Please verify this knot (Bend)

[agent_smith]

I tied this particular bend in Jan 2009 while playing around with ideas given to me by Dan Lehman.

Its taken till now for me to take some half decent photos of the structure.

If its never been published or previously identified, I'd like to name it the 'Lehman Bend'.

It sports 3 rope diameters gripped by encircling loops and it does not jam (although admittedly I only bounced my own 100kg mass on it for a about 30 seconds).

Its possible that xarax has already tied this one..given the number of knots he has published on this forum.

I admit that I am a bit lazy and haven't used the search option...know doubt someone will respond fairly quickly and tell me its name and discoverer...

I dont believe that it will become popular as a joining knot for climbers...it even took me a while scratching my head to figure out how to tie the darn thing!

[xarax]

   A (once) twisted Hunter s bend, obviously.(1) Tied very easily, as a variation of Hunter s bend. Comes in two variations, depending upon the way the tails are crossed before they exit the knot s nub. The one shown in your post, is variation 1 ( its otherwise handed - mirror symmetric form ).
   I am afraid that your generous dedication would not be appreciated by the  honoree person (2)
   For a twice twisted Hunter s bend, ( standing parts following even wider, 4 rope diameters first-curve paths ), and a very simple and easy method to tie it, see (3).

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2019.0
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2019.msg14270#msg14270
3) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2894.msg18933#msg18933
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2894.msg18934#msg18934
  

[Dan_Lehman]

The "honoree" resists this offer.
Which is an odd one, as one should expect that, especially
for a person who has dabbled in dozens of dozens of knots,
such a nominal moniker would be attached to one of those
knots, and not another's idea!

Beyond that, I find the knot awkward and less attractive than
one of my own discoveries which was presented in this forum
under the thread Ashley's #1452 and Its Ilk --to wit:

http://IGKT.net/sm/index.php?topic=1446.msg15383#msg15383

Here is a knot that arguably belongs in this thread on account
of its being non-jamming and having some similarity to the
Carrick bend, which can be seen as a seed for discovering
the interlocked-overhands knots shown above.

This end-2-end joiner is completely non-jamming, and it seems
to give a nice gradual curvature to the SPart.  It will be good
to see how it does in a strength test.

It's downside is obvious : it is awkwardly bulky.

--dl*
====

[xarax]

   A bend that I have thought of after seeing the bend described in reply 2, is shown here again. It is a knot made by two interlinked Pretzel-like overhand knots - so it can be named as a Pretzel+Pretzel bend. (See the attached pictures)
   The Hunter s bend is, of course, not an "awkward" knot at all, and neither are its X (crossed tails ) or twisted ( standing parts in an elbow configuration) variations, one of which is the subject of this thread. However, it is only natural for the father of the knot described in reply 2, to imagine that his child is more attractive and less awkward than the Hunter s bend variations...even if he admits that "it is obviously awkwardly bulky". Now, how a knot can be "obviously awkward bulky" and still "more attractive" than any simple variation of Hunter s bend, that is an issue of parent psychology we should respect. As a proud old father of ONE son, I understand it very well... However, I guess I wouldn't defend my children s quality with the same zeal, if I had "dozens of dozens" of them   

[Dan_Lehman]

X., funny that you mock my "dozens ..." note, while continuing
to spawn knots on some Quest.  These just-shown "pretzels"
haven't even your usual grace of symmetry, and take ugliness
to a new low!  (And don't forget that "SmitHunter's" and
the crossed-tails improvement of it are among my dozens (at
a time of zero and then some few dozens beyond).)

And all of the knots discussed here so far go beyond the
simplicity of Ashley's #1425, without much to show for
the effort.  (But I would like to see what the decreasing-radius
SPart curvature of some variations will mean to pull strength.)

--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Hi Dan,

I genuinely wanted to name a knot after you - but obviously it would have to be worthy

When I tied the structure (formerly and tentatively named the Lehman bend) in Jan 2009, I was obsessed with finding a holy grail method of joining 2 ropes together. You planted a number of ideas in my mind back then - eg encircling 3 rope diameters within a nipping loop and of course the essentials of being easily untied even after high loadings and being both secure and stable. And, I wanted to thank you in some way for your assistance in developing my knot study guide.

I note that xarax appears to have tied the above bend some 2 years or so after me. I also didn't notice the structure in Ashleys (I could easily have missed it though).

I admit that it won't be popular and I will certainly still favor the tried and tested Rosendahl/Zeppelin bend.

As for practicalities, my key elements are:
1. Ease of untying after high loading
2. Be secure and stable (even with differing rope diameters)
3. Be relatively easy to tie (ease of tying is a qualitative term...measured against what standard/criteria?) - this also assumes that the user can achieve long term memory retention (again highly subjective)

So I guess I'll keep looking and experimenting

Mark

[xarax]

X., funny that you mock my "dozens ..."

  No, I had no intention to mock your "dozens of dozens". I respect creativity ( creativity is not judged by quantity, but by quality, of course). I believe that, in your long journey around the Knotland, you have met many new knots, and thought of modifying many more old ones. If there was any criticism in my "funny" comment, it was about your attitude to not publish them the way you could, in a exhaustive, systematic, and comprehensible way. You are very laborious to criticise other people, which is a good thing ( if it done with good faith, fairly, and within the limits of any polite exchange of ideas), but not willing to accept the risk of other people s criticism. Your style is aggressive, almost arrogant oftentimes, which is something that, to me, reveals uncertainty, and fear. I might well be mistaken in my psychological portrait, of course ! My pictures of knots are much better, I believe... pictures of souls are a - very difficult - job I have less dexterity to perform ! 

These just-shown "pretzels" haven't even your usual grace of symmetry, and take ugliness
to a new low!

   Thank you for the compliment ! Yes, I , too, believe that they are the uglier knots I have met so far, possibly because I was influenced by the sight of your knots presented above ! 
   In those Pretzel+Pretzel bends, as in some other variations we can easily thing of, the standing ends and the tails can be interchanged, to have more or less symmetric configurations.

And don't forget that "SmitHunter's" and the crossed-tails improvement of it are among my dozens ...

 They are not your dozens, or dozens of dozens ! They are simple knots ( the X tails and twisted SP variations are not even new knots, but simple modifications / alterations of old ones), they are simple knots it just had happened to you to meet first, because you were lucky to be at the correct place the correct time. You are lucky to acquire something, and you keep it in the depths of your cellars... You do not do anything more than risking to be left alone, with some bottles of fine vinegar ! Throw the bottle into the ocean and let it be subject to natural and social selection...You may meet many new knots - among other things - in the after life, but you will not find a publisher to publish your notebooks, I can assure you !  Publish, because we will perish sooner than later !

I would like to see what the decreasing-radius SPart curvature of some variations will mean to pull strength.

  First, you should like to see what the increased overall radius SPart curvature of some variations ( like the one at the twice twisted Hunter s X bend) will mean to pull strength !

[xarax]

I note that xarax appears to have tied the above bend some 2 years or so after me.

   I note that you are running the risk of falling into this silly trap of  "who tied it first...", equivalent to "mine s is bigger than yours " !   The knots are there, we will find them all sooner or later, who arrives at them first is of no importance or value whatsoever.
   The knot you have presented is not a new knot, according to my definition in (1), but this is only a matter of semantics. It was a new knot to you, and you are right to be happy to have met it, as we all do when this happens to us. You were also right  - and generous, too - to wish to name it after somebody who inspired you into your journey, even if he himself is searching for the holy grail, and keeps his name unspoiled by lesser knot honours, so it will be engraved on the surface of the cup itself !   However, do not lose your valuable time on worthless "priority" issues. They lead to nowhere, and are not worth your already established reputation. I would be glad if this knot will be named after you, after your mentor, or after anybody else. My concern for a knot is to be known, not to be named !  
   I believe that, at least in relation to bends, we have reached a point where testing of already known bends is of a far greater importance than new bends. It will help us reduce the size of our knot toolbox, and aquire a deeper understanding of the knot-rope machines. I, personally, would love to be able to test knot strength by myself, rather than wander in the knotland any more...If you have the abilities and the means to do this, please, I beg you to do so. I can think of about a hundred of bends that are worth of being tested. Go on, there is a wide avenue of real glory right there in front of you !  

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3125.0

P.S. I have thought of raising the bar a little : It is better if we suceed to force the SP to encircle 4 rope diameters, not only 3. (See (2))
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2894.msg18955#msg18955