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).
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.
