…lapsus or typoo?
(I’m joking! 
)
Ciao,
s.
p.s. Mark, I use “thick” monofilament > 1mm. The Zeppelin is great with monofilament too!!!
Hi s., thanks for telling. It is a typing mistake. It should be read Happy Knotting Always.
yChan
Hi Mark and dear all,
Some of my tying method are quick access to form the loops formations (superposed or inter-linked). They are not illusion as far as I know. Amongst all, one of my tying method (Opposite Ends) for the bends is the same as shown in ABOK (i.e. p.261, Hunter’s Bend#1425A). It is what Mark critiqued it is an illusion. Hi Mark what are your critique about Ashley’s tying methods for bends in ABOK, such as bends started with Half Knot or Overhand Knot ?
I share my work in his forum because I suppose they are new and perhaps new to others. Up to now I have not yet been commented that any of my tying method has been posted before, except dear Alan Lee. I appreciate that Alan commented on one of my other tying method of ZB is the same as his. I realised then, and admit he did it before mine. As such, I am still longing for more comments.
Tying methods and my other tying methods are ways to finish/tie the right knots/bends and of course aiming at no underlying structures would be changed, otherwise they become another knots/bends or new knots/bends. My tying methods being so-called tricky methods also achieve the same goal, no more no less.
Hi Mark, could you show me your tying methods or the tying methods you used for these bends family ? Hoping to learn more from you.
Happy Knotting
yChan
yChan,
I think you should start a new thread - titled ‘Tying Methods for some Bends’.
In that thread, you could focus your efforts entirely on the myriad of ways to arrive at a target knot.
There has already been a lot of forum discussion on a myriad of tying methods to arrive at #1053 Butterfly knot (all claiming to be easier and faster or easy to remember).
I personally have little interest in devising multiple tying combinations to arrive at the same knot.
Although I should qualify that by stating that I do have an interest in finding ‘TIB’ tying methods. Although finding a TIB tying method is something that is closely linked to ‘eye knots’ - rather than ‘bends’. A lot of work has been done by Xarax and others on TIB tying methods for the various Bowlines and Bowline derivatives.
If you do decide to start a new thread that is entirely dedicated to ‘tying methods’ - please make sure that you don’t confuse structure with tying methods (they are completely different entities). Make a careful distinction between the tying method to arrive at a particular knot and its underlying structure.
Other than that - I am growing weary of your apparent ignorance of the distinction between a tying method to arrive at a knot and its underlying structure. This constant merry-go-round of confused discussion is causing me to tune-out…
Hi Mark and dear all,
I respect everyone who have their own fields of interest and also for all your valuable opinions. But I have not been convinced that you said tying methods and underlying structure are completely two different entities.
Let us put an end by now not to discuss anymore and to the assumption that I have no knowledge on underlying structure. I would not like to open a thread for this issue.
But anyhow, would you please reply on my request to my last thread, that is : your tying methods and the tying methods you used in these bends family. Thank you.
yChan
This post responds directly to a couple of agent_smith’s points about my points. Another post to follow, with all-new points. Ok, mostly recycled points, but presented differently - and with all-new photos!
This is one of the finest examples of obfuscation that I have ever read!
It is not obfuscation; it is interesting to note that morphing may not occur under certain real conditions.
I can immediately detect the difference between the two knots - [b]despite your careful dressing and careful use of camera angles and mono-colored cords.[/b]
Incorrect. In fact nothing in those photos was carefully considered. The dressing was done to replicate that found in the knotted sling from my first post. The straight-on camera angle? The dirty old cord? It was all done spontaneously. The cord in the photos happens to be my go-to for knot practice.
In future, please keep baseless conjecture about others’ motives and actions out of your posts; it does nothing to further discussion.
Your entire premise is based upon outward appearance rather than underlying structure.
Yes. That premise was implied, but not explicit in my first post. So, to be explicit: my context is the visual inspection of knots used in recreational canyoneering. Outward appearance is paramount in this context, and underlying structure has little direct importance.
To be continued…
from bipoqid…
In future, please keep baseless conjecture about others' motives and actions out of your posts; it does nothing to further discussion.
! ! Clearly you have some irritation with the word “careful”.
This word was not intended to imply mischief or deceit. But, you chose to clothe my post with that imputed meaning.
In future, before replying with such remarks - try sending a PM to seek clarification before embarking on a course of action that you might later regret - or least seek to clarify a persons intent.
Had I intended to imply mischief and/or deceit, I would have explicitly used those words (and yet I did not).
…
Your entire understanding and argument hinges on a simple outward appearance.
And that’s fine - you can post whatever you like.
The other (secondary) 'argument hinges on an assumption that the falsely tied Zeppelin bend will not morph under certain defined conditions.
How much load have you applied to test this assumption? Have you explored the load threshold which triggers morphing?
In any attempt to delay morphing, it is necessary to cinch the tails very carefully and deliberately, working the structure carefully.
The words ‘attempt to delay’ and ‘carefully’ - do not have a sinister element.
It is factual to point out that to prevent immediate morphing, one has to pay careful to how the knot is dressed. Hauling hard on the tails while dressing the knot into a compacted form is crucial to delay morphing.
However, from an investigative standpoint (to probe further into the underlying characteristics of how the knot works) - when load is further applied on a test bench, morphing is inevitable.
I am happy for you to continue to argue that outward appearances are the key to a climber/canyoner/abseiler to be fooled or misled into believing that they had tied a true Zeppelin.
You argument is further centered on semantics - a naming decision for a symmetric bend that has an outward resemblance somewhat akin to #1425A Riggers bend. You insist that this outward resemblance is strong evidence that the knot therefore must have an affinity with #1425A and be named accordingly.
I am content and not at all irritated by your strong desire to attach a name with affinity and connection to #1425A.
The other day I went out to test the morphability of the False Hunter’s Bend under bodyweight loading; results at the link below:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1K00rdRYyb1Ux5MVjuxbycXUUP1AMeupG?usp=sharing
Cords used:
- Off-white color, plain sheath: 8mm Sterling rope w/aramid sheath, well used, supple, exact model unknown
- Blue/red: 8mm cord, nylon, relatively new but sheath no longer slick, medium-stiff, exact model unknown
- Tan/blue/black: 8mm Sterling Canyon Lux, well-used, supple
- White/black/yellow: Petzl Vector 11mm, relatively new with slick sheath, medium-stiff
Other notes:
- all tests were done using my bodyweight (~ 78 kg)
- bodyweight load photos involved slowly easing myself into a position of bodyweight loading, to avoid the load exceeding bodyweight.
- bounce load photos involved taking a slight hop and allowing my full weight to drop onto the rope, immediately after the bodyweight load photo was taken, to increase the load above bodyweight.
- No load measurements were taken as means were lacking.
General conclusion: it is reasonable to assume that the False Hunter’s Bend may not significantly morph under bodyweight depending on certain conditions related to the cord used, e.g. sheath material, flexibility, wear state, dirtiness, wet/dry, etc., and also whether the anchor sling is tied in a loop, extended over an edge before loading, etc. That the knot will morph further when sufficiently loaded, I have no doubt, but this point is not relevant in all cases. In cases without significant morphing, it can be easily mistaken for a Hunter’s Bend. It is not easily mistaken for a Zeppelin Bend in such cases, due to the obvious collar tell. In a partially morphed state, it resembles neither a Zeppelin nor a Hunter’s. In its fully morphed state, it resembles the Hunter’s rotated 90 degrees, but again, not the Zeppelin.
Aside: it is expected (and welcome) that we will always have multiple names for a knot, chosen (hopefully) according to the name’s usefulness to the specific user group.
I am not allowed to send PMs for some reason. So…
You are again making assumptions and statements of a personal nature. I consider this to be bad forum manners. I am a newbie around here, so maybe such manners is the norm here, I don’t know. It’s best if publicly posted comments address only the specific points of discussion, without such points ever getting personal. Is that too much to ask?
From bipoqid…
The other day I went out to test the morphability of the False Hunter's Bend under bodyweight loading; results at the link below:It is possible that you didn't read my post. The knot morphs - because its initial form is a [i]transitory state[/i]. Your test is [u]not complete[/u]. I clearly stated that you need to [i]keep increasing load[/i]. I can assure you that the falsely tied Zeppelin bend transitions under increasing load (ie morphs) to a final state of equilibrium. Indeed, you need to pull quite hard on the tails and work the knot to delay morphing. In other words, a [u]degree of effort[/u] is required to achieve a dressing state that resists initial morphing. But, no matter how attentive you are to dressing and setting the knot, it will morph to its equilibrium state [i]as load is increased[/i]. When you test knots - you need to make sure that you test to at least 50% of the MBS yield to be sure of its performance (as a general rule - although higher loads may be necessary to probe further into knot performance). From a scientific standpoint - its like testing a carabiner to body weight only and then stopping the test and then popping the champagne cork. Or doing aerodynamic tests on an airplane - but never going fast enough to break the sound barrier - so no sonic boom was heard - and it is assumed that it doesn't exist. Had the test pilot pushed a little faster, the sound barrier would be reached and a sonic boom initiated, and therefore proven to exist.
We also test to probe for such factors as; jamming threshold, and instability.
For example, when testing #1410 offset overhand bend (aka ‘EDK’) - you don’t just test to body weight and stop and then pop the champagne cork.
My view is that you are looking for ways to support your position re resistance to morphing (reaching equilibrium) - I can empathize with your motives in this regard.
You are again making assumptions and statements of a personal nature. I consider this to be bad forum manners.
[b]In future, please keep baseless conjecture about others' motives and actions out of your posts; it does nothing to further discussion.[/b]
Hmmm. I consider your above comments to be bad forum manners.
Please keep these remarks out of this forum.
If you wish to continue bouncing the ball back n forth - I’m not sure what this will achieve?
You are highly motivated to back you claims as follows:
- That the falsely tied Zeppelin bend closely resembles #1425A Riggers bend; and
- That the falsely tied Zeppelin bend does not morph - and therefor it retains its similarity to the falsely tied Zeppelin bend (which allegedly backs your claim of a person being deceived into thinking they had correctly tied the Zeppelin bend).
With regard to point #1: This claim is entirely based on superficial outward appearance - and not underlying structure.
With regard to point #2: You did not undertake a valid load test to rule out the possibility of the knot transitioning to its final state of equilibrium. You stopped the test before the threshold load at which morphing is triggered. Although it is likely that you will tender a counter-argument that ‘body weight only’ loading is valid and sufficient to rule out any likelihood of morphing. But this ignores the underlying truth of the knots structural transitory state.
I surmise that you will continue to defend your views - no matter what alternative evidence is tendered.
For me, its not worth continuing any further debate on these topics.
Hi dear all, I would like to share my working notes on 'Cruise to Bends". It will also be included to “My working Notes Part 5”. The link is :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qiflT5YAY9KTMF2H-yvHOYV-fJDvCbmG/view?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
Hi dear all,
I have some amendments in “My Working Notes 7”. That is the Hash Bend is identical to Yia Bend as shown in “My Working Notes 1”. Therefore, the Hash Bend is re-named to Yia Bend. Thankyou for your attention.
Happy Knotting
yChan
In my view - with regard to your schematic images - the central overlap between the 2 loops are ‘crossing points’.
The inversion and/or exchanging of these ‘crossing points’ results in a different final knot geometry. There are always 2 crossing points.
Interestingly, inverting the crossing points does not alter the chirality of each loop.
All of this is in addition to whether the loops are inter-linked or superposed.
You are starting to get into ‘big data’ - and it is hard to draw any conclusions in the way it is all presented.
Your naming conventions don’t help - and presumes that you are the discoverer/inventor (when this may not be the case).
It would be good to group and classify these baseline structures into a coherent and meaningful array.
I like what you are doing - particularly because you appear to moving away from tying methods and instead focusing on underlying structure.
If you could somehow take all of your work - re-structure it into a clear and concise whole - and draw clear relationships and outcomes into a theoretical conclusion. This would bring together all of our knowledge and provide a means to classify bends.
Someone else has tried to do this a while ago - and I cant remember his name - but it was along very similar lines to what you are now doing. Although this I think this other person focused only on a select number of bends (zeppelin, riggers bend, butterfly, etc). His work was available as a download in pdf format.
I wish I could recall his name and where to find his work…
Mark G
EDIT NOTE:
I think we could be on the cusp of breaking new ground in the classification of knots - going beyond a mere arbitrary numbering system (ie ABoK numbers).
Big data bring big opportunities to re-assess the way we think about knots/bends.
Bends that are built from inter-linked loops:
crossing points
inverting the crossing points
loop chirality
inverting the loop chirality
symmetric versus asymmetric geometry
Bends that are built from superposed loops:
crossing points
inverting the crossing points
loop chirality
inverting the loop chirality
symmetric versus asymmetric geometry
From this…
knots (bends) that are jam resistant
knots (bends that are vulnerable to jamming
knot stability and security (increased or decreased)
affect of different rope diameters
affect of different rope materials (eg hmpe / slippery material - impact of this?)
I believe you may be referring to the file - Bends-comparison-release-2013March9.pdf authored by Charles Hamel.
Hope that is correct. If not it is a fine document anyway.
SS
Thanks Scott,
Nice find 
yChan needs to look at this document closely…
Here is the link if anyone is interested.
Link: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahUKEwiZ4tSKlafaAhUCiLwKHeqDDrcQFgg3MAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcharles.hamel.free.fr%2Fknots-and-cordages%2FPUBLICATIONS%2FBends-comparison-release-2013March9.fdp&usg=AOvVaw1GVt9A6DGCV53cWcyB61Iv
NOTE: He has reversed the file extension from .pdf tp .fdp
Hi dear all,
Here is the link of “My Working Notes” Part 8. I would like to request our moderators to move this thread to “New Knot Investigations” for comments and investigation.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12OuijixfVDF5vWwUfgs-T66DRXoDauQS?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
I have had a quick look at some of these structures…
Of course, my eyes and ears immediately noticed the false Zeppelin bend (what you incorrectly call ‘false hunters bend’) at tying method #16 and #17.
Obviously, this particular knot structure is not ‘new’ - it has been published before.
All you have done is apply some trick tying methods that induce instability as soon as load is applied…and the knot undergoes forced transformation into the resultant ‘false Zeppelin’.
I am not clear on exactly what revelation this brings to the table?
It doesn’t tell us anything new about the underlying structure of the false Zeppelin bend.
I might also point out that Phil Smith discovered the (#1425a) ‘Riggers bend’ and published it much earlier that Edward Hunter. So technically, your use of the name ‘Hunters bend’ is incorrect.
Also, the Phil Smith ‘Riggers bend’ (#1425a) is built from 2 interlinked loops whereas the Zeppelin bend is built from 2 superposed loops.
This has been pointed out to you previously…which you seem to willfully ignore?
At the end of the day - I think your work has merit - but you should be cautious with posting (or requesting) in ‘new knot investigations’ if some content isn’t in fact new.
I am of the view that a new tying method doesn’t constitute a ‘new’ knot.
The resultant knot is still the same - regardless of how you arrived at it.
Hi dear all,
Thanks for your opinion on “My Working Notes”.
After my Part 2 had been posted in “Chit Chat”, I have had an idea to seperate the files of “The Other Tying Methods” and the “New Bends”, but in view of the fact that people have read the formate of Parts 1 and 2, I put aside this thought.
From the very begining, “My Working Notes” were always distributed to my friends with covers (see attached photos), but not in this forum. You might find that the contents were classified into “Other Tying Methods of Some Bends” and “New Bend”, that are what “My Working Notes” presented. Eventally as there were some discussions taken place after Part 7 posted, this thread was agreed to moved to “Knotting Concepts and Explorations”. Later, I in seeing that the discussions were over and come to an end, I posted the Part 8 and requested to move the thread to “New Knot Investigations” for the reason that it contains “New” bends and I am expecting for comments and investigations as well as those previous posted Parts.
I deeply apologised for confusing you all, especially Mark. He has given me good points and arose my intention to seperate the topics.
I will work on two new folders, they are “The Other Tying Methods of some Bends” and “New Bends”, and post to this forum under relevant topics (Please advise). They will be including the contents of bends from Parts 1 to 8 and some more to come. Some amendments would also be ready to make for I have found some of my so called “New” bends were mentioned/published in this forum before my work, and would like to use the names so mentioned in this forum until further discovery.
Happy Knotting
yChan
Hi dear all,
One more file of the Corrick Bend was added to the Part 8, please up-date. Thanks.
yChan
Hi dear all,
I have updated “My Working Notes” to three folders as in the following links. They are “My New Bends”, “My New Knots” and “My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots”. I sincerely need you comments on my “New” knots and like to share with you all and will update as required.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan