Author Topic: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?  (Read 39394 times)

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #60 on: July 27, 2009, 08:15:38 AM »
Inkanyezi, I shall not refute your practical observation, but have been doing some maths on the bommar2 case. It is a bit akward to write down the boundary conditions and the working assumptions in this HTML editor, but this evening I will typeset them and prepare an eligible pdf for you. The thing which is of interest is the increase in force when pushing the tub transversally. If you displace it over a deltaX distance, deltaL the elongation of your mooring ropes will be something like

deltaL = l' - l = sqrt(d^2 + x^2 + 2xdeltaX + deltaX^2)  -  sqrt (d^2 + x^2)

(see my point about the shortcomings of this HTML editor :-\). where d is half the distance along the boat, x is the distance of the boat from the post and l is the original mooring rope length and l' the elongated mooring rope length. Using Hooke's Law you will find that the force difference depends on the differences under those square roots. That is optimistic, as square roots are less steep than linear functions (certainly after some break-even point), but nevertheless a positive increase to your load. When wind-induced it will be a gradual increase, when wave-induced it will spike. You admit to having to winch your mooring ropes to a tension within one third (120) of the SFW (350) of the rope yet well below the vendor's indicated breaking strength (1950). This would mean the spikes should not exceed about a 15-fold of the original tension; in order to avoid breakage of the rope - the winch being pulled out of the deck probably the next problem, as winches typically are not devised for shockloads.

Joop Knoop.

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #61 on: July 27, 2009, 08:51:31 AM »
About the Carrick bend by Inkanyezi (http://web.comhem.se/~u77479609/Carrick_Bend.pdf) on which Dan Lehman had some remarks.

The website shows how to initialize the Carrick Bend by means of a "Weave Method" and concludes that the drawing up finalizes the structure. Furthermore Inkanyezi writes above:

Quote
My conclusion that load has to be put upon it is experience and nothing else, and I frankly didn't fathom that people really make the knot by building its final form by reeving.

Of course it is possible to form the Carrick Bend into its final form instead of first making the flat pattern, but that is not the method that I will propagate, and I find it too difficult and prone to error.

Is this a matter of propagating a Carrick Bend tying method along the good old trodden way, or is there something new? DL refers to Discovery Channel's "Deadliest Catch" and KM023, pp18-19 where a real-life tying method is described.

If you wish to deploy a structure because of its favourable qualities, and furthermore require it very often, then short-cutting its tying method will become an option to explore. This is what fishermen typically do. Now, Inkanyezi is seeking to promote a knot in sailing circles where there are some further conditions to be fullfilled, one of them: it must be easy - as otherwise our sailors will "forget how to do it".  This strikes me as strange. If you are a professional rope-user, then you should think about the tools you wish to deploy. Saying that the making a Carrick Bend, directly in its final form, is "too difficult and prone to error", while stressing that it is a useful bend seems to me like missing the journey's final step. Is the Carrick Bend included to impress, or what?

Joop Knoop.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #62 on: July 27, 2009, 08:52:37 PM »
...
 You admit to having to winch your mooring ropes to a tension within one third (120) of the SFW (350) ...
Rather, he said that the lines were winched to just 40kp, and then that the
 maximum force recorded for one line during a gale was:
Quote
maximum tension of 120 kp on a line that was stretched to 40 kp already with the power of the winch
which surprises me, and which no doubt will vary per many factors, but it let him
sleep aboard well enough.   :)

Re the Carrick bend,
Quote
If you wish to deploy a structure because of its favourable qualities, and furthermore require it very often,
but he has noted that in practice bends aren't so often required; to which I
suggested that for some of the things (small stuff) one might expect to use
ends-joining knots, a Carrick woudn't be the best choice.

KM#23 presents two ways, on p.18:  whereas the 2nd way goes as Joop notes
directly to the finished form, the first one steps back from the commonly
seen "lattice" ("weave"-based) form -- implying a sort of compounded capsizing!
This first one (#1, The Falmouth Way), given by Owen Nuttall, is pretty
clear about correct orientation of ends (just as beginning the weaving of the
lattice-form is, for 2nd rope to approach aligned with the 1st rope's S.Part,
and then going over-under... from there); it strikes me as simplest & easiest yet!
Form two bights and cross them, ends-away, so to speak;
then just tuck each end around the other's bight into its own bight.  But one
has the vagaries of this sort of double-capsizing to worry about in firm cordage.

Nuttall's method starts like this (good ol' ASCII art, w/o the ASCII though)-:
          e_________
SP_____________|
               __
               |  |
               |  |
               |  |
               |  |
               |  e
               |
               |
              S.P

There still is something though about the Carrick that leaves me unimpressed;
I would sooner see Rosendahl's Zeppelin bend put to greater practice, as it
seems to draw up better.  Preforming one of the two interlocked Overhands
is better than needing (not really, but in the cited examples it was...) a 2nd person
to hold a preformed Crossing knot.  In any of these tying methods, there is some
good bit of orientation to know.  The lattice-form/weave Carrick might be the surest
and simplest, for going wrong quickly shows itself; reeving into the Overhand
is less obvious and can lead to mistaken knots vs. obvious failure.

And all of this in the context of expected use(s) -- which has been already allowed
to be not-so-often.  (Join small bits together (such as net menders do with their
binding cord); extend an anchor rode or dock line(?); and ... ? )  Somewhere on
this forum there was the start of discussion of a Basic Knots Set which then
was suggested to move from this arguably too subjective goal to an objective one
of citing extant knots sets found in practice (in the wild ) -- from which one
might glean the makings of a general knots set (or not).  Much of the latter will
depend on materials & circumstance, along with tradition and perhaps methods
of learning.

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 06:11:38 AM by Dan_Lehman »

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #63 on: July 27, 2009, 10:37:32 PM »
"when wave-induced it will spike"
Try to think outside the frame.

There are no wave-induced forces, that is the whole idea. The ropes are attached close to the axis around which the boat pitches. Thus pitching (a rotational movement around a horizontal axis) will not convey any forces to the mooring lines. Pitching is an oscillating action with zero result. When the bow goes up, the stern goes down, and then the bow goes down again while the stern goes up. The center of gravity remains mainly at the same height. If we do not try to contain pitching with our mooring lines, there are no wave-induced powers involved. So, there are no spikes. Forces are mainly static.

It is however true, that the windward bridle (both springs on the windward side) may elongate so much by the wind power, that the boat comes to rest against the leeward beam (Y-bar), whereupon the fenders will take part of the load. The rope has enough elasticity to permit this, and any movement to the side causes the angle of the line to be more favourable, so the sideward portion of the tension of the rope will become larger as the boat is pushed to the side. The rope tension will remain within safe limits. A component of the power in each end of the bridle goes into the other end. Thus the winches (or cleats) take only the sideway component, not the entire load of the mooring line. Again, there are no shock loads when applying this geometry, and sailboat winches are mostly sturdier and better attached than most cleats or fairleads.

It boils down to analyzing the problem first, in order to find a solution. Pitching is not the problem. We only want the boat to remain in a reasonably fixed position to avoid that it strikes anything hard while pitching. So the challenge is to find a way to hold the boat in position without restraining its natural oscillating movement. The shock loads that are common are caused by bad mooring practice, resulting from applying one's mooring lines without thinking about what's happening to the boat and mooring gear. An analysis will show that not much force is needed to keep everything at bay, if we do not inhibit natural movement.

/Urban
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 12:36:10 PM by Inkanyezi »
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #64 on: July 28, 2009, 01:53:56 PM »
Thinking outside the frame, trying to tame the tub, is no problem, but your writing is:

Quote
There are no wave-induced forces, that is the whole idea.
An analysis will show that not much force is needed to keep everything at bay, if we do not inhibit natural movement.

I am not so sure about Swedish marina's but along the North Sea coastal marina's nasty swells do create wave-induced forces. Be honoust Inkanyezi, it is unrealistic to ignore them, where do pitch (and roll) come from? Windage? Furthermore, if you do not wish to inhibit natural movement of the vessel, then mooring is not required at all and you can let the boat flounder (unhibiting natural movement to the max). So your remark, although interesting, needs some nuancing. Some natural motion is being restricted, hence.....

As I have threatened, I would write down my bommar2 analysis in pdf format. I tried to attach it to this post in vain, as it runs to 149 Kb, and there appears to be a max of 100Kb on this forum.

Anyway, I will gladly mail it to you. I will mail it to Dan Lehman too (see if I can find your email accounts next) as we appear to be the only ones on this thread.

Joop Knoop.

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #65 on: July 28, 2009, 02:51:20 PM »
Re the Carrick bend,
Quote
If you wish to deploy a structure because of its favourable qualities, and furthermore require it very often,
but he has noted that in practice bends aren't so often required; to which I
suggested that for some of the things (small stuff) one might expect to use
ends-joining knots, a Carrick woudn't be the best choice.

I agree with Dan - my goodness, second time in my lifetime on this forum - that you should choose the appropriate tool/knot for the occasion.

I have already querried Inkanyezi as to why he intends to include the Carrick Bend in his forthcoming book to begin with, but that probably got lost in the screetching Stockholm Storms we have been discussing on this Scouting Clifford Ashley thread. The exercise of tying a Carrick Bend is like the exercise of tying a Sheet Bend. If you do not know how to do it, you are lost and you either learn or abandon all hope of ever learning it. If you must tie many Carrick Bends, the continuous exercise will have its movements engrained in your finger(tips). In other words the investment in learning will pay dividend in terms of usage. It is comparable to mending nets, yet simpler. If you see the mess of a ruined net, but not the method for its repair, there is little hope you will ever learn to mend nets. Same goes for Sheet- and Carrick Bends. If you are not going to use it, because its tying method is too complex, too difficult to learn (e.g. if you are a sailor), or you plainly do not need it, then don't bother. After all, who learns to fly aircraft? People who want to be pilotish, I should say. Same goes for the application of the Carrick Bend technology. Knotters who want to be in the Carrick-Bendish-know should learn it, or suffer. Actually this puts us right back on track in this thread (yes, I will attempt yet again to bring this derailed thread back onto its tracks).

Consider sailors and their Turkish Head Knots; they take great pride in showing off how to do a 7 LEAD 6 BIGHT thingey (which is explained in ABOK!), but fail to understand/believe that Borneo headhunters tie far more complex structures than any sailor has ever set his/her bleary eyes upon. Or worse, what about rural knotting from Argentina brought to us by cow-punching authors like Mario Osornio Lopez in Trenzas Gauchas, or the impressive tome by Bruce Grant? Decorative Rubbish I hear a mutter,  but that is not quite true. These knots, according to Cyrus Day, have a definite non-decorative user-requirement, but it is not specifically tied to the mariner world. Sailors show off decorative knotting for the same reason scouts show off decorative knotting, which is a different reason as to why cowboys tie these complex structures. Is the show-off factor, which plays a role in knotting, keeping the mystique in the subject, a good or a bad thing?

While on the topic of cowboys and knots. Anybody already dug up some evidence that the Cowboy Bowline actually was used by cowboys and/or that they used it because they hated to use the Bowline Proper to annoy the sailors?
 

Joop Knoop.




lcurious

  • Chief Mate
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 31
  • Chief Mate -
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #66 on: July 28, 2009, 06:04:32 PM »
Re security of knots

I note that there does not seem to be any mention of seizing to provide, what I would consider the ultimate security. When I go aloft in a bosuns chair, the halyard has a  round turn through the ring of the chair, then a bowline, which is drawn up and the end is seized to one leg of the loop. If we consider a knot important it is probably seized.

Re 1410: Adding 'stopper knots' and tying a different knot etc suggests some serious doubts on this knot. Save yourself the trouble and do what we do on our boat, don't use it.

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #67 on: July 28, 2009, 06:46:17 PM »
lcurious, as this thread is about the hypothesis of a scouting influence on Clifford Ashley, rather than whaling, the relevance of seized knots and mooring geometries baffles me:

If we consider a knot important it is probably seized.

You are, however, at least partially, correct and backed up by the earliest of seamanship manuals. Anchor Bends and clinches frequently show of seizings. After all losing an anchor would be something of a blemish on a sailors reputation, now wouldn't it not? :)

Joop Knoop.


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #68 on: July 28, 2009, 07:06:32 PM »
" ... as this thread is about ..."

... like an unmoored boat drifting with a change in current or breeze ...
Apologies, but to answer further some questions raised, ...

Re security of knots
I note that there does not seem to be any mention of seizing to provide, what I would consider the ultimate security.
Because for many applications, the knot is used in part for its temporary nature,
and seizing is not a broadly, well-known accepted practice, nor so quick to do/undo.
Commercial fishers, to my finding, indeed to some kind of seizing on most of their
non-temporary ties -- well beyond what's necessary, I'm sure.  They use "hog rings"
to bind ends to other parts; they tuck ends through the lay once or more; and I have
some photos of eyeknots that are combinations of a bowline and overhand.  (In one
case, the Overhand eye knot is tied in the Bowline's eye to include the end; in the
other, an Overhand in the S.Part is brought down around the body & backturned
end of the Bowline (!!).  Consider these simply oddball cases, but some indication
of at least one knot-tyer's thinking).  Again, in many cases, I think that complete
security in their applications could be obtained with the knot alone, absent adde d
binding -- though in some cases the binding of the end also serves to tame the end,
keeping it out of the way.

Quote
When I go aloft in a bosuns chair, the halyard has a  round turn through the ring of the chair, then a bowline,
 which is drawn up and the end is seized to one leg of the loop. If we consider a knot important it is probably seized.
I would dispense with the gratuitous seizing, here:  in place of the mere round
turn, you could put in the Anchor bend, and then as a guard to that (if not the
added turn advocated here of Ashley's #1843) tie off the end into the Bowline.
Beyond that, or just with the Bowline, there are ways to secure that with a 2nd
wrap & tuck of the end like its initial collaring of the S.Part.  Of course, rock climbers
consider their tie-in knots as important as your bosun-chair tie, and it will have to take
a fall, not just the body weight.  Some of them will tie off the end, but usually
a Fig.8 eyeknot suffices; bowline users should add some further security in knotting
(which is easy to do, in many ways).

Quote
Re 1410: Adding 'stopper knots' and tying a different knot etc suggests some serious doubts on this knot.
 Save yourself the trouble and do what we do on our boat, don't use it.
Sorry, did you miss the part about decades of usage?  But, yes, there remain
doubts -- and there are varying circumstances, as noted (such as different-diameter
ropes).  So, taking some simple precaution to improve the security is in order,
and the added stopper or the revised knot structure come at small extra effort.
But your logic can be returned:  do you doubt the Bowline so much to seize it,
but continue to use it (why not use a Fig.8 eyeknot, then, like rock climbers)?!
I imagine that rockclimbing rope is more a challenge to secure than the more
flexible boating halyards.

   --------------------------
Quote
Anybody already dug up some evidence that the Cowboy Bowline actually was used by cowboys and/or that they used it because they hated to use the Bowline Proper
I think that this is mostly pointed my way.  I believe that, like much, there isn't
a sound basis for it; my use of the name was in thinking it was clearly understood,
or as much so as "left-handed Bwl", and avoided the other names' myths or mis-
understandings.  Possibly "C.B" had nautical origins where it was meant as a kind
of denigration, seeing cowboys as less proper than sailors, but that too is but a
hypothesis.  "The end-outside Bowline" could be tried, though I can think of things
to say -- and did so, above -- about the notion of the end actually being inside
of the eye for #1010 (it is mostly so only in diagrams, not after loading).  One can
anticipate the draw of the S.Part on the end and position it on tying so as to have
it end up in various positions upon loading --something some testing could shed
light on.

One more thing:  I find that for myself, and have seen this also elsewhere, when
I make a Bwl with that capsizing method of pushing a bight of the S.Part like
for a "slip knot" (actually, would be an Overhand noose) and then tucking the
end through this bight, and then loading to capsize it all into a Bowline,
I tend to end up with the Dutch End Cowboy Outside Marine bowline,
and not #1010.  -- a lack of practice/understanding/attention, for sure,
as that's not a tying method I much use but for the heck of it.

--dl*
====

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #69 on: July 28, 2009, 07:47:38 PM »
Quote
" ... as this thread is about ..."

... like an unmoored boat drifting with a change in current or breeze ...
Apologies, ...

Apologies accepted for telling the truth. It would be wonderful if there would be some discipline among posters to stick to the topic of the thread. In that wiki-styled approach the organisation of relevant/related knotting knowledge would not only be aided, but also stimulated. Currently stuff is all over the place. Now, confusion was an in-grained part and/or parcel of the knotting thingey, right?

As for the Cowboy Bowline, good we got that issue settled too, then. So, that is a completely unbased story. I seen that Dave Root (http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_SingleLoops.htm) was asking the same question.

To make up for my open promise; Pieter van de Griend had a Dutch article in Notes on Knots (1993) which discusses the occurence of both Bowline types in the seamanship manuals of the Danish, Dutch and British navies spanning across 1625-1850. The conclusion of the paper is that there exists no definite claim from any navy's side on either of the Bowline types. In fact the Outside Bowline is also to be found in the vicinity of Hull as a so-called "Keelman's Bowline", rather non-naval and once again mere oral transmission.

Joop Knoop.

ThomasG

  • ThomasG
  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #70 on: November 02, 2011, 04:17:13 PM »
If Ashley were a scout there would be more about Lashings, the origins of lashings, use for wach type, proper start and finish, etc.

dewildeman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 57
Re: What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?
« Reply #71 on: November 05, 2011, 07:12:10 AM »
I image that if Ashley wrote a knot book geared towards Scouting we'd have something like John Sweet's "Scout Pioneering".