Demonstration of various knots, types of rope and mechanical hoists.
http://www.stg.brown.edu:8080/exist/rome/bookreader?objid=1126611827544374&pageid=div23
(Castelli, e ponti di Maestro Niccola Zabaglia, ad 1743.)
Other interesting old engravings:
http://www.stg.brown.edu:8080/exist/rome/bookreader?objid=1126538610784673&pageid=div60
http://www.stg.brown.edu:8080/exist/rome/bookreader?objid=1126547990633751&pageid=div108
Struktor
Very nice! Plate II from Castelli, e ponti, along with the usual suspects, has a few interesting and unusual things in it…
Halter hitch. The Latin name is listed on the previous page as “Nodus Capistri” – so we learn the name was the same as now - “capistri”=“halter”.
#1242, one of the sack/bag/miller’s knots. “Nodus instar forficis intra anulum” - possibly incorrect Google translation is “Within the ring like a knot [scissors?]”.
Boas/Inuit Bowline. I can’t remember seeing such an old book with a Boas/Inuit in it. Anyone else know of one? Latin: Nodus Retis, seu ad usum Bubulci", G translation: “Knot of network, or for the use of herdsmen” Since 8. is also called “Nodis Retis” and shown as with four ends this would seem to mean “knot for netting”. However since 9 is shown as a loop perhaps the loop form was also known by this same name. The idea that this type of bowline was used by herdsman is interesting. Since the halter hitch is also presented, the loop would seem be for some other use, perhaps around the neck of cattle? Who knows, maybe the ring-loading properties of this style bowline were recognized and found to be more suitable for the task than the traditional bowline? (see 19 below for possible counter-argument)
Unidentified bend. Seems from the name it might have been intended to be a double sheetbend, but it is not. (fooled me initially)
Full Carrick bend. Somewhat dismissively called “Nodus Imperfectus”, but perhaps it is meant ironically. 
Slipped bowliform knot. This is the slipped form of the “bowline” in which the bight is formed in the standing part and the hitch/gooseneck made through that. Not a particularly great knot. Perhaps intended to be a quick release knot, but it unfortunately leaves a half-hitch after pulling the slipped portion. The name being “Nodus ad usum Bubulci”, like 9. above, makes me wonder if this is the orientation intended there too? That is, in fig. 9, the standing part would be the lower end, it is shown as being slightly longer.
Overall a pretty wide selection of knots. Don’t have much time right now to do more… I’m sure there are more interesting things to be found in that plate, and also in the way the well-known knots are described. Any Latin experts lurking?
EDIT: typos, rearranged general comments
Can you help me with this one
It seems to be an arrangement of a windlass with sixteen men working into a pulley held by ca 25 men (on the mechanical disadvantage side?)
What are the men on rope doing and what sort of pulley arrangement might there be here - and why?
My second question is why are the two support ships seemingly loaded with barrels?
Derek
Could they be acting as some sort of intelligent pulley anchor? Giving out rope if the swell takes the craft away from the dock?
Straight attachment to the windlass might break the rope if a swell gave the boats a hefty tug, but putting a huge gang like that as an anchor, they have the advantage of being able to pay out a lot of rope in case of a sudden load.
But then why have the the windlass’? If the teams are enough to act as anchors aren’t they enough to simply haul the wreck onto the dock?
Or is this an application of the proposed ‘Egyptian Fulcrum’-seen about half way down this large article against this image
Four teams of ‘anchor’ pullers and one team of ‘level’ pullers.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/ab_land_transport.jpg
If this is the technique being used on the docks, then it will add weight to the proposed method explaining the Egyptian images.
Derek
Edit-typo
A Polish version of this book exists.
http://ikonotheka.home.pl/25012011/C19.JPG
http://ikonotheka.home.pl/25012011/C2.JPG
http://ikonotheka.home.pl/25012011/C10.JPG
3. Halter hitch. The Latin name is listed on the previous page as "Nodus Capistri" -- so we learn the name was the same as now - "capistri"="halter".The Italian name is listed on the next page as " Nodo della Cavezza " > "Knot Halter".
The Polish name: “Węzeł uzdzienny” > “Knot bridle”
5. #1242, one of the sack/bag/miller's knots. "Nodus instar forficis intra anulum" - possibly incorrect Google translation is "Within the ring like a knot [scissors?]".The Italian name: "Nodo a forbice in Anello" The Polish name: "Węzeł na kształt nożyc w pierścień" > "knot on the shape of scissors in the ring"
9. Boas/Inuit Bowline. I can't remember seeing such an old book with a Boas/Inuit in it. Anyone else know of one? Latin: Nodus Retis, seu ad usum Bubulci", G translation: "Knot of network, or for the use of herdsmen"The Italian name: "Nodo alla Bufolara, o della Rete" The Polish name: "Węzeł wołowy i do sieci lądowych" > "Ox knot and to land net"
10. Unidentified bend. Seems from the name it might have been intended to be a double sheetbend, but it is not. (fooled me initially)The Italian name: " Nodo alla Bufolara raddoppiato" The Polish name: " Węzeł wołowy, czyli chłopski podwojny" > "Ox knot" or "Peasant double knot"
11. Full Carrick bend. Somewhat dismissively called "Nodus Imperfectus", but perhaps it is meant ironically. :)The Italian name: "Nodo imperfetto" The Polish name: "Węzeł niedoskonaly" > "Imperfect knot"
19. Slipped bowliform knot. This is the slipped form of the "bowline" in which the bight is formed in the standing part and the hitch/gooseneck made through that. Not a particularly great knot.The Italian name: "Cappio colnodo alla Bufolara" The Polish name: "Węzeł do wiązania wołow" > "knot to tie oxen"
Struktor
Knot to shorten a rope (sheepshank, dogshank) ?
Klemheist Knot, ABOK # 1762 ?
ABOK 2014 ?
Struktor
I don’t think 2014 can be right struktor, because in 2014, both anchor points are made to the tree, while in this example
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3462.0;attach=5676;image
the great hauling team seem to be hauling on the pulley anchor point instead of a pulley hauling line?
They seem to be acting as a dynamic (intelligent) anchor point…
Derek
?! Where do you see that quote? What I see, on the page preceeding
the images (or succeeding --forget which I opened, but it names knots)
is “Nodo a forbice in Anello”, which by the clumsy/comical free
translator available on a quick search yields “Node scissor in ring”.
Comical, yes, but matching, at least (typographically) with the
translation for the --what we call-- clove hitch, so we might infer
that what was intended (by the author(s)) was in fact that same
knot but shown tied in a ring (and that the artist royally botched
the illustration (hardly uncommon, alas). .:. a new knot is born!!
–which (Xarax should have fun with this) is in some sense still
symmetric, despite appearances, in the same way that the
Munter hitch / crossing knot / mezzo barcaiolo is : i.e., in
most of its in-use orientations it’s not, but the two loaded
forms are, of each other (some capsizing is involved …).
This knot, at least in one capsized form, makes a nice,
strong-looking, secure, easily untied ring & spar hitch.
Slid off of the object (break the ring …), it is a fig.8
–so much for likeness to the clove!
9. [i][u]Boas/Inuit Bowline[/u][/i]. I can't remember seeing such an old book with a Boas/Inuit in it. Anyone else know of one?
I can’t remember one, even now! I.e., you’re into an illusion,
as #9 is but a sheet bend, shown as an option to #6, the
reef knot, nearby. It is interesting to note that while this
is a same-sides version, the slipped version shown as #19 isn’t;
the doubled version shown at #10 is. Again, we have this
artist to blame, likely --and maybe some careless author(s), et alia.
10. Unidentified bend. Seems from the name it might have been intended to be a [i]double sheetbend,[/i] but it is not. (fooled me initially)
I see “Capio col Nodo alla Bufalora” which by using the underscored
name for the shown sheet bend I’d say confirms it as ONE OF the
forms a doubled version (cf. [u]ABOK #488, is it?).
19. Slipped bowliform knot. This is the slipped form of the "bowline" in which the bight is formed in the standing part and the hitch/gooseneck made through that. Not a particularly great knot. Perhaps intended to be a quick release knot, but it unfortunately leaves a half-hitch after pulling the slipped portion. The name being "Nodus ad usum Bubulci", like 9. above, makes me wonder if this is the orientation intended there too? That is, in fig. 9, the standing part would be the lower end, it is shown as being slightly longer.
See above. Not sure how you’re able to have anything left
after pulling out the slip-bight --poof, all is gone!
Derek asks
Could they be acting as some sort of intelligent pulley anchor?
No, it’s an UNintelligent person(s) acting as artist!
(or “artistic license”, no pixel-peeping, knots-devining intended)
Hi Dan,
I would not argue that in many present day publications there are really stupid artistic mistakes, mostly caused by cost cutting in the publishing process by using cheap graphic labour that has no expertise in the subject and who are paid on a per job basis so they just have to bang the images out. However, I have a number of ‘Boys Own Paper’ Journals, all illustrated by woodcut prints. In every case, the attention to detail is stunning. In the image in question, it is a depiction of one of many inventions by Cornelius Meyer, and if you look at the other images of his inventions, they are presented with the same meticulous eye for detail - for example in the image in question, look at the other side of the harbour, a vessel is on fire and has just exploded, throwing human bodies high into the air - the whole image is painting a story of events, as well as recording method of performance.
Is it just possible that there is a method here that has been lost to modern man and that we are in danger of ignoring it through our exposure to modern day sloppiness?
If you watch ‘Tug-O-War’ teams practising and ‘at work’, you will notice that a man braced with his feet placed firmly can ‘hold’ a far greater load than he can if either his hand or feet positions have to change. So the very large teams would make far more effective anchors than they would hauling teams, and the dock has two high ‘gear’ windlass stations to provide all the ‘haul’ necessary - so why add in the men on ropes unless they are there to serve a different function -i.e. a dynamic anchor to compensate for the nearshore swell on the partially submerged wreck, which I would think might be substantial and cause damage to ropes and windlass alike when the rope is first slacked, then snapped taught on the swell return. A dynamic anchor with a 3:1 feed advantage (as opposed to 1:3 mechanical advantage) would be just the thing to employ to give and take on the swell, while the windlass provided the inexorable haul to drag all three vessels onto the dock.
The Egyptian example cited is only a theory, put forward to explain again the detail contained in the records of huge rocks being hauled. If a more up to date example of the principle can be cited, it will add significantly to the plausibility of the Egyptian theory.
Derek
When I first looked at this picture (and again today) it looks like the windlass is too flimsy to take the force being pulled. Is it therefore that the two teams of men are doing the pulling and the windlass is only an anchor taking up the slack and allowing the pulley to be moved? The connection of the pulley rope to the hauling rope is indistinct but does seem bulky.
Barry
And yet windlass to vessel lines are straight, signifying that this is the main load. If the heaving team were taking the main strain, their line to the vessel would be the straight line.
Sorry Dan for ‘pixel peeping’ again. ‘Dot Counter’ by nickname, dot counter by nature.
Derek
I did wonder about that but if there is a load on the pulley the line would be pulled to one side the angle of deflection depending on the relative loads I think - the straight line shown indicates that the pulley is taking no strain at all seemingly and yet the teams of men appear to be pulling hard at something. Although the setup may be accurately drawn the artist may not have been aware of the main hauling line being pulled to one side (it may not even have been obvious from his(?) position). I still cannot see the windlass being sufficiently robust to take the force needed to haul that ship other than holding it temporarily.
Barry
Indeed, I see what you mean, in fact there is also nobody taking out the wound off rope. More than that, the rope seems to pass straight through the windlass and carry on in a straight line to the wharf. Do you think this could be a ‘Spanish Windlass’ where the frame is simply to keep the winding post upright and the rope winds onto the post from both back and front?
If that were the case, then the windlass would supply the main haul but only so much rope can be wound onto the windlass, then it must be unwound and the slack be taken up by the anchor team with the 3:1 distance advantage, then the windlass would start to be wound up and haul again. Sort of a winding ratchet winch system?
Derek
Aren’t we talking about the image contained in your post,
in which two teams apparently are pulling on two blocks,
with rather short multi-line spans to some obscure, cage-like
contraption fixed on a hawswer? There is no detail there,
nor good sense, IMO.
Btw, there are plenty of old knotting examples of detailed mistakes
–things clearly showing that the artist and whoever was in
charge of the publication had some kind of problem(s)!
I looked at the drawing again and something struck me - the distance from the edge of the dock(?) to the ship is about half that of the distance from the edge of the dock to the men holding the pulley. The barrels on deck are odd but the furthest ship appears to be at least part wrecked and of course the 2 are bound together - explosives perhaps to be used as “fire ships”? Might explain why so many men are employed to haul (or maybe release?) them - you wouldn’t want that lot going off! In which case we could have the operation the wrong way round? There’s no-one on board either ship by the look of it.
Barry
The image is the one linked in reply number 2. If you click on the page, you are taken to an enlargement with magnification facility, and there is plenty of detail to be had, including the detail that Barry picked up re the apparent frailty of the windlass assemblies, the detail of the major load seemingly to be in the line from wharf to windlass to ‘basket thing’ to vessel, and the fact that the hauling team are hauling on a pulley anchor with a 1:3 mechanical (dis)advantage.
Another thing I just noticed - there are FOUR ends in the assembly - one on the vessel, one on the wharf, one at the pulley block and one after the hauling team. This begs the question of ‘What on earth is going on inside the ‘basket’ object?’
@Barry, I think for recovery, the barrels will be empty and employed as buoyancy tanks in case the lifting vessels take water to prevent them from sinking along with the just recovered wreck…
Derek
‘‘Marine salvage: a guide for boaters and divers’’ ; George H. Reid
http://books.google.com/books?id=yrzSh2aG4WMC&pg=PA52&hl=pl&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.pl/books?id=yrzSh2aG4WMC&source=gbs_book_similarbooks
pp : 26;28;46;52
Struktor
Figure 1. Rope-making in ancient egypt. Tomb of Akhethotep and Ptahhotep, about 2300 BC.
The round tool hanging from the rope close to the person to the left is perhaps
a stone helping the ropemakers to gauge that sufficient tensile stress is present.
Drawing by K. Olsen.
Source:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/93/6/60004/fulltext
Additionally:
http://etacar.put.poznan.pl/piotr.pieranski//EPJE.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/user/pieranski#p/u/3/rzdRrs8OFjU
The answer then is “yes”; I stand by my prior opinion
–that the artist had no clue, and possibly was trying to
show various methods all at once. I.p., there is no good
illustration of the semi-apparent block-&-tackle --no haul
line distinct from the attached-to-near-block line the men
are hauling upon; no hint of the inside-a-cage whatever
at the away end, attached to the boat-pulling hawser.