Joining ropes - using a reef knot as starting base

[agent_smith]

Looking back over some previous threads on rope joining methods I noted a comment from Dan Lehman about a thief knot.. (thread URL: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0 )

AND, although they are indeed fig.8 components, one can see
these knots as securings of the Thief knot --taking the tails
into a simple wrap & tuck.  And THIS should suggest that the
knots will be amenable to untying, esp. the one with the big
bowline-like collars (knot-C).

--dl*
====

So I thought I'd look closer at this and try something... and again I admit that the overwhelming number of knots published by xarax may have confounded me - in that he may have already presented this variation somewhere (so forgive me if this is a repeat...).

Anyhow, I liked this particular 'secured reef bend' because of the following characteristics:
1. It is easy to tie (it uses a reef knot as a starting base - and then you simply re-tuck the tails through the structure)
2. It appears to have have a less severe first curve - due to 4 rope diameters being encircled
3. It can be untied after loading (I bounced my 100 kg mass for 30 seconds and could still untie it)
4. It appears to be stable and secure (although I admit that I have not undertaken a round of field testing)





Comments welcomed...

Mark

[xarax]

   Welcome to the Hunter s bend simple modifications !  
   The knot shown is, obviously, a "twice twisted Hunter s bend". If you take one more step, and cross the tails before they exit the knot s nub, you get more volume in the central region, wider first SP curves, and the "twice twisted Hunter s X bend". ( X :  crossed tails ) Al those variations are shown in the references I gave to you the last time, but it seems that you have not paid much attention to them...
    Now, if you wish to go to bulkier bends, you can re-tuck those bends once more. See (3) for more variations of the the family of re-tucked Hunter s bends.
    I think that, if we modify the Hunter s bend still more, we distant ourself from the parent knot too much, to name the knots we get with the same name. I believe that I have tied all the possible crossed tails, once and twice twisted and re-tucked modifications of the Hunter s bend, but there is always the possibility I might have missed something.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2019.0
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2894.msg18933#msg18933
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2894.msg18934#msg18934
3) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1919.msg16649#msg16649
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1919.msg16652#msg16652
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1919.msg16661#msg16661
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1919.msg16662#msg16662

[knot4u]

The tightest Reef doesn't jam because it can be loosened by pulling on the diagonals.  When you re-tuck, I think you may lose that ability.

By the way, when I re-tuck the Reef, I don't get the knot you have in the pics.  Can you provide a loosened knot?  Are you re-tucking in the same way knots have been re-tucked in recent threads (i.e., a repeat turn at the exit of the working end)?

If you're tucking the working end into a different hole (i.e., not repeating the last turn), then calling it a "re-tuck" is confusing.

[Anthropy]

Looks a lot like the zeplin bend.  I prefer the Alpine Buterfly to quickly join 2 ropes.


Tom

[DDK]

  Welcome to the Hunter s bend simple modifications !  
   The knot shown is, obviously, a "twice twisted Hunter s bend". . . .

I believe the knot described is a twice twisted "Cshaws Dubious Bend" (to use your nomenclature), see http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1992.msg13968#msg13968.  That is to say, if one removes the two constrictor-like twists from the bend above, one recovers the Cshaws... which as previously discussed, lacks the interlocking of the "b" and "d" loops of the Smith/Hunter's Bend (note as well that the interlocking in the Smith/Hunter's Bend is not a constrictor-like twist).

If one were to tuck the ends as described above for the Granny Knot, then I believe one would obtain the "twice twisted Smith/Hunter's Bend".  In like fashion, if one were to tuck the ends for the Thief Knot, one would obtain the "twice twisted Zeppelin Bend".  One could hope that such additional interlocking might somehow improve the Zeppelin Bend.  In my opinion, this appears not to be the case (with the possible exceptions of uses where jamming is welcomed like in the joining of slippery fishing line).

DDK

[DDK]

Looking back over some previous threads on rope joining methods I noted a comment from Dan Lehman about a thief knot.. (thread URL: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0 )

AND, although they are indeed fig.8 components, one can see
these knots as securings of the Thief knot --taking the tails
into a simple wrap & tuck.  And THIS should suggest that the
knots will be amenable to untying, esp. the one with the big
bowline-like collars (knot-C).

--dl*
====

I also was intrigued by the use of the wrap and tuck of the ends of the Thief Knot in its securing and producing the Figure 8 Bend (which is the interlocking of figure 8's).  I first thought your securing of the Reef Knot would be along the same lines. I see you have taken a different approach and so will mention that in a manner very similar to the Thief Knot - Figure 8 Bend conversion, one can take the Reef Knot, use the ends to wrap outer collars as in the Figure 8 Bend and tuck the ends through the opposing collars producing a secured Reef Knot.  This bend is also a bend formed from interlocking figure 8's and may be more secure than the Figure 8 Bend (looking at their cores, Reef > Thief).  In both cases, one maintains the symmetry of the original knot (at its core).

DDK

[xarax]

   You are right, DDK, but...

...if one removes the two ... twists from the bend above...
   If one were to tuck the ends as described above for the Granny Knot, then I believe one would obtain the "twice twisted Smith/Hunter's Bend".

   1. I think that the "false tied" Zeppelin and the "false tied" Hunter s bends, remain in the Zeppelin and the Hunter s bends families of knots, respectably - if we distinguish those two families by the way the standing parts leave the knot s nub ( from opposite sides, in the case of Zeppelin bends, and from the same side, in the case of Hunter s bends ).
   2. Now, there is a problem with the un-twisting of the standing parts of a - once or twice -  twisted Hunter s bend. It can be done in a way that ends up with a properly tied Hunter s bend, or with a falsely tied Hunter s bend, depending of the way you remove the twist(s), i.e. the way you re-tuck the standing ends or tails after you have un-tucked them.
   3. I do not start by re-tucking a Reef, a Thief or a Granny knot ! The re-tucking of those bends are just special cases of the re-tucking (through various openings) of the more general knot "bases" from which we can start. See (1) for a complete enumeration of the bends we get when we start from the knot "base" described there, and re-tuck each working end of the two links through one of the 7 openings of this "base". See the attached picture for the knot "base" I call "H base", because, by re-tucking the working ends through various of its openings, it generates bends belonging mostly to the Hunter s bend family of knots - and not to the Zeppelin bend family of knots ( with the sense mentioned above). Re-tucking the working ends through the central opening of this base, ( C - C ), we end up with the "twice twisted Hunter s bend".
    4. My "nomenclature"   is nothing but superficial provisional labels, until we find better names for those knots. We may name them by paying attention either to the knot base from which we start, i.e. the method of tying, or to the final form of the knot. So, we may omit the name "Hunter s bend" altogether !
    5. For re-tuckings of the Reef family of knots in other ways, see (2).

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18494#msg18494
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18601#msg18601
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2085.0
  

[xarax]

I would imagine that the other "bases" would be comprised of the Reef Knot, the Thief Knot and the Grief Knot.  Each of these bases produces a unique and specific bend when one tucks their ends through their central openings.

   No, there are more "bases", because of the different positions in which the standing end and the tail of each untucked link can be found, and how they are interlinked with each other. ( The H base is not the only base resembling a Granny knot ! Let one standing end of one link go over, ( if it was under ) the working end of the same link in the H base, and you will get another Granny-looking, different nevertheless, base. Do not get yourself trapped in the Reef-family-knots-retucking restrictive logic ! Better start from the Carrick base, and change the over/under crossings of the rope strands at each node. ) And, of course, there are much more ways to tuck the working ends, than simply pass both of them through the central "black hole" . I have presented all  the members of the family of the bends derived after the symmetrical tuckings of one base, and only the single "twice twisted Hunter s bend", derived after the C C tucking of the "H base" . If you form all the different "bases", and tuck the working ends with all the different possible ways, you will see what I mean. Perhaps you will discover new interesting bends that I have missed. Good luck !  

[DDK]

Looks a lot like the zeplin bend.  I prefer the Alpine Buterfly to quickly join 2 ropes.


Tom

Hi Tom - Welcome to the forum !

It does have some similarity to the Zeppelin Bend.  Both the Zeppelin and Smith/Hunter's Bends are made of interlocking overhand knots where the final tucks of the ends are from opposite sides of a central opening, and so, the ends are on opposite sides in final form.  One distinction is that the top and bottom of the Smith/Hunter's Bend are quite different whereas they are the same for the Zeppelin Bend.

The Alpine Butterfly and Ashley's Bends are also made of interlocking overhand knots but where the final tucks of the ends are from the same side of a central opening and end up on the same side in final form.  All four of thes bends can be tied relatively quickly once practiced.  FWIW, the Zeppelin Bend is the most symmetric of the four and the Alpine Butterfly Bend is the least symmetric of the four.

DDK

[xarax]

BTW, the "H Base" more than resembles a Granny Knot, it IS a Granny Knot.

  No, the "H base" is not a knot, it is the "base" we use to tie a knot. The important thing is the presence of the 7 holes, through which we can pass the working ends of the two links. Derek Smith pointed out to me this difference in the case of Carrick bend," very clearly. The Carrick "base" is not a knot, it is a weave, the Carrick mat. It becomes a knot only after we pull the free ends and let the weave collapse.(1) The "H base" is the weave which we use to retuck the free ends, and then to pull them and form a knot . ( Most knots formed using the H base turns out to be variations of the Hunter s bend). I understand that you are stuck with the idea that we retuck the Reef family of knots. We do something more general. We form a base, we drive the working ends through various openings of this base, and then we form a knot.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3105.msg18631#msg18631

[xarax]

 Whether we call it a loose knot, a mat or a base is purely semantics.  

   No, it is not. It seems you have not read carefully the comment by Derek Smith I had refered to...
   Anyway, you can call with a name any of those many possible knot "bases" you call "knots". You will be tired, and left without new names, very soon... There are 8 crossings where the rope strand of the one link can go over or under the rope strand of the other link. That makes 128 different combinations...There are also 4 free ends where the two of them can be the standing ends and the other two the tails. That makes 6 possible combinations. 128 times 6 makes 768 different names you have to find to describe all the possible knot bases you insist calling "knots"...   Of course, due to symmetry, you will need fewer names, but not so few you would have wished to... For example, how are you going to name the "knot" shown in (1) ?

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18601#msg18601

[DDK]

Oh my !  I have just read a new thread that xarax has started and believe that I now understand why there is such a difference of opinions.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19163#msg19163

The difference between a falsely tied Hunter's Bend like the Cshaws Dubious Bend and a Hunter's Bend is that the Hunter's Bend has interlocked "b" and "d" loops and the Cshaws... does not.  As I stated much earlier in this thread, this interlocking or crossing of the ropes is not the same as a constrictor-like twist where one rope completely encircles the other (consider the difference between a Constrictor and a Clove Hitch, this is a twist).  In fact, a crossing or interlocking might be considered a partial (or part of a) twist.

If one completely removes the twist from a Constrictor, it reduces to the Clove Hitch.  If one does not completely remove the twist, but, only partially removes the twist by employing some additional retucking that was not present in the original Constrictor, one does not recover the Clove Hitch.

If one removes (and in my usage that means completley removes) the two twists from a Reef Knot with its ends tucked through the central opening, ones recovers the Cshaws Dubious Bend.

If one decides to not fully remove the twists, then it seems likely to me that one could, in fact, recover a Hunter's Bend by employing some additional retucking that was not present in the original twisted bend.

DDK

[xarax]

   So, what have we learned here ? That there is always a real and present danger to turn the Knotland into a Tower of Babel, if we try to figure out what exactly our colleague is trying to tell us, by using vague verbal expressions, like this "removal of the rope twist", for example...
   I have sensed that I have, somehow, highjacked agent smith s thread, so I have started a new thread about the once twisted bends that belong to the Hunter s family of knots. Also, I have deleted some of my replies to DDK that were not contributing to the heart of the matter, and, possibly, were only a result of mutual misunderstanding. With more pictures of the knots we are talking about, those misunderstandings will disappear completely, I am sure. A thread about the twice twisted bends of the same family, as the one agent smith has posted here, will follow soon.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.0