loop on the bight
Carl West
I just found the group and read what postings my server has.
I came up with this knot a couple of years ago.
I'd like to think I'm so wonderfully original that I've managed
twist rope together in a way that no man has ever thought of before,
but I know the smell of hubris, so I doubt it.
Anyway, what's this one called? What's it usually used for?
(I don't have a copy of Ashley)
http://h00050207be9f.ne.client2.attbi.com/knots/westknot.jpg
It makes a solid, perpendicular loop 'A' on the bight, is fairly symmetrical,
and relatively easy to untie after load.
I use it as part of a 3:1 cinch for things like binding straw bales together
for archery butts.
-- Carl
If you try to 'reply' to me without fixing the dot, your reply
will go into a 'special' mailbox reserved for spam. See below.
--
Carl West carlD...@comcast.net http://carl.west.home.comcast.net
>>>>>>>> change the 'DOT' to '.' to email me <<<<<<<<<<<<
"Clutter"? This is an object-rich environment.
roo
Loop:
http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/butterflyloop.html
It's usually used where ever you need a fixed loop on the bight that
can be pulled in many of combinations of loadings. It's a fairly
popular loop and its origins are likely very old (if you were
curious).
Cheers,
roo
--
See the Notable Knot Index for my real e-mail address.
Carl West <carlD...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<eHxsc.38384$zw.32164@attbi_s01>...
Erik
rootw...@yahoo.com (roo) wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, you've come up with a Butterfly Loop or Lineman's
> Loop:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/butterflyloop.html
>
> It's usually used where ever you need a fixed loop on the bight that
> can be pulled in many of combinations of loadings. It's a fairly
> popular loop and its origins are likely very old (if you were
> curious).
>
> Cheers,
> roo
It's a good one too... I've had a little trouble with them jaming when
heavily loaded though. They're great for the loop of trucker type knots,
and isolating damaged sections of a line. Just put the damaged area
within the loop.
With a little practice they can be tied 'blind' in seconds.
I've also heard it's origins are ancient.
Erik
Steven
> Hi, I'm really new here.
> I just found the group and read what postings my server has.
>
> I came up with this knot a couple of years ago.
> I'd like to think I'm so wonderfully original that I've managed
> twist rope together in a way that no man has ever thought of before,
> but I know the smell of hubris, so I doubt it.
>
> Anyway, what's this one called? What's it usually used for?
> (I don't have a copy of Ashley)
>
> http://h00050207be9f.ne.client2.attbi.com/knots/westknot.jpg
>
> It makes a solid, perpendicular loop 'A' on the bight, is fairly
> symmetrical, and relatively easy to untie after load.
>
> I use it as part of a 3:1 cinch for things like binding straw bales
> together for archery butts.
I know it as an "Alpine butterfly knot". Used as a middleman's knot in rock
climbing and UK moutain rescue I believe also use it.
Steven
Brian Grimley
>
> I know it as an "Alpine butterfly knot". Used as a middleman's knot in rock
> climbing and UK moutain rescue I believe also use it.
>
If I remember correctly, it was Ben who posted this .pdf file:
http://www.cs-caving-association.com/Reports/Knots%20A5.pdf .
It is the first source that I have seen which distinquishes between
the Butterfly and the Alpine Butterfly as two different knots. In the
past, I have used either name for the Alpine Butterfly knot. Now, like
you, I call it the Alpine Butterfly knot.
Brian.
Brian Kidd
I found it in the A-Book under Knot Number 331. Ashley refered to it as a
Linemans Loop. It is interesting as he goes on in the classification. He
classified the Linemans Loop as an Occupational Knot. Hope this helps...
Brian...
roo
Before I get started, I'll just say that I know there's no official
knot-naming body, and that my proposal here cannot be proved:
I strongly suspect that what that .pdf site calls a butterfly loop is
erroneous. Someone, at some point, probably came across a botched
diagram and thought they found the elusive butterfly loop... you know,
the "forgotten" one without the "alpine" modifier, upon which the
"alpine" is based. :)
First, when it's drawn up, it pulls out of shape sideways and doesn't
even look like a butterfly! The lineman's loop, on the other hand,
quite obviously does look like a butterfly. The loop is the tail,
with two ears that compose the wings. I think I recall reading some
old writings that indicates that the lineman's loop was also called a
butterfly loop because of its appearance. I suspect that only in
somewhat recent times did some climber(s) want to "claim the knot for
climbing" by throwing the word "alpine" in. That's why I purposely
omit the "alpine" modifier from my website. It's unnecessary and I
didn't want to start down that road of re-naming knots that already
have a name or names.
Second, I doubt spelunkers or climbers would use the aforemented
butchered butterfly since it doesn't like to keep its shape, and, if
drawn up without care, can actually turn into a loop that is fixed
when pulled one way but slides when pulled the opposite way. Not only
do I have a hard time imagining them using such a knot, I haven't come
across spelunkers, climbers, or any other interest group that ever
uses such a loop. If anyone knows of one, please ask them where they
got the idea to use it. Perhaps someone sees some merit in this loop
that they cannot find elsewhere, I don't know.
Just my two cents,
roo
gri...@kos.net (Brian Grimley) wrote in message news:<f49529ef.04052...@posting.google.com>...
roo
that an error is involved with their notion of a butterfly loop is
that, contrary to the text, it not difficult to make the loop they
have depicted jam very hard.
-roo
rootw...@yahoo.com (roo) wrote in message news:<3c67d62.04052...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
O J
>The lineman's loop, on the other hand,
> quite obviously does look like a butterfly. The loop is the tail,
> with two ears that compose the wings. I think I recall reading some
> old writings that indicates that the lineman's loop was also called a
> butterfly loop because of its appearance. I suspect that only in
> somewhat recent times did some climber(s) want to "claim the knot for
> climbing" by throwing the word "alpine" in. That's why I purposely
> omit the "alpine" modifier from my website. It's unnecessary and I
> didn't want to start down that road of re-naming knots that already
> have a name or names.
While Ashley calls the Alpine Butterfly the Lineman's Loop,
Pawson and other later writers call it the Alpine Butterfly, but at
least one of my books still lists it just as the Butterfly Knot. I'm
not sure if the name had a temporary stopover as the Butterfly before
the term 'Alpine' was added or if the 'Alpine' was subtracted by some
who want to see knot names change more slowly and deliberately. In
any case, most knot tyers recognize the knot whether the 'Alpine' is
attached or not.
As to the knot that the caving .pdf file lists as a 'Butterfly',
I have to believe someone erred in listing that unstable knot as
recommended for caving when the one it lists as the 'Alpine Butterfly'
is obviously a superior knot. I have to think that the figures shown
for strength of the knot are placed in error. I suspect that the
addition of the term 'Alpine' contributed to the confusion and that
the figures belong to the 'Alpine Butterfly'.
Considering the confusion that the addition of the term 'Alpine'
seems to have caused, I agree with roo that the term Butterfly should
be used and that the other knot should be quickly forgotten.
Regards,
O J
Dan Lehman
> As a post script to this message,
<groan>, which is repeated in full ... <sigh>
> another thing that makes me think
> that an error is involved with their notion of a butterfly loop is
> that, contrary to the text, it [is] not difficult to make the loop they
> have depicted jam very hard.
And one can jam the Butterfly, as well, sometimes. I've thus devised what
is pretty well non-jammable, and symmetric, but (necessarily) bulkier and
with twin eyes (to be used in unison, not separately--why it doesn't jam!).
Ah, here's a benefit to having a decent knots book, viz. _History & Science
of Knots_: it answers some of these questions. --to wit:
[_H&SK_, A History of Life-Support Knots, by Charles Warner, @pp.159-60]
The Half-Hitch Loop [what's called "Butterfly" vs. "Alpine ..." here]
and the Alpine Butterfly Loop are very similar in structure; the difference
is that in the latter the two Half Hitches are interlaced. The authors
[Wright & Magowan (1928, pub'd in Alpine Journal)] found the Alpine Butterfly,
named for a fancied resemblance in some configurations to the insect, to be
close to ideal, much the stronger of the two [in manila/hemp laid rope], and
able to withstand a pull on the two ends. There is much confusion in the
climbing and caving literature about these two knots, many attributing the
name and the excelolent performance of the Alpine Butterfly to the Half-Hitch
Loop. Despite Wright and Magowan's claim to originality, several general
knotting books list one of the other of these knots, usually under another
name, stating that they were used by American electrical linesmen; I have
not seen any clear indication that in fact both knots were in use, rather
than that the linesmen shared teh climbers' confusion about them.
--dl*
====
Dan Lehman
> As to the knot that the caving .pdf file lists as a 'Butterfly',
> I have to believe someone erred in listing that unstable knot as
> recommended for caving when the one it lists as the 'Alpine Butterfly'
> is obviously a superior knot. I have to think that the figures shown
> for strength of the knot are placed in error. I suspect that the
> addition of the term 'Alpine' contributed to the confusion and that
> the figures belong to the 'Alpine Butterfly'.
I believe that higher figures would apply to the Butterfly vs. Half-Hitch
Loop. But note that their strength figures are sometimes odd, and surely
wrong in the case of the Clove Hitch & Overhand, though this can take some
qualification. Lyon Equp.'s testing of ropes found the Clove to be pretty
strong & stable in climbing rope (1), but variably reliable (slipping, i.e.)
in low-elongation ropes (4); climbers rely on this knot in setting up belays
as it enables easy adjustment of tension. The Overhand loopknot shown is
not given a specific orientation for the loading, though it appears to be
set as a mid-line loopknot; in the middle of rope, it's tantamount to the
infamous "European Death Knot (EDK)" used by climbers for joining rappel
ropes, and is surely stronger than 33%--but one might find the knot capsizing
at such loads. As an end loopknot, it's much stronger, but then there's an
issue of loading--which end? CMC Rope Rescue publ'd its strength as 85%,
strongest of all their tested knots (incl. Fig.8)! --seemingly this is
a gross error of interpretation, and likely results from a transposition
of digits and ignorance in believing that surprising apparent result.
Note that for both of the so-called "Butterfly"s, there is difference in
form between using one vs. the other end as the SPart--these are asymmetric
knots. Somehow, this aspect is universally ignored in throwing about data
for strengths (as though such data attach to a name only)! --part of the
great amount of slops in knotting.
> Considering the confusion that the addition of the term 'Alpine'
> seems to have caused, I agree with roo that the term Butterfly should
> be used and that the other knot should be quickly forgotten.
Those who forget ... are doomed to repeat!
The Farmer's Loop is a better Butterfly alternative, to the HHLoop.
Note also that the Dbl.Fisherman's "65%" seems low (there was just some
guy on rockclimbing.com asserting that it's always way stronger than a
Fig.8), and then the use of the Square Knot with Strangle back-ups is
added to this entry w/o notice that the strength of IT is much lower
(50% or so, likely, in these ropes). Note that their image of this
latter knot is botched: it most nearly shows a back-up THIEF (which
might be stronger & more easily untied, but will depend on the integrity
of the Strangles!). (Clyde Soles's new book makes the same goof (despite
his denials :o).) The SParts or ends should lie on the same side--both
SParts above (or below), both ends below (resp. above), for the Square.
And it's interesting that they claim that the Fig.9 loopknot "can be
PARTICULARLY difficult to untie"--when others cite it as being perhaps
more easily untied than the Fig.8. (Unlike the 8, the 9 is asymmetric,
and so has a Reverse form that might be of interest, though harder to
tie.) (Well, the 8 is SUPPOSED to be symmetric--note that they both
that in their image (also like Clyde's book's cover image).) Their
assertion of strength diff. in which end is loaded agrees with what
I've echoed from ORCA, but which I think in fact has not such good
support in fact--and they say 10-15%, but that seems too high, esp.
if interpreted as "percentage points (such as 60 vs. 75%)" and not
pure percentage (60 vs. 66-69%). . . . slops . . .
--dl*
====