Changelog:
page 2: Contents page (now separated from page 1 intro)
page 4: Citations…link to Bob Thrun’s claim of being first to publish the Zeppelin bend
page 10: Added content that crossed tails may benefit some knot structures (eg #1425A Rigger bend)
page 11: Citations…added reference to #1053 Butterfly eye knot that it is formed by linking both tails (rather than tail + SPart)
page 13+14: Major rewrite and new content added about symmetry
page 17+18: New content and images for load testing. Also ddded images for Sterling HTP 11mm abseil rope.
page 19-25: Added Appendix section… Copies of ‘Potomac Caver’ newsletter and Giles Camplin response to 1976 Boating magazine article.
…
Big thank you to Dan Lehman for supplying copies of the Potomac Caver newsletter, as well as the Giles Camplin response to Lee and Bob Payne article in Boating magazine.
I dont have the date that Giles Camplin wrote his response…nor do I know which magazine or Knotting Matters issue it appeared in?
Many thanks to ‘knotsaver’ for his work on the symmetry section of the paper… this was a very difficult subject to write (hopefully it is all correct?).
I will be sending copies of this paper to all those who contributed - with some security restrictions removed (eg ability to print), and ‘thankyou’ open doc password removed. The regular paper that is downloadable from the PACI website will remain locked down.
Geoffrey Budworth wrote this in his IGKT short history, Much Ado about Knotting :
| <cites Mandeville’s invention, Paynes’ Boating article>
| Percy Blandford (UK) confirmed that the knot
| continued in use by the US Navy for securing its
| lighter-than-air craft until at least 1962, …
!?
I’ve highlighted two terms that imply some sort
of direct, specific information,
but which might be simply exaggerations of reality.
Perhaps Percy overreached in deduction by combining
the allegation from Paynes/Collins with some history of
airships’ duration of use
(and didn’t actually have some source to “confirm”
the use we question --or even knowledge of the knot!) !?
(Budworth also repeatedly across books refers to the life
of the airship Los Angeles as being in the 1930s,
but that Airships.net site has Rosendahl commanding it
from April '26 .. Oct '28.
I suppose that the curious “… at least until 1962” dating
might indicate an actual source who left the point of such
information --work in the USN?-- at that date and so could
not vouch for facts beyond then!?
I have found a small knots book by Percy published 1965
–late enough to have that “at least 1962” assertion–,
but it lacks any mention of the knot.
CAN OTHERS FIND OTHER P.Blandford KNOTS BOOKS
AND CHECK FOR HIS ZEPPELIN COVERAGE?
(Hmmm, where did I see one in which his illustration
was of the “false” knot?)
In Practical Knots and Ropework (1980) there is no Zeppelin coverage, instead Hunter’s Bend is shown at p. 79 fig. 5-20 , but 5-20D and 5-20E are illustrations of the false Zeppelin (5-20C is wrong), perhaps did you refer to that, Dan?
You can find the book at https://books.google.it/books?id=WUNG8qZWyxQC
There is also an interesting reference in Knotting Matters #58 (Jan 1998) at page 26.
And also an illustration of a ‘bend’ is shown.
This is not in relation to Dan’s enquiry but, it is still of interest…
…and also KM #8 (July 1984) p.22 “Hunting Zeppelins” by Blandford…here there is the same error about the Hunter??? and in a postscript there is some historical notes, it is cited Mandeville…
(by the way in the same KM there is an interesting article by H. Asher “Linked Overhands Knots part II” p.2)
Ciao,
s.
p.s. @Mark, the paper is nice, I have to read it again and i’ll tell you something…however it could be interesting a bibliography at the end
Hi dear all, would some of you try to review the drawings of the Hunter’s Bend by Blandford on page 31 of the Knot Chart in IGKT. Sketches B and C are wrong for tying this bend, it comes out to be a False Hunter’s Bend or something else. I have reported to IGKT, and got no reply. Am I wrong about it ?
Hi siriuso,
you just preceded me!
I was going to add this reference IGKT chart #56 http://www.surreyknots.org.uk/56-hunter-bend.htm
The sketches are for the false Zeppelin not for the Hunter’s but the C is wrong!
It’s strange but it seems that for Blandford the Hunter’s was the false Zeppelin.
Ciao,
s.
p.s. @siriuso “Ciao” is the Italian word for bye
Hi Knotsaver,
I would like to apologize for the mistake I made.
For this bend I name it False Hunter’s Bend because it resembles the Hunter’s Bend, and the HB has 2 loops interlocked, while the FHB has 2 loops unlocked. Also both bends have the collars facing at one side.
I do not think this bend should be named False Zeppelin Bend although they both are with non-interlocked loops. And for the reason that very obviously ZB’s two collars are facing in opposite direction, but the false bend’s are facing at the same side.
A small tucking mistake will lead you to the false bend.
In the case of the ZB and FZB, their tying starts are differed.
–just a wrong side tucking mistake, in how I
tie it (“they’re tying starts” presumes something
not assuredly true).
Which is good time to whip the too-oft’-quoted old
Ashley nonsense “A knot is never nearly correct:
it is either right or hopelessly wrong!” (my recall **)
Egadz, this uttered by Ashley, then echoed by so many
who should well know better. Desmonde Mandeville
even goes through his entire “Trambles” collection of
“nearly (alike)” knots much of which are fine.
(-;
** 2017/11/15 postscript with Ashley’s quote:
"A knot is never "nearly right"; it is either exactly right
or it is hopelessly wrong, one or the other;
there is nothing in between."
I recommend this site for further research; I feel
that we might be getting somewhere, here, even
if by roundabout --i.e., not knot-specific-- ways &
information.
Here’s a good old film of an accident via changed
wind in which handling lines can be seen. (And I
think that it’s for this airship, Macon, that there’s
a photo again showing a line that goes down to
some ring(?) to which MANY short lines are connected
and held by MANY ground handlers.
So, … fertile ground for inspection.
I’ve updated my 2009 posted query re the zeppelin knot
to convey Giles’s information and challenge, to which
I question how Rosendahl could be ignorant of what
transpired under his command --and esp. he who’d
previously been “mooring” officer on the Shenandoah.
And how such a knot could be w/o so-far trace in the
US Navy --how did it appear (if so) and why not remembered!?
At this point of “informations” (<- as some Europeans
have put it), I’m coming to the opinion that somehow
that “Joe Collins” is a, or is spinning a, myth for the
knot invented by him or Bob Payne (who then invented
Joe to play the historical anchor role). Although it’s not
stated expressly that crew were trained at Norfolk --but
that Joe was stationed there, but maybe traveled (cheaper
to send him to Lakehurst than an entire crew to Va.)–,
everything in what I’m reading in Airships.net is of NJ,
not south --just one citing of an airship going to D.C.
and limping back north.
–dl*
MIGHT AS WELL HAVE THE MOST CONFOUNDING INFORMATION
POSTED --the easier to find, somewhere.
[b][Giles Camplin][/b]
So there you have the story. Seemingly, a nice little
personal insight into airship history, and I personally would
have accepted it quite happily if I had not then immediately
read [u]the Footnote that was appended to the article[/u] when it
was reprinted in the [i]Wingfoot Journal[/i].
The Footnote read :
[b][Presumably the Wingfoot Editor (1980)][/b]
Lee Payne of Balboa, Calif., one of the authors, wrote to me
about this article,
[b][Lee Payne][/b]
Admiral Rosendahl wrote to me [Lee Payne]
to say that the Los Angeles crew was trained at
Lakehurst rather than at Norfolk as stated in the article,
and that [b]he had never heard of the Rosendahl bend[/b]
but that
[b][C.Rosendahl!][/b]
it is slightly possible that no one ever told me of it.
In any event I am glad you think so highly of it.
The story was told to me [Lee Payne] by my brother,
who was sailing as second mate aboard the President Madison.
Joe Collins was the helmsman on his watch. The fact remains
that this is an outstanding knot that is not listed in any of the
books on the subject.
Perhaps some of your readers will recognize it.
Yet, to date, none have, that we’re aware of;
nor have we found any residue of the wonderful knot
at the cited places!? (I’ve wondered if perhaps some of
the Wash. D.C.-area cavers who got Bob Thrun’s presentation
of “An Easily Untied Bend” [?] might yet show a bit of
“residue” from that --though not themselves making much
of any further promulgation of it, but yet traces of Bob’s
exposing it could be found?!
This letter was almost his final act, as Adm. Rosendahl
died 1977-05-17; perhaps a “March” issue of Boating
was out in newsstands/etc. in February, as such
dating is commonplace w/periodicals such as this.
[edit :: oops, it’s 1976-Mar vs. 1977-May]
Still, it’s all rather just-in-time turnaround,
with no time to follow up.
[ Not quite so tight, now that I correct the years,
but still pretty close, and beyond our reach, now. ]
Changelog:
page 3: Contents page (added ‘references’)
page 4: amended citation for Giles Camplin article in a ‘Dirigible’ journal
page 23: added content to Giles Camplin article (identifying source)
page 26: new 'References page added
…
Unless something major or significant pops up…this will be the last update for 2017 (although I still need a concise piece of writing from Xarax which summarizes his theory on how the Zeppelin bend works (to fit within the constraints of the text box on page 7).
Thanks to all who helped make this project a reality … and now on to the next knot bio project!
More re historical accounts of airship procedures,
this coming re the Hindenburg tragedy.
[underscoring & italics added by me]
The rigger named Neuhaus in the movie was a fictional character, invented for the film. The fact that he was called away from watching Cell 4 to ?come bear a hand? with a jammed cable does draw a slight parallel between him and Hans Freund, who was a rigger on the Hindenburg?s actual last flight.
During the Hindenburg?s final landing approach, Freund was standing at the aft end of the keel walkway, hauling a steel mooring cable up from its storage place in the lower fin so that he could lower it to the landing crew. The manila ?hauling-up? line he was using to hoist the cable jammed between a pair of bracing wires and Freund called to one of the crewmen in the lower fin to help him pull the rope clear. This was perhaps a minute or two before the fire broke out.
"CER" graduated the Naval Academy in the Class of 1914 and served in various seagoing assignments until he was accepted for Lighter-than-Air (LTA) training at NAS Lakehurst in 1923. Assigned to duty on the USS SHENANDOAH (ZR-1) Lieutenant Rosendahl made most of the flights of the Navy's pioneering large rigid airship; promoted to Lieutenant Commander and serving as Navigator, he free-ballooned the derelict nose section of the wrecked airship to a safe landing and, as Senior Surviving Officer, he was catapulted to national prominence as an outspoken advocate for Lighter-Than-Air.
Shortly thereafter, in 1926, Rosendahl was given command of the USS LOS ANGELES(ZR3) which had been delivered from Germany to the US Navy in 1924. Morale was low, funding was chronically short, and airships were held in suspicion by a skeptical Congress, other branches of the Navy, and the general public, but Rosendahl’s unshakable faith and determination kept the LOS ANGELES flying and in the public eye.
In 1928, the AKRON and MACON were ordered from Goodyear-Zeppelin in Ohio; Rosendahl made the first transatlantic flight of the German GRAF ZEPPELIN that year and was also aboard for her round-the-world trip in the summer of 1929. Also around this time, Rosendahl was detached from the LOS ANGELES and given the title “Commander, Rigid Airship Training and Experimental Squadron, Lakehurst NJ.”
In command of the new AKRON when she took to the air in September, 1931, Rosendahl flew her for nine months (including a much-publicized trip to the West Coast and back). He was assigned to Sea Duty when the AKRON was lost in April, 1933; a year later,with the rank of full Commander, he returned as Commanding Officer, NAS Lakehurst, a position he held for four years.
Rosendahl was in command of the Lakehurst Naval Air Station during all the HINDENBURG’s 1936 flights and he was considered a key expert witness when the giant Zeppelin burned while mooring on May 6, 1937.
In between subsequent tours of sea duty, Rosendahl was instrumental in helping develop the Navy’s non-rigid airship (blimp) anti-submarine warfare arm before and after the outbreak of World War Two. 1942 saw Captain Rosendahl in command of the heavy cruiser USS MINNEAPOLIS, where he saw heavy action at the Battle of Tassaffronga (Guadalcanal) and was decorated for bravery and superb seamanship. At one point, he badly injured his back while crawling through a hole in a bulkhead to assess damage; the back trouble was serious enough for him to be “ordered ashore” and he returned to NAS Lakehurst in early 1943 with the rank of Rear Admiral and the title of “Chief of Airship Training and Experimentation.” Rosendahl retired as a Vice Admiral on November 1, 1946.
So, just to say that I’ve found no perspective on this
history that reads well start-to-finish.
Consider Roo’s reasonable point that …
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.
1) I might see if some German knotter can pursue this.
But were this so --and it’s a good thought, but …–,
why didn’t CER just say THIS --and not that he’d never
heard of the knot?!
OTOH, why didn’t CER react against the Collins assertion
that CER had required ANYthing?!
Now, why didn’t Collins, who remarked at finding no
hint of the knot anywhere in his worldwide sailing & reading,
remark at what extent the fabled knot could be found --or
why NOT?!-- in the very USNavy where it supposedly
surfaced to his grand acclaim (and CER’s, per him)?!
Btw, is it reasonable that CER could so easily disclaim
awareness of what his subordinates were doing, when HE
is in charge … !? (Current military minds might be able
to shed some opinion on this.)
I must admit that I find Collins’s quoted testimony
–yeah, we should keep in mind that this comes via Bob P.–
somewhat odd sounding were he making things up,
to build a legend for his knot.
Some of the given detail could be researched for making
the article, by the Paynes; but the part re issues concerning
USN acceptance of airships rings true.
. . .
Again, I find it hard to sustain any opinion on this
through all of what little we’ve seen.
.:. In any case, I suppose we should keep looking
for traces in USN records, esp. of Lakehurst airships base.
???
The Akron slowly descended through thick fog until it reached clear skies at 1,200 feet. But the morning sun was expanding the helium, making the ship too buoyant. The captain, Lt. Cmdr. [b]Charles Rosendahl[/b], ordered the propellers turned skyward to push the airship closer to the ground.
At 11 a.m., the 400-foot docking ropes were dropped to the ground between two landing crews of sailors. Each man had to grab a trail rope and attach it to ?spiders,? fixed ground lines with wooden toggles. A separate mooring cable dropped from the nose of the Akron, which was attached the mooring mast. A winch wound the mooring cable, pulling the airship down.
I’m not sure what “cable” means --steel or fibre rope.
The account continues with the sad fatality of some
hangers-on --who eventually couldn’t–, and a harrowing
story of the 3rd, who did.
Anyway, looking at this, I still don’t see that one would be
tying on another rope --the landing action is something
anticipated with fully adequate gear. What seems to be
attached are the sets of man-ropes via toggles (and which
those two unfortunate men were manning).
Egadz, it gets better : close-up (relative) of the survivor
and all the toggles gear (but no filming of the supposed
on-board sailor who was lowered to tie some line to help
stabilize the dangling sailor and by which he was winched
up, later?!) !! www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsGoRyheOkY
It is interesting to note that both the zeppelin & hunter’s bends
came to their more broad popularity at about the same time,
circa 1977. The latter has an older published-in-book date,
but the influence of that book seems not much better than
that of Bob Thrun’s Potomac Caver newletter article re the former,
in 1966!
Currently, to my awareness, it looks as though Geoffrey Budworth’s [u]The Knot Book (1983) might be what crossed the former knot into
more popular knowledge --into books (from 2 magazines and 1
obscure newsletter).
My reading of this most interesting bit of history
from the pen of CERosendahl himself (!) is that
mooring principally involved lines called “WIRES”
–which I do not see as anything remotely knottable
(whereas “cable” leaves one wondering).
And it seems by this reading, at least, the little knotting
was involved in standard mooring operations; connectors
of a mechanical kind were used, for the main wires.
–dl*
[
[b]Popular Science Monthly, March 1930, p.40ff,
"Flying with an Airship Captain"
The Veteran Commander of Navy Dirigibles Tells
of his Experiences in Piloting the Los Angeles
by Lieutenant Commander Charles E. Rosendahl [/b]]
.
.
.
“In an attempt to tie to the mooring mast,
rough winds had jerked the ship about so violently
that a nine-sixteenth mooring cable snapped just
in time to save the framework of the ship from damage.”
.
.
.
" ‘Stand by for Up Ship’ ropes are cast off. "
.
.
.
[pp.159-60]
"The Los Angeles provides an impromptu fireworks display
when it lands at a mooring mast. She carries a Very light pistol,
as possible use as a distress signal, but principally used in the
mooring maneuver. When the main cable is dropped we fire a white star.
Dropping the starboard yaw wire is accompanied by a green star.
And the port yaw wire by a red one.
This calls attention to the dropping of the wires, which may be
difficult to see, particularly at night.
The ground crew respond with the same lights as they couple
each wire to the corresponding ground wire. The Very lights
are used both day and night, and the brilliant colored balls are
most easily seen in broad daylight.
[cf (long URLink) ]
Popular Science
Popular Science gives our readers the information and tools to improve their technology and their world. The core belief that Popular Science and our readers share: The future is going to be better, and science and technology are the driving forces that will help make it better.
I am not knowledgeable enough that I can give constructive feedback, but here’s my comment anyway: I’m stunned by admiration. Your “Biography” of the Zeppelin knot is most thorough and exhaustive, and what I especially liked about it is that even though you don’t shy away from giving much technical detail, you also make it accessible to a layman by explaining all the technical details. Great job!
