Author Topic: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands  (Read 19666 times)

SaltyCracker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« on: January 30, 2011, 07:23:06 PM »
ABoK #1031 (#1048 tied in the bight) was brought up in the Topics: "Looking for a sheet bend alternative" and "Interlocking knots". Tied as a bend, rather than a loop as shown in ABoK, the knot performs very well. It is similar (I can?t can't (Correction 2011-FEB-1) find a difference in form) to Asher?s Asher's (Correction 2011-FEB-1) Shake Hands bend.

The differences I have found are: 1) In the load: With ABoK 1031 the standing/load-bearing line runs completely through the knot before encountering a reversing bend. With Shake Hands, the standing/load-bearing line encounters a reversing bend half way through the knot. 2) Tying method: ABoK starts with an overhand loop knot (Correction 2011-FEB-1) in one of the lines, the rest of the knot is tied using the other line. (Photos to follow.)

Here are a few points, most pulled from posts in the two other topics:

1) It holds better in springy & slippery material. (I have used successfully in bungie & polypro. Do have some very springy line on a volleyball net that it doesn?t doesn't (Correction 2011-FEB-1)work well on, but it works better than most in that stuff.)
2) The leads go into the knot and come out parallel to their respective standing parts.
3) It is fairly easy to tie.
4) I believe that by being a long knot, the load is distributed through the knot improving its breaking strength.
5) It is one of the lowest profile bends that I know.

In the photo below are: Top bend - ABoK #1031 as a bend, Lower bend ? - (Correction 2011-FEB-1) Shake Hands
« Last Edit: February 01, 2011, 11:35:27 AM by SaltyCracker »

SaltyCracker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2011, 07:26:07 PM »
How to tie ABoK #1031 in the bight as a bend (corrected 2011-Jan-31 SC) w/load bearing line running through the knot.

Look closely at photos 2 & 3. The working end goes into the initial overhand knot, not behind it.

For the Shakehands (I've seen it as Shake Hands also) see:

http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_Bends.htm#ShakehandsBend

« Last Edit: February 01, 2011, 11:40:31 AM by SaltyCracker »

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2011, 07:51:49 PM »
Do you have a pic of these two knots in the same orientation?  It's hard to visual the differences in the original post.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3903
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2011, 08:27:36 PM »
Do you have a pic of these two knots in the same orientation?  It's hard to visual the differences in the original post.

No, it is point-blank simple --and only ONE *knot* image (total) is needed.
As I stated elsewhere previously, the difference is just the loading : the one
is the reverse of the other (pick your basis) --i.e., an ends<=>SParts swap.

--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2011, 09:01:45 PM »
   SaltyCracker, those two bends are almost completelly different !  :) ( Well, almost as different as two interlinked overhand bends can be...). And I think that yours, ( the one based upon ABoK#1031), is better !
1. The tail of each link is secured by the unobstructed, direct pull of the standing part of the same link.
2. The last gripping action of the knot on the tail, before it exits the knot s nub, is probably tighter than the previous one, inside the knot s nub. So, the tail is tightly fixed, mainly at the last point of its contact with the knot, and then the remaining portion of the rope, between the tail and the standing end, is closing tighter and tighter around the central core as we continue to pull the two ends/knots. That would probably lead to a tighter, and more compact, knot form.
   I would suggest a test of those two bends on the most slippery material you can find - on oiled monofilament fishing lines, etc, - and see if there are any notable differences.  
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 09:04:27 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

SaltyCracker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2011, 11:53:34 PM »
Do you have a pic of these two knots in the same orientation?  It's hard to visual the differences in the original post.

Agree with Dan's statements about the lead. Just didn't "get it" the first time he posted it. Not quite sure what our palindrome-named friend is saying but take a look from this perspective (below).

Wow... didn't "get it" with Dan and didn't understand xarax... you guys are confirming everything my wife tells me about my being dense.

Haven't tried in mono... don't think I will as there are plenty of fishing knots that work great and you don't need to worry about untying them. (The fish do the testing on those.) Remember, Ashley didn't know the synthetics we have today and this knot is based on one of his knots.

Understand the concept of testing in mono but I'd probably want to test in something else. Besides, I'm prejudiced toward the knot, even though I simply "stole it shamelessly" from Ashley and adapted it to a bend... big deal, even so, so couldn't test objectively.

Anyway... here is a new photo with the knots in the same attitude. When you look at the Shakehands, compare the short (working ends) to the standing/load-bearing legs of the ABoK #1031 bend.

SaltyCracker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2011, 12:12:09 AM »
Also, I'd switched from the bowline to the vice-versa for my speargun lineshafts' kevlar line several years ago. But, the first, and only, time I tried to tie the vice-versa in a three foot chop with a grouper, think stress, on the bottom with a cut-off line shaftshaft in him a  45 foot freedive away made me realize I needed something as good but easier to tie. I had played around with #1031 & #1048 loops and wondered, why can't that be a bend? The result is the 1031 bend. (Note: I'd probably never use #1048 in the bight. There are better knots but the fact that it could be tied in the bight got me to thinking about using it in a bend. I had to develop my own way of tying #1048 that is much easier for me. Let me know & I'll send a photo sequence.)

P.S. I didn't solve the problem on the spot. I reverted to a sheet bend (I use the same quick-tie method as for a bowline) and got the grouper.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2011, 12:13:24 AM by SaltyCracker »

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2011, 01:03:45 AM »
Do you have a pic of these two knots in the same orientation?  It's hard to visual the differences in the original post.

No, it is point-blank simple --and only ONE *knot* image (total) is needed.
As I stated elsewhere previously, the difference is just the loading : the one
is the reverse of the other (pick your basis) --i.e., an ends<=>SParts swap.

--dl*
====

Nope, the pic in Reply #5 is point-blank simple and about 10 times easier for me to see the differences.  Not everybody's brain works the same.  For preservation...

« Last Edit: January 31, 2011, 01:43:59 AM by knot4u »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2011, 02:58:39 AM »
...Understand the concept of testing in mono but I'd probably want to test in something else.

   What else is as slippery as an (oiled) mono-filament fishing line ? If you test both bends on the same mono-filament line, (under the same loading, of course), there is a chance, just a chance, that the one slips, while the other does not. Then you will have a proof of which is the better of them.

  
« Last Edit: January 31, 2011, 03:45:46 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

SaltyCracker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2011, 03:34:15 AM »
I think that you've further proven my wife's point...

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2011, 03:54:11 AM »
   Sorry SaltyCracker, my fault. I have always a hard time explaining my thoughts, especially when they are so vague, or wrong... :) But I still believe that your bend is better, because the tail is secured by the unobstructed, direct action of the standing part s first collar. Try the two bends with slippery monofilament lines.   
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3903
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2011, 07:29:22 AM »
...Understand the concept of testing in mono but I'd probably want to test in something else.
  What else is as slippery as an (oiled) mono-filament fishing line ? If you test both bends on the same mono-filament line, (under the same loading, of course), there is a chance, just a chance, that the one slips, while the other does not. Then you will have a proof of which is the better of them.

Not at all : you'll have shown which one slips in that particular material,
that's all --which would hardly interest someone using rope, e.g., esp.
if s/he were interested in untying the knot (and maybe re strength).

(What's as slippery as ... ?  --maybe oiled spaghetti, but not strong.
Monofil has much inflexibility, and HMPE ("gel-spun") angling lines have
led to old anglers' knots getting more turns (or round turns (wraps))
and so one, so that stuff is plenty slick.)

But I think that the strong interlocked central nip of Shakehands will
prove grippier than the not-so-strong nips of Reversed Shakehands.

--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2011, 11:45:27 AM »
  If you test both bends on the same mono-filament line, (under the same loading, of course), there is a chance, just a chance, that the one slips, while the other does not. Then you will have a proof of which is the better of them.

   Not at all : you'll have shown which one slips in that particular material,
that's all.

   If a bend slips more than another in a particular -most slippery - material, then, ceteris paribus, it will slip more than the other in any -less slippery- material.
This is not a knot.

TMCD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 257
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2011, 02:19:18 PM »
Geoffrey Budworth has a great illustration on the Shakehands Bend in his book and says it is almost an unknown bend. He also claims it's a very strong and secure bend. I'd like to see the shakehands bend tested against well known heavyweights such as the Zeppelin and Butterfly Bends.

Off topic, but the Ashley Bend looks just like the Alpine butterfly bend IMO, what's the difference?

dmacdd

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • My Knot Pages
Re: ABoK #1031 vs Shake Hands
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2011, 03:49:48 PM »

Off topic, but the Ashley Bend looks just like the Alpine butterfly bend IMO, what's the difference?

The Alpine Butterfly Bend is extremely resistant to jamming, comparable in this attribute to the Zeppelin Bend and the Full Carrick Bend, 1439.  Ashley's Bend, 1452, jams easily.  See http://davidmdelaney.com/jam-testing/jam-testing-several-bends.html Ashley's bend may be more secure than the Alpine Butterfly Bend, either generally, or in some materials.