Hi All, Andy I use your idea and have create another method to tie the Butterfly loop, see if you like it or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prUHG_peCy8
謝謝 alan lee.
Alpineer:
1) Your method has good flow and feels good in the hand - i.e. ergonomics - once one is familiar with it, which doesn't take long. & ...Your method elegantly avoids unwanted friction in the tying process. 2) P.S. It would have been better had the tying process been shown even more slowly in the middle portion of your video, allowing the viewer more time to see the process clearly and also make it easier to stop and study. 3) P.P.S. Got a name for your method?
-
Thanks, I agree
-
You’re right! I intend to work up a traditional “knot book” storyboard type tying instructions. And I can certainly re-work, or re-do the video. Thanks for the suggestion.
-
no, not yet.
“It is hardy necessary to name a knot, but it assists materially in finding it a second time it the occasion arises” ABOK pg 174, as quoted for ABOK #952
“andy’s method” seems a little vain. Inspired by Brion Toss’ method of naming (moku hitching, strait bend, St. mary’s hitching) I had thought of perhaps naming it where I discovered it perhaps. It came to me underwater, at my job working as a rigger with the “O” show in las vegas. “scuba butterfly”? “O butterfly”? “underwater butterfly”? all of these names are amusing, but not very descriptive ! I was playing around with practicing this Hybrid method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeKLU_6NLv4
when I came upon (came up with?) my new method. Underwater the rope floats around, and a loose version of the “hybrid hand wrap method” floated into something like the final method I’ve come up with.
“modified hybrid”? “underwater hybrid butterfly”? are awkward as well as un-descriptive. As a nod to my profession, as well as imitation intended as flattery of B. Toss again (rigger’s hitch ABOK #1735), I thought “rigger’s butterfly” has a nice ring to it.
As you point out, the most useful thing about this method is mitigation of the tension due to rope weight, an application most useful to riggers, rock climbers, arborists, and rope access technicians. “rope weight tension mitigation method” is also amusing, but quite a mouth full! “rope access butterfly”? “SRT butterfly”? I live in vegas, so “Red Rock’s butterfly”? also sounds good to me, and is riffing off the “yosemite bowline”.
It’s not really a new knot, so does it even deserve a new name? The other (informal?) names of ABK methods (coil, or handwinding method, and twist and fold method) are really describing the motion involved in tying the knot. I’m not sure what the key motion is in my method. The trick to discovering it, and to tying it, is to start with the left hand thumb down, or “backhanded” So “backhanded butterfly” or “backhanded method of tying the ABK” could be contenders. “backhanded” has a somewhat nefarious connotation, which has a somewhat perverse appeal to me. But tying a negatively connotated adjective to such a noble and trustworthy knot seems unsavory to me.
In the end, names of knots, and methods of tying them are really up to the people that use them. Even if I have invented a new way of tying my old favorite, whatever I call it has little relevance to what the name may eventually be. (you know the story of “Blake’s” hitch I imagine)
So, Alpineer, I would like your help deciding on a name. You (so far) have been the only IGKT forum member to see the merit in this method, or at least the only one to says so. (sorry, alanlee liked it as well, and I am very fond of his method). So, do you have any suggestions on what to name this new(?) method of tying the ABK? Of course, anyone else in the group, that has positive input in what to call it is welcome to chime in as well.
cheers
andy
Hi All, Andy I use your idea and have create another method to tie the Butterfly loop, see if you like it or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prUHG_peCy8謝謝 alan lee.</blockquote>Alan,
You have again filled me with joy at watching your video
我很榮幸
(sorry if google translate slaughters that translation)
P.S. It would have been better had the tying process been shown even more slowly in the middle portion of your video, allowing the viewer more time to see the process clearly and also make it easier to stop and study.
Alpineer (and others) let me know what you think of this revised video
I put a one second freeze frame in at a few key moments. If you thinks it’s better, I’ll update my original post and put it at the top of the tread. If you think it still need improvement, let me know and I’ll keep working on it.
thanks
andy
Yeah, that’s better Andy.
I also like “bracketing” fore and aft with real time demos to illustrate the ease and speed of tying.
Regarding the naming of this method: Take your time. Of course, I’m happy to contribute.
Thread drift alert! I have two friends who are currently down in Red Rocks on a 12 day climbfest . They won’t want to come home.
Cheers,
alpineer
Shades of Synchronicity, Batman! I’m the author of that method. I confess to wondering, after watching your video, if you’d seen mine!
I'm the author of that method.
FANTASTIC!
You deserve some credit for this new method, then. If not for your video (and the pool at O) I never would have come up with the new method.
There’s heavy irony here; that your discovery took place in a water bound environment where gravity has minimal effect on Planet Earthians but works so well where it, i.e.gravity, has a major effect.
Xarax:
I come to the decision that I must decline our proposed bet. I fear that the precision of method I have to break test the ABK would not meet your 3% or less difference in breaking efficiency condition to the wager. Or to put it another way: you’re too damn picky 
On that topic, I feel that a 3% difference in breaking efficiency of two sides of a knot, or two knots is so slight as to be disregarded in most applications. Even 5% is essentially the same to me!
As I rule of thumb, when I’m figuring out safe working loads for rigging involving knots, I figure that all knots reduce the breaking strength of the rope by 50%, adding an additional margin of safety. As you know, the number of variables that affect knot efficiency are so numerous, that an accurate.. down to 3%.. real life known breaking strength of any rigging system is largely unknowable. Or at least so complicated to compute that it would become counterproductive.
I am interested in your knot booklet, and would be happy to purchase a copy when you have it ready.
And, I intend to do the break testing we spoke of, and I’ll post the results here for all to see. Please be patient, it may take me a week or so to complete the testing.
cheers
andy
I have two friends who are currently down in Red Rocks on a 12 day climbfest .
Alpineer, I sent you a private message about your friends
The CMC rescue guide states that the alpine butterfly has a efficiency of 75% when the loop is loaded, and 57% when pulled end to end
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Strength is irrelevant.
For rope rescue and general climbing applications, knot strength matters least. What matters most is:
security
stability
jam resistant
and a ‘new’ concept (from mobius) that has long been understood but rarely documented - verifiability.
Note that I have not arranged these in any particular order of importance.
I also wish the knot could be referred to simply as a ‘Butterfly knot’ as it was previously known per Wright and Magowan (Note: Originally known as the ‘Lineman’s rider’ per AA Burger 1914).
Mark
Where did this “Alpine” come from ?
OK. When they will come to rescue us, I will let you go first ( provided you grasp the loop with the weaker knot, of course, because knot strength is irrelevant to you ), and then I will try my chances with the other one…
No problem xarax.
I have always wanted to travel to Greece and climb there (eg Kalymnos) - I have read a lot about climbing in the Greek islands and it looks absolutely spectacular. If I visit - i would like to meet you and take you on a climbing adventure See also: http://climbgreece.com
By the way, Sterling 11mm diameter abseil rope has a typical MBS of 31.1kN (thats over 3 metric tons) - even with a worst case scenario of 50% loss of strength due to a poor knot - you still have over 1.5 metric ton remaining. As an example, I weigh 100kg.
Sterling dynamic rope example (‘Evolution Velocity’): http://www.sterlingrope.com/c/climbing_dynamic-ropes_9-8mm-evolution-velocity?action_type=switch_product&selected_cat_keys=1114670.46335.1114274.0.0&selected_product=1d60eff37814c55515ec6ef2334af5c8&redirected_post=1 NOTE the absence of any MBS / Ultimate tensile strength data!
Another popular climbing rope: ‘Beal Joker’ http://bealplanet.com/sport/anglais/corde-joker.php Note again lack of ultimate tensile strength data!
Tie-in knots dont cause rope failure - the main culprit is falling over a sharp edge - thats a very bad thing for a rope. Another issue is cyclical loading over a rough/abrasive/sharp edge as can happen when a fixed rope rubs repeatedly over the said rough/abrasive edge (caused by the cyclic bounce of ascending or descending).
When I take falls in lead climbing, the thought that runs through my head is whether my gear placements will hold or whether my rope will run over a sharp edge. I’m never concerned about % strength remaining due to the tie-in knot on my harness.
Mark
You know much better than me that nowadays very few people climb with an 11 mm rope…
Also, knots can also be tied on the much thinner personal escape ropes ( I have read that many people use 5mm ! ) - and there is always the possibility a single rope will be used by a rescuer and a rescued, that is, a load of two persons. You should also take into account the dynamic aspects of the loading, because the load and/or the vehicle on which it is attached by the rope moves, and the speed and direction of this motion may change abruptly.
However, I was not talking only about climbing and rescue ropes… Knots on ropes are used by riggers in transportation, lifting and construction work, in mooring lines, in fishing lines, etc. You should not suppose that the safety factors on all outdoors activities are as high as in climbing. You can never know how strong a gust of wind or a wave will be - so, if you can chose from more than one “similar” - regarding every other safety characteristic and factor - knots, it is reasonable to select the strongest of them, just in case. A strong knot does no harm…
Ask a fisherman if he believes that the strength of the knots he ties on ins lines are irrelevant or not ! Of course, if you are not hungry, and you also wish to offer one more chance to the poor hungry fish, you tie the weakest knot you know…
Do nt take me wrong… I am not saying that the strength of a knot is the first thing that will make me chose the one knot or the other ! It is most probably the very last thing - but it is not irrelevant !
Xarax,
11mm (7/16 inch) diameter low stretch rope is very popular and is the gold standard for vertical rescue and industrial rope access work. Fire rescue teams use 13mm (1/2 inch) diameter rope which has an even higher MBS.
Dynamic climbing ropes are getting thinner - I like to use a Beal Joker but Sterling USA also make great dynamic ropes.
In the context of the original poster, it appears to me that he works at height (maybe rope access and some rigging with cranes) and might also do a bit of climbing??? The Butterfly knot he posts about is mostly used in rope access work and also climbing applications (including rope rescue). I dont think he was referring to fishing line or fishing applications.
I standby my assertion that strength is not a critically important factor in modern kernmantel ropes (either EN1891 low stretch or En892 dynamic).
What matters most is what I alluded to in my previous posts - ie security, stability, verifiability and resistance to jamming.
…
Do you live anywhere near Kalymnos?
Mark
13mm is NOT 1/2 inch !
I had pointed out that your calculations were based on an 11mm rope, while now, as you say, even ordinary climbing ropes are getting thinner. A 7.8 mm rope has half the of an 11mm rope ( so, presumably, half the strength, too ) - and you had also ignored the factor of dynamic loading. And a 5.5mm personal escape rope the one fourth of that… So your 1.5 metric tons of strength become much less, and your 100 kilograms of weight become much more.
Personally, I am not interested where a knot may be used, and/or by whom - even whether it will be used, by anybody, or knot ! I am interested in each and every possible simple knot per se - as a structure, a mechanism, a physical object.
Have you ever measured the area of a triangle ? I suppose you did, but you had not used the formula which derives the area of the triangle from the lengths of its sides - and I am sure you do not consider the existence of this formula “irrelevant” to geometry. Recently, a generalization of this formula was offered for the volume of a polyhedron, where all the faces are triangles - and this proved the theorem that every such polyhedron has a constant volume, even if it is flexible ! You can squeeze it and transform its shape, but its volume remains the same.
No, we do not need to know which knot is stronger of which, only to use this knowledge, in general, and to use this knowledge to do a particular job, in particular. We want to do our job as correctly and accurately as we can, and our job is to learn about knots as much as we can. If everybody, everywhere, does the same, then there will be much less accidents ( and possibly no murders at all ! :))
( There are thousands of rocky islands in my neck of the woods - I am sure we will find one to test the strengths of our knots ! You will climb, I will watch and rescue… )
Sorry Xarax, I was 0.3mm out. In Australia, we are fairly easy going in nature and it is normal to round up to 13mm.
It is common to say that a half inch is 13mm (rule-of-thumb).
To be exact; Half inch = 12.7 mm
I’m not going to continue any further debate about about this matter as it is getting further off topic.
I do hope that future knot reviewers spend less time discussing pure % strength and focusing more on security | stability | resistance to jamming | verifiability | …
I came across a board gaming group called HAMTAG the other day. Acronym for ‘Half As Much, Twice As Good’. I am transposing this concept toward keeping things as simple as possible - that is; less convolution, less bulk, simplicity, it just works.
having said that, examining raw strength data can give us insights into the relationship of knot structure and trying to pinpoint the localised region of rupture when rope is pulled to failure. But I maintain that raw knot % strength reduction in relation to the same unknotted rope is really not a crucial factor in human life support applications (like climbing, abseiling, caving, vertical rescue, etc).
For example, I use #1410 for retrievable abseils (rappel systems where you need to retrieve your ropes from below). In a raw pull test - this knot would yield low % strength figures. And yet, it is ‘fit-for-purpose’ - it is the best choice to ensure ropes will retrieve around a 90 degree edge. Strength is not important - what is important is being able to retrieve your ropes. I have already alluded to the dangers involved with stuck ropes. It is a nightmare scenario - I remember wanting to climb Great Trango tower in the mid 1980’s (Karakorum Himalaya) - only to learn of the Norwegian tragedy during their epic descent. This spooked me and my team mates and we switched to a satellite pinnacle of the Ogre group. My point is that #1410 is a ‘weak’ knot - but it works well (it wont cause the ropes to suddenly and catastrophically fail). I have often descended in a tandem configuration on this end-to-end joining knot - meaning 200+ kg. The knot works.
Mark
Therefore, if you want to round it up, 1/2 inch is 12.5 mm, not 13mm.
Therefore, your rounding was 0.5mm out - 4%
Please, read my previous post more carefully, again.
Knots are utilized by humans ( like numbers do…), but knot tyers can also study them for their properties as knots, independently of their applications ( like mathematicians study numbers, independently of their usefulness in counting apples… :)) . You can design, built and use wheels to go to the next village and steal the other chief s wife, but you can also study the properties of the circle per se. And pi, you know, should not be rounded to 3…
Anyway, knots are NOT used only in “human life support applications”, by “climbers”, etc ! To learn who needed most, and contributed most in the evolution of practical knots, read the very first sentence of ABoK ! The absolute strength of a knot is not “nonsense” or “irrelevant”, because there is always the possibility of an unexpected, uncontrollable, excessive loading, which will test the properties of this-knot-assisted structures beyond the “safety factors” ( those structures may be just scaffolds made of ropes, knots and bamboo poles, used now, as we speak, at construction sites in China and NorthEast Asia…).
You are a climber, and it comes natural for you to “see” the knots merely as means to your beloved end, so you are interested mainly in knots utilized for climbing, and mainly in the properties of those knots which are useful in climbing - the hammer and the nails ontological relation, you know…
In THIS particular application ! In other applications, the priority relation may differ, or even be the exact opposite.
So what ? Almost ALL knots, even the most dumb ones ( like three-four overhand knots or half hitches, the one after the other, for example ) will “work”, in most cases… Do not limit your view in what a knot can do, “see” what a knot is independently of the particular application - and even independently of any application ! Knowledge has a “value”, which may be transformed into a “price” hundreds of years after it is acquired - or never !
Every even integer number can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers. NOBODY will “use” this conjecture ( still unproved ), ever ! However, thousands of people, for the last 250 years, who study numbers, are “wasting” their lives trying to “see” the truth of this most simple fact, beyond any “practical” reason.
Hi guys,
Quite a debate
agent_smith, I work as a rigger in the entertainment industry, mainly acrobatic rigging currently, but my experience includes arena, theatre, circus, hemp-house, fall arrest, and ropes access rigging. I have some limited hands on knowledge of sailing and arborist rigging as well, as theatre rigging borrows from many other fields.
I agree with you that strength is not the only consideration in a good knot. But perhaps not the least important. I would use the term inspection, or inspectability, instead of verifiability, but I understand what you mean.
As far as #1410 goes, I personally wouldn’t allow it in a ropes access environment, or for lifting heavy loads overhead (regardless of design factor). It doesn’t meet my criteria for stability. I do know that it is widely used, and I understand why you haven’t used it’s common (usa common) name
I consider myself fairly well read on the topic of knots, but haven’t come across “Wright and Magowan” Could you tell me the name of their work, so that I could find a copy? Thanks.
Lastly, what do you think of my method of tying the butterfly? Is it original, and does it have merit?
as for you Xarax:
I am seeing, more and more, that we have different points of view on knots. I wonder if you’ve ever used a knot for a practical application, or if they are just objects for you to admire and dissect? Knots came into existence to do a job, to serve a purpose. I judge a knot by how well it serves a purpose, even “decorative” knots serve a purpose, and most were invented by sailors to do a job, the fact that they are pretty is an added bonus.
You’ve said a lot in this thread, but you haven’t told me if you think my new method of tying the ABK has merit, of if it is original.
Thank you both for your input, I’ve greatly enjoyed reading your posts
andy