New compact bend - "Camera knot"

[Birchhatchet]

Hi folks,
after recognizing that there is a whole bunch of bends consisting of two interlocked overhand knots (hunters bend, zeppelin bend, shake hands and so on) I made some examinations trying to find a systematic "genealogy" of this kind of knots.

The bad news: I failed in doing so. The good news: I think, I found a new bend. As with most knots, there are several ways to modify the finish of the knot.
After testing these optional variants , I decided one version to be the "father" knot. My wife said that the shape of the knot just before tightening reminds her of an old movie camera with the typical dual reel case on top of the camera. Therefore "Camera knot".

I will show the original Camera knot in this post and add pics and comments to the crossed, doubled and slipped variants in later posts.

First things first: how to tie it?
As my english isn't that good (I'm german), please consult the attached pics if my decriptions sounds strange in your ears.

Pic 1: Lay the working ends in parallel (but in opposite direction). With the working end of the first (left) rope form a loop in upward left direction above both ends. Add an additional half turn around both ends.

Pic 2: Form a second loop with the working end of the 2nd (right) rope UNDER both ends. In doing so put the working end from front to behind through the loop made in step one. Again add an additional half turn around both ends.

Pic 3 and 4: Arrange working end of each rope beneath the appropriate standing part and pull the knot tight. Done!


The knot is quite compact and looks somehow "regular"in my eyes. It shows two parallel windings on one side and a kind of "handshake" structure on the other side.
These properties will recur on the varaints decribed later on. I wonder that I did not find this knot in ABoK or the major books of Geoffrey Budworth, and so I would assume it to be NEW at this moment.

The knot works well in all kind of cordage that I have tested. I tried 550 paracord (see pics), several synthetic ropes for climbing and marine use. It worked also well in more exotic goods like enamelled copper wire for winding inductors and monifil or braided fishing lines. It also works with the cheap rubbish ropes from surplus stores.

The only known disadvantage is that it is absolutely NOT easy to untie once it was set under load. But in some applications this may turn into an advantage.

I will add the other mentioned versions later this evening. Feel free to give me any response, particularly if I was wrong and this knot is already shown in some publication.

regards
Birchhatchet



 
 

[Birchhatchet]

As written above: there are some reasonable variants of the Camera knot.

The "crossed" version arises if the additional half turns are bent in the opposite direction. This was the knot I discovered when thinking about interlocking overhand knots.  There are 2 diffences to the simple camera knot: the working ends are not in parallel to the standig parts but in right angle.
The knot keeps stable even if load changes to different ends of the knot. And - last but not least - it is easier to untie. One can wiggle the two parallel windings and the knot becomes lose after a few cycles.

The double one is quite - hmm -double ?!? I don't know whether it is more secure, because I did not see the simple knot becoming unsecure. But in might.

[Birchhatchet]

The last variant is the one with slipped ends. It looks a bit like a dragonfly, is resiliant and is very comfortable to loose by pulling the working ends - even after very high tension on the standing parts.

As said earlier, feel free to comment or correct me as you want. Apart from that I wish you all a nice evening. 

regards
Birchhatchet

[agent_smith]

Thanks for posting this info Birchhatchet.

The only known disadvantage is that it is absolutely NOT easy to untie once it was set under load. But in some applications this may turn into an advantage.

Aside from this (major) disadvantage, what other advantages do you see - or particular applications? For instance, the Zeppelin is jam resistant (while the Riggers/Hunters bend jams - unless you cross the tails in the 'X' form). How does your knot stack up against the Zeppelin for instance?

I have not looked into the originality of your knot...others on this forum will no doubt examine this in detail (I am time poor at the moment).

I can say that resistance to jamming is a rather important characteristic of knots - particularly 'end-to-end-joining-knots'. Aside from that, security and stability are also noteworthy qualities. Have you examined these qualities in any detail yet?

Mark G

[Birchhatchet]

Hi Mark,
The camera knot is definitely not as jamming resistant as the Zeppelin. Nothing to wonder about, as the tension on the standing parts keeps the bight of the Zeppelin's integral overhand knots open.
In contrast the Camera knot is "compressed" by the tension on the standing parts.

I think it depends, as in most cases, on the type of rope. I use this knot since about 9 years periodically to join two Dyneema static ropes together. I cinch the working ends to the standing parts with short pieces of bycicle tube. Jamming has never occured. Same time the major advantage of the knot is obvious. It is extraordinary compact and the working ends com out beneath and in parallel to the standing parts.

As long as the rope is solid enough not to be flattened under tension, jamming should not occur.

I discovered the knot during over-night feeding sessions after the birth of my 1st child. I have used it frequently in the last 9 years and in numerous applications. Now I am awake at night again together with my newborn twins and in the meantime it never has come loose or unsecure. I have not testet how much it impairs the tensile strength of the rope under lab conditions. But the rope radiuses in the knot are not as tight as in other commonly used bends. I think this is positive in the sense of tensile strength.

Do you know if there is a commonly used test setup in this forum so results would be comparable?

Thanks for your reply

Birchhatchet

[Dan_Lehman]

I wonder that I did not find this knot in ABoK
or the major books of Geoffrey Budworth,
and so I would assume it to be NEW at this moment.
//
Feel free to give me any response, particularly if I was wrong
and this knot is already shown in some publication.

The knot can be seen as a variation from Ashley's #1425
with the change being that the tails don't pass through
their own loops and so don't form (interlocking) overhands.
As for it appearing in some publication, I'd guess that
it might be in an obscure one by Roger Miles (which I
have but won't check, now), and it might be in one of
my own notebooks --but they're not published.

The only known disadvantage is that it is absolutely NOT easy
to untie once it was set under load.
But in some applications this may turn into an advantage.

Firstly, I recommend that you play around with the
reverse of this end-2-end knot --i.e., load the tails!
That will give you a knot in which the curvature of the
rope as it enters the knot (of the "S.Parts") can be
adjusted from a tighter to looser helix (depending upon
needs & expected stretch).  The doubled version will
be better for doing this, the added turns giving more
grip/security.

Secondly, you say "set under load" but I think that
it is a matter of setting the knot, in hand, pre-loading,
that determines how easy it is to untie.  E.g., if one
leaves the turns made by the tails loose, the knot
will not jam (except perhaps in the devilishly slick
HMPE --Dyneema/Spectra-- cordage), and the knot
will be more easily untied than even Ashley's #1408
& Zeppelin !  Similarly, one can leave such looseness
in #1425 and its variations.


--dl*
====

[Sweeney]

This knot (the single version) is in Roger Miles' book "Symmetric Bends - How to Join Two Lengths of Cord" as A15 but Miles refers to Dr Harry Asher whose book "The Alternative Knot Book" was published in 1989 (and I think is now out of print but can be found second hand). Asher named it the "Sleeping Beauty" and it actually appears on the front cover of the book (though until today I had never noticed it). That said full credit is due to Birchhatchet for discovering this little known knot for himself and perhaps giving it a new leae of life.

Sweeney

[Birchhatchet]

Hi Dan, the idea to use the knot reversely is interesting. I have checked it on 2 short pieces of rope but I will have to teach myself an appropriate way of tying it in the field.

Your suggestion that it depends on the settling of the knot whether it tends to jam or not is correct. I usually make the knot relatively tight because I dont want the knot to get loose under intermittent load.

[Birchhatchet]

Okay Sweeney, that's good and bad at the same time. I was a little bit proud of finding this nice little bent and now I have to accept that I wasn't the first one.

But I have ordered "The Alternative Knot Book" and I read the preface online. It seems to be very interesting to me.

The 2nd positive facet is that I had several times the problem to persuade scouting camp leaders  that this knot is secure enough to be used for some camp constructions.

I think it is a typical german point of view: they would accept a regular reef knot (without additional half hitches) because it is described in the older german literature about scouting as "Weberflachknoten". It was wrongly recommended to join ropes of indentical diameter, otherwise the Sheet bent should be used.

At the same time they don't allow me to use my camera knot because I told them that I have discovered and field tested it by myself. Burn the witch!!! 

No I can refer to Dr. Harry Asher and everything will be fine.
Academic titles are very impressive to german senior camp leaders.

Many thanks for your assistance!

[Sweeney]

I was a little bit proud of finding this nice little bent and now I have to accept that I wasn't the first one.

But I have ordered "The Alternative Knot Book" and I read the preface online. It seems to be very interesting to me.

You should be proud - you discovered this bend by yourself and the fact that someone else got there first should not diminish your achievement. There is an argument that no knot can ever be really described as "new" since knots have been around for so long who is to say that someone else isn't actually using a "new" knot somewhere in the world? A Google search or the Sleeoing Beauty knot didn't show any results (other than fairy tales!) so it would seem a good candidate for a YouTube video perhaps?

I hope you enjoy Harry Asher's book - it follows an earlier publication by the IGKT of Harry's work which include his Seizing Bend, available on YouTube but not in the later book though it is I think in at least one of Geoff Budworth's books along with the Simple Simon bends and others.

Best of luck with the Scouts!

Sweeney

[Dan_Lehman]

Hi Dan, the idea to use the knot reversely is interesting.

It followed from an old design goal to bend the rope's
entry into the knot gradually, and in this case
realized by a helical flow (and so with an extra turn
or two, one has a longer helix to use, graduating
the angle over its length).  Here, then, the closure
comes with inserting the now-tails straight out
through these helixes.

Your suggestion that it depends on the settling of the knot whether it tends to jam or not is correct. I usually make the knot relatively tight because I dont want the knot to get loose under intermittent load.

And this is a good rationale for the summarily dismissed
(by author/inventor Ashley in his book) #1425 : it can
be set with the tail wraps snugged up well, to prevent
unloaded loosening (to give "slack security"), and yet
these wraps can be fairly confidently worked back &
forth to bring material from the S.Parts into the knot
so to loosen it --hardly so easy an untying as afforded
by #1408/1452/zeppelin, but in many instances, one
will much prefer to have the slack-security at this small
cost of untying time.  Of course, if needing assured easy
untying, the loose setting as noted previously will work
for #1425.

And concerning your ...

It [viz. squaREef knot] was wrongly recommended to join ropes of indentical diameter,
otherwise the Sheet bend should be used.

, please note that vice either end-2-end knot,
the "double Lapp bend" should be preferred, in many
cases, at least.  It, too, offers "slack-security" while affording
fairly easy untying.  (I might have to retreat on this with
some strong loads & materials, but so far, I think that it's
fairly true --and I'll note that I've found sheet bends in ropes
that were jammed.  Out in the wild, one can find things that
knot books don't recognize as part of reality (alas) !)

And "What is ... ?" :: the Lapp bend could simply be named
"reverse sheet bend" (reverse of the "same side" version --i.e.,
tails/S.Parts resp. of each end joined are on same side of axis
of tension), and the "double/treble/..." versions simply make
the necessary for slack-security additional, repeated turn
& wrap of the "hitching (to bight/U shaped other end)" line's
tucking down through the U/bight part --done once in the
Lapp, turned & repeated in the multi-Lapps,
giving the sort of security seen in e.g. the blood & dbl.fisherman's
knots.  As the held-tight S.Part (of hitching line) runs straight
through these tight wraps, there is the possibility to pry some
of it back out by pulling apart the U-part's ends (S.Part & tail) ::
one gets just s short pull --as then the pulling angle becomes
a right-angle and no longer directly pulls S.Part through the
wraps--, but it suffices to work the knot loose, backing out
some of that formerly nipped-hard U-part tail, and then
easily UNwrapping those hitching tucks.

Btw, it is commonplace for "knot tyers in the Know" to decry
the use of the "squaREef" knot qua "bend"/end-2-end knot
--to even deny that it IS that type of knot!!  This smacks of
simplistic parroting of Ashley, which runs (surprisingly?!)
without confirmation in cited problems from other sources
(but, oh, so much echoing of the assertion), and in unseemly
contradiction to some citable official knot-use documents
(though one merchant-marine (UK) knot tyer advised me
that though it might be so in print and on a qualification
test, it had no import in the practice!  --do as is better,
not as is written! ?!).

I have found in the wild a beautifully so-joined pair
of like ropes, and the beauty was that of a most slim,
material-efficient knotting, notably with tails tucked
through the lay of these laid ropes --so, yes, the
decried dubious knot with a securing structure.  But,
it is at least worth keeping this in mind --seizing tails
is not unheard of!  Otherwise, the knot is also of great
benefit to many quick-tie, practical duties, which do not
well fit the description of using a "binder", but in fact
an end-2-end knot (yes, even tying shoes).


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Okay Sweeney, that's good and bad at the same time.
I was a little bit proud of finding this nice little bent and
now I have to accept that I wasn't the first one.

One can imagine a case in which someone "invents" something
that on some later archeological research is then shown to have
been previously discovered ages ago.  This would be an interesting
case of something having become known but then lost to
knowledge, and becoming re-known; and the ways in which
it is known might be interestingly different.

So, I concur in Sweeney's praise for you making the discovery
yourself.  (OTOH, in some cases --thinking of my own "invention"
of several of Ashley's prior inventions--, one can just as well
fault the new inventor for lousy/lazy(lack of) research!  In my
case, I had ABoK, but simply hadn't recognized its numbers
#1408, 1452, and so "invented" them myself!  <sigh> )
You hardly had such easy confirmation of prior knowledge.

At the same time they don't allow me to use my camera knot because
I told them that I have discovered and field tested it by myself.
Burn the witch!!! 

No[w] I can refer to Dr. Harry Asher and everything will be fine.
Academic titles are very impressive to german senior camp leaders.

Well, one can knowingly shudder at much of what you've just
uttered above!
1) I concur in official skepticism at out-of-the-blue, non-mainstream
knots : having precedent and other generally reputable backing for
the use of a knot is a safe bet, albeit ones that knowing folks might
see as giving an inferior product --but unlikely a dangerous one.

2) Having a simple knot-author named support is hardly
something I'd brag about :: though it seems to address the
concerns noted in (1), I have seen WAY too many things said
--so often parroted/echoed-- in knots books to have confidence
in them, PER SE.  The vetting of such information doesn't exist;
publishers presume knowledge by simple claims ... .

3) And, alas, self-testing and analysis can be deadly incomplete
and wrong.  I learned this myself, the hard way, though a quite
*soft* version of "hard way" ::
 having discovered (re-invented, one might say, per my remarks
of re-discovering Ashely, above)   
a seemingly nice offset end-2-end knot,
whose "nice"ness was that it capsized into very secure #1452
 (I think it's #782, one of the lanyard knots --that or nearby #),
and so even if it had a lower threshold of flyping
 (presumably usually well greater than abseils would generate, though),
given that it would do so into a good, secure-in-tension knot,
I thought I'd found a winner/qualifier;
BUT, I happened to pull-test it in joining two slightly different
ropes, pulling with upper body vs. leg, and ... BAM!! ... it SPILLED
undone!!  .:.  I found that the flyping process could apparently
loosen it such that different rates of capsizing in the ropes might
let one slip out completely !!!
I can see that, absent that happenstance discovery, I might have
advocated the use of this knot (as one of possibles, at least),
and given the seemingly assuring rationale that if it capsized
it would do so into security --one would lose the benefits of
having an "offset" joint (which isn't really critical), but not risk
joint failure.  How surprised but glad I found wrong I was !

--just a note about the risks of thought-good but proven-limited
testing & analysis can be (alas) !  Yikes, we should really like to
have good ways of analysis and recipes for testing; I obviously
lacked those.
(And now, am having a h-e-l-l of a time getting some valid analysis
re the offset water knot understood to folks in a thread about
that & similar, life-critical abseil-ropes-joining knots; it's so dismaying.)


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

This knot (the single version) is in Roger Miles' book "Symmetric Bends - How to Join Two Lengths of Cord" as A15 but Miles refers to Dr Harry Asher whose book "The Alternative Knot Book" was published in 1989 (and I think is now out of print but can be found second hand). Asher named it the "Sleeping Beauty" and it actually appears on the front cover of the book (though until today I had never noticed it). That said full credit is due to Birchhatchet for discovering this little known knot for himself and perhaps giving it a new leae of life.

Sweeney

Ha!  Thanks for giving substance to my speculation,
and finding also the cover appearance (which I'd not
remarked at) !!


 

[Birchhatchet]

Well, one can knowingly shudder at much of what you've just
uttered above!

Well, maybe I have expressed myself ambiguously. I agree with your opinion that, as far as safety is concerned, one should prefer a commonly accepted and proven choice. But if one has some practical experience in tying knots, he would in general not recommend the bare reef knot for joining two ropes. Nonetheless in individual cases it may be the right choice.
It would be absolutely understandable if one would recommend an figure-eight-bend instead of my DIY-solution for a trustable end-2-end join.

I agree also with your position that there is no evidence for a knot to be secure just because it is shown (or parroted) in a knot book. But, according to my experience in scouting over the last 26 years, the scouting camp officials will consider differently. As said before, this might be a typical German problem.

There is a tendency in parts of the German scouting crowd for the last 2-3 decades to look down on the skill-oriented folks that usually take care of tents and other camp constructions to be sophisticated but safe at the same time. Teaching classical skills like tying knots or orientation using maps with or without compass seems to be not as important as demonstrating pacifistic beliefs whenever possible. In the executive board of German scouting groups you will find a lot more of the "praying for peace" party than ones that are experienced in traditional scout skills. A whole lot!

I was on the camp side (and first aider) when in 1995 a scouting group tried to get into the Guinnes book of world records for a 650 person tug-of-war during a major national camp. The persons in charge took an used thick nylon rope from a military surplus store. The rope did burst and the ends scourged towards the children next to the middle. Two of them were battered to death, a few lost extremities and numerous get injured.
The persons in charge were found guilty of negligent homicide and bodily injury.

If they once would had experienced the surprisingly velocity and impact of conventional synthetic cordage or even paracord when breaking under load, that tragedy would have been averted. But they had no respectively only little practical experience.


regards

Birchhatchet

[Birchhatchet]

Hi Dan,

after thinking some time about it, the problem of parroted knots in common literature seems to be more severe than I presumed initially. The camera knot aka "sleeping beauty" is according to my personal use a secure yet versatile bend.
After using it since years, I have finished up in a tying workflow that makes it very comfortable and secure to tie, even in absolute darkness.

I have demonstrated your idea of the reverse use to my elder son and we did some tests with the single and double variant of the knot in different types of cordage, thereby changing how tight we settle the knot before loading the standing parts.
Especially when leaving a lot of loose in the knot it is a feast for the eyes to see how it changes its shape, turning around itself whilst getting protracted - but always ends up in a structure that is surprisingly solid in terms of pullings strength as well as solidity of the knot itself

The question is: Why is a knot with the discussed properties condemned to vanish from public awareness while other knots with lower actual benefit seem to last on stage eternally?

The parrots are to blame. They impede or even avoid any darwinistic process in knotting knowledge. Speaking in evolutionary terms, the struggle of life for a potentially new knot species will, once it was discovered, essentially lay in the problem to get noticed by the people that are in need for knots. They will potentially try it and, if it works better than competitive knots, teach it to others or even publish it to reach a bigger audience.

As most people tend to insist on knowledge they have earned in the past, this process will proceed more vigorous by far if the new knot species can reach green unskilled persons, thirsty for knowledge.
But put yourself in the position of a typical one of this newbies. First you have to realize that you are in need of some knot tying knowledge - for job, hobby or pure interest, whatever.
You may ask more experienced friends or colleagues, this will usually be a source of traditional knowledge. But consulting an online bookstore is even worse! If you start searching for knotting books, there is a avalanche of books completely consisting of parroted knowledge. In a qualified maritime book store, the owner may recommend you more comprehensive books like ABok or some from Geoff Budworth, but online ... 

It took me several years of active scouting to get aware of ABoK, and it took another 10 years to get aware of the IGKT and additional 5 years to notice this forum. After the discussion about my own knot and thinking of other threads I've read in the last 2 weeks I have to thank you all for your efforts in enhancing and developing knotting science in any of its facets. Really great work! 

I plan to join the IGKT as well as their German branch called "Knotengilde".

I have ordered a used copy of Asher's "The Alternative Knot Book" and I will try to get Roger Miles' "Symmetric bends" from Amazon UK as well. After reading and working with the ideas of these books, I willingly will take up Sweeney's suggestion to make a Youtube clip to promote the use of the "Sleeping Beauty" in different variants and applications.

regards
Birchhatchet