Author Topic: Possble New Knot/Bend  (Read 9759 times)

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2012, 04:30:43 AM »
I agree that knots are tools/mechanisms and could/should have "names" (identifiers) like tools out there in the world. Those names are usually fairly good. Not necessarily for the common person always, but for interested people.

I say to someone: Let me have that 3/8 inch drive, half inch socket. A descriptive name that would mean absolutely zilch to my wife, but to gear heads I'd need say no more.

We're knot heads so how can we do this? At least for this subculture/group of similarly interested people.

We're digressing and veering from the thread's path just a little, but since Matt did ask we could go a little further.
We have been down this road before and no closer have we come. Yet.

SS

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2012, 02:58:53 PM »
We're knot heads so how can we do this?

   At first, we can stop walking on the same slippery road of giving silly names to new knots ( including the most silly of them all, ours... :)).
   We can try descriptive names, that tell something about the knot s form, structure or properties. I myself had attempted something like this, with some knots I had tied.( Oval bend, Helical bend, Trefoil bend, Springy bend, Pretzel bowline, Double crossing nipping loops bowline...).
   We can use the names of the already well known named bends to describe new ones that are readily related to them ( Zeppelin X bend, Carrick X bend, Shakehands X bend, simple hitch a-la-Gleipnir, Double Granny bend, locked Cow hitch, Double Cow hitch, Multi-coil Clove hitch, Retucked Whatknot bend, Symmetric Sheet bend ).
   We can use names that describe the knot s mechanism and/or properties ( TackleClamp hitch ).
   Or, we can try to describe the tying procedure of the knot, by denoting the sequence of moves we have to follow to tie certain knot . Starting from a certain Carrick mat, we can retuck the working ends through some of its openings. Which ones ? The first working end through the left right (lR) opening, and the second working end through the upper left (uL) opening - and so we tie the lR-uL bend.(1)
    In short, we can do our best not to prolong the knotname confusion yet another century ! So, I think that the "top side twist falsely tied Hunter's bend", as well as the "Dances with Wolves", are OK... :)

   P.S. From time to time, every quarter of a century or so (?), here comes a marvelous knot, a Great knot, that can be named in any way its inventor wishes - in fact, any name at all, and still be remembered by this name for centuries. I know one recent such knot, the Gleipnir ( of which I consider myself a humble student).
 
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18601#msg18601
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 03:11:04 PM by X1 »

TMCD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 257
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2012, 08:14:42 PM »
Why would I tie this knot when the Zeppelin Bend is clearly superior and has proven itself time after time in real world applications?

There's only about two bends that can even rival the Zeppelin Bend IMO, that being the Ashley Bend and Butterfly Bend...everything else just doesn't have the symmetry, security, strength and ease of untying after being loaded. I'm a big fan of the Double Harness Bend but it's major issue is that it can be tough to untie if you can't get those collars to push up...but it's a beautiful bend.

Ashley said the perfect bend was the Carrick Bend, but I've always questioned it's security for some reason...I have zero evidence to back that up, just my opinion from eyeballing it. If my life's on the line or anyone else's, I'm using the Zeppelin Bend.

Matt53

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2012, 12:12:50 AM »
A name can be useful as a shorthand way of referencing a knot.  A name can also indicate the geometry of a knot and perhaps the 'family' to which it is related.  Perhaps like names within the plant and animal kingdom, a knot could have both a common name and a scientific name.  The scientific name (could even be numbers and letters) would indicate the 'family' the knot belongs to and it's unique permutation within that family (much in the way the genus and species denotes a unique organism).  I do like the idea of a'periodic table' which defines configurations scientifically (mathematically). In essence the 'scientific name' (or code) would describe the knot's geometry.

Matt53

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2012, 12:31:43 AM »
To respond to TMCD, I agree that the Zeppelin bend is (probably) superior but I'm not sure I 'know' this.  Just from an armchair perspective, the line making up each side of the Zeppelin bend undergoes 450 degrees of direction change.  For the current bend, it appears to be 540 degrees. It may be that both knots would exceed the breaking strength  of the line used before slipping. Arguably, in that case the Zeppelin bend would be superior in that it accomplished the same goal in a simpler, more elegant fashion.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3700
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #20 on: December 24, 2012, 08:02:03 AM »
Roo,  I am very familiar with the Hunter's bend (Rigger's bend, ABOK 1425a) and this is a different configuration.  The reverse side of the knot IS identical to the Hunter's bend.

Apparently you're replying to a vaporized post showing
simple knot misidentification, tsk tsk.

But, no, the "reverse" side is NOT the same --tie
SmitHunter's bend and see how it differs
(using differently colored ropes, that is!).

Quote
If you lay this knot next to the ABOK 1425a (Hunter's/ Rigger's bend)
one can appreciate how they are different.

But if you nix the "a" and compare this to Ashley's #1425
--a much too ignored gem--, you should see their likeness
(and, overall, I think I favor Ashley's).  Mr. Gray (?) submitted
this end-2-end knot to the IGKT's New-Knot Claims Assessment
Committee some decade or so ago; so, you have company.
It's a natural result taking #1425 as a stimulus; and you
might play around with alternative exits of the tails vis-a-vis
themselves (something rewarding for SmitHunter's, too!).

Quote
... on quick inspection this looks somewhat similar ...
[but] look at them side by side and I think you will be able to appreciate the difference.

I guess he did.  (Before he got a citation like SS369 did!)   ;)

--dl*
====

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3700
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #21 on: December 24, 2012, 08:19:16 AM »
Why would I tie this knot when the Zeppelin Bend is clearly superior and has proven itself time after time in real world applications?

There's only about two bends that can even rival the Zeppelin Bend IMO, that being the Ashley Bend and Butterfly Bend...everything else just doesn't have the symmetry, security, strength and ease of untying after being loaded. I'm a big fan of the Double Harness Bend but it's major issue is that it can be tough to untie if you can't get those collars to push up...but it's a beautiful bend.

Ashley said the perfect bend was the Carrick Bend, but I've always questioned it's security for some reason...I have zero evidence to back that up, just my opinion from eyeballing it. If my life's on the line or anyone else's, I'm using the Zeppelin Bend.

I'm still looking for all these proven uses of the zeppelin
--esp. after the one supposed to have spawned it was said
to be a myth!  One might be chary of the looseness of the
z. and favor Ashley's #1425 for its tightness when set.
Or because one found it stronger, albeit slightly (as though
this could matter!).  And I continue to be amused at the
worship the butterfly gets as an end-2-end knot when
Ashley's #1408 is "clearly superior" --i.e., at least symmetric
and otherwise a match!?  (Though we might find that some
orientations of the former make its asymmetry into a charm.)

The carrick bend is apparently favored by the rugged Alaskan
crab fishermen to join pot warps (when one line's not enough);
I think that they might fancy the zeppelin (or #1452 [nb:
fifty-two, not twenty-five, here]); but maybe they take the
precaution of taping the carrick's tails together --the sort of
securing I find in much east-coast commercial-fishing knotting--,
and then the adjacency of the tails is a plus.

Not every ends-joint is wanted to be (easily, or at all) untied.
The fisherman's knot is de rigueur for much com.fish. work,
for it stays tied, is strong, presents ends along SParts for
easy securing, and is compact.  Nobody in this business would
want any of these other end-2-end knots over the fisherman's;
the dbl.harness might get some attention, though.


And, really, we should all ask : where do you get ANY indication
of the zeppelin bend's strength?
  For the lack of evidence,
there is a LOT of noise out there, it seems to me!


--dl*
====

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #22 on: December 24, 2012, 04:14:15 PM »
The carrick bend is apparently favoured by the rugged Alaskan crab fishermen

   Alaska crab fishing is even more dangerous than logging !  :) ( they are the two most dangerous occupations in the World - knot tying should be the least dangerous - but I do not know the dangers of "writing to a knot-tying site"=" trying to speak to knot-tyers"... Judging from my blood pressure when I read some "comments" coming from the bottom of this day s or last night s alcohol bottle, I reckon they are NOT negligible...   
  Tell us, great Alaskan crab fisherman, do you use the common Carrick bend, or the Carrick X bend shown at (1). Because I cannot imagine you pay any attention to the exact way the tails will be crossed, if you tie it by capsizing the Carrick s mat.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4128.msg24826#msg24826
« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 04:33:43 PM by X1 »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3700
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2012, 04:10:09 AM »

  Tell us, great Alaskan crab fisherman, do you use the common Carrick bend,
or the Carrick X bend shown at (1). Because I cannot imagine you pay any attention
to the exact way the tails will be crossed, if you tie it by capsizing the Carrick s mat.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4128.msg24826#msg24826

In the one passing glimpse of the tying (or so I think it was),
they had two men doing it, one holding one end folded into
the crossing-knot ("Munter") form and the other reeving into
that the 2nd end --a tying method that allows further variations!
But I surmise that they went for the usually recommended version.
(The line is hard-laid, so capsizing the lattice form could be tough.)


--dl*
====

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2012, 04:38:19 AM »
   Thanks. Is nt it strange, two people tying one knot ? ? It would need some precise (4 ! ) hands manipulation, and a good synchronization ( but that is not something those men are not accustomed to ! ). With some springy ropes, I find it difficult to tie the Carrick bend by myself - and there is no heave+sway+surge+roll+pitch+yaw of the floor ! ( not any sub-freezing temperatures, ice falling from above, etc...) ! Why are they tying those knots this way ?

Matt53

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2013, 11:05:49 PM »
Sorry for the delayed response.

[But, no, the "reverse" side is NOT the same --tie
SmitHunter's bend and see how it differs
(using differently colored ropes, that is!).]
 
The knot originally presented and the SmitHunter's bend (#1425a) are the same on the 'reverse' side. Depending on how it is tied, one can produce enantiomeric (mirror image) forms but these are alternate representations of the same form. This knot differs from the Hunters' bend (#1425a) on the 'obverse' side in that the parallel strands (Hunter's bend) are wrapped around each other (forming an overhand knot).

[But if you nix the "a" and compare this to Ashley's #1425
--a much too ignored gem--, you should see their likeness
(and, overall, I think I favor Ashley's).  Mr. Gray (?) submitted
this end-2-end knot to the IGKT's New-Knot Claims Assessment
Committee some decade or so ago; so, you have company.
It's a natural result taking #1425 as a stimulus; and you
might play around with alternative exits of the tails vis-a-vis
themselves (something rewarding for SmitHunter's, too!).]

The difference between the bend originally presented and #1425 is that on the 'obverse' side  the ends exit 'thru' the overhand knot in #1425 and 'below' the overhand knot in the presented bend. So I agree, there is a similarity to #1425 although they are different. #1425 is more difficult to untie which may be an advantage/disadvantage depending on the circumstance. Thanks!


Matt53

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #26 on: January 10, 2013, 11:10:51 PM »
Sorry- the above post by me references Dan Lehman's post #20. 

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2013, 11:31:10 PM »
enantiomeric (mirror image) forms

I believe they are called enantiomorphic ( enanti = other, opposite side / opposing, morphi = form ).
They are called enantiomeric ( enanti + meri = composed by parts ) only in chemistry ?

Luca

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2013, 01:16:31 AM »
Hi Matt53,I apologize in advance for how(and also for how incomplete) I am going to write

The falsely tied Hunter's bend (or false Zeppelin) is so symmetrical that the reversed version is the same (other bends have this feature, for example the Hashley's and the Double Harness with parallel ends);this knot can take two different forms: one similar to real Hunter's (in this case, the difference resides in the fact that the standing ends are not interlinked), the other similar to ABOK #1425(in this case the difference lies in the fact that the standing ends are not crossed).In this thread http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4201.0 X1,for as I perceive,shows that such operation can be carried out also with the Hunter's(given the similar geometry/symmetry);and you consider that the bottom side twist falsely tied Hunter's bend http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19170#msg19170  is the same of ABOK #1425(but if you run an ABOK # 1425, and then instead by the standing ends you  load it by the tails, you may see a falsely tied Hunter's with crossed tails!).

                                                                                                           Bye!
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 01:22:43 AM by Luca »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2013, 01:44:59 AM »
   For readers who might wish to read a fairy tale about ABoK#1425 , ABoK#1425a and Hunter s bend :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3236