Dang, you keep swinging and getting runners on base;
and we’re hoping for a home run, or some runners
scoring, at least.
GOOD SHOW!
It’s tantalizing to think that somewhere we’ll be able
to find … .
Do note that toggled attachments are a part of ballooning,
which might have been a direct reference activity for the
airships.
We need to keep in mind that if indeed Giles’s intriguing
information of alleged note from Lee about Rosendahl’s
absence of knowledge of the knot is correct (and to this
we’d want to assert that then ret’d Adm. R. was in decent
mental capacity and not forgetful …),
THEN the Paynes’ article is . . . what? Clearly the assertion
that Joe asserted … is false, as then Cmdr. R. didn’t insist
one what he didn’t know (and further from Giles, that such
a knot made no sense anyway).
Was Collins for real, and looking to make a legend for something
he might’ve come up with and wished to make popular?
(Roo did some research to suggest that “Collins” existed.)
Or was one of the Payne’s making things up … ?!
.:. One can’t just believe Rosendahl’s claim to ignorance
and swallow the article’s assertions.
Now, Bob Thrun’s assertions even w/o publication I
will attest to : Bob was honest, far from a showboat.
My favorite bend is the Rosendahl Bend because [b]I re-invented it and published it in 1967[/b]. I published in a local caving club newsletter. The club had about 70 members and a bunch of exchanges with other clubs. I would guess that the press run was over 100 copies. I think that I had the first publication of this bend. The exchanges were free to reprint my article, but did not do so. At the time I wondered why none of the exchanges picked up my article. It is not often that a knot that is new, simple, compact and useful comes along.The Rosendahl Bend was later described in an article by Lee and Bob Payne in the March 1976 Boating magazine. Boating has a circulation in the hundreds of thousands. My method of tying the bend was the same as given in the Payne article. I can’t remember the supposedly easier method that Budworth gives
Okay - wow…
All righty then, so now we have Bob Thrun pre-dating the 1976 Boating magazine article.
Bob claims he ‘re-invented’ it in 1967 and published it in a caving club newsletter.
What are the chances of tracking down a copy of this newsletter from 1967?
Dan, do you have any ties/connections to caving clubs?
…
By the way, I have this link: https://www.scribd.com/document/313411893/The-Official-Newsletter-of-the-Naval-Airship-Association
Perhaps someone can write to Naval Airship Association to find out more about ground line handling of airships and whether the ‘Zeppelin’ bend was used?
…
From Dan Lehman…in relation to my reluctance to write a Knot Bio on #1425A Riggers bend:
This displays an unhealthy bias. Not only does one have a fairly UNcontested/unconfused history for "SmitHunter's bend" ...BUT ...
Dan, I’m not sure if you realize how much work goes into researching and writing this kind of material? Its not an easy exercise.
It consumes a lot of my time, energy and resources - and I dont get a lot of thanks for it in return…and I certainly remain poor - not getting any monetary reward for my time and effort either. Mind you, being financially poor has its rewards Its hard for people to sue me - they wouldn’t get much from me (maybe my rope collection).
I tell you what, if you promise to help me (ie co-author) a Knot Bio on #1425A Riggers bend, I’ll agree to do it :o
Mark G
Better, I have a copy of the newsletter(s),
which are in the 1st case UNdated (Vol. IX? #7)
and in a followup correction/note --Bob was upset
that his drawings were replaced w/editer’s (which
look good, IMO!)-- the info is "Vol. IX (whatever)
#8 and dated December 1966 --sic : ‘66’ (perhaps
date of receipt was in the next year, but I doubt
that the publishing was all so fouled that it was
in fact '67 that Bob got it and yet the newsletter
carried '66 as a date. (The follow-up issue though
did try some sort of catch-up, reading “#8-12” as
though sweeping up a supposed monthly for 1966
in one fell soup?!))
Bob’s “re-inventing” presumed some prior inventing
about which we, well, have some doubts.
And I now have some less then fully certain feeling
that then Adm. R. meant that he knew nothing about
the >>knot<< vs. about its being named for him!?
The latter is IMO a longer stretch, but possible; he might
have said more, afterall, if he knew zilch about it
AND considering Giles’s opinion that regardless of
the name, the very function/nature of the knot
didn’t well fit the supposed application !?
(And in re-reading the Paynes’ article, they have it
that Joe Collins asserted that the knot was to be used
ALL OVER, not only for mooring. And THIS sounds a
bit odd in not allowing of some hitch or eye knot,
for SOMEthing!?)
.:. We’ve a lot of puzzles to solve!
By the way, I have this link: https://www.scribd.com/document/313411893/The-Official-Newsletter-of-the-Naval-Airship-Association Perhaps someone can write to Naval Airship Association to find out more about ground line handling of airships and whether the 'Zeppelin' bend was used?You mean like "someone" who's trying to write a knot bio? ::) Does your internet reach all the way to there?!
Meanwhile, I found an airships historian who even was
then going to [suspence build-up …] Lakehurst; but he
has been kind enough to reply only to ack my msg.,
and not all so reassuringly let me know that he’s going
to actually address the matter --I re-"bump"ed my query
for the now 2nd time (1sTime = May) gently letting him
know that our curiosity is no less w/time.
Dan Lehman...in relation to my reluctance to write a Knot Bio on #1425A Riggers bend: Dan, I'm not sure if you realize how much work goes into researching ...Well, my point was that you have a target that requires all that much work, and spurn one that would be much quicker to do, as its history is pretty well known --to the extent that we're not being deceived, and there isn't something else to pop out of the unknown such as ancient illustrations of the knot.
As we have at best NO inkling of where the zeppelin bend
came from even if we find it simply noted as being
used by the USNavy --i.e., assuming that Collins is
right, where did Rosendahl get the knot?! He surely
didn’t sound like a (assuming the Lee quote is right …)
proud inventor.
It may be that neither Rosendahl nor Collins came up with the knot. The ZR-3 Los Angeles was made by a German company. I could imagine Rosendahl instructing duplication of pre-existing conditions found on the airship and its various rigging.
If it is ever established that Rosendahl couldn’t remember the bend, that circumstance would explain why it made no lasting imprint on him.
Any German-speakers may have better luck tracking down the origin of the bend.
Yes, though if it has that sort of history,
then all the more puzzling is a lack of any
sightings of this, and the then loss of knot
knowledge!?
Going back to Collins’s assertion of the knot
to be used everywhere (even allowing some
soft reading of this --to every end-2-end joint)
and Giles’s questioning the use in the main,
for mooring … :: these are problems (but as
I note, why not then re the latter any objection
from Rosendahl in his supposed note?).
New version uploaded…
VER 0.6 (03 NOV 2017) is uploaded.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
fully amended page 1 - added an ‘anatomy diagram’
fully amended page 2 - citations and history is improved based on new info received.
amended page 3 - ‘A trail of breadcrumbs’ - also added #1062 from ‘knotsaver’, and the ‘false’ zeppelin
pages 4-6 are all a ‘work-in-progress’
I need assistance to progress this paper further…
Mark G
For example, an examination of illustration #582 is remarkable in that it could have been a "blueprint" for tying a zeppelin bend. Xarax first noticed this illustration and brought it to the attention of the IGKT in Jan 2012. Ashley simply named it a "lanyard knot".Uh, no. ABOK #582 has long been recognized as a relative of the Zeppelin Bend (well before 2012) and is often called the Blimp Knot.
reply from roo in relation to #582…
ABOK #582 has long been recognized as a relative of the Zeppelin Bend (well before 2012) and is often called the Blimp Knot.
Happy to amend the paper.
Have you got any references or anything that I can cite?
Same goes for Zeppelin eye knot…do you have any historical info on this eye knot?
MG
Hi Mark,
about the Blimp (please, notice the name!), it should be in a book of G. Budworth…
about the #1062, please notice that the connection of it and the “false” Zeppelin was noticed (I don’t know if for the first time) by Mandeville in KM #18 p.12 and it was in his Alphabend the letter/bend “N” (“the Neat 2c New ( Cf. A(BoK) 1062)”.
Please, say somewhere that the 2 Overhand knots are of different chirality or that they are “unlike-handed” (Mandeville, cited above), whilst the “false” Zeppelin and the Hunter’s comprise a pair of “like-handed” Overhand knots.
I liked the Parallel Bios (the Zeppelin in comparison with the Hunter (sorry I continue to call it in that way))… but you removed the reference to ABoK#551 (= #577 too).
Thanks.
Ciao,
s.
from knotsaver…
Hi Mark, about the Blimp (please, notice the name!), it should be in a book of G. Budworth...
I need references to cite…also hoping roo can help.
I am a bit overwhelmed at the moment and it is taking too much time and energy to be a blood hound. It would ease my pain if interested persons could just give me the citations - with all the info in one place
from knotsaver…
about the #1062, please notice that the connection of it and the "false" Zeppelin was noticed (I don't know if for the first time) by Mandeville in KM #18 p.12 and it was in his Alphabend the letter/bend "N" ("the Neat 2c New ( Cf. A(BoK) 1062)".Okay - will amend paper and cite Mandeville - thank you.
from knotsaver…
Please, say somewhere that the 2 Overhand knots are of different chirality or that they are "unlike-handed" (Mandeville, cited above), whilst the "false" Zeppelin and the Hunter's comprise a pair of "like-handed" Overhand knots.
I am already working on it…am organizing photos tomorrow of the starting base for tying the Zeppelin bend, false Zeppelin bend and #1425A Riggers bend. Will show chirality (handedness) of loops. Thank you for pointing this out, it is interesting and relevant and is necessary for a complete understanding of the Zeppelin bend.
…
I also need details of the background of the Zeppelin eye knot. I know Xarax always points out that if you have tied a bend you by definition have also tied its corresponding eye knot. I have never quite agreed with this position…I think the eye knot version of a bend is a related derivative. For a start - one is an eye knot while the other is an end-to-end joining knot. Loading profile is also different. Hoping that roo can assist - he seems to know a lot about this corresponding eye knot (and it is also featured on his website).
…
As for #1425A Riggers bend - I will agree to write a Knot Bio on this knot only of Dan Lehman agrees to co-author and make a substantial contribution! I feel that I am always doing the lions share of the work and as a result, drawing criticism and attention… I pulled some of the content about #1425A because I am leaving it for a separate paper…
Mark G
Sorry Mark I remembered it but I didn’t remember where…
Here it is, I found it:
G. Budworth, The Complete Book of Decorative Knots, (Reed Consumer Books Limited 1998) p. 34.
It is interesting what Budworth says in the History section:
“The pre-eminent knotting writer Clifford W. Ashley, whose monumental The Ashley Book of Knots is every avid knot tyer’s bible, does not single this knot out either to state to that it is original (so presumably it was already known when he published his book in 1944), or to name it. I call it the Blimp* because it resembles a Zeppelin bend (see The Hamlyn Book of Knots) but is smaller and softer. *Blimp: a light, non rigid aircraft such as a barrage balloon.”
Ciao,
s.
Thanks knotsaver. That may not even be the first time “Blimp Knot” shows up. It can be hard to nail down “firsts” especially in knotting.
Mark, I think you’d like reading Budworth’s works. It’s definitely worth your time.
I’ll note that Percy mis-illustrated (and more?) the so-called
zeppelin knot as the “false” in a book, which might have
pre-dated IGKT.
I also need details of the background of the Zeppelin eye knot. I know Xarax always points out that if you have tied a bend you by definition have also tied its corresponding eye knot. I have never quite agreed with this position...I think the eye knot version of a bend is a related derivative. For a start - one is an eye knot while the other is an end-to-end joining knot. Loading profile is also different. Hoping that [b]roo [/b]can assist - he seems to know a lot about this corresponding eye knot (and it is also featured on his website).Well, this is simply the case if one envisions that, [u]when tying by forming one end's part first and then reeving into this the 2nd end[/u], one will have formed a [i]potential[/i] eye knot if using the 1st one's tail as the "2nd end" --a structure will exist at least when devoid of eye-loading (when who-knows will happen).
(I don’t see this as other than obvious --hardly earth-shaking
insight (any more than “Asher’s, Law of Loop, Hitch, & Bight”).)
As for “reading Budworth’s works,” one must realize that
there are a whole batch of B.-authored books (for a while
it seemed like several-per-annum!), and some are not
really/entirely of his mind --he has both been called in
to substitute where another author went in communicado,
and to have someone finish for him when his health
sidelined him (and publisher had deadlines --goodness,
can’t wait to get yet one more Knots-101 book out to join
the worthless masses!).
reply from roo…
Mark, I think you'd like reading Budworth's works. It's definitely worth your time.
This may be true if I had the following:
time (which is rapidly running out)
money (to buy the books) - followed by the big delay in waiting for shipping/books to arrive by post
which of the myriad Budworth books to purchase?..there’s many - and I would have to sift through a lot of content/material to find what I am looking for (which comes back to time…) I do have one of his books (‘The Complete Book of Knots’) - which is just so so and not very helpful to my cause.
A far better approach is to request assistance from the knotting community and to receive technical feedback with source materials to cite from. This would:
a) save valuable time (I don’t have to go hunting for info that others already have and know about)
b) save unnecessary expenditure of money which is fast dwindling
c) be more efficient use of the networking power of the internet / social media
Hopefully, that all makes sense?
Mark G
For item b, if you have convenient access to library, that may save some cash.
Hi all,
have you ever tied and compared ABoK #1453 and ABoK #584 (=#575)?
please, do it! 
(you could also want to tie and compare the Sheet Bend and Ashley’s stopper )
Ciao,
s.
p.s. I continue to believe that Ashley didn’t know the Zeppelin and/or the Hunter’s Bend but who knows…
from roo (per being helpful and just providing info in good faith)
For item b, if you have convenient access to library, that may save some cash.
Oh dear me…
Hmmm - I guess what you are really saying is…“go do your own digging?”
I didn’t mean it THAT way. Libraries have saved me some cash in the past when I wanted to preview books.
New version uploaded…
VER 0.7 (05 NOV 2017) is uploaded.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
added photo of Charles Rosendahl on page 2
amended page 3 - added new citation ref to Desmond Mandeville and false Zeppelin bend
new content on page 4 - showing 3 different bends and various starting bases (with chirality)
new content on page 5 - advanced a theory of how the Zeppelin works and image of a toggled bend
added content on page 6 (references to #46 overhand knot)
added a tying method to page 10
…
I need assistance to advance this paper further!
Mark G