Need assistance with these Eye knots (History)

[agent_smith]

I am gathering momentum to undertake another round of work on my Bowlines paper.

There are some ‘connective Eye knots’ that I want to include - for comparison and interest (not all are necessarily Bowlines). The paper will be expanded to include details about knot terminology (which in my personal view is a problematic area) and also to include other types of connective eye knots (eg those based on the SmitHunter Rosendahl/Zeppelin structures). There will be a lot of side-by-side comparison and discussion comparing pros/cons of each knot.

I will be inviting interested members of the IGKT to contribute - but I want to keep things positive - and I want to stay focused on the prize - which is to develop the definitive paper on connective eye knots used in mission critical applications (eg rescue, climbing, caving, etc). To that end, there will also be discussion on Figure 8 connective eye knots (eg high efficiency Vs lower efficiency structures).

I dont have huge amounts of time - I am busy with work.

I want to get the history details correct so am creating this initial post to scope for detailed information (who originally tied it, first known application, when it was discovered, technical details about structure, etc).

Notes:

1. I deliberately used the term ‘connective eye knot’ because the obvious intention of an eye knot is to form a connection to something (eg to a rock climbers harness or to a carabiner). The eye knot term is similar to an eye bolt - in that something connects to the eye of the bolt. Another way to look at this is to think of the purpose of an eye bolt. Why do people purchase and use eye bolts? Why do climbers and rescuers tie eye knots? The eye forms a connection to something…

2. The naming of the knots in the photos are not set in stone - they are just names I plucked from thin air in a hurry - the names can be changed (so don’t get hung up on the names!).

3. The photos are shown with variations of where the tail is fed in relation to SPart. I find that the structure seems to be more secure when the tail is fed between the SPart and bight component. It needs to be drawn up and cinched tight - but once done, it appears to be secure (Note: I have not tested the stability and security of this form extensively - so it should not be relied upon as a tie-in eye knot for life support applications… unless of course you perform your own tests and arrive at your own conclusions…).

Mark Gommers

---

[agent_smith]

A few more connective eye knots for your viewing pleasure.

Note that all knots presented for inclusion in the paper must have a plain white/transparent background.

These eye knots are from the so-called ‘SmitHunter’ (aka Riggers bend) family of interlocked overhand knots. They are of interest to me for inclusion in the paper.

I need historic details please…

Mark Gommers

---

[agent_smith]

And a few more eye knots, this time based on the Rosendahl/Zeppelin.

Regardless of opinions, I want to include them because they have generated heated discussion in the past

Need history details please…

Mark Gommers

---

[system]

AS can you say what you mean by connective? I’m not trying to spark some debate, I just don’t know. Thanks.

[xarax]

There are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of possible end-to-end knots ( bends ) : the most easy thing in practical knotting, is to tie a new bend ! Each of them “corresponds” to two eyeknots, and, if we take into account their “reversed” knots, to four.
Most of the bends are symmetric : however, there is no structural advantage to use a symmetric bend as a base of an eyeknot, because, contrary to the end-to-end knots, eyeknots are asymmetrically loaded : the one of their four limbs is loaded with 100% of the total load, the other two with 50% and the last one is unloaded. The only advantage is that it is more easy to inspect a symmetric eyeknot ( “symmetric”, regarding the paths of the two parts of the Standing Part, the part [i]before/i the eye, and the part [i]after/i the eye ) : generally, it is more easy to distinguish a flaw in a symmetric pattern, than in an asymmetric amorphous shape.
Therefore, the already huge number of all possible eyeknots gets even bigger, because the one link of the base end-to-end knot may belong to one bend, and the other to another ! Chaos !
Is there a way out of this mess ? I believe there is, and that it is dictated by an additional property we should demand from our eyeknots, to be easily “un-knotted”. And this “easily” depends on two things :

1. The very well known, but not very well understood issue of the PET eyeknots. A PET eyeknot is an eyeknot which can be un-knotted in just one stage - so, the very moment its Standing Part after (post) the eye is untangled / un-knotted, and its eye “opens up” and it is released from the anchor or from the object it encircles ( so, its parent line is not attached to the anchor or to the object any more, and it is free to be dragged away ) there remains no 'relic" knot still tied on the Standing Part before the eye, which should be untied in a second stage ( IF there is enough time to be untied at all, because, after the release of the eye and the detachment of the eyeknot from the anchor/object, the main line may start to slip away, and it may be too difficult to untie a knot while the line on which it is tied is not stationary ! )

2. When the one or both links of the end-to-end knot which is turned into an eyeknot is a “closed” knot, the eyeknot itself may become too tightly clinched around itself after heavy loading, and its untying may become difficult. By the tem “closed knot” ( which I admit that it is not as precise as I would had wished…) I denote a knot which is not topologically equivalent to the unknot ( the overhand knot and the fig.8 knot are the simpler such “closed” knots ), and which “work” as a tensile forces accumulator, as a ratchet device, storing any induced tension and “locking” it within its core. This is NOT a theoretical problem ! I have seen it in practice, in many eyeknots I have tied and tried - and what now surprizes me are some rare cases where I can untie easily some eyeknots that use “closed knots” on the Standing Part after the eye ( which is tensioned by the 50%, only, of the total load ), or even, much less often, on the Standing Part before the eye ( which is tensioned by the 100% of the total load ). ( My objection to the so-called “Zeppelin loop” is that, while in the genuine Zeppelin-like knot, the Zeppelin bend, the overhand knot is not clinching around itself, and so the Zeppelin bend can be untied most easily, in the “Zeppelin loop” the one overhand knot is loaded by both ends, and so it becomes too tight. In fact, it becomes so tight, that sometimes it does not allow the other overhand knot to close at all, and we get a knot where a large part of it is not utilized, i.e. it remains redundant ! )

That is why I do not like eyeknots with overhand knots of fig.8 knots tied on the Standing Part before or after the eye - unless one TESTS them, and persuades me that they will remain easily untiable, even after heavy loading.
One may argue that in climbing/rescue situations, the loading never gets heavy enough - but, personally, I am interested on knots as knots, independently of the particular application which they may serve. In rigging, construction, transportation, mooring, etc., the loads get very heavy very often - and sometimes they become heavier than expected / predicted - while the need for an easy and quick untying is always there…

P.S. I am not saying that the PET-2 condition is sufficient, to generate an easily un-tiable eyeknot - I am only saying that it seems it is necessary, in most cases. It may well be the case that PET-2 eyeknots, like the beautiful, symmetric Tweedledee and Diamond ( ABoK#787) loops, will become also not easily untiable after heavy loading - because, although in those loops the topology of the knots tied on the Standing Part before and after the eye are topologically equivalent to the unknot, their geometry, with all those segments weaved around a central area, seems not “open” enough, and prone to a tight “closing” around itself.

[agent_smith]

Xarax, please have a look at the third eye knot in my first post (above). I think this is your creation - is this correct?
If yes, what did you name it as? I need discovery date and technical details (eg intended application, why it may or may not be preferable to other eye knots…etc).

If you can help me identify historic details of each eye knot - I would be most grateful.

Is roo the creator/discoverer of the Zeppelin/Rosendahl Eye knot?

Also, I need photos of some of your other Bowline creations - must be high quality photos with plain white or transparent backgrounds. Note the looser structure I have used in the photos - to give people a better chance of understanding and perhaps tying the eye knot for themselves…

And Xarax, re the content in your post…can I quote you directly word-for-word in my Bowline paper? Or do you need to edit/modify your content?

Mark Gommers

[xarax]

I wish to say it emphatically once again : if one just turns a known end-to-end knot into an eyeknot, just by joining the Tail End of the one link to the Standing End or the Tail End of the other, he DOES NOT CREATE ANYTHING, for KnotGod s sake ! That is my opinion, but, as I believe that such simple knots ( as all the practical knots should be ) are discovered, and not invented, I do not pay much attention to amusing “creation” claims…
Sometimes we are surprized, indeed, when one well known knot is turned into an eyeknot, but this does not mean that it came out of the blue ! It means only that we had not thought about this elementary thing, we had not expected it, but that was just our fault, it is no proof that whoever had done it, had “created” any-thing out of no-thing ! When the bend exists, the corresponding loop is just a straightforward implementation of the simplest possible idea, that a bend has four ends, and a loop two, so when you join two un-joined ends of a bend, you “create” a loop ! We should be grateful that that real, genuine creations are not of that sort !
So, cherchez the bend : first the bend, then the loop. If the bend exists, the corresponding loop is not a “creation”, but just the outcome of the arithmetic operation 4 - 2 = 2 ! If the bend does not exist, and if it is proved to be a good, stable and secure bend, then one may argue that we have a discovery of a “new” bend - the corresponding loop is just an implementation of this new bend. The most interesting case, where we can claim that we do have a discovery, indeed, worth the name, is when the core “bend” is not a stable or secure knot, when it is loaded qua bend, but the corresponding eyeknot is.
Personally, I had tied only ONE interesting bowline ( the Ampersand TIB bowline )(1) and I had just implemented the “haltering the collar” method of Ashley to tie two more, based on the Girth and the Clove hitches ( the Clove TIB bowline, and the Girth TIB bowline )(2)(3).
Why is this so ? Am I so lazy ? Yes, I am :), but the main reason is that I have added more necessary conditions in what we should expect from an end-of-line loop - and the more the conditions we add, the fewer the knots which do satisfy them. Besides the PET-2 condition ( whose practical value, regarding the easiness of untiability, I had tried to explain in my previous post ), I have also added the TIB condition - and, besides those, I have also excluded all end-of-line PET-2 and TIB loops which have a “lower” collar around their eyelegs, which may become a problem in the case of ring loading. Last but not least, I have excluded TIB loops which I do not know how to tie in-the-bight easily and quickly… That is why I have nothing more to offer.
( My camera is at its last gasp, so, unfortunately, and until I buy a new one, I can not take pictures of a decent quality. )
( It would be good if we could offer pictures of the loose/exploded AND of the tight knots… And it would be great if we could offer interactive 3D virtual models, which the reader can rotate, zoom, change the colour of some segments, etc - which is now possible with the many cheap commercial CAD programs around ).
( The whatever “content” of my posts is not patented ! Of course you can use anything you wish, although I do not believe I have written anything you did not know - but you should re-write it in good, plain English, because I have seen that most people find my “language” hard to decipher, and incomprehensible .)

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4877.0
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4695.msg31708#msg31708
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4695.msg32103#msg32103

P.S. The knot shown in the third picture of the first post was tied by Alan Lee, who is a great master of practical knots of all kinds, and had tied dozens of dozens of new, secure and easy to untie end-of-line loops. See the attached pictures, for two of them, with clear, simply shaped knots tied on the Standing Part before and after the eye.

---

[agent_smith]

The knot shown in the third picture of the first post was tied by Alan Lee, who is a great master of practical knots of all kinds, and had tied dozens of dozens of new, secure and easy to untie end-of-line loops. See the attached pictures, for two of them, with clear, simply shaped knots tied on the Standing Part before and after the eye.

Thank you. I want to acknowledge the discoveries and good work of others - its as simple as that Xarax. If nobody makes a claim or I receive zero info despite requests - I will indicate them as ‘unknown history’.

As I stated previously Xarax, I am short on time and resources and I am seeking assistance from interested IGKT members - I cant do this on my own and I wont write other peoples contributions for them. I need copy to add to the Bowlines paper - content that is authored by others.

I understand your point re end-to-end joining knots re-imagined as Eye knots - be that as it may, they are a different structure in my opinion (eg your much loved/hated Zeppelin eye knot) and they are loaded differently. Obviously, they take the form of an Eye knot - and not as a strict end-to-end joining knot.

[system]

To some large extent I actually agree with xarax on this. Any knot tangle between two rope segments has 4 eye loops and 4 bends that are possible* , and once we know one exists, we know they all exist. (And I also said this upon mobius’s discovery of the mobius loop and in another post just a couple of hours ago).

HOWEVER, credit is not just about discovery of new things; it is also about promoting ideas. There seems to be an insistence around here on trying to pigeon hole everything into nice square boxes, when we have this very flexible system of linking words together into sentences.

Why not just say, “Roo was the first person known to have given significant consideration to the Zeppelin knot structure for use as an eye loop”

As I recall Xarax supported the naming of the Mobius loop as such and I don’t see how that is a different situation than this one other than that Xarax maybe likes one loop and not the other. In this case it’s not even being called the Roo loop. It’s just matter of mentioning people for what ideas and work they have contributed. This is usually a strategy that can only produce positive human effects, if one is interested in such things, and one should be even if they are so callous has to have no other reason than that positive human effects feedback into positive advances.

If soemone was the first to notice that a particular variation is useful in a way that becomes clearly recognized, it never hurts to point that out too. In this case there is disagreement on that aspect, but then one doesn’t need to go into that to give roo credit. Even consideration of ultimately bad or mediocre ideas furthers knowledge, and that is a big and necessary part of the process of developing knowledge.

*This is meant to be a topological counting only, and it is reduced – at least topologically – if there are symmetries, ex: the ABL is topologically identical to its reversed form, and thus one can be redressed into the other.

[agent_smith]

I will give credit where credit is due. I prefer to acknowledge the efforts/discoveries of others. That is what i have done previously and that is how it will continue. I had several excellent contributors with the Bowlines paper previously and I acknowledged them.

I was worried that this thread would get off topic - and it has. If there is such a creation as a ‘Lehman 8’ I’ll give credit to Dan Lehman and write up a little history about it to acknowledge has good work. If there is a ‘Lee’s locked bowline’ - I’ll give acknowledgement to Alan Lee. If there is an ‘Ampersand Bowline’ - I will give credit to its creator (if he wants me to).

I think I might correspond with individuals on a private basis to avoid philosophizing on what I believe are altruistic values.

If any IGKT members would like to assist on the further development of the Bowlines paper - just send me a personal message. I will also send out a few invites to past contributors to see if they would like to continue their involvement.

Thats pretty much it from me on this thread…

Mark

Edited…typos fixed.

[system]

Sorry if my words were too long or off topic AS. I was actually agreeing with you (by the second paragraph), just with the added point that credit doesn’t have to be pigeon holed into who “DISCOVERED” “things”.

[xarax]

@agent_smith post:8

I will indicate them as ‘unknown history’.

THAT is the case with most, if not all of the simple knots ! We just do not know their history… but in the particular case of bends turned into loops, I believe we should not care ! There is NOTHING worth mentioning there. My advice is to skip it, unless the bend itself, on which the loop is “based”, was not known at the time the loop was presented for the first time.
( I have tied ALL the loops corresponding to the bends I have learned from Ashley and Miles, and some other I had seen and tied here and there. Does this means that I have created any-thing ? Noope ! No-thing at all. I have just connected two dots, to make the 4 limbs two, and turn the bend into the corresponding loop.)

@agent_smith post:8

they are a different structure in my opinion… and they are loaded differently.

I agree, of course ! But the fact that they become different structures, does not make their tying a “creation” !
Anybody can load existing knots differently, so they become transfigured/deformed, and altogether different structures than they initially were - does this makes him a "creator " ? Noope- it needs something more to really “discover” a knot, than just join two ends of a known bend together…

[xarax]

@agent_smith post:10

to avoid philosophizing

As it happens too often ( you have been warned ! ) , I was COMPLETELLY misunderstood by you - and I believe that you had not even suspected how much !
I was NOT talking about the due credit of any of the knots you had mentioned !
I was talking ONLY about the KNOWN BENDS TURNED INTO LOOPS !
Read my lips :
KNOWN BENDS TURNED INTO LOOPS !

Oh, my KnotGod ! I wonder, should I start to write in Ancient Greek or Latin…

[system]

A.S. I’m sorry for the all words you’re enduring, but I will just say that this is a VERY important issue that cannot be brushed off, not even with well meaning principles and a stiff upper lip, and it is NEVER off topic.

Giving credit where credit is due is not enough. One must also give the RIGHT credit when building such a directory/compilation of knowledge. Controversy and ill feelings are usually easiest to avoid, and more information conveyed anyway if specific words are used instead of oversimplified labels.

I just found that a variation of the ABOK 1021 loop works as a bend. Ashley did not mention that it was end-to-end loadable so there is a discovery here of some kind by someone. A description by Knot_for_U described something like 1021 as and end-to-end loadable knot. We could say that’s the same as discovering the bend. He however made a vague description that might have referred to 1021 OR to my variation, or to some other variations even. If “my” “bend” were to become famous I would probably say “A variation of ABOK 1021: Tex was first to explicitly describe this variation and to note its (superior) end-to-end loading and usefulness as a bend.”

Or, easier yet (See discussion by Tex at igkt: link)

[Luca]

Hi Mark,

Regard to the third loop in your first post:the geometry of the knot’s nub is by Alan Lee(Lee Zep B Bowline):

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.msg23814#msg23814

The idea of the exchange of the roles ends/legs of the loop is by Constant Xarax(Lee Zep C Bowline,ie the third loop in your post)

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.msg23850#msg23850

                                                                                                                        Bye!(and good work with your paper(s)!)

[agent_smith]

Thank you Obi Wan Luca

Thats the type of response I was looking for.

I’ll be in touch soon…

Mark

[Dan_Lehman]

@agent_smith post:1

I am gathering momentum to undertake another round of work on my Bowlines paper.

Still waiting to gather momentum for any more sewing
colored threads into test ropes? ;D

knot terminology (which in my personal view is a problematic area)

Which is so [u]in any [i]sane[/i] view ...[/u] !! >:(

based on the SmitHunter Rosendahl/Zeppelin structures).

Re the former, I'll press for *my* (I think that Asher dismissed it as insignificant, so boo on him!) version in which the tails *embrace* on their exit(s) --it should be demonstrably easier to untie.

And re the latter, I now accept the hearsay that Rosendahl
disavowed knowledge of the so-named knot, and am thus
happy to not link him to it.

1. I deliberately used the term 'connective eye knot' because the obvious intention of an eye knot is to form a connection to something (eg to a rock climbers harness or to a carabiner).

Then (to follow on Tex's implication in which I concur) it's obviously redundant/superfluous ("connective", i.e.)! (Perhaps one can bring up the sort-of eyeknots comprised in an etrier as "aconnective"?! ) (And those that fail ... "disconnective"! ;D )

3. The first 2 photos are shown with incorrect tying - the tail should have passed between the Spart and the bight component before exiting out of the nipping turn. I'll upload correct images later today...

Is that done then, and this note confusing? (I'm confused, anyway.)

Also, I ‘SPart’ or sometimes ‘S.Part’ --both typings
re case are to signal the initials of the contracted
source term, “Standing Part”; I find “Spart” too
distant for my consumption.

–dl*

[system]

Well, DL, it was an honest question not meant to imply anything, and yet it does seem that it correctly implied that I didn’t understand what meaning the word was meant to add. I guessed it could be some insider lingo. So yes, redundant words do add confusion sometimes.

[agent_smith]

I now accept the hearsay that Rosendahl disavowed knowledge of the so-named knot, and am thus happy to not link him to it.

Dan Lehman quote

On what basis do you now accept that the 1980 Lee and Bob Paine article was hearsay (re Joe Collins story)? And if so, why persist with the name ‘Zeppelin’. Could it be perhaps that Charles Rosendahl is associated with the ‘Zeppelin’ end-to-end joining knot simply because he was the officer in charge - and by default - he is responsible?

Alan Lee / Xarax inspired creation re-uploaded with side-by-side comparison to ‘Zeppelin’ eye knot.

Dan can you also supply a clear photo of this description…its late at night and I have just finished a beer - and this is all Greek to me.

I've got a photo (which I'll get around to later) of sketches of a set of "zeppelin loop knots" including the one just recalled. But, here's a tying method which should get you the knot verbally:

• begin tying the Z loop as you would normally do (I’m presuming
  that you begin by tying an Overhand in the mainline and then
  bring the tail back into this --after sizing the eye-- as though
  it were a 2nd end joining the first),

• but at the point of just finishing/forming the Overhand
  component in the mainline, do so with a bight (which in direct
  words is “tie a Slip-knot”), and see yourself at this very point

• as tying the finishing/end’s Overhand component in reverse
  (and so you’ll be pulling the Slip-knot’s bight around and out and
  it becomes the eye; you are left with but one tail, that of the
  Slip-knot).

And in this way you have exactly the Zeppelin mechanics
– that “69” / “bq”/“pd” orientation of opposing feeds into the
rope, the interlocked Overhands. Except that one side has twin
lines with half-force to the single mainline --a bit of imbalance
geometrically. And this knot is NOT so hard to tie; one just
needs some practised familiarization. (Maybe it becomes one
item for use of that 9mm rope you had left to test with?)

…

Also found this article on ‘Hunters Bend’ in KM #25 Go here to download it: http://www.grumpyogre.com/dumpextras/othermags/IGKT/KM25.pdf
Dan gets a plug in it. Go to page 9 for content on ‘Shunting’ (dont know why Phil D Smith Riggers bend moniker was ignored…perhaps unknown to them at that time?).

This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood agent_smith

[xarax]

There are FOUR different variations of Alan Lee s eyeknot(s), which belong to two distinct classes : the A1, A2, and the B, C (1)(2). Which one would be more easily untiable after heavy loading, I do not know - because that is the main problem with all those overhand knot–based Zeppelin-looking, but ( as I have tried to explain time and again, perhaps in vein…) NOT Zeppelin-like knots ! Also, this “heavy loading” should be defined, somehow… Would it be, say, 25%, 33,3 %, or 50 % of the MBS of the line ? Or of the knot itself ?

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.msg27595#msg27595
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.msg27596#msg27596