Water Zeppelin

[Seaworthy]

From what I have read so far, the Zeppelin with the thinner line given one more final tuck (no one has come up with a name yet, do we call it the 'Asymmetric Zeppelin' or '1.5 Zeppelin' or 'Semi Double Tucked Zeppelin'?) seems the best relatively easy way known to join line of different diameter used when sailing (all but slippery stuff like unsheathed Dyneema).

(BTW, I vote for 'Semi Tucked Zeppelin', making the version with both tails double tucked the 'Tucked Zeppelin'. This leaves the terms 'Semi Double Zeppelin' and 'Double Zeppelin' free for doubling the initial loops rather than the final tucks - we need 4 new names for these 4 'new' versions that were discussed here in 2010.)

I think an initial double loop of the thinner line may be even better (ie a Semi Double Zeppelin), or perhaps both a double loop a double tuck of the thinner line, but only load tests can confirm or deny that.

Now leading on from this (my thoughts keep returning to Dyneema), what do you think of making the doubling of the initial loops of the 6 and 9 clove hitches rather than simple doubles? Imagine the difference between a Double Bowline and a Water Bowline. That is what I propose trying for the Zeppelin. 'Water Zeppelin' seems an appropriate name.

This is how the Water Zeppelin looks from the two sides when loose and dressed (line is old stiff stuff so it does not tighten easily):

[Seaworthy]

And this is how the Water Zeppelin looks in Dyneema. The two lines are slightly different in diameter, so it is a little uneven, but I think this bend is quite elegant and more importantly, promising:

Any comments?

[xarax]

   The Zeppelin bend looks "simple", but it is not - and that may explain why it was tied only "recently" ( taking into account the fact that knots were one of the first inventions of our ancestors ) - and why the almost unique, among the bends, way it works, is not understood, even by knot tyers who claim they are "familiar" with it, and promote/advertize its use. 
   One of the most subtle things is the way it achieves its "balance" : even after heavy loading, the pair of the Tail Ends ( the "pivot" of this rope-made hinge ), remains  perpendicular to the axis of the knot, so the forces that are applied on them are sheer forces mostly, not friction forces. The first curves of the Standing parts, although they are not "hooked" within each other ( as it happens in most other bends, and in the deceivingly "similar" Hunter s bend, for example ), they are adjacent and parallel to each other, and aligned to the axis of the knot in an almost perfect way. This does not happen in the case of the falsely tied Zeppelin bend, which, although it is more symmetric, it is a very poor bend.
   One can find many things about the true Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, and its evil imposters in this Forum - but knotting myths are not extinguished overnight, and because knots, fortunately, seldom kill their users, they will continue to be around us for a looong time.

   When I see a knot that is supposed to be some variation or implementation of the Zeppelin bend, the first thing I look is the angle between the Standing and the Tail Ends : if this angle is not the right angle, it is not a right angle  , so the supposedly Zeppelin-like knot is determined to work differently than the genuine Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend - and, most probably, it works much worse.
   There have been some attempts ( some very successful, and some not so ) to other, Zeppelin-like bends and loops.(1)(2)(3)(4)( I do not consider this evil imposter of the Zeppelin-like family of knots, the fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop", as a Zeppelin-like knot, of course ! )( For some comments on why some such bends work better than some others, see (2). The possible variations of a "Double" Zeppelin bend, have also been exploited (5)(6).

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg30245#msg30245
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.msg24546#msg24546
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.msg24590#msg24590
5. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980
6. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4777.msg31022#msg31022

   The bend shown here may perhaps be improved a little bid, if the two "Clove hitches" ( which, in fact, are not "Clove hitches" any more, but just pairs of half hitches ) are placed in a way that would enable, 1 : the continuations of the Standing Ends to be better aligned and closer to each other, and, 2 : the axis of "tube" surrounding the pair of the Tails to remain, in relation to the axis of the knot, in an angle closer to the right angle ( i.e., closer to the perpendicular to this axis ). Let us call as A1 and A2 the two nipping loops of the one "Clove hitch", and B1 and B2 the two nipping loops of the other. If their order along the axis of the "tube" is not A1, A2, B2, B1, as it is now, but A1, B2, A2, B1 instead, or even A2, A1, B1, B2,  the situation improves - because the A1 and the B1, and the continuations of the corresponding Standing Ends, will come closer to each other, and so they will be better aligned along the axis of the knot. 

[Seaworthy]

   One of the most subtle things is the way it achieves its "balance" : even after heavy loading, the pair of the Tail Ends ( the "pivot" of this rope-made hinge ), remains  perpendicular to the axis of the knot, so the forces that are applied on them are sheer forces mostly, not friction forces.
..........
   When I see a knot that is supposed to be some variation or implementation of the Zeppelin bend, the first thing I look is the angle between the Standing and the Tail Ends : if this angle is not the right angle, it is not a right angle  , so the supposedly Zeppelin-like knot is determined to work differently than the genuine Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend - and, most probably, it works much worse.
   There have been some attempts ( some very successful, and some not so ) to other, Zeppelin-like bends and loops.(1)(2)(3)(4)( I do not consider this evil imposter of the Zeppelin-like family of knots, the fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop", as a Zeppelin-like knot, of course ! )( For some comments on why some such bends work better than some others, see (2). The possible variations of a "Double" Zeppelin bend, have also been exploited (5)(6).

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg30245#msg30245
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.msg24546#msg24546
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.msg24590#msg24590
5. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13796#msg13796
6. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4777.msg31022#msg31022

Many thanks for the feedback and links. A huge amount of interesting reading there.

Not sure if I agree entirely with all the comments, but I admit I have little experience and have an awful lot to learn. In these early stages of learning, it seems to me that it is important for the knot not being stressed by having any of the components pulled apart when load is applied that is very important, rather than where the angle the tail ends end up.

   The bend shown here may perhaps be improved a little bid, if the two "Clove hitches" ( which, in fact, are not "Clove hitches" any more, but just pairs of half hitches ) are placed in a way that would enable, 1 : the continuations of the Standing Ends to be better aligned and closer to each other, and, 2 : the axis of "tube" surrounding the pair of the Tails to remain, in relation to the axis of the knot, in an angle closer to the right angle ( i.e., closer to the perpendicular to this axis ). Let us call as A1 and A2 the two nipping loops of the one "Clove hitch", and B1 and B2 the two nipping loops of the other. If their order along the axis of the "tube" is not A1, A2, B2, B1, as it is now, but A1, B2, A2, B1 instead, or even A2, A1, B1, B2,  the situation improves - because the A1 and the B1, and the continuations of the corresponding Standing Ends, will come closer to each other, and so they will be better aligned along the axis of the knot. 

I will have a play in the next few days.

[roo]

Now leading on from this (my thoughts keep returning to Dyneema), what do you think of making the doubling of the initial loops of the 6 and 9 clove hitches rather than simple doubles? Imagine the difference between a Double Bowline and a Water Bowline. That is what I propose trying for the Zeppelin. 'Water Zeppelin' seems an appropriate name.

This is how the Water Zeppelin looks from the two sides when loose and dressed (line is old stiff stuff so it does not tighten easily):

Aside from the difficulty in tying things correctly, I find that I'm having a difficult time trying to draw things up into a compact form.  I feel like I'm trying to snug up a Turk's Head.

As an aside, xarax's favorite word is "fake", yet he fails to see the irony in his fake analysis based on looks (as if he were reading tea leaves) rather than reproducible tests of relevant knot properties.

[xarax]

it is important for the knot not being stressed by having any of the components pulled apart when load is applied that is very important, rather than where the angle the tail ends end up.

  In a 2-knuckle / 1-pin hinge, if you pull the 2 knuckles towards opposite directions, in order to keep the hinge in one piece, you want the axis of the pin to be ( and to remain ! ) at a right angle ( = perpendicular ) to the axis of the pull - otherwise the knuckles will slide on the cylindrical surface of the pin, they will move apart from each other, and the hinge will be separated / tore apart, in three pieces !  . Even if there are some considerable friction forces in between the knuckles and the pin, if the pull is strong enough, they will not be able to prevent this sliding.
   Now, in the genuine Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, we have a two-part pin ( made by the pair of the two adjacent Tail Ends ), and each of those parts is "welded"/connected, at its one end, to the corresponding knuckles ( made by the pair of the two adjacent first curves of the two Standing Parts ). So, if the axes of the pins ( Tail Ends ) are not perpendicular to the axis of the pull, the knuckles (  first curves of the Standing parts ) will be free to move apart from each other, dragging the corresponding "welded"/connected to them half-pins along them - and no nipping/gripping of those pins by the knuckles, however tight, will be able to prevent this.
   What does the pin of a hinge "feels", when the two knuckles are pulled towards different directions, perpendicular to its axis ? It "feels" mostly sheer forces(1), which try to tear it in two pieces. What does a pin of hinge "feels", when the direction of the pull of the knuckles is oblique, in relation to its axis, and not perpendicular ? It "feels" mostly friction forces, which, to be able to prevent the slippage of the knuckles on its surface, they need to be very strong .Nipping/gripping loops very tightly wrapped around penetrating lines may be an advantage regarding security, but it is a disadvantage regarding easiness of untying.
   So, in a Zeppelin-like knot, the angle between the Tail Ends and the direction of the pull of the first curves of the Standing Parts is very important, indeed : in fact, it determines the ability of those not-hooked-to-each-other curves to remain close to each other, or not. A Zeppelin-like knot, where the angle between the axes of the Tail Ends and the axis of the pull of the Standing Part is right, can remain in one piece, even if those ends remain rather loose ( as shown in the attached picture ). In short, in a Zeppelin-like knot the pair of Tail Ends works not as a glue, but as a toggle.

1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_force

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

I think we should not get befuddled by what things look like or what we might compare them to visually, but more straightly checking the properties, wanted and unwanted, that a knot may provide.

There is also an important feature to consider here, friction, more precisely the friction between different parts of the rope that is knotted. Friction may be one of the most important features to consider in a rope, apart from breaking strength, elongation, water uptake and other. Now Dyneema, HMPE, is a very special case when it comes to friction.

So regardless of whether the ends come out perpendicular to the standing parts or not, friction is what holds things together in a knot, and HMPE is a very poor companion when we want friction. In any knot, there is always a force component along the rope axis at any point within, and this force tries to slip the free end into the knot to undo it. If friction is sufficient to withstand said force, and if friction builds up more than the length-wise force when applying load, the knot will hold, it will not slip back and undo itself. The most important property for this is friction, and HMPE does not provide much of that property.

So discussing whether the ends come out at right angles or not is not fruitful, as the important question is: Will friction within the knot prevent that it pulls the ends back into it and undo the knot? This question is crucial, whether the ends are aligned with the standing part or at other angles to them. Only testing will confirm or falsify any claims. Many here might have seen how a doubled bowline in HMPE will undo itself at a much lower force than the breaking force of the rope.

It is interesting to find knots that work in HMPE, and I think that factors that must be addressed also are ease of tying, and ease of undoing. Would these not be important, splicing is the answer. We know that splices can provide enough friction - also without any right angles.

We may also sometimes accept a "second best" solution. One property we look for when using HMPE, mostly is little elongation, while ultimate breaking strength might not be overly important, as the load will mostly be much less than the SWL of the rope. So if the knot will not slip at 1/10 of the SWL, it might still serve its purpose, if it will never be loaded beyond that point.

HMPE in boating is used, among other purposes, for halyards, where it is often spliced. It can also be used for sheets, although less frequently. The main important feature in halyard use is low elongation, and low weight comes second.

Neither halyards nor sheets are frequently knotted, but spliced to a hook of some kind, which is attached to the clew. Only in an emergency would sailors use knots, and very seldom would a bend be required. True that I use the bowline for attaching my sheets, but they are not HMPE. Also, if using HMPE, mostly it would have a braided polyester sleeve, and as the SWL is not even closely approached in normal use, but it is used mostly for the short elongation, it can be knotted with normal knots in normal use.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to find knots that work in straight HMPE, and the zeppelin formation might be a viable starting point. When I tried different sizes, I found that in lines with more friction than HMPE, doubling the first round turn does not achieve anything more than complicating things. It is the final turn that should be doubled for lines with more ordinary friction. Whether this holds true for HMPE should be tried before anyone puts anything important at stake by knotting unsheathed HMPE.

I think that simplicity is also an important feature with knots. If the knot is easy to tie, simple to inspect and thus "minimalistic" in appearance, those are features that might also be of great importance, as one wrong tuck will make a totally different knot, or perhaps no knot at all.

So for HMPE, i never tried bending it other than stuff with a PE sheathing, which I used for short slings, bent with double fisherman's (grapevine) knots. I have tried such a sling with my hydraulic jack, and I failed to break it or pull the core back.

I haven't tried to attach such a sheet or halyard to a sail, but if so, I would favour the #1843 anchor bend form, preferably with a snapshackle. This knot may also be less prone to slip back with an extra turn if needed. I think it should be tried, but it might behave much like the doubled bowline.
http://web.comhem.se/~u77479609/anchor_bend.html

Two of those hooked into each other would be reminiscent of a doubled zeppelin. Whether this would be a viable knot or not, is something to try out for anyone interested. I would prefer something else than HMPE, but in an emergency, a bend that really works could be a boon.

[xarax]

   The Zeppelin bend looks "simple", but it is not - and that may explain why it was tied only "recently" ( taking into account the fact that knots were one of the first inventions of our ancestors ) - and why the almost unique, among the bends, way it works, is not understood, even by knot tyers who claim they are "familiar" with it, and promote/advertize its use. 

   In my previous posts, at Reply#2 and Reply#5, I was talking about the particular class of Zeppelin-like knots and bends, NOT about knots and bends, in general.     
   And, of course, I had never and nowhere said that a simple knot, any simple knot, can remain tangled without friction !
   To tie "Gordian" knots that can not be untangled, even in the absence of any friction ( = "ideal" Gordian knots ), we have to multiply their complexity, as shown at (0),(1),(2). There are no practical knots ( knots that, among other things, should be quite simple ), that do not need friction. And I have to repeat ( because II have seen that people, even competent knot tyers, often tend to be confused with this ), that a "Gordian" knot is meant to be a knot made from two topologically untangled links - if the two links of a knot are topologically tangled = "linked" right from the start ( two interlinked, "hooked" bights, where all four ends are loaded, for example ), they can not, by definition, become untangled/unlinked - without the use of a sharp enough cutting tool !   
   What I said about the Tail Ends of the Zeppelin-like knots was that "the forces that are applied on them are sheer forces mostly, not friction forces"(sic). "What does the pin of a hinge "feels", when the two knuckles are pulled towards different directions, perpendicular to its axis ? It "feels" mostly sheer forces(1), which try to tear it in two pieces."(sic).)

   Of course, few people even notice, and even fewer understand the difference - tying a knot by just copying what is already stored in our visual or haptic memory, does not implant the understanding of its mechanism into our brains ! When we come to understand the mechanism of the Zeppelin-like knots, then it seems that it also becomes easy to us to find new such knots, "similar" to the Zeppelin bend, which utilize it. I believe that there are ( a few, at least ) people in this Forum, who understand what I am trying to paint in every possible way, including this "rope-made hinge" mental picture - and some of them had even proven their comprehension, by tying new, genuinely Zeppelin-like knots. However, I think that perhaps the majority of knot tyers had not "got it" yet - and that is the reason they continue to talk about, and consider the fake, so called "Zeppelin" loop as a Zeppelin-like knot. I only hope that we will NOT need some thousands of years ( i.e., as many as they had passed before the discovery of the Zeppelin bend... ), before this realization of the unique mechanism of the Zeppelin-like knots ( which does NOT require any rocket science !  ), finally makes its way into the knotting litterature... In any case, I believe that, most probably, I will not be here, on this Land, for so many years, so to repeat the same things over and over again is not only boring to everybody ( including me...), but also pointless.
   
0. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0103080
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3610.0
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3610.msg20712#msg20712

[Seaworthy]

I think we should not get befuddled by what things look like or what we might compare them to visually, but more straightly checking the properties, wanted and unwanted, that a knot may provide.

There is also an important feature to consider here, friction, more precisely the friction between different parts of the rope that is knotted. Friction may be one of the most important features to consider in a rope, apart from breaking strength, elongation, water uptake and other. Now Dyneema, HMPE, is a very special case when it comes to friction.

So regardless of whether the ends come out perpendicular to the standing parts or not, friction is what holds things together in a knot, and HMPE is a very poor companion when we want friction. In any knot, there is always a force component along the rope axis at any point within, and this force tries to slip the free end into the knot to undo it. If friction is sufficient to withstand said force, and if friction builds up more than the length-wise force when applying load, the knot will hold, it will not slip back and undo itself. The most important property for this is friction, and HMPE does not provide much of that property.

So discussing whether the ends come out at right angles or not is not fruitful, as the important question is: Will friction within the knot prevent that it pulls the ends back into it and undo the knot? This question is crucial, whether the ends are aligned with the standing part or at other angles to them. Only testing will confirm or falsify any claims. Many here might have seen how a doubled bowline in HMPE will undo itself at a much lower force than the breaking force of the rope.

It is interesting to find knots that work in HMPE, and I think that factors that must be addressed also are ease of tying, and ease of undoing. Would these not be important, splicing is the answer. We know that splices can provide enough friction - also without any right angles.

We may also sometimes accept a "second best" solution. One property we look for when using HMPE, mostly are little elongation, while ultimate breaking strength might not be overly important, as the load will mostly be much less than the SWL of the rope. So if the knot will not slip at 1/10 of the SWL, it might still serve its purpose, if it will never be loaded beyond that point.

HMPE in boating is used, among other purposes, for halyards, where it is often spliced. It can also be used for sheets, although less frequently. The main imporant feature in halyard use is low elongation, and low weight comes second.

Neither halyards nor sheets are frequently knotted, but spliced to a hook of some kind, which is attached to the clew. Only in an emergency would sailors use knots, and very seldom would a bend be required. True that I use the bowline for attaching my sheets, but they are not HMPE. Also, if using HMPE, mostly it would have a braided polyester sleeve, and as the SWL is not even closely approached in normal use, but it is used mostly for the short elongation, it can be knotted with normal knots in normal use.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to find knots that work in straight HMPE, and the zeppelin formation might be a viable starting point. When I tried different sizes, I found that in lines with more friction than HMPE, doubling the first round turn does not achieve anything more than complicating things. It is the final turn that should be doubled for lines with more ordinary friction. Whether this holds true for HMPE should be tried before anyone puts anything important at stake by knotting unsheathed HMPE.

I think that simplicity is also an important feature with knots. If the knot is easy to tie, simple to inspect and thus "minimalistic" in appearance, those are features that might also be of great importance, as one wrong tuck will make a totally different knot, or perhaps no knot at all.

So for HMPE, i never tried bending it other than stuff with a PE sheathing, which I used for short slings, bent with double fisherman's (grapevine) knots. I have tried such a sling with my hydraulic jack, and I failed to break it or pull the core back.

I haven't tried to attach such a sheet or halyard to a sail, but if so, I would favour the #1843 anchor bend form, preferably with a snapshackle. This knot may also be less prone to slip back with an extra turn if needed. I think it should be tried, but it might behave much like the doubled bowline.
http://web.comhem.se/~u77479609/anchor_bend.html

Two of those hooked into each other would be reminiscent of a doubled zeppelin. Whether this would be a viable knot or not, is something to try out for anyone interested. I would prefer something else than HMPE, but in an emergency, a bend that really works could be a boon.

All you have said makes a HUGE amount of sense to me.

I too agreed about the relevance of the angle of exit of the tails:

In these early stages of learning, it seems to me that it is important for the knot not being stressed by having any of the components pulled apart when load is applied that is very important, rather than where the angle the tail ends end up.

I have had a look at the Anchor Bend. I am not familiar with it. I currently have all chain currently (100m), and the end is connected to line that is just long enough to emerge from the anchor locker, so that it can be easily cut in an emergency. Force is never applied on this line. I tied it with a water bowline with a Yosemite finish. When we had only 50m of chain and 50 m of 28mm unsheathed nylon rode attached, I spliced the nylon onto the chain. Hence no need for a bend here.

This comment in your link is interesting:
"This knot is safe in the most slippery material existing, HMPE."
Does this refer to sheathed or unsheathed Dyneema?

The reason I ask is the next paragraph says:
"HMPE is an excellent material for halyards, and with this knot you may attach a snaphook just as securely as with a splice, but more compactly. There are several advantages with using a knot instead of a splice for attaching a snaphook to a halyard."

For halyards only sheathed Dyneema is used. The sheathing is usually polyester. Tying knots in this is not a big issue.

[Seaworthy]

.......Nevertheless, it is interesting to find knots that work in straight HMPE, and the zeppelin formation might be a viable starting point. When I tried different sizes, I found that in lines with more friction than HMPE, doubling the first round turn does not achieve anything more than complicating things. It is the final turn that should be doubled for lines with more ordinary friction. Whether this holds true for HMPE should be tried before anyone puts anything important at stake by knotting unsheathed HMPE.

I agree. Tying a bend in unsheathed Dyneema would not be a commonly required thing, but it would be so nice to know what would work best. Dyneema is being used more and more on sailing vessels.

The reason why I am experimenting with a Water Zeppelin is that Evan Starzinger found there was no slip at all for a Water Bowline with a tucked finish in unsheathed Dyneema (in my opinion the tuck he used was inferior, it was not a Yosemite finish). Instead the knot broke at about 50% of line strength.

[xarax]

   The reason why I am experimenting with a Water Zeppelin is that Evan Starzinger found there was no slip at all for a Water Bowline with a tucked finish

   So, Evan Startziger found that all the other double nipping loop / double collar bowlines do lip  - and that is the reason you have concluded that are seaworthless ...
   Being an imaginary / virtual / fictious knot tyer ( who, nevertheless, does not try to sell any rotten merchandise to anybody, like the real "enthousiasts"... ), I would be GLAD if I were so fast in my reasoning... . It would had saved me a lot of time, indeed - you know, TIME !

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

Having seen the video Brion Toss made, I am a bit wary of the HMPE for knotting, but there is a trick that might make some knots ultimately secure.

Braided line can very easily be back-spliced, and a back-splice will make the end thicker. When tension is applied to a knot, it will not open, when the wedge-like back-splice is pressed into it, but it will be stopped right there. I think a zeppelin, maybe better a doubled one, will hold, if both of the ends are back-spliced to create bulge. Thus combining a knot with back-splices will probably prevent the ends from working themselves into the knot to undo it.

The HMPE I have used for halyards was always sheathed with polyester and never used close to breaking strength, so it wouldn't have put the knots to serious trial.

[Seaworthy]

   The reason why I am experimenting with a Water Zeppelin is that Evan Starzinger found there was no slip at all for a Water Bowline with a tucked finish

   So, Evan Startziger found that all the other double nipping loop / double collar bowlines do lip  - and that is the reason you have concluded that are seaworthless ...
   Being an imaginary / virtual / fictious knot tyer ( who, nevertheless, does not try to sell any rotten merchandise to anybody, like the real "enthousiasts"... ), I would be GLAD if I were so fast in my reasoning... . It would had saved me a lot of time, indeed - you know, TIME !

I am not really sure what you are getting at here. As far as I am aware, Evans is not commercial. All his data and conclusions have been freely shared. His website is not a commercial one. He has done some wonderful work (eg I am currently using a soft shackle I have made from unsheathed Dyneema to hold my snubber to my chain at his suggestion, a huge improvement to the Prussik loop and Klemheist I previously used).
I am certainly not in any way commercial either, just a sailor with an interest in knots.

The Water Zeppelin I have described and photographed above, is simply one bend I think is worth trying in unsheathed Dyneema. Although we have a loop and hitch that is known to break at 50% of line strength (the best so far achieved with bare Dyneema), we have as yet have no bend that approaches this, let alone exceeds it.

By the way, the following statement of yours is incorrect. Try tying the Zeppelin bend in thicker line (eg 10 mm). It immediately become obvious that when the line is dressed (and even more obvious when any load is put on) that the tails emerge from the bend at closer to a 45 degree angle to the bend, not at 90 degrees as you state:

.....One of the most subtle things is the way it achieves its "balance" : even after heavy loading, the pair of the Tail Ends ( the "pivot" of this rope-made hinge ), remains  perpendicular to the axis of the knot, so the forces that are applied on them are sheer forces mostly, not friction forces.

So your basis for judging variations of the Zeppelin is highly flawed:

   When I see a knot that is supposed to be some variation or implementation of the Zeppelin bend, the first thing I look is the angle between the Standing and the Tail Ends : if this angle is not the right angle, it is not a right angle  , so the supposedly Zeppelin-like knot is determined to work differently than the genuine Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend - and, most probably, it works much worse.

[xarax]

Evans is not commercial. All his data and conclusions have been freely shared. His website is not a commercial one. He has done some wonderful work..

I agree. I was not talking about Evans, of course, but about the infamous travelling salesman who made this sooo clever comment about the "real" knot enthousiasts - in contrast to me, of course...

 

Try tying the Zeppelin bend in thicker line (eg 10 mm). It immediately become obvious that when the line is dressed (and even more obvious when any load is put on) that the tails emerge from the bend at closer to a 45 degree angle to the bend, not at 90 degrees as you state:
So your basis for judging variations of the Zeppelin is highly flawed:

   Try to imagine a knot tyer who has tied thousands of Zeppelin bends and other Zeppelin-like knots, in hundreds of different materials - mostly in climbing ropes, 9-12.5 mm. Then, try to imagine how something that, to you, is "immediately obvious", to him, miraculously, was not. Then, read some of my posts again ( I had wrote dozens of posts on the same subject...), tie some of the genuine Zeppelin-like knots shown in this Forum, and try to understand what I say, rather than be sooo fast, as you are, to conclude that my "basis for judging variations of the Zeppelin is highly flawed" ( not only flawed, but highly flawed !  ). Last but not least, tie some Zeppelin bends, try to "see" them, and think for a while, for KnotGod s sake !

[Seaworthy]

Try tying the Zeppelin bend in thicker line (eg 10 mm). It immediately become obvious that when the line is dressed (and even more obvious when any load is put on) that the tails emerge from the bend at closer to a 45 degree angle to the bend, not at 90 degrees as you state:
So your basis for judging variations of the Zeppelin is highly flawed:

   Try to imagine a knot tyer who has tied thousands of Zeppelin bends and other Zeppelin-like knots, in hundreds of different materials - mostly in climbing ropes, 9-12.5 mm. Then, try to imagine how something that, to you, is "immediately obvious", to him, miraculously, was not. Then, read some of my posts again ( I had wrote dozens of posts on the same subject...), tie some of the genuine Zeppelin-like knots shown in this Forum, and try to understand what I say, rather than be sooo fast, as you are, to conclude that my "basis for judging variations of the Zeppelin is highly flawed" ( not only flawed, but highly flawed !  ). Last but not least, tie some Zeppelin bends, try to "see" them, and think for a while, for KnotGod s sake !

LOL. Don't be so inflexible regarding your inability to make an error in observation. Tie a Zepp in 10 mm double braid polyester, leaving long tails. Dress it neatly. Give it a good shake to let it fall into place how it wants to.  Hold it up in the air by hanging onto the standing ends and observe how the tails drape.

They do NOT drape perpendicularly to the standing line. Not even close.