This bend to me appears as a sort of “tressed” version of the double Zeppelin (B2) shown by xarax in this post: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13796#msg13796
The bend is absolutely no tested,so I have no idea whether it may add something to the version linked above. :-
Below I propose two possible dressing: the first is the more spontaneous result by following the method( maybe tricky,but not so tricky!) proposed in the diagrams in the fourth pic;I like the way in which the working ends are “nipped”,but the second,more..ehm.. “slim”,dressing,however, could be more stable and maybe strong, but they are only my impressions (or imaginations! ::)).In any case, the first dressing seems to have a greater benefit in stability in the case in which also the collars are doubled (third pic below:one pound of Zeppelin all for free! ;)) as shown at reply #8:http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4777.msg31022#msg31022 .
Going further all the way, the "kinky" dressing starts to look like the knot shown in the attached picture. The optimum "right" 90 degree angle between the axis / pin of the hinge, and the first curves / knuckles of the hinge, has disappeared, and instead we see a 60 degrees angle - so, at the point of contact between the first curves and the Tail ends, we will have [i]friction[/i] forces, not only [i]sheer[/i] forces... The bend became less Zeppelin-like ! :) (1)
In knots, rope segments should either bite each other / meet at right angles, or caress each other / be parallel. There is no point of one segment “jumping” over the other ( unless it is a riding turn, and squeezes it on the hard surface of a pole, as it happens in the “snug” hitches ). Such a “kink” neither generates enough friction, because the segments can easily slide on its other s surface ( if we want maximum obstruction of movement, we better have segments squeezed onto each other, while the meet at right angles ), nor it enables an unobstructed flow of the lines inside the nub, which will re-distribute the tensile forces on a greater area.
Another disadvantage of this dressing, is that the knot becomes less easy to inspect - which is a great plus of all symmetric knots, in general, and of the Zeppelin bend, in particular.
So, noope ! Stick to "[b][i]parallelism[/i][/b]" !
If you have written about the bend in your black and white photo you are right 100%, but taking a look at the bend shown in the pathetic imitation :-[ of your picture attached below… probably you would continue to be right!But maybe “a little less” …
The setting shown here corresponds to the result that I get spontaneously using the method described above (no, it is not true, I confess: I gave a pull on the tails!):the kinks are less kinky,the tail ends exit(almost)perpendicular to the standing ends(but I must say that I do not know what can happen under heavy loads),and some curvatures of the collar are less sharp.
But the fact remains that the flaws you explained,mentioned just in an embryonal way in my first post,are present, although to a(much?)lesser extent.
So probably, if one wants to apply to the “normal” Zeppelin bend only a doubling of type B2, the “standard” B2 is perhaps the best solution, because more stable (but the “normal” Zeppelin it is even more), more self-dressing (but even here I give a little pull on the tails …),and surely more easy to inspect.
But the problems of stability of the “tressed” version seem to disappear after the moment in which one applies also the doubling of the collars(and even the kinks seem to be even less evident!);therefore the basic question might be:using Dyneema rope,which may be the comparative results of tests made in the Estar way,between the double collared “standard” version B2 and the double collared “tressed” version B2?
Pay attention to my first sentence : Going further all the way…
In your picture, you show a knot where you had not - a knot where you had remained in the same in-between, intermediate stage, which eventually, at the very end of the transformation, will lead to the knot I show.
The “jump” of the one segment over the other, which will produce the “kink”, has not been finished yet in your knot : when it will be finished, when the riding turn will be transported all the way, to the other side of the turn underneath it, you will get the knot I show.
Imagine the central pair of the Tail Ends as an axle. The three turns “revolve” around this axle, so they will be adjacent and in contact to this axle more than to themselves. Under heavy loading, I do not believe that the “kink” would remain in the form you show. It seems to me that the form I show is the final stage, and the form you show is only an intermediate, not very balanced one.
If you tie the knot in Spectra/Dyneema, perhaps we can settle this. Perhaps we will see that both forms, the form you show and the form I show, are equally stable, so we will both be right 100% !
Aha ! In a heavy loaded bend, the effects of this pull will be “swallowed” by the effects of the pull of the Standing Ends, which will force all the turns to turn around the central, less loaded and more immobilized part, the pair of Tail Ends. So I think that we will get three turns which will be as much embracing their common central axis as they can, i.e. we will get the form I show.
“the tails ends still exit perpendicularly to the standing ends”… is the correct expression ! Wait and see what will happen next ! The pulling of the turns will force them to settle, the one next to the other, on the surface of the axle, as I show.
Because you have not yet gone “further, all the way” ! Your embryo will grow up !
Unfortunately these days I do not have access to my “laboratory”, but I found a piece of “rope” that served as a handle of a cardboard shopping bag : the material is very elastic and extremely compressible, stuff that proved to be very suitable for distort a knot (if it has to distort) with the sheer force of the arms.I think that the result of the “test” visible in the first pic below is “OVER all the way”!And give you rightness more or less all along the line …
However, the “test” on the re-collared version(second pic) gave good satisfaction on my assumptions about his acquired stability.
So,given his stability(yes,still not seriously tested),it is stronger(I don’t think) of the bend at reply #8?Or Is less prone to slip?(maybe I guess,unless it does not break before…) To posterity the arduous judgement!
