Not another Urban Myth

[roo]

Not at all.  Recall the alleged emphasis of the supposed
zeppelin knot use in cases of mooring and withstanding
surges of the entire craft --not some small-stuff use.
So, please, articulate the circumstances in which some
large ropes of the blimp are handled and needed to be
tied --where, when, by whom--, AND are needed to be
"UNtied in a hurry" after great force had been put on
it by the blimp (when being moved in/out of a hangar)!?

Collins said, "It could be untied in a hurry, even after a sudden surge".  Notice he didn't say it had to be untied in a hurry.  This indicates to me only that it resists jamming.  You may be trying to read too much into it.

An extension of mooring or grounding lines may be needed in the case of ground obstructions such as buildings, hillsides, other large objects, etc.  It may also be beneficial to be anchored at a higher-than-normal elevation for longer observation range.  I wouldn't be surprised if they'd prefer to untie any extensions as they reel the craft in, especially if they wanted to use the free end of the standard-length line.

It may be that Collins' comment about hangar operations was incidental since he was talking about wind surges, and not meant to say something about the bend in question.

If you look at the second page of this article, you'll see two lines coming down.  Now you may or may not like the practice, but the two ends could be tied together after being passed under a restraining object. 

This is all speculation, and there may have been other ways they were skinning their various cats, but I hope that at least expands the horizons of your imagination.

What if the letter was from a relative of Rosendahl, ...

And this person would bother to write because ... ??!

Since we don't know the contents of the letter and apparently never will, it could be any number of things.  It might just be a relative who wanted to say, "I was very close to him, but I never heard of this Rosendahl bend".  Who knows?

[Dan_Lehman]

It could be untied in a hurry, even after a sudden surge[/url]".  Notice he didn't say it had to be untied in a hurry.  This indicates to me only that it resists jamming.  You may be trying to read too much into it.

Well, a nit amid the speculation, but his words are stronger
than this --my miss in quoting--: "It could always be untied
in a hurry ...".  That comes as part of the knot's reason d'etre.

An extension of mooring or grounding lines may be needed ...

I remain puzzled,
but to the assertion comes at least concurrence
in the general need, in citing the use of some sort
of bending line-to-line with the use of a rolling hitch.

Of the evidence in this case, for terms of true/false evaluation,
I see:
A. article --of Boating, product of Bob & Lee Payne--;
C. Joe Collins's alleged account, conveyed in by Boating in A;
W. the WingFootNote (i.e., it's assertion of letter P.);
P.  Lee Payne's account conveyed in W;
R. Rosendahl's assertions as conveyed by P in W.


One belief would be that Bob & Joe conspired to propagate
a legend for a knot that (likely) Joe devised.  This would
explain the carefully arranged details of A.  It would make
understandable W/P/R.  (If C is true, it's a shame that Joe
didn't at the time --given the alleged direction re knot Z.--
ask Rosendahl about its origins (politely with enthusiastic
curiosity, not doubting a superior!).  And, in any case, it's
curious that he doesn't make any mention of his learning
the knot, or from where Rosendahl might have done so!?)

Counter this is that C is true.  Then one can muse that
W wanted to maybe give thrust to his (editor's) own
disbelief about C.  (I'm assuming that W contacted P
of Boating for permission to publish a repeat of A in W.,
to which P supplied FYI re the issue as an update.)

And I am abashed that the skepticism & questions re
A&C did not arise in me way back ..., but only after
some other & better researcher raised them.
... and will hope we can add to this research!
"Come, Watson, the game is afoot!"

Might someone have personnel registries for the
container ship President Madison in use during
the 1970s (scrapped  in '99) ?  --showing both Colins
& B.Payne (which supports either conclusion, and i.p.
Lee's alleged assertion ("P.") that he learned of the
knot via brother Bob).


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

One thing to note about this argued history of the
zeppelin knot is that its origin is yet left unasserted.
What facts we know are:

1) In 1976 Boating presented the knot in an article.

2) About a decade earlier, Bob Thrun independently discovered
the knot for himself; he presented it in a small caving newsletter.
cf http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=983.msg6685#msg6685
--to wit:

My favorite bend is the Rosendahl Bend because I re-invented it and published it in 1967.
 I published in a local caving club newsletter.  The club had about 70 members and a bunch
 of exchanges with other clubs.  I would guess that the press run was over 100 copies.
 I think that I had the first publication of this bend.  The exchanges were free to reprint
 my article, but did not do so.  At the time I wondered why none of the exchanges picked up
 my article.  It is not often that a knot that is new, simple, compact and useful comes along.

3) Circa 1980-11, Dan Lehman independently discovered
the knot for himself (w/o broadcast).

The latter two --esp. mine-- surfacings of the knot didn't
account for its general popularity, I'm pretty sure.

It's odd that in the supposed Collins account that there
is no mention of originality --esp., as he is quoted in
recounting that in some 3 decades of knots interest
and searching for the knot in others' use he found no
hint of it.  Why did he not remark that either Rosendahl
invented it or at least wonder where R. learned it?
For a knot that so impressed him, it seems odd that
he leaves its origin unremarked, even to question!

So, we are left again with a knot history with loose
ends, yet to be tied to some further history or origin.

Now, >>IF<< we come to learn enough from extant
records to cast serious doubt on Collins's alleged claims
--i.e., to either believe he's accurately reported about
but then doubt his story; or to doubt the article's
assertions about Collins--,
where does that leave us?  There is the fact of the
knot IN the article.  I guess we then look at Bob Payne
as holding the key (he could've forged Collins' account,
but the knot came out, no doubt!).  My feeling is that
there's too much story w/Collins for it to be B.P.'s solo
fabrication (if that it is); so, would be a joint conspiracy.
And conceivably Thrun's discovery came prior theirs.

OTOH, if some extant records could show the knot's
use as Collins's account asserts, then ... how/where
did Rosendahl come to know of it!?!


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Ran across this article on Charles Rosendahl that states he stood watch as a ship's officer on the Graf Zeppelin.
Could that be the origin of the knot?

Why?  We know his history, intimate w/zeppelins, yes;
so what does this article bring new to our consideration?

By the alleged Collins account, there is no hint of origin,
or no mention of it --only that R. stipulated it (but not
about how R. came to know it).  By the alleged L.Payne
account, R. denied knowledge of the knot and showed
little interest in knots.


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Why?  We know his history, intimate w/zeppelins, yes;
so what does this article bring new to our consideration?

I was merely speculating on possible scenarios that would fit what we know.
 
Is it possible for Rosendhal to not remember the knot and yet have "invented" it? I do not think so.
Is it possible for Rosendhal to not remember the knot and yet have ordered its use? I think that is possible.

One should remember that R was on the Graf Zeppelin to learn all he could about Airships and how to run them.
He probably had long lists of things he had picked up that he wanted instituted on his ship. On the day he ordered the use of the knot, he also probably mentioned ten other things that he had picked up from the Graf Zeppelin.

It would be natural that the name used for the knot would be where it came from rather than an unpronounceable German polysyllabic mouthful.

Okay, so the point is that there might be a connection
to German rope use.  Yes, wherever we might find some
evidence of the knot will be worth the looking.  And in
such particular-to-zeppelins areas, the absence of the
knot, and the evidence of what IS presented, should
go some way to weighing against its sudden appearance
where there is only the Collins rumor.

As for the name, that is clearly given NOT by even the
supposed Collins --who, recall, named it after "R." not
"z."--, but by the Boating article alone; I see no mystery
here, and no clue to origins.

Now all we need is a German Speaking volunteer
to find and delve into the Zeppelin Field Manuals.

Heh, we only need IMAGES!  AND this goes to my point
about wondering how knotting instruction --esp. of some
novel, otherwise-unknown specially needed / important
knot-- could be done without images in knotting documentation!


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

how knotting instruction --esp. of some novel, otherwise-unknown specially needed / important knot-- could be done without images in knotting documentation!

I would rather think of it as a good knot remembered
due not only to the novelty (to a seaman presumably well versed in knots)
of learning a new knot, but also due to the link to USS Akron.

According to airships.net:

"No flight or operations manual exists for the Hindenburg or the Graf Zeppelin,
... and all training was done by the apprentice method."

The same could well be true of the USS Akron during its experimental/shakedown stage.
I also think that it might be safely assumed that seamen have
for many centuries learned knots without the aid of drawings.

Good argument!  Yes, seamen have done so w/o looks
into books --which might be noted in that there are
the cases of books not getting it right, anyway!
Richard Henry Dana authored The Seaman's Friend
but that came well subsequent to his own learning.
(I think it fair, though, to suggest that there could be
enough variance in seamen's competence to warrant
some instruction set down for reference.)

The suggested absence of documentation doesn't
thrill one with hopeful expectation, does it?!          


--dl*
====

[SS369]

Here is a link to a Flickr page that has the largest photo collection of airships that I have come across. The pictures range from about 1902 to the present. Some wild and interesting photographs of these contraptions.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/airship/pool/

Now there are an amazing amount of pictures (2857 items, whew!!) to view and I have looked at all my eyes can stand in one setting, but I hope other eyes will continue to search for the elusive Zep/R bend.

What I have glanced at seems to be mainly many lines to one joins or long enough tethers. Some eye and toggle joins and some unclear knots. So far none that have the distinctive right angle tails look.
If one uses Control key and hits the + key over amongst the numerals cluster (- key adjusts it back) it will magnify the page.

Hope someone finds something!

SS

P.S. Does it not seem a bit strange that this particular knot shows up nowhere in any vintage seagoing/rigging manual?

[X1]

Does it not seem a bit strange that this particular knot shows up nowhere in any vintage seagoing/rigging manual?

   No, not at all. Things have been looming just under our noses for hundreds, or even thousands of years, although, in principle, they should have been obvious to anybody from the time of the invention of dirt - just remember the Sandwich, or the steam engine. The Zeppelin bend is just like this. However, if one looks closer, he can "see" the reasons that had postponed its discovery for so long : It is the only bend where the standing part s first curve of the one link is not 'hooked" around the standing part of the other link, as it would have been "natural" to expect for a bend - but only around the pair of tails, that work as the pivots of a rope-made hinge. Big, huge difference !
   Ancient Egyptians were building pyramids for 1700 years before somebody told them that they can measure how tall those man-made mountains are by measuring the length of their shadow on the sand... Ancient people all over the globe were building ships for thousands of years before somebody, in his Eureka moment, told them that " the upward buoyant force exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces , so " Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object". Elementary, my dear Archimedes ! 
   The Zeppelin bend should have been a tricky bend to discover in the first place - and it is still a much more complex knot to understand than to tie !    Its deceiving formal simplicity, which conceals its structural Eureka moment, is what makes its so late discovery seem a bit strange. The fact that it was not invented before, say 1765 ( Watt s steam engine ), is it a strange thing ? When exactly its discovery should have been taken place, in order to seem "natural" to us ? And who can bet that an ancient Egyptian or Heraklas, had not tied it 4000 or 2000 years ago ? When one looks at the Megalithic Temples of Malta, the Stonehenge, the Pyramids, or the Pantheon, and at a Zeppelin bend, which would seem a more complex thing to him ? 
   
   Imagine that the Zeppelin bend was not known today - as it was not known until some point in human history - was this point the time of Heraklas, of Graf Zeppelin, of Rosenthal or of Ashley. It would nt be such an obvious knot to consider, that is for sure. That tells me that there may be yet other still unknown knots, which, AFTER their discovery, would also seem "simple" to us as the Zeppelin bend does NOW , and their late discovery would also seem "a bit strange" -  but they are still untied and untried, perhaps because they, too, are based on a yet another novel and unexpectedly effective knotting principle, as the rope - made hinge was.
   
   Archimedes text s" On Floating Bodies" , The Method of Mechanical Theorems"  and Stomachion" were  discovered in 1906, 2150 years after they were written !  (1) Who knows when the first text or picture of the Zeppelin bend will be unearthed - but, most probably, my life s line would not remain "over" the earth for so long !   
 
   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest