Reever knot and braided Machard

[agent_smith]

Hello Ezelius:

Please look at reply #4:

I think figure eight bend, Reever bend and double Fisherman's knot are a knots for joining two climbing ropes

Note your typed words... note your specific reference to Reever bend for joining two climbing ropes.

I guess you got confused over me putting two knots in the same topic/thread, where one knot was for general purpose and the other was for climbing.[/quote
There is absolutely zero confusion.
I am simply stating the facts.
I think the confusion may in fact lie in the particular drafting of your words...
I am simply pointing out inaccuracies - and potential risks.

The point was that I think these knots should be more widely known as they fill out a "gap" in among useful knots. The braided Machard because it outperforms the Klemheist and Machard in climbing...

This is an inaccurate statement.
Each slide and grip progression hitch has a specific characteristic.
In fact, #1762 Klemheist hitch has very high grip strength to its host - to an extent that it is arguably superior to other slide and grip hitches in terms of pure gripping capability.
And the French Prusk (Machard Tresse) is superior as a 'self-belay' to safeguard a person while abseiling and also superior as a 'progress capture device' (PCD) in mechanical advantage systems.

...and the Reever bend because it would be a far better knot to use than the square knot for joining two ropes.

This string of words forms the second part of your above sentence.
Probably safer grammar is to separate it into its own sentence - and add the words; "for non life critical applications.
I would also comment that just about any knot would be better than a reef knot for uniting 2 ropes (in non life critical applications)!!

Or are there any other suggestions for what would be the best second bend to learn? Fisherman's knot (simple), figure eight bend or sheet bend?

This question is not answerable.
Reason: Every occupation/sporting application has its own specific requirements.
Context is key.

If you asked a fisherman, he would answer differently to a rope access technician who would answer differently to a boy scout who would answer differently to a surgeon (and so on).

It would be better to frame this question as:
Which knots are best to learn for rock climbing applications (specifically to join 2 ropes)?
Or;
For the fisherman...
Which knots are best for joining fishing line?

...

As to your last post re the use of the term 'bend'...
This is a technical point... there is a strong case to confine the use of the term bend to those situations which unite 2 ropes. But, Ashley stirs the pot a bit in his use of the term bend...
Some argue that the preferred term for uniting two ropes is; "end-to-end joining knot".

[Ezelius]

Dear Mr Agent Smith,

In reply #4 I said I think. I know your opinion by know. I had preferred to hear the opinion from more people and especially from people who have actually tested to use the Reever bend or test reports.

Evidently you like to dissect every wording, but I am not going to explain evident things for every sentence. Of course everything is more complicated than one can explain in a simple sentence.

I have had many occasions where the Klemheist and Machard are not good enough, and where the braided Machard works. So I it is a knot I really appreciate. I am not going into more detail, because I am not that found of writing long texts explaining details. Also, I think everyone needs to makes his own experiences.

Do not be silly, I talked about the general population regarding the Reever knot. I did not talk about anglers.  But if you need examples it could be joining two ropes at home, at work, sailing or scouting.

You are of course free to write as many comments as you want, but I may chose not to answer if find them  exasperating.

Yours Sincerely, Mr Ezelius

P.S. I am still very curious about what Reever stands for. Is it a name or does it mean "sailor"?





 

[agent_smith]

Dear Ezelius:

Evidently you like to dissect every wording, but I am not going to explain evident things for every sentence.

Not so.
Using the quote function is common practice on this forum.
There is no ill will or anything ill conceived.
I am simply quoting your typed words - nothing more - nothing less.
I would venture to suggest that this whole forum is based upon the written word (ie language) - and photos of knots.

I have had many occasions where the Klemheist and Machard are not good enough, and where the braided Machard works.

And I have had 30 years of success with the 'French prusik' (Machard Tresse) working effectively as a progress captive device in M.A systems and as a self-belay to protect against loss of control while abseiling.
Your success is not diminished or tainted by my successes.

Do not be silly, I talked about the general population regarding the Reever knot.

I wasn't being silly.
There is nothing wrong with the Reever end-to-end joining knot in non life critical applications.

You are of course free to write as many comments as you want, but I may chose not to answer if find them  exasperating.

Thank you.
I don't find your remarks exasperating or a contest of who has greater knowledge and expertise.
I am simply responding to your typed words.

The broad category of 'hitches' has many sub-classes.
From load control; binders; slide & grip progression; and nooses... each finding its place within the order of knots.
Specific hitches suit specific applications, there is no one magic bullet.
For example, for progress capture devices (PCD) in mechanical advantage (M.A.) systems, efficiency is crucial. The 'hitch' must allow the rope to free-flow relatively unhindered, and yet grip and capture the hard won progress during rest intervals and resets. And here the 'French prusik (Machard Tresse) has supremacy.
This is but one example of the myriad applications for hitches...

As to the history of the 'Reever' end-to-end joining knot, we may never be 100% certain of its origin or naming.
For example, Wright and Magowan sometimes get credited with #1053 Butterfly... and yet, it appears in an earlier publication (and linked to 'Linesman'). Similar situation with the infamous 'Hunters bend' - which was later found to have been published as a 'Riggers bend' by Phil Smith.
It appears Ashley may not have been aware of it... or if he was, perhaps it was accidentally omitted from his book?

If you find out who actually discovered the Reever end-to-end joining knot and why it was named 'Reever' - please share it in this topic thread

EDIT NOTE: I have a copy of the Wright and Magowan report...I'll do some digging to see if there is a trail of breadcrumbs about the history of the 'Reever'...

[Ezelius]

Dear Agent Smith,

Please note that the french prusik knot is called "le Machard" in French. In french there is a knot called "le Machard tresse" (acute accents are missing due to limitations in forum character set) which translates into "braided Machard" in English.

https://ezelius.eu/knopar/knopar-olika-sprak.html

Braided Machard:
https://ezelius.eu/knopar/flaetad-machard/index.html

[agent_smith]

Dear Ezelius,
French is not my strong point...for me it is a complex language.
Although I take the historical origin of this type of slide and grip progression hitch from Serge Machard who tragically died in 1963 at 18 years of age,.
There are several variations - all based on Serge's original invention.
There are so many variations and local names - that it is almost an exercise in futility to try to pinpoint who means what and with what particular variation.

[Dan_Lehman]

P.S. I am still very curious about what Reever stands for. Is it a name or does it mean "sailor"?

So, too, am I,
but I didn't find any explanation in Wright & Magowan's
Alpine Journal article of 1928.
Cf.,
http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/16_Report_Wright_Magowan_1928.pdf
which is another nice knotty thing PACI has to offer to us.

(My guess will be "Reever" from "reeving" if not "reef".)

THankyou,
--dl*
====

[Keystoner]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reeve

reeve verb
rove\ ˈrōv  \ or reeved; reeving

Definition of reeve (Entry 2 of 3)

transitive verb
1: to pass (something, such as a rope) through a hole or opening
2: to fasten by passing through a hole or around something
3: to pass a rope through

intransitive verb
of a rope : to pass through a block or similar device

[Ezelius]

Thank you for helping me out of what Reever refers to. At first I assumed Reever was referring to a name, but that seems to be wrong then. The origin of the knot and its name seem to be unknown.  Now, I sort of assume that reever could be a person. Maybe somebody working on a boat, but I can not find reever on the internet in that meaning, which annoys me.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/reeve

[agent_smith]

Hello Ezelius:

I have extracted some published information for you - so its all in one place and easier to investigate.

Unfortunately, I could find no historical information that points specifically to how the name "Reever" was assigned and by whom.
The earliest published data that I know of is from Wright and Magowan in 1928 (see attached extract).

Dr Harry Asher published the "Vice Versa" bend in 1989 - it had an asterix (*) assigned to it which indicates a new discovery in his book. Asher doesn't specifically state that he personally discovered it...one can only 'assume' that he did. Presumably the name 'vice versa' was a reference to one half of the knot being in one direction and the other half copied in the opposite sense.

The name "Reever" could simply be an attempt to describe the threading of the rope through and around itself in a uniform pattern?
There is nothing in Ashley to provide additional guidance...

EDIT: Had trouble with getting acceptable image quality...

[Ezelius]

OK. Then I guess it would be correct to write "reever knot" with a beginning letter in lower case. I always wrote with a capital "R" in the beginning before because I thought it was a name. It is sad that the history of the origin of the knot is unknown, for a curious me.

[SS369]

Me personally, I would rename it to "reeving bend".
Maybe that is what it was and along the way it morphed... as names sometimes do.

SS

[Brocky]

Regarding the Braided Machard, I think the complete use of the loop length, little extending beyond the hitch to clip into to, makes it function satisfactory more than the number of wraps and braids.  Your tying seems to be a 2-6, wraps-braids, generally more wraps and less braids are used.  The Valdotain Tresse, which uses a cord with an eye on each end is the same hitch, and is also dependent on the cord length, if it is fixed.  I cut a loop apart and was able to make a more compact hitch by not being limited by a set length.  A 4-2 and 3-3 where the shortest that would reliably grab each time, with the 3-3 performing easier.

[Ezelius]

Thanks for thoughts, comments and feedback!

This is an instruction video where braided Machard (Machard Tresse) begins at  3 min 38 sec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1RG-CSgGpc
Please, note that the ends should be alternatively below  and above each other when braiding.

[KC]

Brocky, i'm always thinking, the tail length in tresse's is mostly to assert angle of pull
>>To the input, then thru chain.
.
To connive specific range of sine force from either competing side as grip from load/for load
>>and in high focus climbing hitches of precision, accuracy and durability etc. are tuned to user weight/style as well as the mated materials (cord to rope)
.
We ask more of friction hitch then just hold or release, let alone the interim between repeatedly then hold again
>>at lifeline  security, accuracies and confidences.
We might ask more bull dawg hold or quick release of some, and even then is a 1way or 1x deal etc.
>>nothing else so repeated variances and usages especially at such risks/trusts i think
Truly wondrous knots!