One needs to go a little farther than exactly halfway
–to have the overlap of to-become tails of the end-2-end knot.
So, an overhand stopper (though not symmetric in terms
of geometry, qua stopper) begets a … [i]nothing/i, a fig.8 stopper
a thief knot, and a symmetric fig.9 knot (#521) is also
a nothing (!). .:. This general scheme cannot be applied
generally with success, as promised; do not Pass GO. 
Verification in knotting is commonly lacking, on all things,
and counting “levels” as you do is a bit beside the point.
Bark at this, too, for whatever joy you take from it,
but it is what casts further doubt on the Boating article.
Again, this is from co-editor Lee Payne’s now infamous footnote:
?The story was told to me [Lee Payne] by my brother, who was sailing as second mate aboard the President Madison. Joe Collins was the helmsman on his watch. The fact remains that this is an outstanding knot that is not listed in any of the books on the subject. Perhaps some of your readers will recognize it."To me, this says that the article was based on one co-editor's recall of conversation had well prior. (This could help explain the error in where training occurred --Bob's recall, not Joe's.)
For what it’s worth, I did find a Joseph J. Collins (ens.) in a 1918 Naval Directory, and a Joseph T. Collins (ens., instrn):
If “instrn” indicates that he was an instructor, that would be consistent with the Payne account. It may be him, but then again, Collins isn’t exactly the rarest name, either.
It is a “general” scheme, meaning it is a strategy that applies to many, indeed the majority of the cases. Discovering a handful of exceptions, ( as you always try to do… :)), especially if those exceptions are confined at the one end of the spectrum of the sample ( the most simple knots), does not mean that it does apply only to a few, “special” cases 
If it is not “special”, it must be “general”, is nt it that so ?
Perhaps I use the term"general" wrongly… but, in general, a tossed coin will not stand on its end. I could have easily passed the GO, if I had said the exact opposite, i.e. that a symmetric bend makes, with the reverse operation, a stopper. My point here was that the ABoK#582 is a knot with so similar a structure with the Zeppelin bend, that makes me wonder if/how Ashley knew the stopper, but missed the bend.
I’m very new to knot tying. I’m interested in loops at the moment, and in the zeppelin loop in particular. We have xarax’s opinion; I’m wondering what others think about the effect of loading one of the ends of the zeppelin bend in forming the loop. Does that make it a less-secure knot than the bend?
In my super-basic experiments, the zeppelin loop seems the most secure, meaning that it simply doesn’t seem to move, whether I shake it or yank on it intermittently or whatever else. One way I’ve tested the stability of loop knots is by grabbing the loop on either side of the knot and pulling hard away from the knot (essentially a pull that would widen the loop). The zeppelin shifts a little and then stays put. The others I’ve looked at (bowline with or without a round-turn, Inuit bowline with or without a round turn, perfection loop) all deform much more than the zeppelin loop.
I’m also wondering how the zeppelin bend and loop compare in security to bends and loops typically used in rock climbing. Is there evidence to say definitively that the zeppelin bend and loop are or are not to be trusted with my life?
I don’t recall X. opining this, but simply that
the symmetry of the end-2-end knot’s loading
is lost in the eye knot (as one overhand part
is loaded on both ends, the other not).
I'm also wondering how the [i]zeppelin[/i] bend and loop compare in security to bends and loops typically used in rock climbing. Is there evidence to say definitively that the [i]zeppelin[/i] bend and loop are or are not to be trusted with my life?
Rockclimbers use end-2-end knots in just a couple of
cirucumstances : joining ends of a small line or tape
to form a closed-loop sling; joining abseil ropes together.
In neither of these cases would one have good reason
to favor the zeppelin bend.
Eye knots are used for tying in, and the zeppelin eye knot
will suffice, as will many many others. Its ease of UNtying
after being loaded is one attractive aspect --but one shared
by numerous bowlines and other lesser known knots.
Dan_Lehman, I have a number of follow-up questions to your reply, but they go outside the topic of this thread. I’d be grateful is you’d reply to a new thread I started: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3810.0.
As memory is helped by repetition, I will repeat the same things I have written in this forum MANY times ( but have been read only a FEW times, if any, I am afraid…), once again…See :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3810.msg22458#msg22458
Actually, the loop is more secure. Just as the bowline is more secure than the parent sheet bend, most loop knots are more secure than their parent bend. In a loop, one more part of rope is imparting tension into the knot form which usually keeps things more snug. In some loops this may contribute to making the knot harder to untie, but in the Zeppelin Loop, ease of untying is maintained.
I'm also wondering how the zeppelin bend and loop compare in security to bends and loops typically used in rock climbing. Is there evidence to say definitively that the zeppelin bend and loop are or are not to be trusted with my life?The [url=http://notableknotindex.webs.com/Zeppelin.html]Zeppelin Bend[/url] and Zeppelin Loop can be trusted with life. In fact they or their double form would be my first choices. And I've gotten positive feedback from people who use them in such capacity.
The Zeppelin Loop is also quite nice in handling oddball loading configuration, such as accidental pulling of the free end, or loading the legs in opposite directions (the latter being something a Figure 8 Loop can have problems with). I also like the distinctive, symmetric knot form makes the Zeppelin Loop (and bend) very easy to check for errors, even from a distance.
I do think that the double/triple fisherman knots are the gold standard of security, it’s just unfortunate that they’re also horribly jam-prone.
The most important thing is that you are testing knots yourself in the material that you will be using. There is no substitute for this. It will give you a feel for the properties of knots that no amount of reading will do.
Very grateful for the replies. Thanks!
The Sheet bend IS NOT the parent of the bowline ! In fact, it has a very limited relation with the bowline, if any. Read the thread “What defines a bowline” (1), about what the bowline is…
I have seen no tests of the security or strength of any of the two forms of the Sheet bend, in comparison with any of the two forms of the bowline - tied with/on the same material. While this claim sounds reasonable, I would never trust another person s life on something that, although reasonable, is not tested experimentally.
No, they can not, and they should not ! - until they are tested, and proven to be more secure and strong than any other similar knots that can possibly be used for the same purpose. Of course, I am speaking about other people s lives, ( OPL), because, if anybody actually believes in this, he can always put his own life into test - falling from a increasingly dangerous height above the ground.
I hope that the absence any negative feedback is not a consequence of a sufficiently dangerous height…
For the so-called “Zeppelin loop”, such a distance is a prerequisite…The more the distance, the more 'distinct, symmetric form" this ugly monster acquires. At a sufficient distance, this tangle will be transformed into a perfect circle. However, as a knot, it always remains a zero.
:o :o :o :o :o
Lay a sheet bend besides a bowline and cover up all but the central knot form. Notice anything?
Or tie a bowline and only load the standing part and the one leg belonging to the “U” shape. Notice anything?
I probably shouldn’t even bother responding to this. :-\
I agree 100% ! You should not, because you do not understand that the Sheet bend has no nipping loop as the bowline…and you have not read the relevant thread in order to start trying to learn it.
The loop or coil of the Sheet bend most certainly “nips” the U shape of the rope. The distal part of the U shape helps anchor that coil so that it can provide nip.
Or would you like to claim that a bowline ceases to be a bowline as soon a rotating, high-friction load causes only the leg belonging to the U shape to be loaded?
We have been talking about all those things, and then some, on the thread about bowlines (1). The question about the relation of the Sheet bend and the bowline, if any, has been discussed by an exchange of different views between Derek Smith and me. I have to remind you that you have vigorously insisted that this was not a “practical” matter, and you orchestrated the head to be removed from the “Practical knots” Forum, to the now extinct “Knot Theory”(!?) Forum..
I would be glad if you have made up your mind by now, wish to read what was written there, and reply THERE.
( Many things "nip"other things, but they are not nipping loops ! )
I’m not going to sift through some protracted theoretical word fight to get an answer. If you want to avoid the question, that is fine. It’s off topic, and you won’t change your mind anyway.
Is this, at last, an admission by you that I, too, have a mind - as, presumably, you do? Thank you, doctor !
It is more or less, resp., of opposite-side or same-side (recommended)
sheet bends, in that the mechanics of the “loop” here
are of loading-from-one-direction and not of both ends
(of the loop) being pulled upon (50% & 100%, with friction
leading to equalization at some point, in normal cordage).
One can suggest that the same-side (“proper”) sheet bend
is just a tucked version of the thief knot , to put it in
perspective --of more nearly, in effect, U-2-U workings rather
than U-2-loop. But this is getting awfully picky.
As for security and testing,
some arborist did test the zeppelin eyeknot in a kernmantle
(“static”, low-elongation something or other, 8-11mm, IIRC)
rope, and found it stronger than some fig.8 he also tested
(“some” meaning that the exact orientation wasn’t obvious).
It held to a high rupture value, so obviously didn’t slip.
Meanwhile, we have the Dave Richards testing of various
kernmantle cordage (7mm accessory, 10.2? mm dynamic,
and 12.7mm low-elongation) to show that the sheet bends
(single & double) were weaker and less secure --sometimes
needing stopper knots!-- than bowlines.
Or would you like to claim that a [i]bowline[/i] ceases to be a [i]bowline[/i] as soon a rotating, high-friction load causes only the leg belonging to the U shape to be loaded?
Well, this certainly points to issues in defining “knot”,
and why I use ’ knot ’ often, to alert one to some
problematic definitions. For, surely, in the loading above,
one has an effectively different physical structure and
should expect associated behavior if so! And I do wonder
if by such effective loadings those trawler hawser bowlines
get capsized; the capsized forms are undeniable, but
the path TO them is unknown to me, up for inference.
Thanks for this information. Would it be too difficult for you to cite links ?
All those “tests” you refer to, are unique, once-happened phenomena ( should we better say “miracles” ? ), or they have been verified by reasonable repetition ? Because most of the 'knot tests" I read could not have attracted any attention, if done in any field of modern science and technology… ( And, yes, I know, middle ages were different in this requirement for “plenty” of numbers… :))
I believe we should first explore the ultimum strength of the many forms of “secure” bowline-like loops, before we would attempt to follow closely any - rare or not - collapse of those knots under extreme loading.
I found this video where they test security of several knots including Zeppelin bend and Zeppelin loop (latter of which only with added security, though) using 7mm Edelweiss rope which seems to be stretchy.
Interestingly, Zeppelin bend seems to capsize in the test.