Author Topic: Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  (Read 6321 times)

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2018, 05:18:20 AM »
Image showing the relationship between loop chirality and mirror image outcome.

We can say there are 2 forms of #1425A Riggers bend:
[ ] S form
[ ] Z form

Note this same principle would apply to other symmetric bends (eg Zeppelin bend).

Mark G

siriuso

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 168
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2018, 07:00:34 PM »
Hi dear all, thanks to s. and Mark, your informations are valuable to me. I read the relevant KMs, and know that this bend was mentioned. By then it was named False Zeppelin Bend and in my "My Working Notes" I name it False Hunter's Bend, and am questioned for reasons.
Unsally we name a knot by the name False because we mean that it resambles the Real one, and alert tiers that though both knots are seemed alike but the false one is not save or securer for use. We are also sure the structure are a bit different too.

The following characteristics may help to understand why I named it FHB :-

HB : Chirality - ZZ and SS. Inter-linked.
FHB : Chirality - ZZ and SS. Superposed.
#1425 : Chirality - ZZ and SS. Superposed.
ZB : Chirality - ZS and SZ. Superposed.

HB : Common known tying method - Opposite
FHB : My tying method - Opposite (Hi Mark, please neglect Opposite Twist. You says it is tricky. I say it is a tucking becomes a transformation.)
#1425 : My tying method - Opposite.
ZB : My tying method - Parallel (Spiral Drops, Parallel Riding).

HB : Appearance (tightened) resembles FHB (un-tightened).
FHB : Appearance (un-tightened) resembles HB  (tightened). Appearance (tightened) resembles ABOK#1425 (tightened).
#1425 : Appearance (tightened) resembles FHB (tightened).
ZB : Appearance not resembles HB. Appearance not resembles the so-called False Zeppelin Bend(un-tightened).

I have made a pdf. here on the comparison of these 4 bends. The link is :-

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DeTLj-s7VxgGjQL8bQTMZ9C8EoVV1mB3?usp=sharing

I would like to ask as I have based on all the charteristics found for matching for False Hunter's Bend, still I have been requesed or to be convinced to use 'False Zeppeline Bend' which is of superposed likes Zeppelin Bend but with different chirality from Zeppelin Bend.

Finally may I suggest this questioned bend remains it?s first name - Neat & New Bend, or a False ABOK#1425 (see the characteristics tabulated).

Happy knotting

yChan
« Last Edit: March 03, 2018, 05:40:39 PM by siriuso »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2018, 01:47:24 AM »
Quote
I would like to ask as I have based on all the charteristics found for matching for False Hunter's Bend, still I have been requesed or to be convinced to use 'False Zeppeline Bend' which is of superposed likes Zeppelin Bend but with different chirality from Zeppelin Bend.

Its good to see that you are beginning to shift toward toward the underlying structure of these end-to-end joining knots.
In your latest pdf file - on the right hand side - you are showing the loops and their chirality - whether superposed or interlinked.
On the left-hand side - you are showing tying methods. Its the right hand side with the loop chirality that is the fundamental science behind these knots.
The key to your question is the schematic diagrams at the right hand side of your pdf document.
It all comes down to these diagrams.
[ ] A Zeppelin is built from superposed loops - not from inter-linked loops.
[ ] #1425A Riggers bend is built from inter-linked loops - not from superposed loops.

What you refer to as a 'false hunters bend' - is actually built from superposed loops. From a structural viewpoint, it is therefor more closely aligned to a Zeppelin bend. The use of the term 'false' will always attract controversy. To some, it imputes a useful meaning. To others, the term is irritating.

Now - I have some comments as follows:
1. "Tying method #3" -  (at top). The tying method is inducing an instability which forces the structure to re-orient to try to find a energy stable state. Its a 'trick' tying method.

2. "Tying method #6" - The loops are superposed which is a key structural beginning. At low loading/energy state - the structure is based on the Zeppelin bend. With increased loading/energy, the structure undergoes further change and morphs so that it is axially rotated 90 degrees. You refer to this structure as 'False Hunters Bend' - which I disagree with. I have personally witnessed a climbing Guide tie what he thought was a Zeppelin bend (to join his abseil ropes together so they can be 'retrievable'). I watched him join the ropes together, end-to-end. What he in fact tied is what you refer to as the 'False Hunters bend'. He was convinced that it was the Zeppelin bend - and was about to proceed with his abseil descent down a very big vertical cliff. I stopped him just in time - and pointed out the error. He examined the knot and disputed that it was incorrectly tied. I pointed out the error in close detail - and tied a correct Zeppelin and held it side-by-side with his knot so he could observe the difference. His eyes went like fried eggs and his face went pale. I told him that he had in fact been fooled into thinking it was a Zeppelin - and he then stated; "Ahhh - I've tied a false Zeppelin bend!" (I did not prompt him with the word 'false' - he thought of this term himself).
Note: To my knowledge (as far as I am aware) - the 'false Zeppelin' has not been tested for human life support applications in rock climbing and abseiling. So to experiment with your life on an untried joining knot is unwise. That's why I stopped him and pointed out his error.

3. "Tying method #8" - same tick method - it forces the knot to undergo an energy state change as soon as load is applied (sort of like the capsizing event in the carrick bend).

4. The last 2 lines (#1425A Riggers bend and Zeppelin bend) - excellent - you show the loops and their chirality (S versus Z).
However, on the left, you show your various tying methods - which to me is irrelevant (sorry). The tying method is not telling us anything about the fundamental structure.

For me personally, you could wholly delete all the tying methods and just focus on the schematic diagrams on the right (showing loops and their chirality).

Quote
Finally may I suggest this questioned bend remains it?s first name - Neat & New Bend, or a False ABOK#1425 (see the charteristics tabulated).
You can indeed suggest this but, my view is that the term 'false Zeppelin' has a place.
You'll find other terms such as 'evil imposter' / 'evil twin' and so forth... The term 'false' has been used by other knot book authors (eg Ashley and Budworth) - and I can understand their choices.

knotsaver (IGKT member) has alluded to historic  publications where non-descript names were given or an arbitrary number were assigned. I am not in favor of this approach because it has no underlying meaning.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 03:28:58 AM by agent_smith »

bipoqid

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2018, 07:31:54 AM »
Hi, I'm a canyoneering enthusiast from Utah (USA), primarily interested in practical applications. The other day, a knot picture appeared on a canyoneering forum and no-one could identify/name it (see image link below). The OP stated that it was a Rigger's Bend but in fact it was not. Turns out it's the knot of the moment right here, the Maybe-False-Something Bend. :-)

From a practical perspective, and especially regarding knot inspectability in recreational canyoneering, False Zeppelin is not a useful name. It would perhaps be useful if this knot could easily be mistaken for a Zeppelin, but the opposite is true: it is easy to tell at a glance that the knot is no Zeppelin. However when well-tightened, it is not readily distinguished from a well-tightened Hunter's Bend. So if one were inclined to use "False" in the name, False Hunter's makes more sense than False Zeppelin.

Obviously there are multiple ways to approach knot-naming - has there been any concerted effort to create a knot naming standard? Haha.

bq


https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1M4M8jhg-dbOX1IqvXBBZdQve5doc05LW?usp=sharing
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 08:01:11 AM by bipoqid »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2018, 08:10:24 AM »
Hello and welcome bipoqid!

Quote
From a practical perspective, and especially regarding knot inspectability in recreational canyoneering, False Zeppelin is not a useful name.
I disagree.
Also, in terms of underlying structure, #1425A Riggers bend and the Zeppelin bend are completely different. One is built from inter-locking loops of the same chirality while the other is the complete opposite.

Quote
It would perhaps be useful if this knot could easily be mistaken for a Zeppelin, but the opposite is true
That is a matter of perspective.
If you look more closely, rather than a superficial glance - the differences become more obvious.

Quote
However when well-tightened, it is not readily distinguished from a well-tightened Hunter's Bend
That's not right...if you set and dress the 'false Zeppelin' bend tightly - it morphs and axially rotates 90 degrees.
Try the same process with a correctly tied #1425A Riggers bend - and it does not morph or axially rotate.
Have you tried this yourself?
Also, the Riggers bend has a very distinctive shape - beautifully interlocking rope segments.

Quote
So if one were inclined to use "False" in the name, False Hunter's makes more sense than False Zeppelin.
I disagree (again) - I have seen the opposite occur - with a Guide tying what he thought was a Zeppelin bend but, which in fact was the 'false' Zeppelin bend.

Quote
Obviously there are multiple ways to approach knot-naming - has there been any concerted effort to create a knot naming standard?
Where possible, to be clear and accurate, knotting enthusiasts try to use 'ABoK' numbers. The ABoK number refers to an illustration in the 'Ashely Book of Knots' which is widely regarded as a definitive work on knots and knotting.
When there is no ABoK number for a particular knot, we then look for historical info and/or consensus opinion.

...

Have a close look at my attached photo...look very closely - you will see distinct physical differences which characterize each knot.

Mark G

siriuso

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 168
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2018, 09:56:48 AM »
Hi, can anyone tell me when the False Zeppelin Bend was named and by whom ? Thanks.

yChan

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2018, 11:31:51 AM »
Quote
Hi, can anyone tell me when the False Zeppelin Bend was named and by whom ?
Why is this important to you?

On what path do you wish to proceed?

yChan - I think perhaps the issue is the fundamental structure of the Zeppelin bend versus #1425A Riggers bend.
Here are some questions for you:

Do you agree that the Zeppelin bend is built from 2 superposed loops of opposite chirality?        [ ] Yes    [ ] No
Do you agree that #1425A Riggers bend is built from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality?   [ ] Yes    [ ] No

Your answers to these fundamental questions will shed some light on where we go from here...
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 12:18:28 PM by agent_smith »

siriuso

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 168
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2018, 04:41:23 PM »
Thanks again to Mark for your response.

Your questions have already been printed on my previous thread together with the pdf. Up to now you have not made comments on the bends outlooks. Are they not relevant for discussion?

My wife is a knitting lover. She knitted numerous knitting wears in different patterns for me. Last night I asked her how would you select patterns for knitting? She said that she would choose for the good looking pattern and by it's complexity in knitting. That means she firstly judged by the outlook and then the knitting technique required for her to accomplish the pattern. Having read the incident that you mentioned above about a climber who mis-tied a bend. I would like to know how did you acknowledge immediately he tied a wrong bend or a Hunter's Bend that was not as good as Zeppelin Bend? Yes, let me guess the answer for you. You instantly recognised it was a Hunter's Bend (by it's outlook/appearance) or a bend like Hunter's Bend. You un-tied it and found it was not a Hunter's Bend, but a False Zeppelin Bend. This leads me to believe that you can easily distinguish them by their characteristics of collars as every tier does. Thanks to this, you acted what you ought to do to deliver your expertise to save this climber.

A more common practice, one wants to buy a BMW car. He looks for a BMW car (by outlook). He would not check every part of the car, until someday it breaks down for repare or overhaul and find that some part is not genuine. That is what we compare things firstly from the outlook and for more, it is the content/components/structure etc.

Nothing is important to me.

Happy Knotting

yChan

« Last Edit: March 03, 2018, 05:47:21 PM by siriuso »

bipoqid

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2018, 05:10:38 PM »
In the attached images, 3 knots are presented: A, B, C.

From a practical in-the-field I.D. perspective, please consider the following questions for each knot pair:

- Can the 2 knots be readily differentiated by an average recreational user?
- Can they be readily identified?
- Which pair is the easiest to differentiate (A/B or A/C)?

bq


p.s. there is a certain level of absurdity in my attempt to present a practical perspective on this naming issue, due to the fact that none of the bends under discussion see common use in recreational canyoneering. That said, some groups are leaving slings behind in canyons, tied with the False Hunter's Bend, thinking they are tying the Hunter's. This pic from my last post shows such a sling, which was cleaned from its anchor by an safety/enviro-conscious canyoneer. The person who tied this knot is apparently unable to differentiate between it and the real thing.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 05:39:03 PM by bipoqid »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2018, 11:51:24 PM »
Hello yChan,

Quote
I would like to know how did you acknowledge immediately he tied a wrong bend or a Hunter's Bend that was not as good as Zeppelin Bend? Yes, let me guess the answer for you. You instantly recognised it was a Hunter's Bend (by it's outlook/appearance) or a bend like Hunter's Bend.
No - 100% incorrect.

Be advised that #1425A Riggers bend in fact is very secure. You can in fact use this knot to unite 2 climbing ropes.
However, it is not jam resistant - meaning, there is a risk that you may struggle to untie your ropes.
So if i had recognised the mistake as a 'Riggers bend' - I would not have been concerned.
Please look at my attached images. Note the properly tensioned dressing state of the false Zeppelin bend - now it looks quite different?

Quote
You un-tied it and found it was not a Hunter's Bend, but a False Zeppelin Bend. This leads me to believe that you can easily distinguish them by their charteristics of collars as every tier does. Thanks to this, you acted what you ought to do to deliver your expertise to save this climber.
100% incorrect again.
I recognised it immediately as a false Zeppelin bend. I didn't need to untie it to reach that conclusion.

...

yChan - where are you going with all this?
What are you ultimately hoping to achieve?
What do you hope to prove and to whom?

I am looking at bends from a structural perspective - and not a superficial appearance that is only skin deep. I seek to understand the underlying structure in knots.

...

I like you work - you have put a lot of effort in - and you should be congratulated as such. You have photographed an array of different ways to arrive at the same knot. At the end of the day - it is still the same knot - a knot isn't defined by its tying method (and this is key to move forward).
My interest is not in your 'tying methods' per se - rather, its the fundamental structure upon which symmetric bends are built.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 04:46:24 AM by agent_smith »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2018, 12:10:04 AM »
Thank you for your replies and images bipoqid.

Quote
- Can the 2 knots be readily differentiated by an average recreational user?
- Can they be readily identified?
- Which pair is the easiest to differentiate (A/B or A/C)?

I note that the configuration you have opted to photograph are not a true indication of a properly tensioned dressing state. Try tensioning the false Zeppelin bend just a bit more (by hand)...what do you notice?

To be 100% crystal clear...
#1425A Riggers bend (aka Hunters bend) is perfectly safe to unite 2 climbing or abseiling ropes.
You can safely use the Riggers bend as a method of joining ropes in preparation for a retrievable abseil system.
However, it is not jam resistant - meaning: There is an increased risk that your ropes will be difficult to untie.

Quote
there is a certain level of absurdity in my attempt to present a practical perspective on this naming issue
Agreed - it is absurd.

Quote
That said, some groups are leaving slings behind in canyons, tied with the False Hunter's Bend, thinking they are tying the Hunter's.
The name you insist on using to describe the 'false' version of #1425A Riggers bend is your personal preference - and it is based on superficial appearance at a surface level.
However, the underlying structure of what you insist on calling a 'false hunters bend' in fact has nothing to do with #1425A Riggers bend (it is an outward illusion).

In my previous reply to you - I asked if you had actually set and dressed what you believe (via outward appearance) is a 'false hunters bend'.
Can you please set and dress this knot very tightly (in cordage is best) - what do you notice?
Also, when tying a #1425A Riggers bend - notice that is constructed from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality.
The Zeppelin bend - on the other hand - is constructed from 2 superposed loops of opposite chirality.
Exercise:
1. Tie what you refer to as a 'false hunters bend'
2. Now very carefully reverse engineer the knot - by very carefully unpicking the tails (without disturbing the remaining loops).
3. Examine the remaining loops... are they interlinked or are they superposed?

Here is food for thought about your concerns over people who are tying knots incorrectly.
Practice is key! Like all skills - you need to practice to develop long term memory pathways. Tying a knot once from an image on the internet or from a book may lead to error. I always recommend professional instruction from an experienced, competent instructor. You will always come across miss-tied knots and you will always see people do stupid things (that is the nature of being human). Maybe you could use social media to organize a knot tying skills tune-up evening or afternoon? However, I would ask that if you do get involved with skills development with others - be careful about your terminology - don't just label knots with your own personal naming preferences. Try to be accurate and consistent - using science to back up your claims.
One only has to look at #1410 Offset overhand bend (aka 'EDK') as an example of rampant miss-information gone wild.

If I may be bold and ask you some questions:
[ ] What are you hoping to achieve?
[ ] What are you hoping to prove and to whom?


Mark G

« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 04:52:35 AM by agent_smith »

knotsaver

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 281
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2018, 06:39:26 PM »
Hi, can anyone tell me when the False Zeppelin Bend was named and by whom ? Thanks.

yChan

...from the Forum history
(!?)
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1992.0
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.0
...
(I had said that we wouldn't have changed our own minds  :-\  :) )
...
Let's call it ... False Bend! or FTB (Falsely Tied Bend)  ;)  :)  :(
Poor it, by the way it is fully (triple for Miles) symmetric, it is an autoreverse bend!...
Ciao,
s.

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #42 on: March 02, 2018, 03:07:50 AM »
Refer attached image.

It shows the dressing state of the knot when properly set and tensioned by hand.
This is its true appearance which seems to have been overlooked.

siriuso

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 168
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #43 on: March 02, 2018, 04:06:33 AM »
Hi Mark, your photo above is not the final state. You may see the pdf. of my previous thread. The photo shows both the final states of FHB and ABOK#1425 are very much alike.

yChan

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
« Reply #44 on: March 02, 2018, 04:32:24 AM »
Quote
Hi Mark, your photo above is not the final state

Incorrect.

Statements like this leave me wondering if you have actually properly set and tensioned the knot?

Try again please.

And no - it is not necessary for me to re-read your pdf because clearly something must be wrong. The knot structure morphs - it does not stay in the nice Zeppelin-like shape (or if you must insist, #1425A Riggers bend) as depicted...you surely must know this if you tried to properly set and tension the knot?

Apologies yChan - If you cant get past some of these basic concepts I don't think I'll be following this thread much further...
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 06:28:29 AM by agent_smith »