No. The Zeppelin Bend tied as a loop has been on the radar of knot tyers for many years before I put it on the web. I only tried to present a way of making it accessible to the average knot tyer since the loop had so many positive practical properties.
This is somewhere among these forum pages;
it resulted from Knotting Matters articles by a student
of airships who found a re-print of the above-cited
article (wasn’t it ca. 1976?) in a mid-USA airships
newsletter with notes reporting that Lee Payne
had told of Rosendahl’s writing --in response to the
original article-- to correct the location of his training
school/base (in Lakewood NJ? was it, not somewhere
to the south (Norfolk Va?)–, and offering also words
that he was unaware of the subject knot. (!!)
Why call it “z.” :: yes, your point is good but as that
name has stuck, it --for the time being-- serves to
denote what is wanted, and instruction re history
can follow at some other time.
The “hearsay” IMO is … :
a) Pub’d article by Paynes [fact]
b) content of (a) [subject to question : IIRC, it was
seemingly not their direct dealing with the reputed
old Navy guy (whom Roo did some research for and found
at least some indication of verification, for the name),
but just brother Bob’s recounting of encountering the guy
aboard some vessel they shared time upon. So, it could be
that either Bob or the guy simply had a novelty for which
they wanted to build a legend for enhanced presentation!?
(And, otherwise, as the KM-writing airship student came to
wonder --and which I’m abashed to not have questioned
more, myself–, how does an end-2-end knot come into
play (regularly and importantly, esp. such as to make some
particular knot a stand-out) during well-expected airship mooring?!)
The newwletter editor sought permissions for his re-publishing
and so learned from brother Lee this most intriguing “hearsay”,
and included it as a footnote. (I will accept as “fact” that there
was this newsletter and … that the KM author is honest and
accurate in reporting. And, after all, it’s not as though we otherwise
have a groundswell of echoes of endorsement of the original account
from other sailors; nor do we have any official/USNavy documentation
to this effect (IMO, I’d think that were such a knot so commendable
there’d be an instruction sheet for it, issued to pertinent servicemen
for their edification.)
I'd prefer that you follow the words, for now. You can await diminution of beer effects (or switch to some good Assam or Keemun tea!). I still sense more of laziness in this than true difficulty (in general, of many folks, i.e.). (I'm much resistant to trying to conform to cell-phone, sound-bite language-ing!! >:( )... But, here's a tying method which should get you the knot verbally:Dan can you also supply a clear photo of this description... it's late at night and I have just finished a beer - and this is all Greek to me.
Think of the reward at the end of following the words
–a “new” knot!! :
(But I do have now 2 working cameras, since Sept’s
demise of a prior one.)
.
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?).I can tell why [u] I [/u] reject Phil's name : it's bogus, in implication (otherwise, all of those riggers, and the rest of us courtesy their knowledge, would have known about the knot! (Eh, I know some commercial-fishing knots not yet found by me in popular literature, though.) Which of course echoes your point re "zeppelin", to be sure. (Whereas [i]"Ashley's (#1452) bend"[/i] is a simple, occurrence-citing name; factual but hardly illuminating.)
Re the version of SmitHunter’s (<–yeah, my playing of
word-fusion of matching ending/starting letters (“h”),
to credit two of 3 known “inventor’s”/“discoverers” (I’m 3rd
in chronology to them, and who knows who else …?) ),
…
from Smith’s topmost diagram of the knot, get the improved
version (better resisting jamming, if not also stronger)
by taking one (either) tail OVER the other en route to its
tucking through the central nipping zone and then finally
out UNDER (giving reciprocal “over” to opp. tail).
What this does is stuff tail material into the collaring bight
which prevents that from so tightly gripping the S.Part
and jamming --by significant degree, at least.
–dl*
Dan, I was also thinking why would you anchor a Zeppelin airship to the ground using a so-called ‘Zeppelin’ bend. My point is; - that large ships moored to a wharf normally use ropes with a fixed eye (spliced) or an eye knot - so it can be quickly and easily attached to a bollard on the wharf. I was working on a wharf yesterday - and there a number of large containers ships in port. All the mooring lines had eye splices - and the eye was simply looped straight over the bollard. No end-to-end joining knots anywhere in sight (and I had a good look around).
I have never seen two ropes joined together to create long mooring lines - they’re normally one continuous line. All of this points to the Joe Collins story about Charles Rosendahl being inaccurate or misunderstood. Maybe it was a ‘Zeppelin eye knot’ - not an end-to-end joining knot?
And Phil D Smith’s ‘Riggers Bend’ is an peculiar name - it does indeed imply a connection to the rigging industry. Also, Phil D Smith’s book was published before the IGKT update was made to Ashley’s Book of knots and before Dr Hunter announced it to the world. Something is going on and it doesn’t add up… Again, why use a ‘Bend’ to anchor an airship to the ground…hmmm.
…
I have uploaded 4 more Bowline type structures based on Dan Lehman’s End Bound Double Bowline (EBDB). I think these might have been Xarax’s creation some time ago (need confirmation please). Note the chirality change in the double nipping turns - which affects the security/stability of the knot (although once drawn up and dressed, it appears to stable).
Regarding the “change of chirality” of the double nipping loop, I would had described it differently : The “chirality” itself does nt matter - what is important is the overall geometry : the double=two turn nipping loop can be, 1., a “classic” double nipping loop=“twisted helical coil”, 2., a two-turn helical coil, 3., a Clove hitch, or 4., a “reversed” Clove hitch. Those four possibilities affect the nipping / gripping power of the nipping structure directly, and, in the case of the Clove hitch-based nipping structure ( especially when it is “reversed” ), the eyeknot may become difficult to untie - as you had noticed in the first edition of the " Analysis".
Regarding the “collar structure” = the Standing Part after the eye, those bowlines are what I had described as Link bowlines (1). Therefore, I would had classified those bowlines by, a., the form of the “nipping structure” = Standing Part before the eye ( classic nipping loop=“twisted helical coil”, helical coil, Clove hitch, reversed or not ), and, b., by the form of the “collar structure” = Standing Part after the eye ( “Linked” within the nipping loop(s) before the higher collar, or “Linked” within the nipping loop(s) after the higher collar ).
Read the thread about the Link bowlines : again, because you had read it already two years ago.. You can also find references there to a couple of “Link bowlines” bowlines tied by Alan Lee. Labels do not matter : “End-bound” and “Mid-bound” would also be fine, if by “bound” we mean the interlinking of the continuation of the returning eye-leg = Standing Part after the eye to the nipping loop(s), and by “End” and “Mid” we mean a link after the higher collar, or before the higher collar.
Agent_Smith
First of all, could you provide a link to a current version of your bowline paper.
I just looked through your 2013 draft that I Googled… I see you have the “Janus bowline” included. I just came across Heinze Prohaska’s article in Nylon Highway vol 26 from 1998. I’ve attached a pic of his “double bight bowline” (aka Janus bowline) (I recently bought the back issues that are still in print, the ones you can’t get off their website)
I can scan and send you the article if you like.
I also saw a reference to the origin of the “Yosemite” bowline, and I’ll do a little more research, and let you know.
I’m interested in helping you with your research in whatever way I can. In the interest of trying not to go over ground you’ve already covered, what are the specific points, or questions, that you are looking for more information on?
on the topic of the Yosemite bowline
Bruce Smith, in Nylon Highway no 22 cites Tim Setnicka’s 1980 book Wilderness Search and Rescue as a source for the “yosemite tie-off” He asserts that Setnicka learned this bowline finish in his “ranger classes” at Yosemite National Park.
Setnicka’s book does show the Yosemite bowline (aka Yosemite tie-off, Yosemite finish, etc.) However, he doesn’t actually use the name “yosemite bowline” He simply describes the method without naming it. He also doesn’t say where he learned it, or with whom the method originated (at least not in the section of the book about knots, I haven’t read every word of the whole thing yet) He writes “Feeding the free end back through the eye of the [bowline] knot works well as a safety”. While this line can be confusing standing alone… the accompanying illustrations clearly shows the technique. I question his use of the work “eye” in particular… more accurately I would describe it as feeding the tail up through the collar.
I’ve attached the illustration from his book. It actually shows a double (turn) bowline with a yosemite finish, but it demonstrates the technique. As far as I (yet) know, this 1980 book is the earliest written depiction of this adaptation of the bowline.
Neither Setnicka, nor Smith mention the perils of tying and setting the Yosimite bowline incorrectly (as is described well by Mark Gommers in his An Analysis of Bowlines Paper, as well as Heinze Prohaska in Nylon Highway no 26)
Nice info there knot rigger - thats the type of information I am seeking.
I’ve sent you an invitation to be a contributor to the next update of the Bowlines paper.
There’s a lot of work to do to bring the paper up to current state-of-the-art thinking. There’s going to a big update just to knotting terminology with clear photos precisely depicting each of the terms. There will also be a rationale for showing the ‘front/detailed’ view of the Bowline Vs the ‘rear/back’ side - my intention at this stage is to cite the many photos of a sheet bend (note the universal depiction / orientation of sheet bends on a google search - and books - they’re all from what I refer to as the ‘front/detailed’ view). This topic alone caused a stir a while back.
There will be clarity on what defines a Bowline - with clear photos illustrating the concepts. I do support the notion that at the heart of every Bowline is the ‘nipping turn’ - the absence of which places the structure into a different class. ‘Nipping turn’ is just one of the many knotting terms thats going to come under the microscope…
There will also be new Bowline structures added.
And yes, due credit will be given to the known discoverer with dates. I note some objection to this - but I am holding firm of giving acknowledgement where it is known. Sort of like the process on this very forum where a person can send an alleged new knot to the IGKT for discussion and feedback (eg the Mr Dahm’s ‘Gleipner’ and many others who have submitted knots). I note with some mild amusement that there are some on this forum who are very quick to lay claims to knots - and this is understandable because we humans like to receive recognition (look up Nobel prize - and why its awarded). And, I have yet to see a statue of a committee - but I do see lots of statues of individuals… As for the so-called ‘Tweedle Dee Bowline’ - that one has an unknown history and it will be indicated as such in the Bowlines paper
So all of these matters will be taken into consideration in the next Bowlines paper.
…
In tracking down info on the so-called Zeppelin eye knot, I am being frustrated by a raft of deleted posts and images. My plans to include details of other eye knot structures will be frustrated… the URL is; http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.60 and I noted a post at reply #71 which alludes to something Xarax posted which no longer exists.
Xarax, that first pic in Reply #88 is freakin' sweet! Why didn't I think of that before? I have no comment about the performance though.It’s been said that the Honda Loop provides the most perfect circle. Correction, I think we have a knew winner.
Then there is also Dan Lehman’s posturing against ‘knot4u’ at reply #72 and there is also reply #63 which sports one of Dan Lehman’s line intricate drawings which at times are difficult to follow (I hope that one day Dan will learn how to use a camera ;D ). Hmmmmmm.
Mark
It does, but in my mind only… It was just a “reversed” Zeppelin bend turned into a loop the “other” way : The Standing End of the eyeknot was the Tail End of the one link, and the Tail End of the eyeknot was the Tail End of the other link.
As the Standing and the Tail Ends of the Zeppelin bend are perpendicular, when this eyeknot is ring loaded, we get this image of a Honda-like loop…
( Using the Zeppelin X bend, where the Tail Ends are X-ed = crossed = twisted around each other, we get a less pretty but more stable knot. We can also use the Hunter s and the reversed Hunter s bend - but ALL overhand-knot based loops, the so-called “Zeppelin loop” included, will be difficult to untie after heavy loading. )
Unfortunately, this “simple” definition is not simple enough…
Is an “open” turn, without any crossing point ( where the leg of the turn which enters into it, meets the leg which exits from it ), a “nipping turn” ? More than one such “niping turns”, the one after the other around a common axis, form a helical coil. Is a helical coil of, say, two turns, a kind of a “double nipping turn”, like the classic double nipping turn of the Double bowline, only without a crossing point ?
Is a smaller nipping turn, “inside” another nipping turn, of a larger radius, a “double nipping turn” ? See the φ-shaped " double nipping turns ? ? ? " used by Alan Lee, in the eyeknot shown in Reply#6 ( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5357.msg35652#msg35652 ). Is this eyeyknot a “bowline”, or not ?
To my view, any knot, topologically equivalent to the unknot, which is tied on the Standing Part before the eye, can serve as a “nipping structure” : in fact, such a structure is not but two or more single “nipping turns” joined together in another, different from the “classic”, way.
Also, an important ( indispensable ? ? ) part of a bowline is the collar around a tensioned limb of the nub. ( This limb may be the Standing End, as in the common bowline, the on-going eyeleg, as in the “Eskimo” bowlines, or the returning eyeleg, as in many “Janus” bowlines ). This U-shaped half-turn not only helps the “nipping turn” remain “closed”, and not degenerate into an open helix, but also alleviates the burden it has to carry, by relieving the tension on the second leg of the collar, which is the leg that should be immobilized.
A more precise definition of the “nipping turn”, and an acknowledgment of the important / indispensable role of the collar, would help us narrow or widen the class of the eyeknots we call “bowlines” as much as it would be more convenient for us. A too narrow definition, will leave us with the ABoK#1010 only, a too wide will include all the PET loops …
Here are a few more Bowline “lock” variations
Brion Toss describes a simple bowline lock in his Knots for Boaters (1990) as well as his The Complete Rigger’s Apprentice (1998). I’m guessing that this method is also in his 1984 book the Rigger’s Apprentice but I don’t have a copy. He asserts it’s usefulness for modern “slick” lines, where a standard #1010 bowline might slip.
Duane Raleigh shows another lock technique, similar to a Yosemite finish, in his Knots & Ropes for Climbers (1998). He says that his friend Jack Mileski showed him this method, and calls it “Jack’s variation”. He illustrates the tuck with a double bowline (ABOK # 1013) and I think it works well with #1013. I just tried it with #1010, and it doesn’t look to be as secure to me, as it seems to distort the nipping turn, and open up the nub of the knot. But that’s just a first impression.
[Xarax, I hope you appreciate that I intentionally looked for both “sailor’s” and “climber’s” variations of the bowline, I had you in mind when I did so 
]
More thoughts on the Yosemite bowline:
Bruce Smith mentions Tim Setnicka’s 1980 book Wilderness Search and Rescue in his discussion of the Yosimite Bowline in his On Rope. Similar to what he says in his Nylon Highway article (see earlier post) he states:
" (Setnicka) learned (the Yosemite finish) in his Yosemite Mountaineering School "
Smith refers to ABOK #1013 as a “Mountaineering Bowline” (as do other sources) And Dr. Dave Merchant in Life on a Line refers to #1013 with a Yosemite finish as a “Yosemite Mountaineering Bowline”. An interesting observation of the YMB is that is doesn’t share the same weakness as #1010 with a Yosemite finish: that the tucked tail can capsize through the nipping turn if the knot isn’t dressed correctly. The correct dressing would involve first tightening the standard #1010 bowline structure, and then dressing the slack from the Yosemite tuck. If you erroneously dress the slack out of the Yosemite tuck before dressing the #1010 body, you get the capsized (and less secure) knot as well shown in Mr. Gommers paper. The YMB (#1013 with the Yosemite finish) cannot fully capsize in the same way. The extra turn of the #1013 structure won’t allow the Yosemite tuck to fully capsize through both of the the nipping turns. It can only capsize through the first nipping turn, and then checks up against the second nipping turn. This results in an ugly knot that is almost not recognizable as a bowline, and I’m sure it’s not as secure and stable as a properly dressed YMB, but the point is that the YMB is more secure than a #1010 Yosemite bowline.
A suggestion I have for the paper is to discuss the risks of the #1010 bowline, and it’s “failure states”, as I don’t think these are as widely understood as they could be. And a discussion of these failure states leads into the usefulness of the tucking and locking variations that you show in the paper. I see the two primary failure states that I see are “slipping” and “capsizing”. Both are a concern when the knot is not loaded in tension all the time, when the knot sees intermittent load, or varying dynamic load. Mainly I understand failure to occur in the circumstances of the knot is slack then taut, then slack then taut… Slipping is primarily a problem with slick synthetic lines. Capsizing of the bowline is more of an issue with stiffer ropes (ie climbing kernmantle lines).
To help illustrate the capsizing issue, I suggest that you include tying method of the bowline in your paper. The capsizing slip knot method (aka lightning bowline, or climber’s method) is a useful method of tying the knot, as well as demonstrating (in reverse) the capsizing risk of the regular #1010 bowline. Other useful methods are the “sailors” quick method of forming the nipping turn with the working end (rather than the rabbit/hole/tree method). As well as the spilled half hitch technique of forming the nipping turn.
cheers
andy
PS… I’m having some trouble posting attaching all the jpgs that I intended, I’m getting an “internal server error” 
I’ll try to post again in a little while. The missing images are the toss tuck from the rigger’s apprentice (but it’s the same as what’s posted from knots for boaters) and Jack’s tuck. I’ll try and get them up soon.
UPDATE! I finally got one of the last two pics up… it turns out that one cannot have an apostrophe in the file name. sadly, i’m still getting an error on the last pic.
This “Toss Tuck” bowline is one of the worst I had ever seen… Obviously, the knot tyer had believed that he could use the Tail End the way it is used in the Angler s loop, i.e, as a rope-made wedge - without understanding the great differences between those two knots.
Re-tucked this way, the Tail End is not nipped by the first curve, or by any other part of the nipping loop. On the contrary, it can easily slide on and slip through its casting, because it is “protected” by the surrounding segments, rather than being squeezed by them. One has just to tie and load the knot, and see how easily he can pull the Tail End out of this soft nest…
( Regarding knot tying, “boaters” and sailors of today are not what they used to be during the era of the tall sailing ships … A few years ago I had met a World champion in the Tornado class of catamarans, who knew and used ONE only knot, the “Eskimo” bowline - and I had not succeeded to teach him even one more, the common, standard bowline…)
Regarding Brion Toss’s tucked bowline,
Obviously, the knot tyer had believed that he could use the Tail End the way it is used in the Angler s loop, i.e, as a rope-made wedge - without understanding the great differences between those two knots.
I certainly think that Mr. Toss understands the differences between an angler’s loop, and the tuck-lock he recommends as an option for a bowline. I won’t bore you with Mr. Toss’ credentials (which you can easily google) but suffice to say that he is widely considered an expert master yacht rigger, not to mention an excellent author on the topic. Personally I consider him an authority on knot tying and use (but certainly not the only authority)
So Xarax, are you now adding “widely-respected-master-rigger-authors” to your list of types of people that “are such poor not tyers” 
I’ve used his method (but not exclusively) and I find that when well dressed, this form of the bowline is very secure. It prevents the common “capsizing” failure mode well. It’s simplicity increases it’s utility, as well as it’s verifiability.
I didn’t mention this in the first post, but the round turn of the eye through the anchor is not central to the locking method (if that wasn’t obvious) but is a useful way to prevent chafe in the eye loop at the anchor point (think flogging sail in the wind kinda application)
I do think that Xarax raises a good point about the collar structure in the bowline being part of the definition of “bowlineness”. Perhaps a bowline must include both a nipping turn structure, as well as a collar, and must form a fixed eye (not a noose). Certainly knots that have a collar could not be bowlines (like a butterfly knot), and perhaps other knots with a nipping turn structure could also not be classified as bowlines (like a scaffold knot ABOK #1120)
No luck yet trying to get the other two pictures uploaded, sorry about that.
…the best thing you can do, out of respect to Bri0n Toss, is to remain silent about “it”… Even the greatest knot tyers have their unlucky moments.
And if you need so much to worship somebody, I suggest you go straight to KnotGod Himself : take a line, and start tying secure bowlines. However, I have to warn you that you will never become able to find ANY less useful, less clever and less secure re-tucking of the Tail End of the bowline other than this - simply because there isn’t any !
“Method” ! Ouaou ! This pathetic re-tucking of the Tail End is the result of a “method” ! My knees are trembling - and I am afraid I will not be able to knee in front of the “widely-respected-master-rigger-author”(sic), who had tied this “thing”, and start to extoll its merits !
Of course “this form” of the bowline is very secure - simply because the bowline itself is a very secure knot ( especially when it is tied on marine ropes ), and it can withstand even the torture it suffers by this ingenious re-tucking ! However, I am afraid that, to make it even more “secure”, “simple” and “verifiable”, one should make one more step : Pull out and UN-TUCK this Tail End, and leave the poor bowline as it was made by KnotGod Himself, before the unlucky “operation”…
You did very well that you did nt mention it, because it is yet another thing that should better NOT be mentioned !
The best way to submit the line at the tip of the bowline s eye to excessive wear due to unnecessary friction, is this ! However, this round turn is not only unnecessary for the bowline, it may also become dangerously detrimental to its function and structure - because, if the direction the Standing End of the eyeknot points to varies and the nub rotates around the anchor or around the encircled object ( as it happens very often in boating and sailing, for example ), this round turn will not allow the immediate re-adjustment of the lengths of the eyelegs, and the even distribution of the tensile forces between them. All simple end-of-line loops ( and the bowline is not an exception to that ), will not function the way they are designed to function, and their structure will be submitted to possibly unfavourable strain, if the one eyeleg becomes loaded much more than the other.
Perhaps you mean “before [u]ABoK was updated
(by G.Budworth) to include it as #1425a”, for otherwise
Ashley well preceded Smith.
–dl*
It’s a shame that the simpler and surer like
securing wasn’t what got promulgated way back … .
Just take that tail around the eye leg in the opposite
direction --i.e., against the draw of the S.Part-- and
then up around & out through the collar, forming
thus an overhand vice fig.8 structure, and be
done. --also with a TIB knot, btw. (I wonder how
many YoBowl advocates realize that it’s TIB?!)
–dl*
I’ll just remark here that e.g. [u]The Encyclopedia of Knots & Fancy Ropework,
a giant conglomeration of knots images and brief entries re them,
which is now through 4 (more? --I’ve not looked of late) editions,
seems to me the more I look into it, re practical knots and
what else is it selling?, a massive fraud --a (bad) joke of
ineptness, nonsense (and bad copying)!! And it ran through
4 editions over many decades and I don’t hear anyone much
complaining, though there are others who concur in my
derisive name for it --“Hansel & Gretel”, implying make-believe!
–dl*
Hi All,
This " EyeKnot_AlanLee-Xarax_inspired_Zeppelin" has’nt been test before, I guess I have to do it, just few simple test
make sure it work.
first test with 1/2 inch solid braid nylon rope, I have a small comer lock pull as hard as I can, I do'nt have scale
no idea what is the exact weight, but I can show you the picture while the knot still on tension.
so far I have been tested quiet a bit of knots ( if I have to guess I have to said at least 1200 lbs,)
after the loading, it is very easy to untie, and hold quiet a solid form.
Second test with 8mm blue water rope, do the samething pull it as hard as I can, the result are the same. It look good to me.
Third test with 1/4 nylon solid braid nylon rope, with my mutiple force device loaded it with 650 lbs.
With the small size rope it does create little problem to untie it, how hard to untie it, let put it this way,
I am 5 feet 5 inches tall, weight 138 lbs., active and have a strong hand, I use my finger nail to push it back and fore with
my best effort and get it untie in 45 second.
This loop have to untie it from the top collar(second collar).
Mark day or two I will try to gatther some of the knots that may qualifly for your bowline paper. we will see.
謝謝 alan lee.
NO PICTURE Error " The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator."
(I Got the photo this time, must be something wrong with the picture format of my new camera)
@AlanLee
If you are going to test those knots, please, test them all ! I mean, text the Lee-Zep A1, A1X, A2, A2X, B and C, shown at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.msg27595#msg27595
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.msg27596#msg27596
One picture would be welcome…
Thx, regards
ZZ
Hi All, Zoranz, Good morning, beautiful sunsine in Vancouver, I hope is sunsine in your home town too.
Zoranz forget about asking, whether you and I and the reader understand it or not, is not important, is the way it is,
Just swallow it who care.
Well I turn off my computer , going to the beach and enjoy the rest of the day
謝謝 alan lee.