Author Topic: ABOK #1452  (Read 8445 times)

TMCD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 257
ABOK #1452
« on: February 09, 2011, 02:25:40 AM »
I think this deserves a thread of it's own as the important details are tucked away in a thread below. I'm a bit confused on this bend, are we saying the Des Pawson method doesn't produce a jam resistant knot? To be clear, I own the Handbook Of Knots, Expanded Edition by Pawson. Pawson promotes the two P's method, which BTW, produces an identical looking knot as the pretzel method employeed by Dan Lehman.

Dan, your method seems to produce the vortexing or twisting of the tails that is critical to tie the nonjamming version of this knot?? With Pawson's method, using the two P's, you really have to finagle the knot to achieve the twisted tails version. I'm just somewhat confused on the bend, is it a good bend to use for the average person or is it to tricky to set right? Sorry to bring another thread up regarding this bend but I think it merits some clarity....which I know Dan did but it was buried in another thread.

It's amazing how many different ways there are for tying just one knot, there's always more than one way to skin a cat as they say.  For a novice like myself, it's fascinating

dmacdd

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • My Knot Pages
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2011, 04:10:24 AM »
See the attached photos to see that Pawson, at least in the book shown, dresses Ashley's Bend, ABok 1452, to the jamming version. Compare it to Dan Lehman's two overhands procedure, also shown in photos.

Pawson uses the two P's procedure for making the bend.  With the two P's procedure it is straight-forward to produce a non-jamming version, only with two cords that have visually distinct surface patterns or colors. When joining two cords of exactly the same appearance, for example to join the two ends of a single cord, it can be difficult to produce a non-jamming dressing of Ashley's Bend from the two P's procedure, especially blind.  From the two-overhands procedure, on the other hand, it is easy to produce the non-jamming procedure with visually similar cords, even blind.

The twp Ps procedure is also vulnerable to a simple but catastrophic corruption that leads to the unsafe ABoK 1409. See http://davidmdelaney.com/ashley-bend/ashley-bend.html

Unfortunately, the two P's procedure has become the standard way of teaching and making Ashley's Bend.  It should be deprecated as authoritatively as possible. If the two-overhand method of making the bend is as easily corruptible to produce 1409, it may be that Ashley's Bend should be deprecated in general.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:26:09 AM by dmacdd »

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2011, 04:33:02 AM »
...is it a good bend to use for the average person?...

No.  There are a few other non-jamming bends that are easier to dress correctly.  I'm sure I could go through my entire life without ever needing to tie the Ashley Bend for a real application.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:41:04 AM by knot4u »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2011, 07:47:23 AM »
are we saying the Des Pawson method doesn't produce a jam resistant knot?

YMMV with loading & material, but the versionS that Des shows
can jam.  Note that you might WANT to jam a bend, in various
scenarios; in such a case, you'd want to set it into a jammed state
yourself, and not expect it to arise (presumably, i.e., you'd want
it jammed secure from the beginning).  Conceivably, in some
materials, the tails-abutting dressing will be drawn into the
non-jamming one (that is how the S.Parts will draw on tails,
but they might not succeed in shifting them).

Quote
To be clear, I own the Handbook Of Knots, Expanded Edition by Pawson.
Pawson promotes the two P's method, which BTW,
produces an identical looking knot as the pretzel method employed by Dan Lehman.

Not so : he shows TWO dressings --in blue & white, copied above,
and in the right-margin larger image, in orange & red.  In the first,
note that the blue tail's on the blue S.Part's side of the knot; but
the red/orange tails reach towards opp. S.Parts --but on the wrong
side of each other.  David's larger image above puts it clearly.
(AND, note that he shows a mis-tied SmitHunter's bend on the facing
page, in the red-&-blue cords, finished knot along the left margin !

And that might seem finicky except if you're tying it in a sane manner
and not the CLDay-invented too-clever-by-half manner of 2-Ps (that
p.s me off!) and so are focused on one *spot* for working the end
of the 2nd rope in & back out, which then makes it all easy.  And
if you have an inkling of understanding about WHY you're tying
what you're tying, along with the How.  (But you can go through
your entire life and not know --and write advice about knots, too!)

Quote
I'm just somewhat confused on the bend, is it a good bend to use for the average person or is it to tricky to set right?

The average person wouldn't even be asking the question,
and on average I think would know few knots.  Unaverage
Inkanyezi remarks that end-2-end knots don't figure prominently
in his above-average rope use; rockclimbing will join ends for
making slings (though one can by sewn tape slings), and for
joining lines to rappel (though one can climb with a twin line
and use that).  Many around-the-house tasks with tiny stuff
needs only the square knot.  Once, I joined a thickish rope
someone was connecting for a quick snow-stuck-tow, and
wanted a decent bend --think I used #1408, but #1452 too
would do, also carrick, RZ, and various others.

But knowing the JAMMING ability of #1452 might be just
the ticket for it to come to the fore --a Swiss-army bend!
(But I might be seeing too much in this --that the jamming
under light loads, so still able to be untied, is not so secure
a knot as needed --takes some careful dressing & setting.)

Quote
It's amazing how many different ways there are for tying just one knot

And it's not just tying, but dressing/setting --different
results, not merely different ways to the same result.
Beyond which can come different behaviors to a geometry
per knotted material.

--dl*
====

ps:  I'm reminded that I've not photo'd & shown the 3rd dressing
for Ashley's #1452 --one that takes some working.  And maybe
I should show a more from-the-start jamming version --what might
be used for some tasks.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2011, 06:06:03 AM by Dan_Lehman »

TMCD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 257
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2011, 03:12:31 PM »
Thanks all for the comments, Dan, you're a treasure trove of information, thank you. In my own selfish way, I wish Pawson's method was jam resistant because the tying is much easier to remember for my brain.lol. I can still cross the tails over one another at the very end of Pawson's method and get the vortexing version I believe. But, I'd be scared to put it to the test in the wild for fear of Pawson's version jamming. I'd have MUCH more confidence using Dan's overhand version for obvious reasons.

I was reading on a knotting website, can't remember the name now, but at the end of the bends discussion, they strongly recommended the Butterfly Bend to be your go to bend. It apparently ranks highly on the testing scale, right there with the Ashley Bend. This particular site claimed that the Butterfly Bend is virtually idiot proof...although to a person with no interest or knotting ability I'm sure they'd screw it up.

I really like the Ashley Bend, so I'll perfect the OH method of tying it. Having said that, the Zeppelin Bend was my favorite until I discovered I couldn't tie it in a very well worn rope I own. It simply woulnd't set right, it would deform into something foreign. Has anyone experienced this deformation of the Zeppelin Bend in well worn rope.

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2011, 06:54:16 PM »
Has anyone experienced this deformation of the Zeppelin Bend in well worn rope.
I'm not sure how rope wear would affect anything unless the rope was frayed or unlaid into near oblivion.  Does this only happen in twisted rope as opposed to braided?  Anyway, there are two major ways to set the knot upon tying.   One is pulling on the two standing parts.  The other is pulling on the free ends.

Does performing both types of setting help alleviate whatever you're perceiving?

Using the Zeppelin Bend has a number of advantages over other bend forms.  It's more secure than the Butterfly Bend, doesn't jam and seems to be immune from any evil impostor issues.

If you want a jamming knot form for disposable stuff, I'd stick to more easily tied angling-type knots rather than the Ashley Bend.  The easy-to-tie jammers are abundant.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 06:53:19 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2011, 07:12:53 PM »
Has anyone experienced this deformation of the Zeppelin Bend in well worn rope.
I'm not sure how rope wear would affect anything unless the rope was frayed or unlaid into near oblivion.
Does this only happen in twisted rope as opposed to braided?
Anyway, there are two major ways to set the knot upon tying:
one is pulling on the two standing parts;  the other is pulling on the free ends.

It would help to know what the deformation is.  I have just found
that the knot starts to draw tails into rotation in some rougher rope
than might occur with slick new rope.  This behavior can be somewhat
alleviated by anticipating the draw in positioning the tails or in pulling
on tails to help set tight, as Roo notes.

Of course, first you must be sure --as Roo alludes--- that you're not knotting
the Rosendahl's "Evil Imposter", which is prone to deformation simply from
loading (what Pawson shows in the margin for SmitHunter's bend, btw).

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 07:34:48 PM by Dan_Lehman »

dmacdd

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • My Knot Pages
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2011, 10:45:22 PM »

When joining two cords of exactly the same appearance, for example to join the two ends of a single cord, it can be difficult to produce a non-jamming dressing of Ashley's Bend from the two P's procedure, especially blind.

Well, no....  I just spent a half hour teaching myself how to blind tie the non-jamming version of Ashley's bend using the two-Ps method.  I can now do it reliably.  The trick to doing it reliably is to twist the two ends 180 degrees in the correct direction before inserting them through the eye of the P's, then for the next steps in the dressing, until the knot has been made quite compact, to hold in each hand the working end and standing part that properly go together on that side.   "Correct direction" is best determined by observation and experiment while teaching oneself how to do it.

I also did a dozen blind slavish imitations of the dressing moves indicated in Pawson's book.   Every one resulted in the jamming version, as does the presentation in his book.

With the two-overhands method, the working end and standing part that are closest together on each side in the iconic two overhands presentation of the topology of the knot are the parts that have to be kept together in close pairs until the knot is finished, so this method is intrinsically suggestive of the correct dressing, and permits easy picturing of it.  Clearly picturing and/or explaining the non-jamming dressing of the two-P's method will complicate its presentation considerably. 

On the other hand, the two overhands method imposes considerably more memory load than the jamming version of the two-P's method -- at least for those who, like me, use visual/muscle memory as the dominant memory modes for knots. This means that all known versions of making Ashley's bend in a way that provides all the attributes claimed by Ashley -- the attributes which are responsible for its popularity -- impose a greater memory load than is commonly supposed. 




Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2011, 06:49:59 PM »
...
With the two-overhands method, the working end and standing part that are closest together on each side in the iconic two overhands presentation of the topology of the knot are the parts that have to be kept together in close pairs until the knot is finished, so this method is intrinsically suggestive of the correct dressing, and permits easy picturing of it.  Clearly picturing and/or explaining the non-jamming dressing of the two-P's method will complicate its presentation considerably.  

On the other hand, the two overhands method imposes considerably more memory load than the jamming version of the two-P's method -- at least for those who, like me, use visual/muscle memory as the dominant memory modes for knots. This means that all known versions of making Ashley's bend in a way that provides all the attributes claimed by Ashley -- the attributes which are responsible for its popularity -- impose a greater memory load than is commonly supposed.  

I guess "the two overhands" method is the one put forward by me
and ultimately refined verbally and presented graphically here by you.

The "2-Ps" method requires that one remember details of holding
BOTH ropes formed just-so, then an intricate over/under crossing
of the "P" parts in order to do the fudged/non-version-specific
tucking of the paired ends --and then (omitted by authors) must
come the particular dressing & setting per one's desired outcome.
In contrast, first tying one overhand --and in a quite common,
natural, form (I think that what you show in the grey-brown rope
is the mostly likely result a right-hander would make if given the
instruction to "tie an overhand", including its handedness )--,
AND THEN targeting that *spot* for the other end's ENTRY & EXIT
seems vastly better, perspicuous.  AND it starts & builds the shape
of the knot, and essentially highlights the knot's nipping *vortex*
of rotating-in-same-direction S.Parts --a feature that is helpful to
understand, to appreciate the knot's security, and which can help
guide one's tying, to achieve that.

As promised, here is a 3rd dressing of #1452, in which the crossing
point of the collars is thrust to the other side of the nipping S.Parts.

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 07:37:36 PM by Dan_Lehman »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2011, 08:28:08 PM »
a 3rd dressing of #1452, in which the crossing
point of the collars is thrust to the other side of the nipping S.Parts.

   The tails, in Ashley s bend, may cross each other both ways, or they may not, as in the bend shown in the attached pictures.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 08:39:34 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Ashley s bend (ABOK #1452) relatives
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2011, 03:56:42 PM »
  If we retuck the 8 different Reef-family-of-knot s "bases" ( See (1), we arrive at 4 Hunter s bend - looking bends, and 4 Ashley s bend - looking bends ( depending upon the way the tails exit the knot s nub, pointing to opposite directions, or to the same direction, respectably). Here, I post pictures of 4 the Ashley s bend - looking bends. ( In the first post I show the relevant 4 "bases", and in the following posts pictures of the 4 bends that are formed if we retuck those bases through the common, central opening.)
   Now, it turns out that two of those bends come out of the retucking process as two identical knots, ( the Alpine butterfly bend ), because of the symmetry of the two generating "bases" conbined with the symmetric way those bases are subsequently retucked.
   Note : I do not examine here the various different dressings of those 4 knots. As we have seen, there are 3, at least, different dressings of each knot, depending upon the final relative position of the tails into the knot s nub.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19380#msg19380  
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 07:04:26 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2011, 03:59:10 PM »
   Pictures of the Alpine butterfly bend.( Generated by retucking the A1b and/or the A2b Reef-family-of-knots "base")
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 06:31:48 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2011, 04:02:06 PM »
  Pictures of the ABoK#1408 and the Ashley s (ABoK#1452) bends. (Generated by retucking the B1a and the B2a Reef-family-of-knots "base")
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 08:14:42 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

TMCD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 257
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2011, 09:16:40 PM »
This is a decent thread and I'm glad you brought it back to life xarax. As a person who loves to fiddle with knots, it's nice to have the Ashley Bend in my repertoire. Having said that, I can't think of many scenario's where I would actually tie and employee the Ashley Bend.

The Zeppelin Bend and Double Sheet Bend suit almost all of my knotting applications. When strength and security are demanded, I tie the Zeppelin Bend. When I'm facing a general purpose situation, the double sheet bend has ALWAYS performed quite well. These two bends are my go to bends and what I advise people to use when they need a bend.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 09:17:17 PM by TMCD »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: ABOK #1452
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2011, 10:57:00 PM »
   This presentation has nothing to do with an evaluation of the ease, the security or the strength of those 4 knots themselves, but serves only as a "knot address book."
   I, too, tie the Zeppelin bend most of the times, or, when I  "need" - merely for for psychological reasons - a bend that, in theory, is supposed to be slightly more secure and strong, I tie the Zeppelin X bend or the Double Zeppelin bend.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 06:25:12 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.