Talk:Butterfly loop

message: Good addition, Sik0fewl. I was able to make one with my mouse cable. --Ben Brockert 21:38, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
* Thanks. I hope to make a few more step by step image when I have time - sik0fewl 23:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * The following is a proposal for a new knot page style (the current ones are inconsistent and could use some fixing up). I think this is a decent layout, but I don't really like the floating images on the right side. Any elegant solutions for this? We may also want to use different categories in the table. - sik0fewl 23:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for new knot page style

message: * http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/butterflyloop.html
</div>
----
(... and ends here.  kmccoy (talk))
I think this style looks great, though you do make a good point about the images.  I'll do some thinking/experimenting on that.  I would also like to see a category for "strength" or something similar, to give an idea of the percentage loss of rope strength a knot causes (although it varies by rope type, I believe.)  Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 06:44, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: The write-up is very good . . . except for one thing:  It's NOT an "Alpine Butterfly".  It is the standard "Butterfly".  The "Alpine Butterfly" is depicted as the "Lineman's Loop".  [Alpine ascents historically being lighter and quicker; thus the alternative to the Butterfly being named the Alpine Butterfly because it is (or can be) quicker and easier to tie.]
:Alpine butterfly == Butterfly == Lineman's loop. They're all the same. There *is* another (probably quicker) way to tie the knot, which might be the source for confusion. The other way to tie this knot is shown here.
::As has been mentioned here before, there does not appear to be a distinction between the alpine butterfly knot (or loop) and the butterfly knot (or loop). The current page content is confusing in that aspect. Wschildbach (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the image to this method. It's clearer IMHO. Johan Andersson 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butterly shown; NOT an Alpine Butterfly 

message: The breaking strength of the butterfly knot is 53% with both ropes loaded, and 67% loop loaded.  
To elaborate further on the discussion between the Alpine Butterfly vs Butterfly, the Alpine version is a symmetrical knot, making the knot more secure.  The only problem with this knot in general is that it is very difficult to casually inspect which version has been tied, and if it has been tied correctly at all.  Practice with the Alpine version (three loops over one hand) and you will find it easy to repeat in the field.
I will make these edits on the main page to correct inaccuracies such as: "The addition of "alpine" to the name appears to be fairly recent and superfluous"
Silentspoon 15:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking Strength 

message: The use of the butterfly to tie off a section of damaged rope is questionable at best. I have not been able to find that suggestion in the literature; if this is left in, it certainly merits a reference to literature. Wschildbach (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On Rope describes isolating a damaged section of rope as a use for the knot; and, it is common practice in the caving community. WTucker (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike that first part -- I was sure it was On Rope; but, it was Alpine Caving Techniques. On page 73: "Butterfly knot: ... It is perfect for ... isolating a damaged section of rope." I will try to add a cite to the statement. WTucker (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done along with some other stuff. WTucker (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the recent improvements, WTucker.  Regarding doubts about using the loop section to isolate damaged sections, this knot can actually be tied as a bend (Alpine butterfly bend) with the two ends emerging where the loop would be.  By all accounts it makes a secure bend, thus showing that the loop portion is actually isolated from strain when the two other legs are loaded.  See , knot "2" on that page for more info.  --Dfred (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of butterfly to tie off damaged rope 

message: I'm going to revert the information about this being called the Harness loop by Ashley.  If On Rope suggests this, then it is incorrect.  The entry for the Lineman's loop (#1053) does refer to the Harness loop, but by saying the Lineman's loop is, "a better knot in every way than the Harness Loop".  The Harness loop (#1050) is definitely treated as a distinct knot by Ashley.  It is possible someone else used this name for the ABK, but it wasn't Ashley.  --Dfred (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me -- I was just taking Bruce Smiths word on it. WTucker (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected... :)  ABOK does have an entry (#532) which shows a butterfly loop and calls it "Harness Loop".  However it appears this is an error in ABOK, but it may explain the reason it ended-up as an alternate name in On Rope.  See section below.  --Dfred (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, on page 56 of On Rope (New Revised Edition, 1996) the references for Chapter 3 "Ties: Knots, Hitches, Bends" point to page 87 of ABOK where the (presumed) error in illustration at #532 occurs. --Dfred (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Harness loop as alternate name

message: I have created this section as an encouragement to the recent IP editor(s) to come and discuss their desired changes. Just stripping "Alpine" from the article and warring to keep it out while putting obvious errors back in is not helpful in a cooperative editing environment. A number of sources refer to this knot as an "Alpine butterfly" (possibly from the first publication in Alpine Journal). Why do you seem to want to ignore these reliable sources and remove the word "Alpine"? Thanks. WTucker (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alpine butterfly 

message: I propose that Alpine butterfly bend be merged into Alpine butterfly knot. Most sources (the few that I can find that even mention the bend) seem to deal with it in passing along with the loop knot. I think that a section within the knot article would easily deal with the bend in only a couple of sentences. This would place the subject more in context for the reader. WTucker (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the relationship between the loop and bend forms of the butterfly as analogous to that between the bowline and sheet bend.  While a merge might be justified due to the currently stubby nature of the butterfly bend article, I don't really support it in general.  I'll see if expanding the bend article can help it to stand alone. --Dfred (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Noticed that the 4th picture in the sequence is apparently taken "from behind" relative to the 3rd which might surprise a few people. Can it be changed or mentioned in the description? Richiez (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  AlpineButterflyTwoTwistTyingSequence1200w.jpg detail 

message: I didn't see it mentioned but i've imagined the 3 loop sequence is called "alpine butterfly" because you can tie it with mittens/gloves on? 
 My favorite and much trusted knot. 
 Thanks people for caring about knot info!
       Miguel Hoffman nm (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  alpine butterfly vs regular butterfly