I am grateful for all the references and especially Sweeney’s web reference. The alternative method is what I had worked out; the modification of the “b-q” method makes the derivation from the bend much clearer. Good stuff!
It is clearly true as Xanax says, that taking one bitter end of a bend knot into a loop may utterly shift the forces into another shape, leaving many features and bringing on a whole collection of problems. The Carrick Bend as tied, flat looks nothing like spilled and formed into a proper bend where force can be resisted. In the summer of 1959, a Maine lobsterboatman, Elmer Osier, showed me the method of tying a bowline which begins with a slip knot waiting in the SPart and throws the free end around an approaching wharf and through it loosely, spilling it into a proper bowline. At the time, I was quite impressed at how knots become sometimes what you least expect, and Xanax’s points are well taken. For my part, as a practicing ecologist, the Zeppelin Loop was new ground, at least worth trying, and although I think online discussions might approach overloading the ties that otherwise bind us, I do value everyone’s contributions–thanks.
The Zeppelin Loop is a good one. You’ll be hard pressed to find a loop that remains stable and secure in slick bungee under high strain and still remain easy to untie, for example. Those benefits also translate into less radically elastic line.
The loop reduces one of the standing parts of the bend to 50% of the parent line load (from 100%). It also increases the load on the one of the free ends of the corresponding bend from 0% to about 50%. This does not adversely affect the core knot form in terms of either stability or its excellent jam resistance.
Where some other commercial fishermen are concerned,
the tying of the carrick bend doesn’t use that lattice-like
form, but is done by folding one end into shape and then
reeving the other through it (which can lead to some
different results if botched) --done like this, apparently,
in the stiff, hard-laid pot warp of Alaskan crabbers when
extending the lines. (It is an application I think that would
suit the zeppelin end-2-end knot quite well.) That
losterman probably used a fisherman’s knot or maybe
water knot . Some decades back, someone reported
in Knotting Matters that to his experience the lobstermen
around Boston were nearly divided into (warring) camps and
distinguished by which end-2-end knot they employed!
The marlinespike-hitch-into-bowline maneuvre can be some
help, but one should beware that sudden loading as has
been described here & elsewhere can lead to things
other than a well-formed eye knot --the capsizing might
not go as desired, given roughness & loading of the line!
YMMV.
–dl*
Thanks again for all the perspective and information. To answer one question: I feel it is important making knot statements to relay with what range of cordage you have experience. “Bowline” security in my experiences, ranges from monofilament line, through laid nylon and polypro stuff, to 7/16 kernmantle inelastic cave standing ropes (Bluewater II), coated with ice and limestone mud— infrequently over about five decades. I have never had a problem except with monofilament or new 7 mm nylon kernmantle, and only with jerking–by which I mean where the line is repeatedly relaxed alternating with drawn up tight and hard. An unsecured bowline, well formed by hand, simply in the last two cases, after 10 - 30 jerks, unties. As I mentioned in my first post, whenever I even suspect in any USE, that there is that possibility in store, I use some extra security, such as the Yosemite finish and perhaps a couple of half hitches. I do not consider what others look at as exaggerated security a waste of time, even with numb fingers. Well-formed bowlines with no added finishing I have never seen fail from untying in stout well-laid ropes > 1/2 inch - - but then, I’ve never owned a Zeppelin tossing in the wind.
I have previously worked alone, and having now thoughtful colleagues with whom to discuss knot matters is a privilege, again, thanks.
Regarding the other bends formed by two linked overhands, I was fascinated by their symmetry. Owning no knot reference besides Clifford’s remarkable 1944 achievement at hand, I began by studying overhand knots, proved to my satisfaction there are only two, I called L and D, for levo- and dextro-rotary (for the spirals formed, LH and RH threaded screws). For morphology, I named the two crescent-shaped holes in overhands “A” (next to SPart) and “B” (by the tail). The large opening I called “O”. So now I can write typing directions using these named holes and symmetry descriptors, by which to study the four bends I first mentioned.
By coincidence, the four arrange themselves alphabetically in my key:
- tails emerge in same direction:
00 overhands same: Ashley Bend (Thanks Dan, #1452)
01 overhands mirror images: Butterfly Bend (these attributes are inevitable for the only one to be tied on a bight) - tails emerge opposite directions
10 overhands same: Hunter (aka Smith or Riggers)
11 overhands mirror images: Zeppelin or Rosendahls
Alphabetical, at least using these as names.
In closing, I’ll note you all may likely know these curious facts — and/or the exceptions of which I will soon be gratefully educated. Thanks in advance. Regards.
Hi youngknot,
There are dozens of interlinked-overhand-knot bends, and if we take into account all their variations, ( including the “double” ones ), there are dozens of dozens, indeed !
You can find almost all of them in this forum, if you search for the relevant words, “bends”, and “overhand”. The Zeppelin bend stands in a class of its own, as you will find out.
The most easy way for one to start, the way I suggest to people, is to form one reef knot “base”, and re-tuck it. See the attached picture, for one of the eight such bases). That way you will get the Ashley bend (ABoK#1452), the Alpine Butterfly bend, the ABoK#1408 bend, the Hunter s bends, the Shakehands bends, and the Mark s bends. Those are the most well known bends, and a sure place to start one s journey to the world of bends.
The same can be said for the bowline-like bends, where we have also the very nice compilation of bowlines by Mark Gommers, at (1). Search for “bowline”, and you will discover many things here, that you are not going to find elsewhere.
Welcome to the forum. We need new knot tyers, especially if they are young ! 
Amen!! It is amazing to watch a video of a double bowline
(with stoppered tail) just collapsing its eye as material flows
out of the knot through those double turns!! --“Huh, it can DO that?!”
was my thought. And the end-bound double bowline I thought
so secure (well set; and meaning “secure-when-slack”, vs. jostling),
showed a lack of that in some slick, springy, laid polypropylene cord,
where all the engaged loops binding upon each other just loosened
simultaneously, after holding briefly (!).
I use some extra security, such as the Yosemite finish and perhaps a couple of [i]half hitches.[/i] I do not consider what others look at as exaggerated security a waste of time, even with numb fingers. Well-formed bowlines with no added finishing I have never seen fail from untying in stout well-laid ropes > 1/2 inch - - but then, I've never owned a Zeppelin tossing in the wind.
Consider some of the bowline extensions presented in
the “paci” PDF file Xarax points to. I can see taking one of
the “Janus” variations and extending that to make one further
collaring (of the SPart) and tucking of the tail (to point, now,
back towards the eye) --makes for a lot of unreeving to occur
AND not be noticed; maybe bumps strength, lessens wear?
As for “zeppelin”, know this: there is now considerable doubt
that (1) such an end-2-end knot was ever needed & used for
those airships, and (2) that Cmdr. Rosendahl had the slightest
awareness of it --there is writing from him to support this belief.
So, count one more knot myth, though it’s a mystery of why it
was created (the myth), and where the knot might’ve originated.
–dl*
Myths are generated/created in all fields of human practice, why do they have to respect knotting ? I would like to contribute to this mythology a little bit, with two myths made by me :
- Zeppelin, the inventor of the Zeppelin airship, served in the US army as a volunteer. Rosenthal inherited the knowledge of the knot, along with the Zeppelin airships…
- Ashley knew the Zeppelin knot, but decided not to publish it, because it was invented by a (German) enemy : The proof that he knew it, is ABoK#582 stopper - which is the Zeppelin bend turned into a stopper ( and so disguised ! ) (See 1)
Rosendahl has been dead for quite some time (since 1977!). Where’s this evidence that he never had any awareness of the bend in question? It sounds very fishy to me.
I also find it hard to believe that various grounding lines or other lines were never bent to other lines.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/6qzqe4m
http://tinyurl.com/7g3hjtp
http://tinyurl.com/75weqr5
http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/zeppelin-knot-zmaz80jfzraw.aspx#axzz2XLitgA8w
Apparently you don’t read Knotting Matters !
In it, Dr. Giles Camplin, with a PhD. focusing on airships history,
recounts how he came to know about the “zeppelin” knot
–from a reprint of the 1976 Payne brothers’ Boatingarticle
reporting what some “Joe Collins” is supposed to have said.
But in this particular (Wingfoot Journal) reprint, there was
a most intriguing footnote, which Giles recounts:
<<Lee Payne of Balboa, Calif., one of the
authors, wrote to me [Presumably the
Wingfoot Editor (1980)] about this article,
"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 he had never heard of the
Rosendahl bend but that ‘it is slightly possible
that no one ever told me of it. In any event I am
glad you think so highly of it.’ "
–just in the nick o’ time, given Rosendahl’s life!
Enough said, though?
We must still wonder about the “Joe Collins” account.
Research can check to see if he exists as a bona fide
person in Naval files, as well as to check on the
alleged stations of sailors & training.
Further, in communication w/me about the issue,
Giles wrote
My further, more recent research into Airship Ground Handling for my Ph.D thesis (2007) has now led me to find it very difficult to see where and when this knot could've been used as a standard part of the mooring procedure.
–dl*
:o
How many layers of hearsay do we have here?! Has anyone verified the contents and authenticity of this letter from Rosendahl that supposedly was sent to Payne which then was supposedly written about to the Wingfoot editor? I’m betting that neither of these two letters even exist anymore. This is so bad, it makes me wonder if anyone can track down the Wingfoot article.
Even if this Rosendahl letter is found and verified, who is to say that at the age of 84 he simply didn’t recall a bend he may not have thought about for decades, and which may have been presented in a different way?
All to the point, thanks to xarax, Dan and roo, although I might add the only thing at all young about me is my knot knowledge. (Perhaps “young,NOT” would be more appropriate).
My claim to be keying out the four knots I listed was based on reading other web sites; now that I am surrounded by more knowledge, perhaps I have obtained a modicum of slack. History has always fascinated me, but years ago I noticed that it often depends on who is telling it, so my life has more nearly pursued the sciences, but never knots except when life or tree limb were in the balance. I will certainly pass on Mark’s bowline analysis to my young grandson, Ambrose, whose penchant for inventing (and later reproducing) knots has his parents mystified and myself chuckling.
Re negotiating overhand knots, I attach a diagram I prepared before Dan explained your accepted use of “tails”. I use D as in Dextrose, because the twist portion of the knot forms a right-hand-thread screw. I found the labeled openings a great help in following and writing about the reeving process. My regards.
“Hearsay”, you say?! “so bad…” !!
–in contrast/competition to what, exactly, otherwise?
Are you so secure in your tower upon one article’s assertion
from some “Joe Collins”'s hearsay about what Rosendahl did
that you deny Rosendahl himself contrary argument? Do note
that Lee Payne is co-author of the article and supplier of the
R. assertions, so that is the same hearsay-link for both sides.
(Actually, IIRC, it’s Lee’s brother Bob who connected with the
supposed Joe, and I’m forgetting it it was even clear whether
the two brothers had actual contact w/“Joe” or if their article
arose on Bob’s hearsay of Joe !)
We know at least that Rosendahl existed; do we know this
about Collins? If we can, by naval records, find no evidence
of this Collins (though among ample records otherwise),
that raises an obvious question. And if there is no record
otherwise about the supposed required special knot to do
some service (that a student of airship mooring cannot
conceive of!), that too raises questions --wouldn’t a military
organization have made mimeographed tying instructions
issued to rope handlers so that they could learn the knot?
And do you also think that Rosendahl and not Collins was
confused about where the alleged training occurred? --this,
too, would be a serious dent in the latter’s credibility if it
could be shown that, by extant records of his existence
in the navy, Collins was never at one of these places (and
so would have no reason for getting it wrong).
The best you can say on the Rosendahl commentary is
Why did HE NOT raise the question about how any such knot [red added 20171108]
could play a roll (as does Giles)?!
–a fair point, that.
Except that one answer that springs to mind is that Cmdr.R.
was so knot-NOT-savvy that he simply had no clue, in such
matters : that hardly speaks to his having originated or
even insisted upon some particular, novel knot.
My weak surmise is that this Joe Collins did exist, and was
perhaps the orginator of the knot, but wanted to make a
legend for it (harkening to [u]Tinker,Taylor,Soldier,Spy
concluding book [u]Smiley’s People reputed spy jargon
for getting a cover story for someone).
–dl*
I repeat the (one) myth I proposed at reply#27, this time as a question :
Is it possible that Ashley was not aware of the Zeppelin bend, when he presents the same knot structure, as a stopper, at ABoK#582 ?
It’s layers of hearsay on its own! Where’s the letter from Rosendahl that we can authenticate and verify for content? We can’t even produce the letter that refers to it! THAT is bad… really bad.
Are you so secure in your tower upon one article's assertion from some "Joe Collins"'s hearsay about what Rosendahl did that you deny Rosendahl himself contrary argument? Do note that Lee Payne is co-author of the article and supplier of the R. assertions, so that is the same hearsay-link for both sides. (Actually, IIRC, it's Lee's brother Bob who connected with the supposed Joe, and I'm forgetting it it was even clear whether the two brothers had actual contact w/"Joe" or if their article arose on Bob's hearsay of Joe !)At least in the Collins interview, the journalists are contacting someone with first-hand knowledge of the bend's use (assuming Joe's not making it up). Joe could have been contacted at the time of the article for people who wanted to find out more.
We know at least that Rosendahl existed; do we know this about Collins? If we can, by naval records, find no evidence of this Collins (though among ample records otherwise), that raises an obvious question.That would be a better route to pursue. It would far more directly prove that Joe Collins was a fraud.
And if there is no record otherwise about the supposed required special knot to do some service (that a student of airship mooring cannot conceive of!), that too raises questions --wouldn't a military organization have made mimeographed tying instructions issued to rope handlers so that they could learn the knot?No, that trail is fruitless. Every organization has tribal knowledge in some quarters that is not officially promulgated.
And do you also think that Rosendahl and not Collins was confused about where the alleged training occurred?This is pointless on two counts: 1) We cannot verify the contents of the missing Rosendahl letter. 2) Even if Collins got this wrong, it could have just been a slip of the tongue, with no bearing on other elements of his story.
The best you can say on the Rosendahl commentary is Why did HE raise the question about how any such knot could play a roll (as does Giles)?! --a fair point, that. Except that one answer that springs to mind is that Cmdr.R. was so knot-NOT-savvy that he simply had no clue, in such matters : that hardly speaks to his having originated or even insisted upon some particular, novel knot.We can't really say anything on the Rosendahl commentary because it seems unavailable for review. For all we know it could have been a letter from a relative of Rosendahl, and not Rosendahl himself. If it was from Rosendahl himself, he may have been commenting on never hearing of a bend named after him even if the Rosendahl Bend was used (assuming he remembered it at the age of 84). I could go on with hypotheses, but you get the drift on why these layers of hearsay makes this IGKT article ripe for retraction at the earliest convenience.
My weak surmise is that this Joe Collins did exist, and was perhaps the orginator of the knot, but wanted to make a *legend* for it (harkening to [i][u]Tinker,Taylor,Soldier,Spy[/i] concluding book [i][u]Smiley's People[/i] reputed spy jargon for getting a cover story for someone).He was the originator, but didn't want to take credit for it and was willing to make up a whopper of a story? Perhaps, but reckless scholarship shouldn't brand this guy a liar and a fraud. The IGKT should retract the article, and work for better, verifiable facts.
It’s very possible, since it is very easy to overlook the relation between a single-strand lanyard knot and a similar bend structure. Of course, the glaring omission in the section on bends is usually what makes people assume that the bend was either unknown to Ashley, or at least not well known to him at the time.
As contrasted with producing a “Joe Collins”?! And, frankly,
it is you making supposition about these documents being NA;
and making no such doubt about Collins being so --most biased
thinking. (I’m pretty sure that the Wingfoot article is available,
and certainly Dr. Camplin who refers to it is, and has been asked
and so on.) I don’t know if Lee Payne might be yet with us.
At least in the Collins interview, the journalists are contacting someone with first-hand knowledge of the bend's use (assuming Joe's not making it up). Joe could have been contacted at the time of the article for people who wanted to find out more.Why do you insist that the Paynes are right in having bona fide "Joe Collins", but dubious on having a Rosenthal letter? I'll have to dig back to where discussion led me to think that in fact [u]they[/u] did NOT contact JC, but that only one of them --viz., Bob-- recounted what he'd heard told by JC. (Count this as fuzzy recall (Dave Fred, do you recall ... ?), pending discussion search.)
And if there is no record otherwise about the supposed required special knot to do some service (that a student of airship mooring cannot conceive of!), that too raises questions --wouldn't a military organization have made mimeographed tying instructions issued to rope handlers so that they could learn the knot?No, that trail is fruitless. Every organization has tribal knowledge in some quarters that is not officially promulgated.
Not fruitless if something IS found! And not so fruitless
if rather complete procedures are found that contain no
apparent room for such a knot’s use.
If a real JC had never been to where the training actually occurred, then he is shown false in his assertions. He and Rosenthal need to be together in some way that he could've gotten from R. what R. (however) denies ever knowing.And do you also think that Rosendahl and not Collins was confused about where the alleged training occurred?This is pointless on two counts: 1) We cannot verify the contents of the missing Rosendahl letter. 2) Even if Collins got this wrong, it could have just been a slip of the tongue, with no bearing on other elements of his story.
The best you can say on the Rosendahl commentary is Why did HE raise the question about how any such knot could play a roll (as does Giles)?! --a fair point, that. Except that one answer that springs to mind is that Cmdr.R. was so knot-NOT-savvy that he simply had no clue, in such matters : that hardly speaks to his having originated or even insisted upon some particular, novel knot.We can't really say anything on the Rosendahl commentary because it seems unavailable for review.
It’s as much available for review as is Joe Collins.
I could go on with hypotheses, but you get the drift ...Indeed I do --you're barking at shadows.
My weak surmise is that this Joe Collins did exist, and was perhaps the orginator of the knot, but wanted to make a *legend* for it (harkening to [i][u]Tinker,Taylor,Soldier,Spy[/i] concluding book [i][u]Smiley's People[/i] reputed spy jargon for getting a cover story for someone).He was the originator, but didn't want to take credit for it and was willing to make up a whopper of a story? Perhaps, but reckless scholarship shouldn't brand this guy a liar and a fraud. The IGKT should retract the article, and work for better, verifiable facts.
Ha, “retract the article”, yeah, right. The point of the “legend”
is to buy credentials for the knot --which “hey, look what I did!”
doesn’t do (we can witness that regularly, here). That’s just a
surmise, hardly a “branding” at this point --but some scenarios
call for some basis, so there you go. All that has been recently
done is to bring to awareness Lee Payne’s footnote that says
Rosenthal denied knowing of any such knot, in balance to Lee
& Bob Payne’s article saying that Joe Collins says that Rosenthal
insisted on some knot. There’s one degree of separation fewer
in the former claim than the latter, if you’re counting “layers”.
–dl*
+1.
One’s particular path to a knot might have been
forged by an interest w/o ends-joining in mind,
and the encounter made w/o time or interest or
energy to then explore the discovered structure
for all things that it might itself lead to if turned
inside-out and so on. (Some cases of not realizing
things are more embarrassing than others. 
)
(-;
Joe Collins record in the Navy could at least be queried. The time to ask for contact information for Joe would have been closer to the time of the article.
If the Rosendahl letter exists, I’m all for trotting it out word for word, to verify content, context, and authorship. However, when trying to prove something, people usually lead with their best evidence. What’s the best evidence in the IGKT article? A reference to a Wingfoot footnote instead of the Rosendahl letter that is two steps away from this footnote.
Why do you insist that the Paynes are right in having bona fide "Joe Collins", but dubious on having a Rosenthal letter? I'll have to dig back to where discussion led me to think that in fact [u]they[/u] did NOT contact JC, but that only one of them --viz., Bob-- recounted what he'd heard told by JC. (Count this as fuzzy recall (Dave Fred, do you recall ... ?), pending discussion search.)If Bob Payne heard Joe Collins, how is that not contact? I'm not insisting that Joe Collins story is beyond reproach, but this reproach needs to come from verifiable information, not from layers of unverifiable hearsay.
Not fruitless if something IS found!I was referring to the fruitless endeavor of trying to prove a negative here. Failing to find a record of the bend in official Naval record would prove nothing. See what a difference a little context makes? I think it's a long shot to find old Naval records of the bend, but if you think you can find such a record, go for it.
If a real JC had never been to where the training actually occurred, then he is shown false in his assertions. He and Rosenthal need to be together in some way that he could've gotten from R. what R. (however) denies ever knowing.Proving this negative would have to be done with other avenues, such as contacting the US Navy (if they divulge such info).
--you're barking at shadows.I have no problem barking at shadows when these unverifiable shadows are being used as a basis to defame the reputation of someone. When you decide to call someone a liar based on unverifiable gossip, expect to get egg on your face.
Ha, "retract the article", yeah, right. The point of the "legend" is to buy credentials for the knot --which "hey, look what I did!" doesn't do (we can witness that regularly, here). That's just a surmise, hardly a "branding" at this point --but some scenarios call for some basis, so there you go. All that has been recently done is to bring to awareness Lee Payne's footnote that says Rosenthal denied knowing of any such knot, in balance to Lee & Bob Payne's article saying that Joe Collins says that Rosenthal insisted on some knot. There's one degree of separation fewer in the former claim than the latter, if you're counting "layers".Bringing "awareness" to unverifiable gossip that makes Joe Collins out to be a liar is completely irresponsible. By the way, this wasn't Payne's footnote, it was a footnote in the Wingfoot Journal - another step away.
The time to verify any of these sources was some time ago if the best that can be had is a dead-end footnote that refers to a missing letter that refers to another missing letter that might have been written by a 84-year-old Rosendahl who may or may not have had a good memory of the events in question.
If your cavalier attitude is common among the IGKT leadership, it doesn’t make me want to rush out to pay them for their magazine.