Knot Bio: Zeppelin bend

Knotting Concepts & Explorations
81

Hi smirnov_wasilii,
your tying method is nice!
You are a magician too! :wink:
I prefer other eyes, but I like your tying method!
Thanks for sharing it.
Ciao,
s.

82

smirnov_wasilii

your method of tying a zepplin loop is fantastic, thanks for sharing

andy

83

@ Mark,

Just found this wonderful bio. I love the history.

Of course, as you would expect I disagree with your structural and functional analysis, but apart from that, a truly excellent story.

Derek

84

Derek, you are welcome to disagree as much as you like.

And of course, you are welcome to tender your own theory of how a Zeppelin end-to-end joining knot functions.
EDIT: In fact, you are most welcome to have your theoretical analysis inserted into the paper - and be given credit for any contribution you choose to make.

I am thinking about an update… but at the moment, I am writing an update/revision to my ‘Analysis of Bowlines’ paper. I have many new images and a rich source of ideas to inject into that paper.

85

I have uploaded a new and revised version of the Zeppelin bend paper.
VER 1.2 (15 MAY 2019) is uploaded.

Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table).

Added new images.
Added new content.
Added a conclusion.

Comments / feedback are always welcome!

Happy knotting to all :slight_smile:

Mark G

86

Great project, great work.
Thank you Mark!

SS

87

[hoping not to be timed-out mis-composition (lost) this time!]

Just some quick remarks.

I’d try to soften the lawyer-debate aspect of history
with some notes:

  1. Odd that the alleged Joe Collins made no enquiries <–[edit “no” vice “on”]
    of his old place of skilled work (USNavy) about how
    his favorite knot was doing!?
    [Also that he didn’t return from his edifying time
    w/Cmd. Rosendahl to promote his (Joe’s) admired knot
    to his subsequent marlinespike-seamanship students, et alia. <–added]

  2. Odd irrespective of any Joe Collins that USNavy
    (or anywherElse) has NO HINT OF THE KNOT!?

((Recall that the Practical Boating article about a Speir
knot does find presence --though slightly varied knot!?–
in USArmy Field/Tech. manuals. ))

  1. No hint from Joe about how Rosendahl came to know
    and then favor / believe-in this knot, which he allegedly
    valued for being best for his beloved airships!? (I guess
    it makes sense to follow THIS point w/#2, that not only
    was no source given, but none shows up today.)

  2. Bob Thrun’s discovery is pub’d and fact. So, too,
    the Paynes’ article, but later dated --and COULD have
    come from Bob in roundabout way, but I don’t think so.

–dl*

88

I have added some new content…

VER 1.2a (04 June 2019) is uploaded.

Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table).

Changelog:
Added new content about using ropes of different diameters.
Added new content about the false Zeppelin bend.

That wraps up my creative work on this paper for a while…

Comments / feedback are always welcome!

Happy knotting to all :slight_smile:

Mark G

89

I have added some new content…

VER 1.3 (10June 2019) is uploaded.

Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table).

Changelog:
Page 14: Now showing all 4 corresponding Zeppelin eye (loop) knots
Page 15: Now showing all 4 corresponding eye knots from #1053 derived Butterfly bend
Page 16: Added other additional corresponding eye knots

Posited that #1053 Butterfly formed by linking the 2 tails from corresponding Butterfly bend is perhaps the only TIB knot formed this way? (ie from 2 interlinked overhand knots).
That is, when creating a corresponding eye knot from a ‘bend’ by linking the 2 tails - it appears that only #1053 Butterfly is TIB (from inter-linked overhand knots).
This needs to be verified.

Comments / feedback are always welcome!

Happy knotting to all :slight_smile:

Mark G

90

Notes on latest version.

p.12 of 32, l00ks like you got careless on your
“tied with bights” variation : => Asymmetric
–see the non-mirror’d SParts (both are left of tails)!

If you’re doing such a thing,
then the eye<->joint corresponding knot I’ve
presented fits in, happily.

Posited that #1053 Butterfly formed by linking the 2 tails from corresponding Butterfly bend is perhaps the only TIB knot formed this way?
How quickly you forget about (nearby of your papers) the [i]offset water knot[/i] --which produces the most often Found-In-The-Wild mid-line eye knot. (But you might want to examine other in-line eye knots, such as the [i]fig.8[/i] and so on.)

To my mind, though, you reach out of bounds
in claiming some of these corresponding knots
to be so for some particular end-2-end joint :
no, not when that knot’s SParts are not one or
the other the SPart of the correspondent --then,
its’some other joint (one w/diff. SParts). You
are, in my thinking, going “same” at the tangle
not knot level.

p.21, top table of break-test results.
Isn’t it puzzling that there is such difference
between some of these results!? It’s about
a 9%-pt stepping on that for the bowline,
and then some oddity in the fig.8
results, too --where one can question what
orientation (and any setting) was made!?
(20 & 14 %pt.s for the later two testings
between eye & joint ! --vs. nil of 1st.)
((Btw, “Rhino…” sounds like CMC Rope Rescue
data, which (Ref. Man.) DO have butterfly
results. (Interestingly, pulled purely end-2-end,
it does little better than the fig.8, for them.)
))

p.22 (of 32). Oh, my, that “toggle axis” … :-\ ::slight_smile:
Bit much of X. coming through here,
but in any case, one can (also) see that
–and esp. where the material deforms more,
or wasn’t dressed & set snugly–
the SParts can mimic the bowline’s nipping turn.
(YMMV.)

–dl*

91
How quickly you forget about (nearby of your papers) the offset water knot --which produces the most often Found-In-The-Wild mid-line eye knot. (But you might want to examine other in-line eye knots, such as the fig.8 and so on.)

You should have hit your refresh button before jumping the gun!
If you read more carefully, I stated ‘of this type’ - meaning of the type formed from inter-linked overhand knots.
To clarify that remark - I then amended the paper to include words to that effect the next day after uploading.

Anyhow, thats the way the paper reads. Have another look to check this for yourself.

…

l00ks like you got careless on your "tied with bights" variation
As for the alleged 'carelessness' in tying the Zeppelin bend 'with bights' - it doesn't appear to make any difference as to precisely how the tail segments lie with respect to the SParts. What matters is that you begin with 2 superposed bights with opposite chirality. The alleged 'carelessness' lies in the eye of the beholder.
p.22 (of 32). Oh, my, that "toggle axis" ... :-\ ::) Bit much of X. coming through here, but in any case, one can (also) see that --and esp. where the material deforms more, or wasn't dressed & set snugly-- the SParts can mimic the bowline's nipping turn. (YMMV.)

Jumping the gun again…Xarax theory is based on the principle of a hinge - about which each ‘half’ of the Zeppelin bend pivots.
I substituted ‘toggle-axis’ for ‘hinge’ - but the principle is essentially the same.
The tails are crushed together and the SParts pivot about them. Because the SParts are not in direct alignment with respect to each other, there is a slant - which you can see in my photo.
The blue rope is displaced to the right, and the white rope is displaced to the left. When force is applied, it causes the ‘toggle-axis’ to slant.

I don’t believe there is any ‘mimicking’ of the Bowlines ‘nipping loop’. The Zeppelin bend functions differently.
Obviously, your alleged mimicking of a ‘nipping loop’ cannot be so because both ends would need to be loaded (which they aren’t).
A nipping loop is loaded at both ends.
For example, in #1431 Sheet bend there is no nipping loop (because it isn’t loaded at both ends).

92

Well, … a puzzle to look at, sometime, maybe.
FYI, one can tie a variety --all?-- such knots with
twin eyes TIB !
(Or so I’m thinking, having done z., #1452, & #1408.)

The practical point of twin eyes --i.e., eyes to be used
together as one, not separately-- is to preserve knot
integrity, avoiding the eye leg leading to an unloaded
SPart --of a mid-line eye knot, i.e.-- pulling that strand
tight, as the twin eye leading to the loaded SPart
will hold the form.

As for the alleged 'carelessness' in tying the Zeppelin bend 'with bights' --it doesn't appear to make any difference as to precisely how the tail segments lie with respect to the SParts. What matters is that you begin with 2 superposed bights with opposite chirality. The alleged 'carelessness' lies in the eye of the beholder.
... whose artistic sensibilities might be ruffled ... ! :P
p.22 (of 32). >>> Oh, my, that "toggle axis" ... :-\ ::)

…
I don’t believe there is any ‘mimicking’ of the Bowlines ‘nipping loop’.
…


Eh, in the open geometry indicated, that turn gets
to looking rather roundish like the bowline’s; and one
can end up w/similar knots if starting with the goal
of having a bowlinesque such turn and then building
out the knot (and then realizing, “Oh, this is (like) the
zeppelin knot!”.

–dl*