"Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!

New Knot Investigations
1

In another thread** there was a search for a working
end-2-end knot for the high-strength, low-stretch,
and very slippery HMPE (Dyneema & Spectra).
Many thought-to-be-secure knots came to grief.
** cf. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSESSID=33c50dae35643514476b1012c83bcd8a&topic=4756.0

Among these was Ashley’s bend #1452 re-tucked,
which I thought should work, as it nipped the tails
between the U-turns of the (heavily loaded) S.Parts
and not just once but (in the “re-tucked” version) twice!
Alas, my eyes were opened wider by its slipping!
Has this HMPE cordage no respect for a knotter’s
hard efforts?

Beyond the structure of interlocked overhands’s
nipping the tails I wanted to try also that of two
turNips (nipping turns) 'a la bowline --these, I reason,
differ from the former in making full encirclings of the
nipped tails, and so should each (each end) bind
the surrounded tails better --and enough to hold,
especially if the tails are re-tucked.

I began various ways of bringing two turNips together,
but settled on an interlocking, as it helped keep the
material in place for continued tying, and maybe
gives some shared nipping of S.Parts and smoothing
of their turns to boost strength? Something told me
that in fact my supposed bowlinesque knot was also
related to Ashley’s, and indeed one can see it as
simply furthering that knot’s initial flow of S.Parts
into full turns and then the colloaring; so, I’m calling
it “Ashley Bowled Over”, with “-1452” & “re-tucked”
as qualifiers. (There should be similar versions for
other interlocked-overhands end-2-enders #1408 &
zeppelin & … .)

Attached are photos of my initial sketch of two stages
of forming the knot, and a photo of the knot tied in
some handy but not-already-tied-up-in-new-knots
PP ropes (yellow laid, orange kernmantle). (The sketches
are intended to be helpful; that latter, colorful.)

–dl*

knots-Ashley_Bowled_Over_1452-M750-2.jpg

2

I will test this knot tomorrow. But I do want to point out that there were two knots on the previous thread. One I called my first bend and it slipped but was nonetheless fairly strong and could be untied. But you may have missed the second one which I called the variation on my first bend. It did not slip, was stronger, but could not be untied. My point is, a reasonably easy to tie knot that did not slip was also presented in that thread. This knot was not difficult to tie either. It is much bulkier than either of my first bends, however.

I tested it with Lashit, not the best but easy to test. It was very strong and did not slip. I test it by comparing two knots. I put this knot up against my first bend variation and my knot broke first. I will see if we can get some more testing on it.

Allen

3

I find this knot interesting. The tails are in the center of a spiral constricting loop which causes them to be held very tight well before there is any force that would tend to pull them out. Also, there is a lot going on in the center so the standing ends come in and make a most gentle bend making a large full circle before they experience a sharp bend. It is really big though :slight_smile:

4
But I do want to point out that there were two knots on the previous thread
Oh, goodness, two-per-minute via Xarax!* ;D Yes, I think I'd inklings of that, though got to the "coming back full circle" to an original suggestion.

(*One or more of what Xarax has newly posted under
the “Rectangular Bend” thread look to offer a way
of employing double nipping loops to lock the tails.
Some of the dressing & setting can be tricky.)

Yes, that’s my design goal, here. Among the
versions that might be devised are altering the
particular comings’n’goings / directions to try to
avoid sympathetic pulling on adjacent parts
that would aid their movement to slip. I was
working in a braided B&W line that made it esp.
hard to tell what was what (in contrast to the
clear images w/contrasting-colors rope shown
by Xarax, e.g. --though even then, it can be
difficult if the knot’s not “exploded” for view).
I think that one part has potential “assist” in
such adjacency, but the tails go opposite this.

But, yes, again, the thought was that in the
mere U-turns, although tails were trapped
–by virtue of both "U"s-- there was less
compressing about them than will come if the
binding is opposed "O"s that contract.

Also, there is a lot going on in the center so the standing ends come in and make a most gentle bend making a large full circle before they experience a sharp bend.
Whereas I think that greatest strength in some materials might come from making compression against the S.Part over a broad area, off-loading force (so to speak) gradually, the slickness of HMPE suggests that it's a joke to try for this --or to of necessity use a huge quantity of rope & binding, as each part will do only so little, given slickness--; so, back to just going for a larger radius of bending.
It is really big though :-)
At least until push comes to shove, at forces way higher than conventional materials experience. (It used to be said, by way of explaining why hi-mod cordage did poorly with knots in strength (this assumes that the knots hold, of course), that the material, the fibres, were "weak in compression". I suggested that this wasn't fair, and that the fibres sustained forces higher than conventional materials, [u]in absolute terms --force per diameter, i.e.--[/u], but that they were sooo much stronger in tension that the rupture forces worked out to a small percentage of that.)

Incidentally, eyeknots have seemed to be stronger
than end-2-end knots in some testings : e.g., there
was a fellow using a truck’s force to do A-vs-B testing
of end-2-end knots and he used fig.8 eyeknots (of
some orientation), and they never broke !!! (!?)
One way of mimicking the workings of an eyeknot,
where one might reason that the S.Part can be more
gently/carefully handled because the TWO eyelegs
oppose it and they can compromise as they need only
sustain 50% (together, 100%),
is to have each end begin an eyeknot and then reach
out to complete it in the other end’s beginning,
reciprocally. “Twin bowlines” as show in ABOK
is a paradigm of this. Oddly, in the aforementioned
testing, this structure was tested with fig.8 knots
and yet … the specimen-anchoring fig.8 knots
–and, IIRC, some other(!)-- survived, the “twin fig.8s”
end-2-end stucture being what brokef! That doesn’t
make good sense to me, beyond some statistical
anomaly, as such an end-2-end knot should have
the same behavior as the eyeknot!?
(I.e., the fig.8 eyeknots never broke and yet
some end-2-end knot was stronger than essentially
the same fig.8 tied in end-2-end function. One
could surmise that in end-2-end knotting there was
some imbalanced loading not found in the eyes.)

–dl*

5

Speaking only about the un-re-tucked bend shown in this thread ( which, somehow, “resembles” the Ashley s bend, that is true, but which is topologically different = its links are topologically equivalent not to the overhand knot, but to the unknot, as one can see in a glance ), I wish to point out that it is just one click simpler to tie than the re-tucked alt. Carrick bend tied by allene, and just one click more complex than the “parent” Ashley s bend (*). Personally, I do not like those bends where the tails are hanging between the legs of the Standing ends like this - but it is only a matter of taste, I guess. ( However, in this particular bend, the fact that the pairs of the continuations of the Standing and Tail ends have the same orientation, may be proved beneficial, as the author of the bend has noticed ). Also, although the entangled intestines of this over-bowled bend are not overhand knots, one can consider this topology not as a disadvantage ( the Standing parts are already over-convoluted ), but as an advantage, in comparison to the Ashley s bend - because it can be utilized to tie the PET corresponding eyeknot, if this will be ever needed. ( Eyeknots do not slip as easily as their corresponding end-to-end knots, so I believe that the additional security of this bend would be an overkill ).

I had not the motive to show, among their simpler relatives, the first-collared-then-retucked ( though the central opening ) knots, based on the re-tuckings of a Carrick-like “base”, in (1) :

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086

At that time, I had to confront somebody who tried to teach me English ( his English, to be more precise…), so me, the poor third world native would become able to understand his suggestion to move those bends to the Fancy and Decorative knotwork Forum :slight_smile: :).
Using the labels suggested in the above cited thread, that can describe the path of the Working end in all those bends generated by the re-tucking of this Carrick-like"base", I would had described this bend as uSE C - uSE C ( under the Standing End, re-tucked through the central ( C ) opening ). See the oSE C - oSE C, at (2), already mentioned AND shown at (3) - but it seems nobody listens to pictures ! :slight_smile:
The nipping mechanism may be seen more surrounding, but I am not sure that it would be more constricting. Apparently, a surrounding, more O-shaped nipping loop seems a safer bet than a one-sided, more U-shaped one - but is it ? We have seen exactly the same situation in the case of the “Link bowlines”, and my impression was that the surrounding rims can actually “protect” the penetrating Tail ends, not choke them ! The added material tends to form a halo that can act as a shield, and absorb some of the nipping forces, before they reach the Tail ends at the core of the knot. Some portion of the nipping forces and the friction they induce would be distributed and absorbed within the contact areas of the two embraced O-turns, and they will never reach to their final destination, the penetrating Tail ends. Moreover, as the contact areas between the rims of those interlocked O-turns and the Tail ends are now more extended, the local deformation of the strands are less pronounced, less deep. The rims of the O-shaped nipping turns may be less able to bite hard and deep into the body of the Tail - so these Tails can slide out of the core more easily.
Why I do not speak about the re-tucked version of this bend ?
First, because there are dozens and dozens of re-tucked simple bends ( even much simpler than this ) that we have not tied. Many of the simpler, un-re-tucked bends incorporate locking mechanisms most knot tyers have never examined, and perhaps have never tied, or even seen. I think it is more prudent to start from the simpler bends and go to the more complex ones, otherwise we will shift the goalposts each time something catchy pops out.
Second, because there are many ways one can re-ruck a bend, because the already formed base knot has many openings through which we can drive our Working end. The re-tucking-through-the-central-opening may even be inferior to others, because we do not know if it is better to confront slippage with the Tails as a pair of adjacent and parallel segments of rope, or as two segments going through different openings. So, we have first to test the un-re-tucked bend, and all the un-re-tucked simple bends we know, and only then run to take refuge under the shirts of this or that re-tucked fat lady s dress… Otherwise the proprosal of a re-tucked bend may reveal that we are not sure about the mechanism we proprose, so we buy some insurance premium !
Third, because re-tucked knot hasn’t interested me enough to venture into its tying. The re-tucked bends may be more secure ( and we do not even know if this security is worth the added material, i.e., if they are more secure proportionally to the added material and to the added tuck …), but they are NEVER more pretty ! They often become too fat, and they acquire a wide cross section that makes them unsuitable for many applications. With knots, if we do not follow the “Less is More” dictum as far as it can get us, we better start seizing, splitting, gluing, etc…

  1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086
  2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18725#msg18725
  3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30891#msg30891

( * ) The classic or alternative Carrick mat is one tuck more complex than this particular Carrick-like “base” / mat.

(top view).JPG

( side view 1 ).JPG

( side view 2 ).JPG

( side view ).JPG

6

Xarax, you’d do better to show the rationale given
for my assertion above, via a fuller quotation --to wit:

But IMO the knot shown is riduculous to proprose at this time of results shown by EStar & Allene --there is a way to clearly an easy slippage path for the well-rounded turns and oblique tucks of this knot : I wouldn't expect it to come close to holding.

THIS much analysis we should do before wasting away
one more precious bit of time, effort, & material. Stop
and take stock of what has, what hasn’t slipped (and
how!). Re “how”, we might be chary in some cases of
whether inaccurate tying allowed some transformation
of form --capsizing, such as can happen in normal materials
with the venerable bowline apparently (see the many
images of this in Knots in the Wild thread), or some
straightening of a part expected to by its curvature achieve
some effect.


Unless I missed it, this debated knot was untested,
so we are left at the state of analysis; I see no reason
to change mine. I owed only a rationale and that was
paid, in full.

Speaking only about the un-re-tucked bend shown in this thread
Yes, it occurs to me to realize that in relation to [i]Ashley's #1452[/i] I have first proposed the method of making more secure by re-tucking the tails, and now have [u]added to that[/u] the *rounding* of the S.Parts' central nipping --and that one might hope that the latter change [u]alone[/u] suffices to achieve security!

Still, though, the interlocked S.Parts form a Grief
knot / What knot and jam, alas. (Yet one more path
a knots explorer might take to reach this knot.) Should
testing show promise for the nipping loops (not only with
security, but with strength --that broad curvature …),
we might move on to seeking a non-jamming variation.

An obvious hope for a non-jamming variation on this
theme is the zeppelin knot bowled-over & re-tucked.
Yes, Allene has tested a simply re-tucked version
(“the zeppelin slipped”), but not one that has been
“bowled over” --having the superior? nipping.
And whereas one might also wonder if the re-tucking is
superfluous for security given the “bowling over,” there’s
likely the need for extra diameters to round out the S.Parts’
curvature in order to get strength making the knotting
worthwhile (oh, it might be needed in an emergency
regardless, yes).

Looking further at the bowled-over & re-tucked zeppelin knot
in my hands now, I’m thinking that this is The Winner.
–definitely easier to tie than the Subject end-2-ender,
and I think will be able-to-be-untied-after-loading, too!
(As well as having a popular myth of superiority to fulfill.)

( which, somehow, "resembles" the [i]Ashley's bend[/i], that is true, but which is topologically different = its links are topologically equivalent
The behavior of the material depends on [u]geometry[/u] not topology; "bowling-over" [i]#1452[/i] changes the latter while retaining much of the former. That is what I mean to say in its naming.

–dl*

7

The Oyster bend ( M. B5-D2, Threefold - Fourfold ) was also not tested ( and it is still not tested…), yet you dismissed it beforehand… And the 88 bend which was tested, and did not slip, was just ignored - as it happens too often, unfortunately.
I agree you offered a rationale for this knot - moreover, I acknowledge the fact that this rationale, regardless of what I think about it, was also productive, and had lead you to this interesting knot - because, evidently, you had not read many posts of the thread where I had described the bends one can tie by re-tucking the particular Carrick-like mat ( shown there, and at the attached pictures ), one of which is the bend you propose here ( namely, according to the labelling used at that thread, the “Ashley Bowled Over” is the uSE C-uSE C, as one can see in a glance - “similar”, in a sense, to the oSE C - oSE C, also shown at the attached pictures ). At that time, neither you nor me knew that the beautiful bend shown and discussed at the first posts of the thread was the “Illusion” (M. B 25 ) - you, because you had forgotten to do your homework, and me because I was not aware of Miles book.
My point was that I had “proprosed” :slight_smile: the Oyster bend for one reason, just like you do now, for another : The Oyster bend was the most jamming bend I could thought of, so it was very reasonable to expect that a bend which jams so tightly, when tied on ordinary materiasl, will slip less than others, when tied on very slippery materials.
( I had deleted the irrelevant re. the proposed knot, first part of my previous post ).

( side bottom view ).JPG

base-2D plane configuration.JPG

oSE C - oSE C .JPG

8

Those “bowled Over” bends, are bends where the Standing Part turns 180 degrees more before it collars one of the two Standing ends - if, in the ordinary “parent” bend, the Standing Part collars the Standing End of the same link, in the “bowled over” version it collars the Stranding End of the other link, and vice versa.
In the oSE C - oSE C bend shown in the previous post, those additional 180 degrees are achieved without a collar - at that time, I thought it was too much, regarding the amount of the required material, to turn the Standing Part 190 degrees more, AND to place a collar… and that was one reason I had not presented any pictures of the uSE C - uSE C bend. ( The other was the warm reception of all those bends by one of the self-appointed Keepers of the Practical Knot Temple :slight_smile: ).
Is this “bowled Over Zeppelin bend” the bend we had discussed at (1), also shown at the attached picture ?

  1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13796#msg13796
9

Quite so, and well shown there!

And if you combine the “doubling” manifestations
of your 1st & 3rd images in the OP you have by
the latter “bowling over” and the former “re-tucked”:
QED ! (I do think that the doubled tail diameters
rounding the S.Parts’ compressing should show
significant strength gain; I have struggled to get
the mere 2 diameters to produce curvatures that
looked good, IMO.)

Further, albeit inferior to your photos, are these four
of mine, showing the “bowled-over zeppelin re-tucked” (BOZr).
The materials are from commercial fishing : a hollow,
compressible braided side-by-side fibres polyester &
polypropylene (PS & PP), resp. white & black; and
a kernmantle rope of PP with 5 (I think) slightly
twisted core sets of fibres. (This particular rope is
firmer and I’ll presume stronger than a similar-looking
line in which there are simply parallel PP fibres, of the
same color (so far as I’ve seen).

The first image shows a recently loaded (detached) knot;
the S.Parts flow to the outside/exterior collars
(i.e., this is most of what one can see of the B&W rope).
The second image shows this knot flipped over and
slightly loosened, to try to see its innards (and the B&W
rope now shows the re-tuck’s collar on the outside).
The third is of the tightened knot from the side,
to gain some appreciation of the curvature of the S.Parts,
of the bulk of the 4 dia. of tails being nipped/compressed.
And the fourth shows a loosened knot from its side.
(eh :-\ )

This knot had been loaded via a pulley to about 100kg
(200+ #)?! I loaded it further --800#?-- and was
able to untie it easily; but this is a zeppelin in some
traditional materials, not something subjected to the
diabolical static strength & slickness of HMPE!

–dl*

10

The knots shown here (above) look obviously
vulnerable to slippage, as the movement of the
initial tuck will bring with it the re-tucked tail;
the collars, additionally, look more broad than
U-sharp, facilitating movement. And I don’t
see any of these befitting my knot-name well.

At that time, neither you nor [I] knew that the beautiful bend shown and discussed at the first posts of the thread was the "[i]Illusion[/i]" (M. B 25 ) --you, because you had forgotten to do your homework, and [I] because I was not aware of Miles book.
You produce knots prodigiously, and I cannot follow at your pace; and the degree of examination that one might need in order to fully *know* a knot (!) can be considerable --such as might be only shown by hard loading as done in testing. We should thus hope to gain by careful testing and analysis of that an improved understanding which will enable us to make better assessments.
My point was that I had "proprosed" :) the [i]Oyster bend[/i] for one reason, just like you do now, for another : the [i]Oyster bend[/i] was the most jamming bend I could thought of, [u]so it was very reasonable[/u] to expect that a bend [that] jams so tightly, when tied on ordinary materials, will slip less than others, when tied on very slippery materials.
No, I don't think it follows that a jamming knot per se has a better claim to security [u]under load[/u] than any other; and given the results of the testing presented to us, we could see some feared jamming knots failing --a [i]quadruple fisherman's (triple grapevine)[/i] no less !! (Whereas jamming indicates that the knot grips the S.Parts to prevent their loosening, and such friction might serve to reduce the transmission of force through the knot ... to pull out tails, it's not likely that HMPE has such friction on the S.Parts to achieve much benefit in this regard?!)

–dl*

ps : Hey, at least I’ve put up some photos!

11

They do not look like “collars” at all. They look more like ( parts of ) secondary nipping loops, placed on top ( or better : around ) the previous main ones. In the uSE C - uSE C retucking of this particular Carrick mat you show, when the Working end passes under the Standing End ( so : uSE ), it makes a sharper U turn ( because it turns around the Standing End, and the Standing End only, at some distance from the main nipping loop ), so this U turn looks more like a proper collar, indeed.
However, if you insist in the “Ashley”- based moniker, you have to characterize “collars” the “collars”(? ?) of the Ashley s bend as well… We have seen such a not-bowled-over collared Ashley s bend, where the Working Ends make collars around the Standing Ends of the same link before they are rucked through the central opening ( in the bowled-over version you show, they make collars around the Standing End of the other link ), at (1). See the attached pictures.

I mentioned this technique, of driving the Working End around the Standing end before retucking it, and I described it as an easy to remember and to tie way to enhance the security of simple bends :

Your “Bowled-Over” versions can be described as fruits of yet another method :

  1. Add 180 degrees at the turns the Standing parts make around each other.

  2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3251.msg19547#msg19547

Perhaps…but I thought that it was a reasonable and falsifiable assumption, from which one could start testing the dozens of dozens bends we already know - before we proceed to their retucked versions. So, there was a method in my “proprosal” after all !

12

Great ! Now you have seen how easy it is ( even if you had to insert “some strangeness in the proportion” - or was it “wildness”, to counterbalance the glossy floor ? ), please, do it again ! It does not bite !

As the parent Zeppelin bend requires one only tuck ( the Working end penetrates the two parallel bights of the two links in one go ), we can say that this Double Zeppelin bend is as easy to tie as the re-tucked alt. Carrick ( mat or bend ) tested by allene. My preference for the Zeppelin-like, rope-made-hinges makes me bet on the Double Zeppelin ! :slight_smile:

13

Interlocking figure of eights. I thought it might not slip because figure of eight loops do not slip. But I was wrong. It slips. I still think you need to grab the line in two places. The first reduces the load on the second and the second prevents the slipping. I do not think a single grab can work.

14

On this thread I tested the initial bend. Strong and did not slip. I also tested the bend in the pictures just above where I gave my test results.

15

May I refer you to reply #1 where I said I tested the knot and also to reply #10, just before my reply to it, #12.

16

Regarding the 5 easy to remember ways to enhance the security of a simple bend :

  1. Re-tuck its Tail Ends once more through the same openings they were tucked in the first place.
  2. Retuck its Tail Ends through the central opening of the bend.
  3. Un-tuck the Tail Ends once, drive them turn around the Standing ends ( so they make a 180+ degrees turn, a collar, around the Standing ends ), and re-tuck them through the same openings they were tucked in the first place.
  4. Use the Tail ends to tie half hitches around the Standing ends.
  5. Add 180 degrees at the turns the Standing parts make around each other.

The 3 can lead to the same knot as the 5, or not - and vice versa. The 5 in the case of the oSE C - oSE C, shown in previous posts, has not produced the “collared” uSE C - uSE C, The “Ashley s bowled over” bend.

17

And these five can be found wanting, as you note
–that they don’t lead from #1452 (and like knots)
to the “bowled-over” structure that seems to be
succeeding. (Now, some knots might begin with this,
so we should amend the title of these rules from what
can be done TO a given knot for enhancing, to what
can exist IN a knot that will give it security.)

Some of the above Five seem to be a matter of somewhere
making a sort of nip; and this can be seen as simply
adding some more-of-the-same friction by means of
more area contact!? And others add a U-turn, which
gives both frictional resistance, and also some resistance
via bending-flow. Whereas with the bowled-over
structure, we are --what?-- not so importantly adding
real estate to create friction --though that IS done–,
but creating greater pressure/compression at the
central friction-generating, nipping point?!
–and that into this pressurized zone, we tuck the
last-chance-at-slippage tails for nip!?

That the (“merely” might we venture?) re-tucked
#1452 has the “last-chance-…” aspect but lacks
the “bowled-over” pressurizing (and its added contact)?!

Incidentally, we might see by means of fitting theory
to observation as best we get from EStar’s nice pics of
the quadruple fisherman’s knot slipping that the
draw of the S.Parts --here, though, it seems to be of
just one side, mostly?-- pulls the tail into the knot
from which it marvelously escapes courtesy of the
strong pull of force flowing so frictionlessly around
the core(!!) --AND it flows so immediately, because
of the near-nothing elasticity of the material : the
pull at point-A affects point-B immediately, lacking
the elongation of near-point-A material that in
other materials would give some delay.

I have to wonder if a properly tied blood knot
–or one w/simple re-tucking–
would hold, and to what benefit for strength
(none for untying!)?! I’m appalled that I cannot find
on the bloody darn Net a presentation of the proper
tying and formation of this knot!!! It should be
formed like the double harness bend --and, yes,
there are tails-together & tails-opposite symmetries–
but with many, full wraps --wrapping around both of
the S.Parts, TOWARDS the final, center tucking point,
not away from it. @($&^#&
(This system won’t allow me to express my anger
at the Net echoes of stupidity!)

:frowning: >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

DFred, who’s doing all the latest revising of Knots
on Wikipedia? I do not have the time or presence
or number of fingers to go plugging all the leaks
of knot stupidity into our land!!

–dl*

18

Ouch, I’m getting dizzy zipping back’n’forth to find
apparent NEW information edited into OLD posts!
(A post beginning “I will test it tomorrow” sees me
looking AFTER it for the results, and only now do I
see that you did in fact test and did get good results.
My surmise on not seeing a clear response was that
you in fact got such good results to not have a knot-B
to rate it with (except as superior) and were pinging
EStar in order to try to calibrate the new high. And
maybe so? :wink: )

You got to be kidding, right? You posted a photo and I tied it. What else could I be talking about?
Um, apparently a response to a now ghost post which makes one wonder indeed what you are talking about. (The QUOTE button is your friend, most esp. w/Xarax.)

Meanwhile, though, I’m surprised that there was
EVER any doubt that the fig.8’d #1452 would slip,
when the re-tucked knot did --the openness of the
fig.8 cries out “slippage!”, no? (Which fig.8 knot has
held, btw : the eye knot, maybe; but an end-2-ender
(loaded how : inner course, or outer?) … ?)

Above is shown a version of the zeppelin knot that
should be most enticing, as it has the attributes of the
extended #1452 that look good, AND ADDS to those
the (we’ll hope) ability to be UNtied after loading!
(As well as being easier to tie & recognize.)
(The ease of untying I’ll hazard exits and comes
from less tight binding of a wrapped tuck around
the S.Parts’ coil; it occurred to me to wonder if
that binding however in some way contributes
to strength, by pressure early on the S.Parts :
but I think that the slickness of HMPE just won’t
notice anything but huge pressure,
and it can’t be huge at this final-tucking point
or the tail would pull out! .:. So, we shall hope
that the bowled-over zeppelin re-tucked secures
the whole boatload of desiderata for us!
[And isn’t d. a delicious mouthful! ;D ) )

Maybe we’re onto some firmer ground, at last!
And can also now remember to ask, What about
eye knots? --where I think one has reason to hope
for better results, as there is just the lone S.Part
to treat, and the rest of the knot can make more
compromises so to do this. (And then we can ask
how eyes interlocked say with the granny structure
fare re strength --or maybe an extended carrick mat
for the eyes-joining structure, which should bring
thoughts of one of the (lengthy) eye knots favored
by anglers for the HMPE “gel spun” super-strong lines.)

–dl*

19

Some various answers are below.

I actually did the testing about 10 minutes after I posted reply 1 so just edited it. Sorry.

The figure eight that held was a loop, an eye knot if you will.

My last bend was sort of an interlocked eye knot although there was more to it that that. The problem is that we knot that if you secure an eye knot to a ring and if that ring has the same diameter as the line, then you have lost about 1/2 line strength in the bend but as you also have half the load, you are fine. But it looks like interlocked eye knots compress the line down to way below nominal line diameter and the structure fails there. I produced a knot that didn’t slip, but it broke before my first bend slipped so why bother.

I also posted a modified bowline that does not slip. Seemed like there was less interest in it. Estar proposed a kind of halyard bend that is very strong and does not slip. But these knots are only strong around metal rings, not around other line.

Perhaps I will delete my reply to the ghost post :slight_smile: That should confuse people even more as it has been referenced.

Allen

20

I do not understand what do you mean here, but I, for one, had not any doubts… I had posted this bend as just an example of a fig.8 ed Ashley bend, but allene has not understood this. After an exchange of posts, when the issue was settled ( I was as dizzy as you about the sequence of posts ), I saw no reason why I would spoil your thread with irrelevant posts - but you have not understood that ! :slight_smile:

Have you made any experiments I had missed, which proved this new theory of yours, that a re-tucked knot, without collars, is always more secure than a non-re-tucked one, with collars - and so, if the re-tucked knot un-collared knot slips, the un-retucked collared one should slip, too ? If you did, I will be able to find it, I suppose, because, in contrast to you, I search and find things - and in contrast to me, you never post anything irrelevant, never ! :slight_smile: :slight_smile: