
half-hitching, some sailor's-whipping locks, and so on.  The nice
thing about this twine (and nb:  it's just fibers of the twine)
is how thin yet strong it is, and so one can wrap atop other wraps
without gaining much bulk --and some knotting lends itself to this
while other doesn't.  (E.g., the back'n'forth half-hitching for the
RGHitch fits exactly; the same-direction half-hitching of French
whipping not so --esp. not closely (crossing & next crossing) so.)

On the scissors, I first whipped (and maybe also employed glue,
which might be done more for the sake of soaking & locking the
whipping wraps, which were of ...) with cotton tea-bag strands (!).
Yeah, well, why not?  I collect a lot of these, and being a wee bit
knotty (not always pronounced as it's spelled, huh?!) it just seems
a reasonable fun thing to do.  Cotton is more frictive, non-flat,
and not so strong; a sailor's whipping bury will see cotton break
before overwraps snug down well, so a French Whipping and my
alternating HH/overhand variation on it are better candidates.

The cotton whipping then served as a foundation for the overriding
fibrillated-twine whipping.

So far, so good (bit of give in the scissors, which are mine; unsure
of the (friend's) knife's disposition.

--dl*
====

[SS369]

And I thought you weren't into Decorative knotting Dan.  (-.-)
Should we move this ?
 

SS

[Bookerman]

A tad late, but I may as well add my 2 cents worth:  On the tall ships I volunteer with the standard operating procedure is to whip the ends of the lines with two (2) palm-and-needle whippings.  You won't see a common whipping unless it's just a quick fix until the palm and needle can come out. The lines are all three-strand nylon usually 3/8", 1/2" or up to 5/8".  The reason for the two whippings is understandable when you consider the whippings are likely to be done by a trainee and may not be of the highest quality, the lines are very likely to be often trod underfoot &/or generally abused in every way, so having a backup whipping only makes sense.

[Dan_Lehman]

... standard operating procedure is to whip the ends of the lines with two (2) palm-and-needle whippings.
...  The lines are all three-strand nylon usually 3/8", 1/2" or up to 5/8".

I don't understand why one should prefer such whipping over those
posted in my Reply#6 here --multiple strangle knots (+ sailor's whipping)--
in monofilament nylon fishline or mason line?!  I think that the tools
used by me are more common : pliers, forceps (though both can be
replaced --by a hammer or like, & a short tiny sling (for purchase),
respectively).  --especially for the rope sizes mentioned above!

--dl*
====

[squarerigger]

Bookerman - good to hear from you and I think the idea of insurance is a good one if you do have any concerns about how long the whipping will last.  Our ships (Dana Point Tallships, CA, USA) lines, used by kids in fourth and fifth grades, are also whipped with insurance like yours because the kids on board are not nearly as thoughtful as Dan and his referenced fishermen are.  When a member of staff or volunteer here sees that one piece is coming loose to prying fingers or to being trodden underfoot (esp. after they have been told that this never comes undone - a challenge to the brighter, younger minds) it is a relatively simple thing to tie a new one behind the second.  Dan, I respect your challenge - I will instruct one of our volunteers to tie one of your (albeit aesthetically ugly) multiple strangle knots + sailor's whipping noted using mono-filament nylon fishing line and another using mason line, both using pliers, and we will report back on how long each lasts.  BTW Dan, your Reply #6 had several (25+?) whippings noted in your photos, and it was difficult to sort out exactly what it was among your four photographs you were recommending, so thanks for simplifying your post - clarity rules!

SR

[Dan_Lehman]

... whipped with insurance like yours because the kids on board are not nearly as thoughtful as Dan and his referenced fishermen are.

?!  No fishermen were cited re whippings, for mostly I don't
find their stuff whipped, other than w/black electrical (or ?)
tape --which seems to work well.  Sometimes there is a steel
hog ring, and once I found what I at first thought was a
constrictor but then saw was a (darn tightly set) clove
hitch extended with (I think) one half-hitch.  --in cord
like mason line around mere quarter-inch line (!).
As for their thoughtfulness, hmmmm, let's not bank on that.

As for kids' making mischief, there are other "whippings" to redress
that!
 

Dan, I respect your challenge - I will instruct one of our volunteers to tie one of your (albeit aesthetically ugly) multiple strangle knots + sailor's whipping noted using mono-filament nylon fishing line and another using mason line, both using pliers, and we will report back on how long each lasts.  BTW Dan, your Reply #6 had several (25+?) whippings noted in your photos, and it was difficult to sort out exactly what it was among your four photographs you were recommending, so thanks for simplifying your post - clarity rules!

Ooops, yes, my reference should be to the last two images,
of the 5/8" blue CoEx PP/PE, like-sized white 12-strand nylon(?),
and --in one pic-- yellow arborist rope.

"Aesthetically ugly"    Really, the monofilament whipping, esp.,
looks like a very clean, neat, heat-sealed binding.  You must be
referring to the other things, which ... , well, "beauty's in the eye
of the beholder" --YMMV on exact form & appearance, there (I'm
in part having some play with the spiral binding technique used
with binding cord, taking advantage of the very thin-flat material,
where overwraps accumulate little bulk).  Hey, it's colorful!  (This
is the commonly found PP(?) "baling twine" fiber.  Its lack of
stretch can be an issue if the whipping ever gets some slack.  But
it's nice to put what otherwise was litter/trash to some use, and
being so thin/small but w/strength it can work well on whipping
really small stuff.)

So, the multiple-strangle knot + sailor's whipping finish (note
the hyphen) has these needs/aspects, to be clear:

0) My "multiple-strangle" knot usually has TWO embedded twists,
not the usual one (and this affects how many overwraps are best for
extending sufficient to cover these); but one can be briefer.

1) The strangle knot will be tightened post-tying, rather
than requiring wraps to be put on under desired tension
--this is a nice feature, with acceptably slick whipping material.

2) The use of a slipped (multiple-) strangle is done so as not
to have much waste of material --one sets the tail short, maybe with
a stopper for added security of purchase for tightening, and the
builds the knot, finishing with a bight so as to not yet need to cut
anything.

3) Given this finishing bight, the sailor's whipping is applied with it,
nicely locking off one end of the strangle, which should be sufficient
to keep that knot from loosening, ever.

4) I use forceps for a nip-&-wrap purchase of the stoppered (maybe)
short end in opposition to an amply sized bight end opposite (which
could tie a pile hitch onto something for tightening); one might use
instead a short cord sling girth-hitched to (or sheet bent by) the tail

5) Working with short ropes, I typically orient the strangle such that
the short end is at the whipped rope's end, bight end (& sailor's whipping)
towards the rest of the rope --but I can haul the entire line through each
wrap of the sailor's whipping, which is impractical on a long line;
one can make the finishing bight very large and enable it to wrap around
your stock of whipping twine,
or one can reverse the overall orientation and have the sailor's whipping
part end-wards where forming it is straightforwards (as in ABoK #3443).

6) The pliers then serve to help distribute tension throughout the strangle
--from the initially very tight ends of the wrapping coil inwards (and it
might be that some of the apparent equalizing of coil tension comes
from simply loosing some tension out the ends --but, trust me, those
whippings I've shown are darn tight!  This function could be met by
rolling or pounding the knot with something hard.


For mason line, I find 5 wraps perhaps ideal, 4 just enough, 6 fine,
and more than that; with the monofilament shown (op cit), it is more
like 8-7-9/10, the embedded twist seeming to bend with smaller helix
angle (hmmm, seems some confusion re definitions of this ; I mean
LESS curvature, angle of helix to axis parallel to rope).  One way to
go larger in whipping material is to go *double* --use the material
in twin form, rather than getting something bigger (which is often
done in commercial-fishing binding work); this also keeps the
radius-wise profile small --i.e., it stays close to the rope, *spreading*
but not *bulging*, so to speak.  (My mason line is laid nylon, and
if I unlay it and use twin strands, I have still much strength but less
*bulge* off of the whipped line.  (I've seldom done this, though.))

In any case, the two cut-of whipping tails are roughly adjacent,
at the same end/side of the binding --nice when this is running
out amid the rope's fibres, given my usual (and shown) orientation.

 - - - - - - -

Back to aesthetics, if one likes that strands-crossing-wraps look,
it can be achieved by pulling some of the whipped rope's fibers
back over the strangle part, tucking beneath the wraps of the
sailor's-whipping closure (hauled tight prior to final tightening
of the whipping finish), and you can make whatever pattern
you fancy, within constraints of this binding (and, with the
orientation that has the sailor's whipping finish away from
the rope end).  And THIS ensures that the whipping cannot
be pulled off of the end of the rope, for one!  --something
of use in small stuff where one's surface area of the whipping
is reduced, and of necessity the whipping material must be
smaller & weaker & thus tightened with less force.

And one can think of other ways to use the bight-end of the
slipped strangle for creative whipping, such as pulling it
through the rope and making then a wrap before hauling it
tight, also to prevent the whipping being forcibly slid off of
the end.   ... possibilities ...


 


--dl*
====