Butterfly loop ... Bend?
Russel Brooks
good bend if you started with the two ends of a pair of ropes
instead of a bight in the middle of a rope.
Crazy idea?
Cheers... Russ
DIGITAL FREEDOM! --> http://www.eff.org/
Joe Hafner
I think your idea has already been done by Brion Toss, Master Rigger in Port
Townsend, WA. He named it the Strait Bend, after the Strait of Juan De
Fuca. Great minds must think alike!
Fair Leads,
Joe
"Russel Brooks" <rlbr...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:56455244685...@news1.attglobal.net...
roo
this, but really the old-timers knew of the connection between loops,
bends, and hitches. It's no coincidence that sailors have always tied
the sheet bend the same way they tie the bowline, for example.
Having said that, however, if Mr. Toss was the first to publish the
Butterfly Bend (or the Strait Bend), I have no problem giving him
credit for it if he wants it.
By the way, it's a pretty good bend.
Cheers,
roo
erik
> good bend if you started with the two ends of a pair of ropes
> instead of a bight in the middle of a rope.
Some say the Straight bend is jam resistant. However, the day I had need
to heavily load one in 1/2" 3 strand nylon, I nearly didn't get it out.
Most of the time they come out 'ok', but not nearly as easy as the
Zeppelin bend.
Toss's method of tying the Straight bend (in his book 'Knots'), is quick
and easy to remember.
The Butterfly Loop (some call it a Lineman's Loop) is also good for
quickly isolating a damaged section of line... just tie with the bad
spot in the loop.
Erik
Dan Lehman
> I was playing with a Butterfly loop and thought it might make a
> good bend ... . Crazy idea?
Not at all. Rather, why should it be any surprise to think of this
aspect of the structure, which, afterall, is expected to sustain
exactly this loading when used as a mid-line loopknot (ends loaded,
looParts slack)? What IS surprising is that someone would think to
take credit for originating it! And, given all of the symmetric
interlocked-overhands bends, it's surprising to ignore them in favor
of the Butterfly, whose asymmetry was forced upon it qua mid-line
loopknot--not designed by desire.
> I know that Dr. Asher thought that Mr. Toss was the first...
Just one of many lame things from Harry. He was obsessed with doing
Hunter not "one" but many "better", in the realm of knot *invention*.
> but really the old-timers knew of the connection between loops,
> bends, and hitches.
Hmmm. Note that the relation between the Butterfly loopknot and bend
is NOT the same as Asher's general rule--i.e., one doesn't cut the
loop and get the bend as generally (where one of the cut looParts
becomes the opposing rope's SPart); rather, the butterfly's looParts
become the two ends of the bend. On this point, I suggest considering
as a single loop the Butterfly structure with one SPart the SPart,
one looPart & other SPart the loop, and the other looPart the end
(of this *new* loopknot). --it was a loopknot I fiddled from just
an overhand-knot base, and later realized that it had one of the
forms of the Butterfly (where the looParts cross, vs. butting
together).
> It's no coincidence that sailors have always tied
> the sheet bend the same way they tie the bowline, for example.
I doubt they do so when the ropes are heavy, or one is. But again,
note the difference in relation between Bwl & ShtB. vs. the Butterfly
loop & bend.
> Having said that, however, if Mr. Toss was the first to publish
He wasn't, at least twice over (as I noted on his SparTalk--now lost
in their new reformatting--I don't see anymore Archives, alas): the
earliest was Wright & Maggowan's Alpine Journal article(s) on climbing
knots of the day (and some new ideas, and testing)--cf. Hist&Science
of Knots, ch. by CWarner on Life Support Knots--; the 2nd was the
same book that refuted Hunter's claim to the bend that bears his name
--Phil Smith's _Knots for Mountaineering_.
> By the way, it's a pretty good bend.
In light of the competition, I think it's relatively bad.
Give my ABOK#1409, 1425, 1452, or the Rosendahl/Zepplin.
From: erik (eri...@my-deja.com)
> Some say the Straight bend is jam resistant.
Roo & I have had this discussion re the loop, though that's a different
loading of the structure (and is either of two loadings, given the
asymmetry (more, given ways to arrange the structure!)).
> However, the day I had need to heavily load one in 1/2" 3 strand nylon,
> I nearly didn't get it out.
It suggests to me that you might have learned to use this knot from Brion
Toss's book(s)? --or just realized the knot for yourself, as did Russ?
Why not use Ashley's #1452? --is it that damnable tying method introduced
by CLDay? grrrrr. Just form one overhand, and reeve the other rope into
that, appropriately! Then arrange the ends on whichever side suits your
need--on the one, it's easily untied & stronger; on the other, and with
some looseness in the collars, it draws up into a tight-when-slack knot
that is I think weaker and certainly harder to untie (but w/ends long
enough to grip well, should be able to be forcibly untied; also, there
are points to pry w/marlinespike).
For many more interesting *new* knots, many of the interlocked overhands
variety, see Roger E. Miles's book _Symmetric Bends_.
Cheers,
--dl*
====
roo
In its defense, it's simple to tie and I've actually found the #1452
to be more apt to jam than the butterfly bend (in contrast to the
Butterfly Loop's occasional jamming). It also has better than average
security properties.
I think describing the Butterfly Bend as "pretty good" is fair.
Dan Lehman
> What don't you like about the Butterfly Bend?
Mostly I was putting it "relatively bad" because of the competition
--I prefer their symmetry. (Yes, that's not a great reason.)
But I do think that for most purposes where one would use the B.,
#1408, which much resembles it, but is symmetric, would better suit,
impossible to jam (indeed, it's Zeppelin-like, but with the opposed
SParts jointly nipping the paired ends, vs. side-by-side, and so
there's a 3dia SPart bend vs. 2dia of Z.).
> In its defense, it's simple to tie and I've actually found the #1452
> to be more apt to jam than the butterfly bend
Well, I must question what version of #1452 you use!? If the ends are
oriented adjacent relative to the axis of tension, and are such that
they are pulled by the SParts' joint turning nip into a tightening twist
(as opposed to an opening one, were they on the other sides of each other),
then you cannot jam the knot, even with loose collars (which can thus ride
up around the knot body, but not achieve a very secure lock). You CAN tie
it such that it becomes quite secure-when-slack, and can jam (though this
might be relative to applicable force in untying, & surface friction).
===>> the unjammable form: with #1452 oriented such that the ends rise
UP from the body, if the SParts are pulling their nipping *embrace*
in a counterclockwise orientation and the axis of tension runs
left-right, arrange the ends such that the one from the right-side
*collar* and right rope lies above the other (is closer to "12:00",
with the opposite end closer to "6:00" position). Each end can be
seen to be pulled by the opposite rope's SPart away from its own
side, and the twist of end against end is a tightening one.
--dl*
====
Daniel J. Machowski
Smooth turns
Dan
roo
apparently there's more to it. If the #1452 requires you to twist the
free ends a certain way after you tie it to prevent jamming, I'd have
to pass on it. I think my memory is just barely good enough to
remember how to tie knots without having to remember the direction of
twist of the free ends relative to the handedness of the way you tie
the knot.
However, if what you mention turns out to be the case, I'll scribble a
note to that effect next to that knot in my book next to #1452 for
reference.
Dan Lehman
> I used the #1452 right off the arrow diagram in Ashley.
Which is, as are many illustrations, vague about exact orientation of parts
(at some point those arrow lines "butt" and then are "side-by-side"; in
both cases, they yield a jam-snug form; the opposite adjacency is what
yields the jam-free--and, I surmise, strongest--form).
> If the #1452 requires you to twist the free ends a certain way
Well, you don't really twist them, but you do orient them one way or the
other, as per need (assuming you know about all this, etc.). And the
tying method can influence this: I always tie an overhand in the left
rope, *spine* away, end upwards, and so reeve the right rope into this
at the forward between-spine-&-SPart point; and that is where I have the
right end exit, for unjammable form--so, in & back out at the same point.
> having to remember the direction of twist of the free ends ...
Well, you can remember separate knots for separate behaviors, or you can
remember versions of one knot: which should be harder? (YMMV :)
> However, if what you mention turns out to be the case,
!! (-; Btw, take a close look at the nice SPart curve in the unjammed
form; compare w/that of your beloved Zeppelin--which, btw, is another
knot with various forms depending on placement of the ends--you can get
sharper or milder bends to the SParts.)
> I'll scribble a note to that effect next to that knot in my book next
> to #1452 for reference.
You might do better: ILLUSTRATE the pincipal forms in the large blank
space below the last text entry. (Cf. #1408's text re the orientation
of ends; in 1452's case, unless the ends are very short, the knot won't
fail--its *walking* will be stopped.)
--dl*
====
Brian Grimley
>
> Well, you don't really twist them, but you do orient them one way or the
> other, as per need (assuming you know about all this, etc.). And the
> tying method can influence this: I always tie an overhand in the left
> rope, *spine* away, end upwards, and so reeve the right rope into this
> at the forward between-spine-&-SPart point; and that is where I have the
> right end exit, for unjammable form--so, in & back out at the same point.
>
> Well, you can remember separate knots for separate behaviors, or you can
> remember versions of one knot: which should be harder? (YMMV :)
>
I must admit to struggling (mea culpa) with the orientation of the
ends in some of the discussions. But, with a piece of rope and a lot
of twiddling, I think it is coming together.
I noticed the following about the relationship between the Butterfly
Loop and the Butterfly Bend:
There seems to be two forms of the Butterfly Loop. One, say Butterfly
Loop (crossed) , where the mid-line loop crosses itself and the
crossing is gripped by the knot. The other, say Butterfly Loop
(uncrossed), where the loop is uncrossed and hence two parallel lines
are gripped by the knot. If the loop is simply cut to form a bend, we
have two different end orientations: one crossing and one parallel.
However, neither Asher or Toss seem to simply "cut the loop" of their
chosen form of the loop to yield their chosen form of the bend.
Further, it seems to me that Asher's and Toss' choices are opposite.
Asher's loop is a Butterfly Loop (crossed). Yet, Asher's bend is a
Butterfly Loop (uncrossed) cut; i.e. parallel ends in the Butterfly
Bend. Toss' loop is a Butterfly Loop (uncrossed). Yet, Toss' bend is
a Butterfly Loop (crossed) cut, i.e. crossed ends in the Butterfly
Bend.
My first thought would have been that if you preferred the Butterfly
Loop (crossed) then you would prefer the "cut" Butterfly Loop
(crossed) as the bend. That is, the Butterfly Bend with crossed ends.
Or; vise versa. This seems not to be true for Asher and Toss. I
wonder why. It seems the loop and the bend have been considered
independently.
Budworth, in his "Ultimate Encyclopedia ... ", chooses the Butterfly
Loop (uncrossed) and "cuts the loop" to yield the bend. That is, the
Butterfly Bend has parallel ends. But, in an earlier book, Budworth
says the Butterfly Loop (crossed) is the correct form of the loop.
There seems to be no end of choices for the individual knotter. All
those who prefer the Butterfly Loop (crossed), please raise your right
hands . . .
Good knotting - Brian.
Dan Lehman
> There seems to be two forms of the Butterfly Loop.
Keep fiddling, you're not done. (Consider that, from the point of the
parallel/uncrossed-looParts/ends form, one can twist those in either of
two directions for a crossed form. There are other (mis)shapings, too.)
> However, neither Asher [n]or Toss seem[s] to simply "cut the loop"
By "Asher", I presume "_Alternative Knot Book_"; but on "Toss", maybe it's
"_Chapman Book of Knots_" and not "_Rigger's Apprentice_"? --in the latter,
I see only one form (uncrossed) (though the bend image is such that one can
see what one wants, like the old, infamous "True Bowline" plate).
(I don't know what the other Toss book shows.)
> of their chosen form of the loop to yield their chosen form of the bend.
Frankly, I think that your mistake is in presuming "chosen": they might
well be ignorant of the distinction, or not partial to any particular form.
(In _....Apprentice_, e.g., there's a confusion in the "Tugboat Bowline"
between the words & the tying illustration: the latter actually yields
a different knot from the Angler's/Perfection Loop, but the words there
as well as for the earlier-described A/P. loop indicate that only the
tying method and not the resulting knot is different.)
> Asher's loop is a Butterfly Loop (crossed).
He has a good illustration of this.
> My first thought would have been that if you preferred the Butterfly
> Loop (crossed) then you would prefer the "cut" Butterfly Loop
> (crossed) as the bend. That is, the Butterfly Bend with crossed ends.
> Or; vise versa. This seems not to be true for Asher and Toss. I
> wonder why.
Aside from my comment above, note that Asher is following his coding when
showing the bend, and it is likely simpler to do so for the uncrossed form
for that.
> But, in an earlier book, Budworth
> says the Butterfly Loop (crossed) is the correct form of the loop.
This interests me: what's the full citation (book, pg.#, and can you quote
his full remark, please?)
> ..., please raise your right hands . . .
AH, not only knots, but hands? --I have two, sometimes parallel, sometimes
crossed, but only one "right" one. (Having two right hands would be, I say,
both plural & singular! --must be after my bedtime, ... :o)
(-;
Brian Grimley
>
> Keep fiddling, you're not done. (Consider that, from the point of the
> parallel/uncrossed-looParts/ends form, one can twist those in either of
> two directions for a crossed form. There are other (mis)shapings, too.)
>
I usually fiddle with a 1/4 inch braided polyester (kermantel). I must
dig out a length of three strand manila and see if the lay of the rope
suggests a preferred "twist direction".
> By "Asher", I presume "_Alternative Knot Book_"; but on "Toss", maybe it's
> "_Chapman Book of Knots_" and not "_Rigger's Apprentice_"? --in the latter,
> I see only one form (uncrossed) (though the bend image is such that one can
> see what one wants, like the old, infamous "True Bowline" plate).
> (I don't know what the other Toss book shows.)
>
By Asher, I meant the "The Alternative Knot Book". By Toss, I was
referring to his book - "Knots" from Chapman's Nautical Guides. In
this book, the illustration of the bend has different coloured strands
and shows the bend having crossed ends. I checked out the bend in
"Rigger's Apprentice". The illustration is ambiguous. (All the same,
it's obviously crossed! LOL)
> Frankly, I think that your mistake is in presuming "chosen": they might
> well be ignorant of the distinction, or not partial to any particular form.
I agree.
> (In _....Apprentice_, e.g., there's a confusion in the "Tugboat Bowline"
> between the words & the tying illustration: the latter actually yields
> a different knot from the Angler's/Perfection Loop, but the words there
> as well as for the earlier-described A/P. loop indicate that only the
> tying method and not the resulting knot is different.)
>
Thank you for the observations.
> > But, in an earlier book, Budworth
> > says the Butterfly Loop (crossed) is the correct form of the loop.
> This interests me: what's the full citation (book, pg.#, and can you quote
> his full remark, please?)
Budworth, Geoffrey, "The Knot Book", Sterling Publishing Co. Inc.,
1985.
On page 100, Budworth says: "Note the crossing point where the bight
emerges from the neck of the two interlocked Loops (Fig. 67B) This is
the hallmark of a properly made Alpine Butterfly Knot."
Frankly, I haven't been able to convince myself that one form of the
Butterfly Loop is superior to the other. I suspect the "properly"
above refers to its form in the original publication: The Alpine
Journal. I am not able to confirm this.
All the best - Brian.