Odd. I can see it. How about this one. But if it doesn’t work, just to to this page http://www.animatedknots.com/fig8follow/index.php?LogoImage=.&Website=
http://www.survivalworld.com/images/knot-images/figure%208%20loop%204.png
I believe I know this knot, so I would nt need to see it dancing ! 
Eyeknots are more secure than the corresponding “parent” bends, simply because they can slip in one, only, way ! So, the fact that this knot holds, while the much more convoluted triple fisherman s does not, is not such a surprize, after all…
You are forgetting what was shown in the Brion
Toss video of the almost mirrored bowine --and which
behavior he’d reported on some time ago, in a
SAIL magazine article : that eye material can
slip through the knot and out … the S.Part!
Apparently a response to a quick remark from X.,
who --same with me-- saw only a blue box’d ‘?’
until … it all loaded; I now see it, too --but maybe
my system is too slow for its “dancing”(!) (and at
the referenced site). Thanks.
Now, note that the fig.8 eye & end-2-end knots
are often presented in the pure “flat” form in
shown by Grog before drawing it up (which he
did on my advice in that particular way --a way
that is not commonly shown or done, to my
observation : more often it would be the tail
of that orientation that is loaded!)
The end-2-end knot tied in Grog’s-shown orientation
will tend to assume about a 45degree angle to the
axis of tension; loading the other ends will produce
a knot that is more aligned (and whose end-most
turns are lacking tension). Thus, one can observe
photos of tied knots and get an idea of orientation.)
The figure eight that held was a loop, an eye knot if you will.FYI, I've pushed "eye (knot)" because IMO "eye" is more narrowly defined and should be understood. "loop", in contrast, is used to denote the form of line made e.g. as the initial step of tying a [i]bowline[/i] in the rabbit-&-tree manner, it is the thing formed by tying ends of a line together (e.g. by EStar in the end-2-end knot testing), or it might mean . . . an eye knot! Thus, I've tried to move away from that overloaded term "loop" (which I now use mostly for the first sense cited above; "round sling" can do duty for the 2nd).
NB: The knot shown by Grog is symmetric; that in
your 2nd reference looses the form with its eye
legs falling out of the orientation seen at the
opposite end (where S.Part makes its U-turn).
(I think that torsion can lead to this if forming
the knot by working with a bight (doubled rope).)
Typically, only “fig.8” is given as knot indication,
and one is left to guess the geometry AND which
end is loaded! No one seems to notice this point
of differentiation, though, but are often happy to
quote test results as though they’re definite!
As for using eyeknots qua end-2-end structures,
there is the potential to interlock the eyes with
some structure such as a carrick mat or to
have each knot’s tail complete the eye in the
opposite knot --the “twin ” structure.
(In the case of a bowline collapsing its eye
–in HMPE-- such a structure would see the knots abut.)
–dl*
Right !
I am always forgetting it, because it is so counter-intuitive… Things that I see only in video can not really be imprinted on me. I wish I had a proper laboratory, to see this with with my own eyes, to get a feeling of this miracle ! Now, it is just another piece of information my brain can put aside…
Dan asked me to test the Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked.
I first tested it bowled over but not retucked - it slipped at 680lbslbs (in 1/8" amsteel, tensile 2500lbs).
Then I tested it both bowled over and retucked - slipped at 825lbs (photos below).
I then tested a sample to slip, and stopped the pull and let it sit for 30 minutes and it then held and broke at 1305lbs, which is 52% of tensile, which is equal to our other best non-slippers (ESTAR and Polamar).
Note: the numbers above are the loop load/2
e-star and allen-e, you are doing an excellent work, and we all appreciate it much more than you can imagine. The whole history of bends, especially those tied on very slippery and very strong materials, can change its path because of you. You have stumbled upon something that should have been addressed and possibly resolved years ago by the knot-tying community. However, if your work is not systematic and organized according to some minimum standards - and I know enough about this matter to tell that it is not - I am afraid it will run the danger to be less appreciated than it should, and even to be forgotten soon. You have been called by the Fate to play an important role. You can follow this call, or not, it is your call !
I have said it many times, and I will repeat it, because I love knots, and I try to ignore what knot tyers think=believe about each other. Start from the best, more comprehensive book/collection about knots we have, the “Symmetric Bends”, by Roger E. Miles. Do not read the mathematics of it, although I understand that e-start, at least, can do I, in just a few hours. Start right from page 78, and finish at page 98 - 20 small pages with 60 clear tying diagrams, of about half of the most simple bends we have. Start testing them = collect the data of equivalently prepared and repeatable experiments, on Dyneema 1/8" ( or 1/4, if you have the equipment), say, three times each. When you finish, proceed with 3 more tests of half of them, those which slip and/or break at higher loads. Then, do it again and again and again. You will end up with 4 bends, and you will have turned the first page in the history of bend testing on slippery and strong materials.
( And, please, use International System of Units, which, contrary to the Queen s orders to Her Majesty s subjects, does NOT contain libs ! )
I wanted to put these results in the context of my first bend. The bowled over and retucked knot slipped at 33% of line strength. This is essentially identical to the result with my first bend at 32%. But my first bend can be untied. The first bend variation, which cannot be untied, did not slip and broke at 39%. My first bends are also smaller easier to tie knots.
Allen
For my part - we have already found a ‘bend’ that never slips and breaks at about 50%, and which is relatively easy to tie - which is back to back estar’s. It’s only weakness (in my mind) is that it cannot be untied.
So, in my mind ‘the search’ is for something either easier to tie or which is a no-slipper that can be untied.
But honestly, the only real practical application (on a sailing boat anyway) for bends in bare dyneema is to make fixed loops which are too short for an end to end splice, and un-tieing is really not all that critical feature for those. More important is low profile compactness and the back to back estar scores decently on that. So, practically speaking I am happy with the solution we have already found. I am skeptical that we will find a better practical solution for this application, but if we do, I expect it will be more along the lines of the long low profile fishing bends (like the blood - Dan I would love to see some pics of what you consider “right” for a blood) than the shorter/rounder general rope bends.
By the way, one comment on testing these knots . . . the slip load is very hard to quantify. It has a high variation, and in many knots varies quite a bit depending on pull speed. As I have said before, I am really only comfortable rating slippers as low/medium/high, and not very comfortable with the load specific numbers (which you all want). To get good (statistically understood) slip numbers I would have to do a minimum of 10 pulls (and 30 would be better), and have a mechanical very controlled standard ‘pull rate’. I am not going to do 10 or 30 pulls times a whole range of knots simply because of the time and cost of this line . . . and I am not going to build a precisely controlled speed puller. For no-slippers, the breaking strength by comparison is easy to measure with low variation and high repeat-ability.
I guess we will all have our favorites.
Here’s a pic of back to back estar’s, which I did this morning just as a control for the Ashley bends, it is just about to break at 52% (the 95% CI is 50–55%):
Or for something that breaks above 50 % ? How do we know that the 50% is the maximum we can achieve ? Easy answer. We do not.
One thing we should NOT take for granted nowadays, is what will be the practical application of whatever in “a sailing boat” - sailing boats are vehicles, they do not remain the same ! Unless somebody can claim that the mechanism used to adjust the inclination of the fully submerged foils in the America s Cup sailing boats last year were foreseen by anybody !
Noope, nobody can predict which the practical applications of a knot will be - and one GREAT example of this is the use of the reef bend on the tube of a bicycle ! (1). We do not want to learn about knots, because we have a fixed idea about a fixed mechanical problem of a fixed mechanism which we want to solve with a knot… We want to learn about knots because we like to do it - and because knowledge is a the most practically useful thing the Universe has created !
Expectations should be based on adequate experience, and nobody has adequate experience with bends tied on such material. Of course, if you had discovered the wheel, you could be sceptical about better practical solutions, indeed ! However, there are HUNDREDS of back-to-back-hitches /nooses that have not been tested by anybody, for example. And, of course, HUNDREDS of re-tucked simple bends as well. I admire the boldness of the scepticism of somebody who believes that something will never be improved - but I trust more somebody who does not believe in beliefs…
Among other things. Alternating loading should also be considered. The force by which the bend was pre-tensioned in the first place, during its dressing, would also play a role, IMHO. So, one should always pre-tight the bends he is going to test with a certain, always the same, load.
I think that nobody yet has been convinced that the bends tied on thin and thick lines will behave the same way - although I, for one, hope that this is the case, indeed, and that the mere scale of the ropes we test will be irrelevant, provided all other things remain, proportionally, the same. JP has reported some results, but he has not repeated them on thicker lines.
mmmmm . . . might I say that you are perhaps being a little condescending in your post
In your mind, as you rightly said !
If I had seen two, or a dozen white swans all and all in my life, empirically what I “know” is that no swan is black - and I might even claim, sceptically, as you do, that there will never be any black swan anywhere in the Universe - because, as Leibniz said, this World is the best, so it is the only possible !
So, when you will test the 60-120 known simple bends I have suggested to you, and the 60-120 centrally re-tucked versions of them, then you will “know” something…
You have tested what you said is “THE Sheet bend”, and “THE fig.9 knot”, without even realizing that there are TWO Sheet bends, and THREE fig.9 knots, for KnotGod s sake… And I do not even count how many different dressings / loadings combinations “THE fig.8 knot” can have… So, I guess that, although you have done a wonderful job, you have still some distance to cover before you start claiming that “we know”.
? ? ? You would nt bet on this, I suppose… Because I know dozens of such bends ! Does the retraced overhand knot = Water bend, for example, have a 1:1 bend radius in it ? Or, for that matter, most the fig.8 knots you had mentioned ? I guess I have not understood what you say/mean here.
So, because spices are the better solutions, we have to abandon all end-to-end knots at the ends of a loop, and/or apply only the particular hitch-to-hitch bend you propose - because :
Your reasoning is not very convincing here, I am afraid - and the retreat to the splices sounds almost as a desperate defence.
We have to test all the closed, by end-to-end knots or hitch to hitch knots, loops we know, before we can “know”. If you abandon knots, you may even abandon splices and search for a nice cheap glue, or a mechanical fastener. Practically speaking regarding you, you do deserve to be happy. However, practically speaking regarding our knowledge about knots, we are veeery unhappy / sorry we know next to nothing !
- NONE
- So, the other factors I had mentioned do not contribute in an “important” statistical variation? In what sense ? How you know before hand what is “important” in a distribution, if you do not know what form this distribution should have ? If you say they will not vary the results more than, say, 1%, I will agree - provided that the differences of the pull speed factor would be, say, ten or fifteen times more ( 10% - 15%)- but is this the case ?
I apologize for anything that have said and it sounded like I think it sounded to you. I am sure that you have dozens, if not hundreds of times more experience than me - but this is still not adequate, I am afraid !
I read your site, and I see the number and kind of bends you refer there - and I would suggest this reading is “adequate” to express scepticism about your knowledge of bends - which, I repeat, may well be much more extended than mine s. However, I happen to know that there is no One Sheet bend, One fig.8 and One fig,9 knot, and to know the 120 known bends - while you do not… So, [i]we/i have many knowledge to exchange, before we can claim that we “know”.
First, you mentioned the “facts”, now you mention the “definitions” ! My feet have not started trembling, though… Have you measured the maximum width of the cross sections of even the very few bends you have tested ? If yes, where are the NUMBERS ( in cm, of course …, not in Hers Majesty s inches :)). And of HOW MANY BENDS have you measured the maximum widths of the cross sections ? How have you strengthen your belief that the minute sample of bends you have tested is “adequate” to jump into such broad conclusions ?
Of course, a long-long-long fishing knot, tied by spin-spin-spin entangling, would be sleek, strong and will not slip. So you propose to tie the dyneema bends with fishing knots, and fishing knots only ? If so, I have to pull out my fishing knots memories, which I had buried dozens of years ago. Now, I eat fish in the restaurants - I even would not allow cooking of fishes in my apartment, because I can not stand the smell of the fresh fish more than 1 minute.
Frankly, I would nt expect a sailor be a fun of fishing knots !
Oh ! I am sure Dan Lehman would had preferred a lower maximum load, if it would be accompanied by an acceptable, at least, looks - but, with this mass body ratio, what would he expect ? I suggest bicycling, mush uphill bicycling !
The “bowled over and retucked” whatever should better be stored in the not-bowled basket under our desk, we call waste basket…
P.S. I see that this fat ugly tangly has been tied in two parts of the same loop ? As a friend of mine once pointed out to me, there can be some kind of invisible interference we can not predict or explain between those two knots, so the pull on the one is absorbed earlier or later within the nub of the other, vibrations and minute variations of tension could spread from the one to the other, etc. I believe that it is better to test loops with one only bend on them - and with their two tips wrapped around bearings, not pins that can not follow micro-rotations of the loop while it is tensioned, so they “protect” the bend(s), as it has been reported.
Let me ask : would this application be able
to use a “loop” that was built by knotting
both sides of a mid-section of line --rather than
just the two tails? In that “the chain is no
stronger than its weakest link,” I’ve wondered
making both sides of such a “loop” participate
in the knotting, which might enhance strength
and security aspects; but which would mean
that the end points of the loop were fixed
(think “dog bone” for structure; each half
being a sort of loop). As an example, the
opposite-to-ends side could form a loop
(overloaded term, “loop”, argh) /circle, 'a la
bowline and then each tail could respectively
be tucked through this in a bowlinesque way.
(Now, I think that this particular knot is NOT
so secure; but it’s just an example … .)
If such a structure (which might place the knot
closer to one end, to provide large/small loops)
is feasible, this might be a direction worth
pursuing.
Here's a pic of back to back [i]estar's,[/i]Thanks. And if you can zoom in for a more revealing photo (esp. of a highly loaded knot, to see what's going on in compression and nip), that'd be a bonus.
–dl*
Ah, yes, such doubts and expressions of Reality
defiling the imagined ideals of Statistical Purity
have been uttered before. I can imagine that
such Perfect testing is critical for critical uses
in a Perfect World, where knotted material
wouldn’t be subject to imperfect loading
and maybe salt water spray containing
tiny particles of deep downunderness
and micro-(or nano-(!)organisms
of diabolical biological effects
and unknown unknowns
and exceptionally
imperceptible
dynamically
asymmetric
harmful,
unideal,
nasty,
bad,
X!
:
I can not recognize what is on a man s or Dan Leh-man s mind… However, I can tell that its contour reveals a body mass index which requires cycling, much uphill cycling, in order to lose some redundant weight.
I, too, have tied many bowl-like bends, but I dared to show only those which, although they are certainly not slim, and may be characterized portly, are NOT ugly. The old Strangle bend (1), or the recent “yet another bowl” (2), for example. I am sorry, but the “bowled over & re-tucked” whatever IS ugly, and it is not a matter of politically correctness to recognize and tell this. ( The “bowled over.” ( = bowled over, period ), before it swallows its Tails, is OK ).
I did not say this because of the particular application e-star and allene had in their minds - on board of a sailing ship, when the ship itself and the rope is moving, it is better if we tie slim knots, with a small cross section, for many reasons. I said it because we have to draw some lines, place some limits on the volume of the practical knots we are ready to tie, just as we place limits in their complexity regarding their tying, for example. I think that the “bowled & re-tucked” whatever crossed the limits I have in my mind ! And I was not polite or politically correct enough in the way I said what was in my mind, because I am still behaving according to the feeling this “riduculous”(sic) characterization Dan Lehman had used (4) for the most beautiful Oyster bend / Threefold ( M. B5)(3) I had proposed to test, because of its tightness. The “fat ugly tangly”(sic) was just another knee-jerk reaction to the reminiscence of this “riducurlous”… Mea Culpa.
Now, here comes the interesting question. Let us suppose that, in order tie a end-to-end knot between two Dyneema lines, we discover that we really need something of volume or tying complexity beyond the limits we have in our mind. What will we do ?
As far as it concerns me, I have answered this question in another occasion - in the case of midline-to-midline bends. If we will be forced to tie a very bulky knot, we simply will NOT tie ANY knot, we will solve our rope-joining problem with some other means. However, the re-tucked alternative Carrick mat of allene is not a very bulky knot, and I am sure that there are dozens of acceptably bulky knots that can do the job, without having to go fishing. To me, a practical knot is something that can, in theory, be used in practice. I do not believe that people will ever tie very bulky or very difficult to remember how to tie and to actually tie practical knots. In our mind, a practical knot is not just any entangled segments of ropes. It is a “small” lump along the line - if this lump is bumped, the definition of the practical knot itself is bumped, and, at the end, we will start to consider, as practical knots, the tangled spaghettis in our bows…
I believe that no scientist worth its salt would ever think to test two connected things, the one next to the other, when he can well test each one separately. I am not saying that the influence would be huge - I am just saying that there can be a influence, and that, at least before we do some tests, it is better not to underestimate its magnitude beforehand. I imagine that those two knots can, somehow, work ij tandem, and each one can absorb some vibrations or sudden increases of the tensile forces that would had made the other break - because we can not be sure that both knots were dressed or pre-tensioned in the exact same way.
Of course the bump that made Dan Lehman mind vibrate was not this absolutely reasonable comment on the cautious way we have to perform our experiments - it was my characterization of his “bowled over and re-tucked” whatever, that made his square-wheeled bicycle or his unicorn to jump up, and drag his mind with it. Did it step on any other soOo elegant “superbowled-over & re-re-tucked” knot of his ? Who can tell ? Who can read what s on a man s mind ?
Why is this “Bowled-over & re-tucked” whatever soOo bulky ?
The answer is simple : Because it is NOT a “re-tucked” simple bend, it is a re-re-tucked simple bend ! Re-, Re-, Two times ! ( After some more, we would had started to listen the music of it in our ears… :)). As I had shown in (1), and one can see in the attached picture, this bulky tangle is the result of two reiterative, adjacent tuckings, on the simple Carrick-like mat of two most simply interlinked bights shown below. For comparison, the “Illusion” (M. B25)( = lR-uL, i.e. re-tucked through the lR = left Right opening of this mat, for the one tail, and through the uL = upper Left opening of this mat, for the other tail ), is re-tucked once. ( See the third attached picture ).
It is like you eat two full bowls of spaghetti each time, and you still wish to remain slim. This is the kind of magic which may be current in South or Central America, but is not allowed in the KnotLand. If you re-tuck too much, you become over-weighted. We should be happy that there are some limits in the complexity of the possible practical knots, otherwise we wouldn’t bother to tie them - as nobody bothers to tie the 177.147 different distinct tie knots (1).
Another thing one may “add” to Ashley s #1452 bend ( other than 180 degrees additional turns of the segments around the central opening, as in the bend shown in this thread ), is shape “8” collars around the Standing Ends. We have seen something like this some time ago : see the attached pictures presented at (1), and also the knots presented by Luca at (2).
The “Double”/ bowled Zeppelin shown with pictures ( not only “described” with hieroglyphs, as it happens too often ! ) at Reply#8 ( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4777.msg31022#msg31022 ) may be considered as a delayed incubation of the idea expressed at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13804#msg13804
At the posts referred below (1), I, too, has tied some double collar variations of the Hunter s bend in the past, which may look “similar” ( but they are not : The Zeppelin and the Hunter s bends are topologically and structurally very different knots, so not “similar” at all ! ). In the back of my mind, the purpose of the re-tucking was to force the first curves of the Standing Parts become rounder and wider - so it was related to the strength, not to the security of the knot. I would nt believe that such a complication would be dictated by the so low friction coefficient of those extra-ordinary materials…
The main thing which is “doubled” ( well, almost doubled - it is bowled over 1.5 times ) in this enhanced Zeppelin bend, is the nipping loop, not the collar. The same “duplication” can be attempted in all the numerous variations of the Hunter s and the falsely tied Hunter s bends. However, those four interlocked double nipping loops, although they do not affect too much the easiness of the parent Zeppelin bend s untiability ( they do, but in an acceptable degree, I think ), they make the already too tight, and prone to jam, Hunter s bend, even more problematic… and the same should be said for the re-tucked True Lover s bend (2), and the Strangle bend (3). We should better think twice before we interlock double nipping loops (4).