International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Chit Chat => Topic started by: Rob Thorne on December 17, 2004, 06:14:56 PM
-
Having read or reviewed just about every book on knots that I have run into, I have never seen a lock documented that I use when I don't want a bowline to inadvertantly loosen.
Does anyone know if locks for bowlines, excepting an additional stopper knot or a half hitch around the standing end, is documented anywhere?
rtt
-
And what sort of *lock* on the Bowline do you use?
Indeed, there are many simple ways to do this, and yet the
only thing knot books seem to show is what other books have
shown--a brain-dead parroting of often nonsense.
The Yosemite Bowline comes to mind: it has popularity well beyond
its merit!
Heinz Prohaska long ago showed what I call the Janus Bowline,
in which the end makes a turn around the side of the eye
nearer
(in *origin*) the SPart, and is simply tucked back through the
knot's loop part--which makes a symmetric knot.
I simply loop the end around the crossing point of the gooseneck,
and back out beside itself; this is esp. effetive for the Dbl. Bowline.
There are many other ways ... .
--dl*
-
I don't know if you describe the lock I use, but I let the line naturally turn away from the main loop and back through the loop in the standing part.
It is simple enough but I never see anything documented about securing the bowline except lashing or a stopper knot although enough is said about the chance of the bowline coming undone. Seems simple problem to solve, quick and easy, doesn't compromise the security of the knot and it is still as easy to release.
Do you know of a reference to the Janus bowline?
-
Hi Rob, There are some climbing sites and some arborist sites that may help find out if others are doing what you do. I am too dumb to figure out what you are describing verbally. Because you are a "guest" I can't "message" you offline with my address or E'mail address. If you want you can go to our website <www.igktpab.org> and e'mail the president there and I'll come back with a snail mailing address where you can send me your knot in some cheap stuff. Right now I am illustrating some fishing knots for another member which will be first published in "Knot News" (the PAB newsletter) then offered to "Knotting Matters" the IGKT magazine and finally put on the web at KHWW (Knot heads world wide). If you have something that nobody else is doing lets get it out there! ;D
-
Having read or reviewed just about every book on knots that I have run into, I have never seen a lock documented that I use when I don't want a bowline to inadvertantly loosen.
Does anyone know if locks for bowlines, excepting an additional stopper knot or a half hitch around the standing end, is documented anywhere?
rtt
It may be misleading to call a back-up measure a "lock" because any additional tucks may or may not increase the bowline's mediocre resistance to shaking.
It sounds like you're looking for a more secure loop that can be readily untied after heavy strain, but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking. Here are some:
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/waterbowline.html
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/doublebowline.html
Remember that quite a few back-up measures are actually more prone to fall apart before the bowline itself, and thus are fairly useless other than the extra rope length they provide. Even a stopper knot that holds may be of little use if the bowline springs open enough to allow the stopper to wiggle through.
update: http://notableknotindex.webs.com/monsoonbowline.html
-
I don't know if you describe the lock I use, but I let the line naturally turn away from the main loop and back through the loop in the standing part.
Language is more powerful than we're making it! You can be more helpful
than this vagueness. Let's find a common image for reference.
Try www.iland.net/~jbritton/bowline.htm Step#4's image.
If I take your words "naturally turn AWAY from the MAIN loop",
I would guess that in the ref.image the end (as it's drawn by the
SPart) would go Leftwards & down slightly and cross UNDER
all parts, to be then tucked back right/over/down-under?
THAT, in any case, is going the opposite way from what I do, to
lock the gooseneck/loop of the knot! I don't see the above as
being at all very secure.
To describe my end-binding directly, bring the end (image#4)
back under all parts, parallel & slightly to the right of itself;
then re-tuck it parallel to itself (thereby looping the loop of
the knot, locking it).
The Janus Bwl is as follows (from image#4): take the end around
the right-side led of the eye, going Under & back Over (and in
doing so, a bit upwards/higher);
then tuck the end out through the gooseneck/loop going slightly
"SouthWest" in direction, UNDER the closer loopedge and
the two nipped parts of the end and Over the farside loopedge.
The knot should be symmetric, looking the same "coming as going".
Do you know of a reference to the Janus bowline?
That is my name for it (and a good one!), based on its shape.
It was presented in an old Nylon Highway newsletter (ca. 1990)
by Heinz Prohaska (and perhaps also in Summit)--the periodicals
being resp. of caving & climbing.
--dl*
-
Next picture after step #4....finished bowline.....if you follow the standing part through the original small loop then I find it traps the tail and makes the bowline more resistant to loosening. Being a sailor, I find it holds up after constant jostling by wind, water and work. Finally, when it is time to remove it is still easy to release and untie.
rtt
rthorne@facilitated.com
-
Sorry, that would be the picture..."Finished Bowline - Rear View" that I am refering.
rtt
-
If anyone knows of a picture reference to the Janus bowline online anywhere, please let me know as I don't really follow the explanation above.....although I do appreciate the effort made to try and explain it.
rtt
-
Does anyone know how I can attach a digital image through this forum or if there is a URL location that I could post it to or perhaps just email it to a member who could post it for anyone to view?
-
Rob, don't give up! Where do my words fail?
This is really quite simple--we're talking about CONTINUING from
a given image, and only a VERY simple bit of making one turn and tuck!
This shouldn't take xxxMbytes of pictures.
Your description is adequate. What you describe has been shown in
KM (Knotting Matters--IGKT newsletter). A similar bowline, which also
can be tied in the bight(!) is shown on the same site:
www.iland.net/~jbritton/KnotPhotoContributions.htm
--scroll down a few images.
This version simply crosses the end to the outer side of the knot's
loop (not eye) before tucking it back through the collar. The
version you describe has a risk of the tucked end working to the
wrong side of the SPart (mostly during the tying process, and likely
most vulnerable in stiffer material).
The lock I described as binding the gooseneck is simply described
re that "rear view" bowline image (which seem front to me! :-)
as follows: bring the end down over the parts (towards the
viewer, i.e.) and just to the left of the collar (which your
version goes through), and then follow the end's original tuck
back up through the gooseneck. The end thus makes a full
turn around the part of the gooseneck where parts cross in
its forming a circle/loop. Done with the Dble.Bowline, this is a quite
secure binding (which gets no tighter on loading, and indeed
as rope stretches & thins, there will develop some space in the
turn).
Now, for the Janus Bwl.: the end is going to make a collar around
the left side of the eye just as it has already made a collar around
the SPart (Standing Part). Thus, the end goes left OVER &
back under this left side, then it is tucked through the gooseneck
rightwards & downwards (NW to SE); it will cross under itself
(to the extent one might see that even as a crossing)
and over the rightside end of eye, under right side of knot's loop
(i.e., tucked between those parts).
Pulling on the end when finished thus will pull in the left side
of the eye; in many materials, this suffices to keep the gooseneck
tight enough to prevent loosening of the knot. YMMV.
--dl*
-
I just hooked up my digital camera so posted are two pictures, front and back, of what I do to lock the bowline at www.khww.net under rtt.
Of course I have left the bowline loosened to enable easy viewing of the lock.
A couple of points that I have noticed with a loosening bowline...
- the bowline starts opening with a gradual slip of the small loop forward allowing the small loop to open thus allowing the tail to slip free. This "lock" or final turn prevents this movement thus locking the bowline.
- also the fact that the small loop must accomodate both lines now, the standing part and the end, allows for a tighter cinch by the small loop as the line doesn't have to make as radical a turn around itself. This produces less stress on the fibers and allowing the loop to stay tighter as it doesn't have to fight this internal force and, of course, it is easier on the line in the long run.
-
I just hooked up my digital camera so posted are two pictures, front and back, of what I do to lock the bowline at www.khww.net under rtt.
Of course I have left the bowline loosened to enable easy viewing of the lock.
A couple of points that I have noticed with a loosening bowline...
- the bowline starts opening with a gradual slip of the small loop forward allowing the small loop to open thus allowing the tail to slip free. This "lock" or final turn prevents this movement thus locking the bowline.
- also the fact that the small loop must accomodate both lines now, the standing part and the end, allows for a tighter cinch by the small loop as the line doesn't have to make as radical a turn around itself. This produces less stress on the fibers and allowing the loop to stay tighter as it doesn't have to fight this internal force and, of course, it is easier on the line in the long run.
I found it in the gallery section.
The base bowline looks like a mirror image of the standard bowline. Anyway, I wouldn't say that what you have is a lock. If you can get your hands on some slippery polypropylene rope, tie your knot and shake it around some. It doesn't hold up. Not all rope is that slippery or springy, but it'll give you an idea of what may happen in other rope when flogged for a longer duration.
Lastly, you might want to wait until you perform some strength tests before you assess the strength or stresses of the variation in comparison to a standard bowline.
-
I found it in the gallery section.
The base bowline looks like a mirror image of the standard bowline. Anyway, I wouldn't say that what you have is a lock. If you can get your hands on some slippery polypropylene rope, tie your knot and shake it around some. It doesn't hold up. Not all rope is that slippery or springy, but it'll give you an idea of what may happen in other rope when flogged for a longer duration.
Lastly, you might want to wait until you perform some strength tests before you assess the strength or stresses of the variation in comparison to a standard bowline.
I agree on the slippery stuff, however many knots, bends, and hitches don't work well with poly, etc. and is a reason to use the Vice Versa knot instead.
This version of the bowline does however work very well in situations where the tension is not always keeping the bowline taut. I have had it tested may times in polyester and nylon with flogging sails and preventers and it seems to hold up better than a simple bowline.
Remember my interest is only to find out if it has been documented anywhere.
Thank you for your comments,
rtt
-
If it's of interest to you, it's similar to the so-called "Yosemite Bowline":
http://www-sop.inria.fr/agos-sophia/sis/Techniques/knots.html#yose
-
Nice site, Roo. Good to see the Alpine Butterfly tied 'in the coil' rather than 'in the twist' as on many websites.
Personally, I don't lock bowlines as I only use them where the tension is more or less constant and the cordage is soft. Leave a long enough end (12D) and they snug up safely - and may even jam if soaked. Given that long end, a half hitch or a sticky tape stopper are practical options.
If the rope is hard, eg, halyard-stuff, I just use Figure 8 loop instead.
-
The Water Bowline (http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/waterbowline.html) and the Double Bowline (http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/doublebowline.html) are variations of a basic Bowline in which an extra half hitch is added. The difference depends on which half hitch lies on top of the other.
Based on the above links, roo feels that the Double Bowline isn't quite as secure as the Water Bowline. Is this the general consensus? Is the end of the rope fairly well "locked" with either of these forms of the Bowline?
Also, which of these two is considered to be stronger (in terms of breaking strength)?
-
The Water Bowline (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/waterbowline.html) and the Double Bowline (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/doublebowline.html) are variations of a basic Bowline in which an extra half hitch is added. The difference depends on which half hitch lies on top of the other.
Based on the above links, roo feels that the Double Bowline isn't quite as secure as the Water Bowline. Is this the general consensus? Is the end of the rope fairly well "locked" with either of these forms of the Bowline?
Also, which of these two is considered to be stronger (in terms of breaking strength)?
Before going too far, you might want to define what you mean by "locked". Given a slick enough and springy enough rope, any knot can eventually be shaken free.
I do not know which form is stronger. If one is stronger than the other, it's likely to be a wider gap in especially knot-sensitive materials (i.e. spectra) than in nylon rope, for example, which seems to keep more of its strength when knotted.
-
The Water Bowline and the Dble Bwl are variations of a basic Bwl in which an extra half hitch is added. The difference depends on which half hitch lies on top of the other.
It's an extra TURN in the Dble.Bwl, not a HH. The additional security
that provides is partly in that whatever slight loosening might
come will be allocated over the two vs. a single turn; and the
round turn (another name for it--"RT Bwl") will better grip the collar legs
under tension.
Based on the above links, roo feels that the Double Bowline isn't quite as secure as the Water Bowline. Is this the general consensus? Is the end of the rope fairly well "locked" with either of these forms of the Bowline?
I concur in Roo's assessment, ASSUMING that one takes the "Water
Bwl" to be essentially a Bwl using a Clove vs. HHitch in the SPart;
it is otherwise sometimes shown with this extra HH spaced at some
remove from the main knot (and I might suggest that the source even had
really tied off some object--"hitchec" we might say--with a simple
knot which became capsized into this HH, and the point being
to better snug the loop eye to the object. (This is something
along the lines of what Cyrus Day muses in his attempt to figure out
the point of the knot. Budworth seems to be one who has made it
a point to put the extra HH up snug with the knot. As such, with
some working when setting the knot, one can gain security.
My guess it that the Dbl (aka "Round Turn") Bwl is stronger.
As for locking, I've already suggested better ways to lock a Bwl; see above.
Again, esp. with the Dbl.Bwl form, look at the 4th, "rear view side"
image of the single Bwl shown on Dan Britton's site:
www.iland.net/~jbritton/bowline.htm
Notice where the SPart crosses UNDER itself informing that collar-nipping
part of the knot, before it then flows into the eye. That's where one
would like to bind the knot with the end! So, simply bring the end (as
oriented in the "rear view" image) back down OVER this crossing,
and then re-tuck (don't untuck to begin--just continue from the
regular form!) the end beside itself; tighten this end-turn,
tighten the SPart's turn; repeat ... .
For a truly added HH, with the end, again from the position above
("rear view") take the end Over to the right and around in
making a HH around BOTH legs of the eye; tuck (to make it a HH)
under itself (end) AND through the loop of the SPart, which puts
one more piece of rope to hold the end.
--dl*
====
-
Looking over the site and trying out links found I see that the www.iland.net/~jbritton/bowline.htm link is dead.
Updated link > www.pssurvival.com/PS/Knots/Knot_Knowledge_Photo_Illustrations_2004.pdf (http://www.pssurvival.com/PS/Knots/Knot_Knowledge_Photo_Illustrations_2004.pdf)
That said, I want to offer an easy method of securing the WE of a "standard" bowline (instead of starting a new thread.
It appears to help with some anti-ring loading and most certainly inhibits shaking loose.
Adds a tad of bulk, but then so do other methods and the WE is pointed away from the loop, if that is a major concern.
I've not found reference to this simple method, as of yet.
Thoughts?
SS
-
The main advantage to this that I can see is that Agent_Smith
won't be able to extend it by throwing in a "Yosemite" finish. :D
Other than that, the bowline (#1010) tail's initial hard turn
of 1 diameter back into the turNip is going to be strongly
resisted by many of the common (i.e., kernmantle) ropes
for which some securing is needed.
--dl*
====
-
*cough*
Double Dragon
*cough*
-
Hi Dan,
I tied this in 10.5 static rope and it works very well. I should think and I will try it with some similar size dynamic rope.
It works.
The specimen the photo is of is BlueWater Titan 5.5 (Dyneema) and it is a real bear on knots. Will fail quite a few of them unless extra measures are taken. All the rope manufacturers recommend, when making a sling with it, to use a triple fishermans knot.
I usually try newbie knots, to me that is, using that and a few other sizes and types of cord and rope.
SS
-
Hi knto4u,
I believe you are off topic.
SS
-
Hi Dan,
I tied this in 10.5 static rope and it works very well.
I should think and I will try it with some similar size dynamic rope.
It works.
Well, I stand rejected/dejected/corrected --pick one.
At least some of the more recalcitrant ropes won't like this,
but, then, they don't like knots of any ilk, so ... .
I just put your knot into Goldmantle (now that's dated!),
and it indeed looks not all so bad; put it to some strain,
too, and it looked good re curvature.
Maybe it does some added pressure on the collar bight that
makes that less loosen-able?
VERSION-II :
I also deliberately *mis*-tied it so that the tail turn-&-tuck
encompassed the tail-side eye leg, and this looks decent as well,
though perhaps less good re curvature (for whatever that's worth).
The specimen the photo is of is BlueWater Titan 5.5 (Dyneema) and it is a real bear on knots.
Will fail quite a few of them unless extra measures are taken. All the rope manufacturers recommend,
when making a sling with it, to use a triple fishermans knot.
Perhaps, but not at the forces we're putting on knots
to check them. But isn't that stuff also rather stiff (at least
if not much used)? --though more "stiff" as in "don't want
to, but can bend" than "just won't bend easily".
--dl*
====
-
Hello Dan,
The Titan cord is as you say "just won't bend easily" and so it kind of, mimics a large static rope. I find that if I unscientifically test these kinds of knot(s) modifications using it, it will sort of represent some aspects of magnifying what kind of movement can happen.
Yes, some ropes do not like knots at all. I have an old 5/8 inch-ish bull rope that can stand on its own for a few feet, that balks at any knot that needs to be tight to work.
I just tried a bowline in it and could not tighten it up enough to make it barely recognizable and doing the mod to it, well, calisthenics.
I agree that the forces we put to our puny tests only graze the surface of stressing the tangles, but that, testing, is another thread (which I would really love to conceptualize & explore ) ;-)
SS
-
...an easy method of securing the WE of a "standard" bowline
Just for the record, another, almost identical variation of this bowline, is shown in the attached pictures. It produces a bulkier nub, that is true, but I think that the more convoluted form might be marginally beneficial to the overall security of the loop.
-
Good day/evening xarax.
I just tied your offering and it performs just as well using the Titan cord (with my vigorous hand testing.) I shy away from adding more bulk unless it does indeed add more needed security.
I found it easy to tie and in the given rope and load, it was very easy to untie.
I'll drag out the big stuff later and give it a twirl.
Thanks
SS
-
I saw people asking for a picture of the Janus Bowline. Nobody produced one. I scanned Heinz Prohaska's article, and posted it to CaveChat partly because because that forum allows larger picture files. I thought I posted a link in another thread here. Then I saw the dates in this thread. Anyhow, here is the link again.
http://forums.caves.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7818&p=65350&hilit=prohaska#p65350
-
I scanned Heinz Prohaska's article, and posted it to CaveChat
Thanks for the pictures. You would probably know by now that there is not only one Janus bowline, but plenty of them ! :) ( many different variations of the same idea).Three of those are shown in the attached pictures. (1),(2).
1) http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/02_Bowlines.pdf
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1202.msg19317#msg19317
-
One of the things about the Janus style of bowline is that it looks able to be effected by ring loading as does another simpler version of the Yosemite style.
I think that any "simple lock" for the standard bowline ought improve one or all its foibles. Some of these variations do, e.g, increased diameters within the nipping area and the same for at the entry into the knot.
So which is the most secure, most stable and least detrimental example in every conceivable application with the highest expectation of being untied?
SS
-
One of the things about the Janus style of bowline is that it looks able to be effected by ring loading...
Is this a fact you have noticed ? It would be nice if we could get rid of the so many Janus bowlines (32 , to my latest counting...(1)) :) The huge number of all the possible bowlines would not be greatly reduced, that is true, given its estimated magnitude, but it would be some gain nevertheless...
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3150.msg19418#msg19418
-
Having just posted on the thread about bight-to-bight bends I started looking at the normal sheet bend and then the bowline. To make a bowline more secure it is usual to try and stop the end from slipping eg the round turn bowline or the water bowlie add extra turns to the nipping loop. But what if the collar above the knot were made using a girth hitch/bull hitch/clove hitch around the standing part before being tucked through the nipping loop? This may be pushing the name bowline too far but am I missing something obvious?
Barry
-
Hi Barry,
as far as pushing the "bowline" name too far, that remains to be seen. I personally think that it has been pushed over the edge, but that is a topic already started. "What defines a Bowline?".
I find that adding any more entanglements (yours and others) at the SP collar location a bit fiddly to dress, the expected addition of more security just doesn't seem to manifest itself.
I notice that some of these impart more severe curves at the SP entry area.
With the exception of just tying an overhand around the SP in the place of the collar and tucking the working end down through the nip as usual. Which is pretty secure, btw.
Check this out please.
SS
-
what if the collar above the [nipping loop] were made using a girth hitch/bull hitch/clove hitch around the standing part, before being tucked through the nipping loop?
... just [tie] an overhand around the SP in the place of the collar and tucking the working end down through the nip as usual.
I like all those solutions, and I have to admit that, although they might seem obvious to many people, they have never not crossed my mind as improvements of the bowline... :) Probably because, in the cooperation of nipping loop-collar pair that characterizes the bowline , I tend to see the nipping loop as the primary structure, that needs/can/should be a little more complex, ( than the common nipping loop of the common or Eskimo bowline ) , and the collar as the secondary structure, that needs/can/should remain as simple as possible. The loops that belong to the bowline family secure the tail by the nipping action of their nipping loop, and it is natural for one to think that he can improve the bowline by improving this nipping action, i.e., by adopting a more complex nipping loop. Now, a more complex collar does not need the nipping loop at all - or, to be more precise, it does not need the nipping loop as a nipping structure, but only as an obstacle on the standing part, that will prevent the collar to slip alongside the line. Personally, I believe that this type of knots might well be very secure, indeed, but they do not follow the spirit of the bowline... so I would not define them as fixed end-of-line loops that belong in the bowline family.
-
Yes the nipping loop is the primary in so far as the tying (the way I tie it), then the collar, secondary in the rest of the tying of the common (standard) bowline. But in use, the common bowline needs both to stay together for use as a fixed loop knot.
Without either it would not be the bowline.
But I do agree that the nipping ring does the majority of work in this knot.
I believe that the overhand collar and the reverse tucked working end submitted, do the task very simply without negative consequences and simply.
A simple lock for the bowline.
SS
-
One of the things about the Janus style of bowline is that it looks able to be effected by ring loading
Take care in your typing --only "affected" makes sense here.
But, then, you're not saying much, even so? I presume that
you want to say that some "Janus" bowline remains vulnerable
to ring-loading as does the common bowline (#1010)?
But, then, other versions are as resistant as the so-called cowboy
bowline --which in that loading is a Lapp bend.
I recently came across a rockclimbing site in which it was recommended
to belay from a tie-in eye, ring-loaded --in the particular case, it was the
fig.8 eye knot (both with & without a strangle knot tie-off).
So which is the most secure, most stable and least detrimental example
in every conceivable application with the highest expectation of being untied?
::) Um, lemme get back to ya on this! ;D
-
Quote:" Take care in your typing --only "affected" makes sense here." Your advice is warranted, thank you Dan. :-[ But, I swear it was the keyboard's fault. ;)
Mind you that I have formed my opinions based on some of the reading here and by hand testing at home and field use in regards to the subject of ring loading.
For me it is not much of an issue since I do not use the bowline, modified or not, that would force the issue, but in the quest for better and better knotting I bring this up. Other threads are more to that point.
The topic being a simple lock for the bowline (presuming the "standard" one), I have presented offerings (2).
Looking forward to you getting back to me.
SS
-
If we are going to accept complex collar-like structures going through and/or around the bowline s nipping loop, we enter into a whole new area of bowline-like fixed end-of-line loops. Although they are based on - and they are more secure than - the common bowline, I believe that they do not belong to the bowline family of knots, because of the absence of a bowline "proper" collar. The complex "collar"-like structures of those loops do not need the nipping loop to restrain the slippage of the tail through them, but only to restrain their own slippage alongside the standing part. In other words, first the tail is secured by a knot - be it an overhand knot, or any other hitch tied around the standing part - and then that knot is secured by the presence of the nipping loop, so it remains fixed on a certain point alongside the standing part.
If we open this Pandora s box, we meet many bowline-like loops. The security of the common bowline is enhanced, that is for sure, but its marvellous simplicity and its spirit has gone... and that makes me wonder why one should tie those loops, and not any other of the many non-bowline end-of-line loops.
See the attached picture, for one such loop, where the Columbus egg of SS369 has been replaced by a constrictor-around-the-standing-part "8" shaped hitch. We can also tie an even more secure double, crossed-coils version of this loop, similar to the one shown at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3020.msg20613#msg20613
-
Well, Columbus probably dropped his egg, as I have done quite a few times. ;-)
Although I like this latest offering, it isn't quite a simple lock for the bowline.
I just tied it and personally didn't find it as easy as some to size the loop portion, but that would come with familiarity most likely.
One thing that does concern me is the untie-ability. I loaded it with hand and foot force and had to work pretty hard to undo it. (3/8' aborist rope 8 strand braided sheath.) I can only imagine the effort after a working load.
I think in this post we should stay within the confines of the "standard" bowline configuration and design a simple lock.
SS
-
Columbus, your overhand knot - and, indeed, ANY sufficiently convoluted hitch that will absorb the full load of the eye leg of the bight - will be hard to untie, too. That is an other advantage of he bowline, lost , along its simplicity and spirit, with the hitch-through-and-around-the-nipping-loop solutions of Sweeney and Columbus...
I have tried an overhand knot that will encircle the rim of the nipping loop as well, as it happens with your previous solution. Such a knot can be dressed in a number of ways, but I believe that, for all those complex "collar"- like structures tied on and around the nipping loop, a sufficiently heavy load will "lock" them more that we wish ! :)
-
Ah yes, but he did find the new land. Well, new to him at least.
I have given the two simple securing methods I spoke of and the constrictor composite you've offered and put them through the same test using three different cords and rope.
1. Titan 5.5mm, all were easy to untie.
2. The original 3/8 inch aborist's rope, all untied with ease except the constrictor composite.
3. BW 11mm static, all untied, the constrictor composite difficult to set.
That said, the knot first posed by me (Reply #19) is the only one that I consider a now more secure "common/standard/most everyone knows" bowline as I thought the OP was querying about.
SS
-
He thought he had discovered the west India(es) ! :)
How do you exlain those differences ? Are they due to the material, or to the particular material-diameter combination ?
-
Hi xarax,
For the Titan 5.5mm cord I would say the material and its construction. Very tight sheath and hard core material.
The 3/8 aborist's rope I suspect the weave of the sheath being coarse.
The 11mm static rope I would say the diameters versus the load I could bring to bear using my ad hoc test.
So a simple lock for a bowline can be in part dependent on the material used and its particular construction and that should be a consideration, always.
If I can find some decent laid rope, I will try the tests on it.
SS
-
One thing is certain with knots, life is not as simple as it looks...Sailing straight into the west was a lot easier, because, in a round Earth, you knew in advance that you could not but reach India - eventually...You tie a knot, and you do not know if it will slip, if it will jam, if it will be considered a "practical" knot or not... :)
What a mess !
-
Yes, a fine mess and interesting enough to keep the mavens coming back,,,, or heading west. ;)
SS
-
In an effort to improve the results of the tests reported at Reply#43 with the Titan 5.5mm cord, I have tied three variations of the loop shown at Reply#38: one similar but tied with the opposite handness knot, with its corresponding "Eskimo" version (shown in the attached pictures), as well as the "Eskimo" version of the original knot (not shown). I can see that all those "locked" bowline-like loops, when loaded, tend to settle in different forms, but, with the 10mm soft kernmantle static ropes I use, I am not able to notice any differences regarding their slippage or jamming characteristics.
-
With the exception of just tying an overhand around the SP in the place of the collar and tucking the working end down through the nip as usual. Which is pretty secure, btw.
Check this out please.
Things have moved on but I did try this and it works well (and is less complicated than hitches). I agree though that using the collar in any way does move away from the classic bowline structure - and I have to admit I only use it for non-critical things so I often wonder just how much effort is required to cause the end to slip out. Depends on the rope characteristics no doubt. I did notice a friend had used a bowline in 5mm braided nylon as part of the weight on a rope making machine and all that was securing the end was the fact that it was melted into a rough blob - but that was tied too loosely in the first place and not set properly.
Barry
-
I have tried the same Colombus thing after the formation of a "proper" bowline collar, that is, I have tied the overhand knot around the eye leg of the bight, and retucked the tail of this overhand knot up, through the nipping loop, as usual. I feel that, doing this, we remain within the bowline family, ring loading is not aeffected, and our "lock" is not loaded too much, to a point it can be hard to untie. The problem now, of course, is that our lock is not even loaded enough, to a point it can remain tied :) , but I think that, by retucking the tail through the nipping loop, this problem is somehow addressed.
-
Here is a simple lock I came across when considering the Bowline-On-A-Bight (BOAB).
The easiest (One) way to explain tying it may be to start with the BOAB. This also helps to illustrate its relationship to the BOAB. Once one sees the knot, tying it is essentially the addition of a half hitch to the common bowline.
From the BOAB:
(1) Untuck what would be the last tuck (through the collar) if one had tied the BOAB using the rethreading (follow-back-through) method. It is important to not untuck the working end through the doube loops until done with step 2.
(2) Pull the working end until the large (follow-back-through) loop has collapsed onto the working end. You should now have a single loop bowline in which a half-hitch has been added above the nipping loop of the common bowline.
Optional: One can then again retuck the working end back through the collar. With this retuck, this loop would be exactly the BOAB with the large (follow-back-through) loop collapsed.
edit: Another option would be to continue wrapping the working end and retuck under that part of the standing part which is between the collar and the nipping loop.
Main advantages to the BOAB would be its simplicity and conservation of rope.
DDK
editing to clarify method added in italics
-
I have tried the DDK s solution, and some other variants of it - where the overhand knot "lock" is not tied around the standing end (as at the SS369 s second solution) or the eye leg of the bight, but around the rim of the nipping loop and the two legs of the collar ( above the rim of the nipping loop, and below the rim of the collar).
The good thing is that the tail makes 2 more U-turns, after the initial U-turn around the standing end : first, around the rim of the nipping loop, and then around the two legs of the collar. The bad thing is that it goes through the opening in between the two rims, the rim of the nipping loop and the rim of the collar, where it can not be squeezed by the standing end of the bowline as much as we would have wished it to be. So, I believe that this solution presents two disadvantages: First, this overhand knot "lock" can not be self-tightened, and remain tightened, by the loading and the tightening of the bowline, or it can not be tightened at all - because the "first" end of this knot, that has already being nipped sufficiently well by the nipping loop, can not be tensioned at the first place, and can not remain under some minimum tension afterwards. Second, the "second" end of this overhand knot, its tail, passes through this loose opening in between the two rims, where it can not be squeezed sufficiently hard, and from where it can slip off rather easily.
I believe that, if we use an overhand knot as a "lock", its "first" end should better remain under some minimum tension, and its "second" end should better pass through the nipping loop of the bowline.
-
I have tried the DDK s solution, and some other variants of it - where the overhand knot "lock" is not tied around the standing end (as at the SS369 s second solution) or the eye leg of the bight, but around the rim of the nipping loop and the two legs of the collar ( above the rim of the nipping loop, and below the rim of the collar).
Its important to note here that there is no Overhand Knot in the simple lock I mentioned. The lock is a half-hitch.The good thing is that the tail makes 2 more U-turns, after the initial U-turn around the standing end : first, around the rim of the nipping loop, and then around the two legs of the collar.
Well, I would say it makes 1 U-turn after the initial U-turn around the standing end and is then followed by a half-hitch around the two legs of the collar.The bad thing is that it goes through the opening in between the two rims, the rim of the nipping loop and the rim of the collar, where it can not be squeezed by the standing end of the bowline as much as we would have wished it to be.
The "squeezing" and retention of a half-hitch is by its own wrap. The fact that this wrap is not in addition "squeezed by the standing end of the bowline" says little about whether this half-hitch (and U-turn) will add security.
So, I believe that this solution presents two disadvantages: First, this overhand knot "lock" can not be self-tightened, and remain tightened, by the loading and the tightening of the bowline, or it can not be tightened at all - because the "first" end of this knot, that has already being nipped sufficiently well by the nipping loop,
I would think this would be true for most if not all locks. can not be tensioned at the first place, and can not remain under some minimum tension afterwards.
I have had no difficulty in tightening this half-hitch lock. YMMV Second, the "second" end of this overhand knot, its tail, passes through this loose opening in between the two rims, where it can not be squeezed sufficiently hard, and from where it can slip off rather easily.
Again, additional "squeezing" of its tail is not required for this half-hitch (and U-turn) to add security. I believe that, if we use an overhand knot as a "lock", its "first" end should better remain under some minimum tension, and its "second" end should better pass through the nipping loop of the bowline.
Most if not all of the "first" ends of a lock for the bowline will be under the same tension.
DDK
-
Hi DDK and good day to you,
I am having a bit of a challenge following your verbal directions. What I end up with is interesting, but certainly not what you have photographed.
My end result is not the configuration of a standard bowline. Meaning that the security lock comes after the original tie leaving the basic knot path there.
Am I missing it?
Have you a better picture?
BTW, I'm not too sure I would find tying a BOAB easier to tie first to get a more secure standard bowline in the end, nor faster.
SS
-
Its important to note here that there is no Overhand Knot in the simple lock I mentioned. The lock is a half-hitch.
Following your picture ( "short" standing end towards left, eye legs towards right), I see an overhand knot there, around the rim of the nipping loop and the two legs of the collar...Or you had submitted the wrong picture ? Anyway, I was speaking only about the particular lock I had had described, and the things I have said were about this lock.
The fact that this wrap is not in addition "squeezed by the standing end of the bowline" says little about whether this half-hitch (and U-turn) will add security.
Hmmm. Not directly, but eventually...If there is not any self-tightening of the last knot, be it a half hitch or even an overhand knot, it will remain loose, and will be untied, sooner or later. The "lock" has to retain its own integrity, otherwise it might not be there when we will need it.
I have had no difficulty in tightening this half-hitch lock.
Neither do I ! :) But I suppose that you can not be permanently attached to your "locked" bowline, pulling its tail all the time, can you ? Neither can I ... :)
The final knot should be self-tightened, otherwise it will get loose and eventually be untied. A half hitch, or even an overhand knot used as a final lock, that has its "first" end un-tensioned, will get loose, sooner or later. The "first" end of your half hitch or overhand knot, the moment you stop pulling the tail / the "second" end, would be left un-tensioned - because it has already passed through the nipping loop for a second time, so there can be no pull transferred to this end by the loading and tightening of the bowline. Only if and when the gripping action of the nipping loop fails, in case of a sudden, extreme loading, will this end be pulled again. But the final half hitch or overhand knot could well have been very loose at that time, or even completely untied - if there is not a minimum permanent tension, pulling one, at least, of its ends.
...[any] additional "squeezing" of its tail is not required for this half-hitch (and U-turn) to add security.
...provided the half hitch - or the overhand knot - will still be there at the time it will be needed ! If there is not any permanent pulling of one, at least. end, and if there is not any permanent squeezing of its nub, I am afraid there will be no knot left in place to secure the slippage of the collar s tail...
I repeat my last statement, hoping that I will be understood this time :) :
I believe that, if we use [a half hitch or] an overhand knot as a "lock", its "first" end should better remain under some minimum tension, and its "second" end should better pass through the nipping loop of the bowline.
-
. . . What I end up with is interesting, but certainly not what you have photographed . . .
One of my Chinese coworkers once mentioned that the character(s) that are used for the word "fortuitous" might also be translated as "happy accident". Perhaps you had one of these. ;D
My end result is not the configuration of a standard bowline. Meaning that the security lock comes after the original tie leaving the basic knot path there.
I'm not sure what you ended up with, so, I will try to describe it starting with a standard bowline and not the BOAB. I have included a picture of the same locked bowline below, but, with the half-hitch lock marked. Everything else not marked is a standard bowline. The working end of the standard bowline is turned "up" (U-turn) and used to make the half-hitch lock.BTW, I'm not too sure I would find tying a BOAB easier to tie first to get a more secure standard bowline in the end, nor faster.
Agreed. I was hoping that the BOAB would have made it easier to initially see the knot as well as to see its relation to the BOAB.
DDK
-
Its important to note here that there is no Overhand Knot in the simple lock I mentioned. The lock is a half-hitch.
. . . Following your picture ( "short" standing end towards left, eye legs towards right), I see an overhand knot there, around the rim of the nipping loop and the two legs of the collar... . . .
Yes, I now see it as well. Thank you for that. In addition, if one includes the collar and both its legs, I see a Slip Knot.
DDK
-
Thanks for the modified picture DDK. Cleared the mud completely!
That said, I found that the angle of the SP at the collar to increase, so I wonder if this will aggravate the potential that area has for breakage?
SS
-
This is what I was able to figure out of your picture, DDK, and what I was speaking of. I believe one can try a similar solution, with the tail of the overhand knot "lock" going through the bowline s nipping loop.
-
. . . I found that the angle of the SP at the collar to increase, so I wonder if this will aggravate the potential that area has for breakage? . . .
Yes, I could see the increased material (from the HH) around the legs of the collar misdirecting the SP farther from the eye of the collar and effectively increasing the SP-to-collar angle. On the other hand, the HH seems to provide a wider back for the collar reducing its ability to open up/distort/capsize. This might allow for the collar to be extended reducing the SP-to-collar angle. So, yes, I have no idea and would only be guessing. ::)
DDK
-
If we let the tail of the half hitch, or of the overhand knot, pass underneath the standing end of the bowline, we have the knot shown in the attached picture. To my eyes, it looks a little more compact and neat than the original DDK s knot, but I do not know if its security is jeopardised, or improved in that way.
-
A modification of the Columbus bowline "lock" (A), described at :
just tying an overhand around the SP in the place of the collar and tucking the working end down through the nip as usual.
, the Columbus bowline "lock" (B), as described at :
the same Columbus thing after the formation of a "proper" bowline collar, that is...the overhand knot [tied] around the eye leg of the bight, and retucked the tail of this overhand knot up, through the nipping loop, as usual. I feel that, doing this, we remain within the bowline family, ring loading is not aeffected, and our "lock" is not loaded too much, to a point it can be hard to untie. The problem now, of course, is that our lock is not even loaded enough, to a point it can remain tied :) , but I think that, by retucking the tail through the nipping loop, this problem is somehow addressed.
Do I like this solution ? Not really... Although it is a conceptually simple and an evidently secure solution, I feel that this overhand knot - as any overhand knot tied in the vicinity of the nipping loop - is just too much for this knot, it makes the bowline s nub too bulky, and unbalanced : The one element/end of the bowline, the collar, is now much more convoluted/complex than the other, the nipping loop...If we want to improve the common bowline s security by making one of its two essential elements more complex than it is, I think that we should use a more complex nipping loop. Of course, this is equivalent of modifying the locking mechanism of the bowline, not adding a lock ! :)
-
If we let the tail of the half hitch, or of the overhand knot, pass underneath the standing end of the bowline, we have the knot shown in the attached picture. To my eyes, it looks a little more compact and neat than the original DDK s knot, but I do not know if its security is jeopardised, or improved in that way.
The similarities in the two knots we have presented include the initial "U-turn" of the working end and the use of a Half-Hitch/Overhand Knot. In addition to the difference you mentioned regarding the tucking of the tail, some other differences I think I see are that the "U-turn is around a different section of the nipping loop and the HH/OH is wrapped around only one leg of the collar. I think your knot does have a lower profile. This knot and almost anything I tie which includes this "U-turn" and HH/OH seems to add security (from slipping).
Related Knot #1: (edit: call it Bowline Lock WE RT 1, for working end, round turn #1) If instead of tying the HH in your knot, after the working end has gone through the collar, tuck the WE through the nipping loop. In essence, the WE leg of the collar does a round turn around the rim of the nipping loop (so is nipped twice). Looks sort of interesting as well. I do notice that this round turn structure cannot be tightened independently from the tightening of the bowline collar like the HH/OH structures and the collar is a more open structure.
Related to Related Knot #1: (edit: call it Bowline Lock WE RT 2, for working end, round turn #2) If the WE is not threaded through the collar but instead, the round turn in the WE is around the crossing point of the nipping loop, an OH knot is produced and can be tightened independently from the tightening of the bowline collar This collar is less open than in Related Knot #1(edit:Bowline Lock WE RT 1). Hmm, I probably ought to have some pictures here.
DDK
-
Hmm, I probably ought to have some pictures here.
Yes ! :)
See knots related to your related knots, ar the attached pictures.
-
Thank you for the pictures. BTW, how hard would it be for you to become right-handed? just joking :D
S2 is the knot I was verbally describing above as Related to Related Knot #1 (edit: Bowline Lock WE RT 2)
S1 is not what I meant by Related Knot #1 (edit: Bowline Lock WE RT 1) in that you did not first take the WE of the standard bowline through the collar from the backside of the knot. This configuration would be the same as starting with your Bowline with the HH/OH Lock and untucking the last tuck (see the last tuck marked in the picture below). Then, from the front of the knot, tuck the WE through the nipping loop to produce the round turn of the WE around the rim of the nipping loop.
DDK
-
Pictures of Bowline Lock WE RT 1 are shown below. In the pictures, the gray marking is the SP, nipping loop and large loop leg connected to the nipping loop. The blue is the WE, the collar and large loop leg connected to the collar.
BTW, I notice that the round turn does not produce an overhand knot in Bowline Lock WE RT 2 as I originally thought. It can be tightened independently of the collar, but, its structure is more of a Granny Knot (WE and nipping loop both produce round turns around the crossing points of each other).
DDK
-
The way this tail winds around the rim of the nipping loop, is not my cup of tea ... I do not believe that it is now more secure that it was in all the previous solutions.
-
The way this tail winds around the rim of the nipping loop, is not my cup of tea ... I do not believe that it is now more secure that it was in all the previous solutions.
Since the round turn of the WE cannot be tightened independent of loading the collar, the knot you show in reply #65 (what I call bowline lock WE RT 1) may be susceptible to loosening if shaken. Under constant load (the more the better - to a point), this knot should be resistant to loosening and very resistant to slipping (WE has a round turn and is nipped twice).
DDK
-
WE has a round turn and is nipped twice).
When you pull the second leg of the collar ( the "WE") upwards, you see that this "round turn" rotates as a whole around its axis, and unwinds rather easily. This happens because the "two" points/segments of the tail where it is "nipped twice", move like one piece : if the first segment is forced to be set in motion towards one direction, the second can follow it and move towards the same direction, without having to overcome any additional friction force. This is the reason we never use a naked "round turn" as a final means to secure a tail - not without a half hitch right after it...
-
WE has a round turn and is nipped twice).
When you pull the second leg of the collar ( the "WE") upwards, you see that this "round turn" rotates as a whole around its axis, and unwinds rather easily. This happens because the "two" points/segments of the tail where it is "nipped twice", move like one piece : if the first segment is forced to be set in motion towards one direction, the second can follow it and move towards the same direction, without having to overcome any additional friction force. This is the reason we never use a naked "round turn" as a final means to secure a tail - not without a half hitch right after it...
I have tried to reproduce your results of slipping to no avail. I can only guess that you had little to no loading on the nipping loop. Obviously, without substantial loading on the nipping loop, the tail of the standard bowline would slip very easily if one pulled on the second leg of the collar. Which brings up the question: So, with the same conditions and materials you used, does the standard bowline slip? My guess is the answer will be "yes and more easily".
As far as the positive cogging that you mention ("move like one piece"), I do see what you are referring to but I also see that there is substantial additional negative cogging present (so, I would disagree with your assessment that the round turn is "naked").
DDK edit: typo
-
...little... loading on the nipping loop
...substantial loading on the nipping loop
...with the same conditions and materials...does the standard bowline slip? My guess is the answer will be "yes, and more easily".
Define "little", "substantial", "more"... :) If any improvement achieved with the DDK s 3 is only marginal, who would use this "lock", and not tie some Janus bowline, for example, that requires the same number of tucks and amount of time ? Your previous two Janus solutions (DDK s 1 and 2) would also benefit from a more natural tail-legs relation :) ( in those solutions the tail seems to be squeezed in between the two legs of the collar more effectively than in the DDK s 3).
-
...little... loading on the nipping loop
...substantial loading on the nipping loop
...with the same conditions and materials...does the standard bowline slip? My guess is the answer will be "yes, and more easily".
Define "little", "substantial", "more"... :) If any improvement achieved with the DDK s 3 is only marginal, who would use this "lock", and not tie some Janus bowline, for example, that requires the same number of tucks and amount of time ? Your previous two Janus solutions (DDK s 1 and 2) would also benefit from a more natural tail-legs relation :) ( in those solutions the tail seems to be squeezed in between the two legs of the collar more effectively than in the DDK s 3).
The observation of a configuration where positive cogging might occur is not of itself a strong reason to assume that this knot (Bowline Lock WE RT 1) might be only a marginal improvement (in preventing slipping) over a standard bowline. Consider that, like a number of bends, both the Zeppelin Bend and Figure 8 Bend have configurations where positive cogging might occur.
Measuring the load required to pull on the collar leg which leads to the tail would be an informative test if the loading of the nipping loop was taken into account and controlled. For example, the tail of the Heinz Prohaska's Double Bight (Janus) Bowline pulls completely out under this test if the nipping loop is not loaded. What does that tell us about the security of the Janus Bowline? I'd have to say it tells us very little.
Knot structure and mechanics do provide useful guiding principles. Mentally summing up all of these effects, all the positives and negatives, is not possible in all but the simplest of knots if at all.
DDK
-
The observation of a configuration where positive cogging might occur is not of itself a strong reason to assume that this knot... might be only a marginal improvement (in preventing slipping)
I do not understand the infamous mechanism of "positive cogging", and the mechanisms that prevents/cancels it - as we have seen in the case of the retucked thief knots...However, I understand very well how easily a round turn unwinds when it is not accompanied by a half hitch... It is something as simple as the wheel ! :)
For example, the tail of the Heinz Prohaska's Double Bight (Janus) Bowline pulls completely out under this test if the nipping loop is not loaded.
I have never assumpted that we should test the bowlines with an unloaded nipping loop. You can pull the second leg of the DDK s 3 while you keep a "little" or "substantial" load acting on the limbs of the nipping loop - and you can pull it rather easily ! ( more easily than the tail of DDK s 1 or 2 ). Mind you that the tails of the Columbus A and B bowline locks of SS369 will not slip easily, even if the nipping loop is very lightly loaded, or even not loaded at all.
Mentally summing up all of these effects, all the positives and negatives, is not possible in all but the simplest of knots if at all.
I am afraid this is mostly true, for me at least. So we have to test those knots. Go on ! :)
-
I also prefer knots in which the lock can be tightened independent of the collar. I would also agree that those knots which perform better under little to no load on the nipping loop would likely be better at not loosening from being shaken (while unloaded). I mentioned that DDK s3 did likely possess this poor attribute when I first showed the knot.
Only more sophisticated testing can really help us understand its performance under high nip loading. I mention more sophisticated because pulling on the collar leg connected to the tail while controlling the nipping loop is not nearly as straightforward as the typical strength tests that are done. The payback would be to see, for example, exactly how effective is something like the Yosemite finish at increasing the load needed to pull out the tail.
DDK
-
Only more sophisticated testing can really help us understand its performance under high nip loading.
There is an easy road to perform a more sophisticated testing : start from a less sophisticated one ! :)
...how effective is something like the Yosemite finish at increasing the load needed to pull out the tail.
Not very much, I believe. ( I do not like this solution, and I do not understand why it is so popular among climbers. I suppose there should be some relevant testings I am not aware of.)
-
Pictures of Bowline Lock WE RT 1 are shown below.
FIRSTLY, I strongly urge knotters to treat the orientation
that here is labeled "back" as the PRIMARY one in which
to view a bowline --as it better presents the knot, better
showing the more interesting crossings (whereas the path
of the bight legs is pretty easy to comprehend, simple,
and they are behindmost in this view).
I really think that so much of the confusion about a bowline
comes from the bassackwards ubiquitous illustration of
the knot, typically --reversed, e.g., from how the sheet bend
is commonly shown.
Now, let me point out that what I've called "end-bound..."
is just this knot but with the extension wrap of the tail
doing something more useful : nipping and locking (as best
it is able, which isn't always so great/enough) the main
nipping loop (which is reciprocating). Turn that tail over
the crossing point of the main turNip !
I prefer this in the double bowline body, where this extra
wrap will have 3 diameters within it (best approximating a circle).
But I have seen even that knot, tied in some recalcitrant,
firm, soft-laid, slick, thin (4mm?) polypropylene hold only
briefly, than all the round turns just simultaneously
loosened/expanded !! :o In this cord, the simpler knot
presented by Prohaska seemed to be a better solution
--it wasn't so snugly tight on setting, but the material
tried to spring open and was easily limited, as the sharper
turns made it want to open like scissor legs, easily resisted,
not expanding like a big eater's waist line.
--dl*
====
-
this extra wrap will have 3 diameters within it (best approximating a circle).
A closed loop encircling three rope diameters / segments is always a good thing, no question about it. However, in the case of the bowline s nipping loop, it is the particular way the third of them - the tail- is nipped by the loop and the other two segments, that matters most. In Janus-like DDK s 1 and 2 bowlines, (Reply# 61, pictures at Reply#62 ), the tail passes in between the two other segments, and it is almost perpendicular to them, which is the best arrangement we could have wished for maximum anti-slippage security, I believe. Those two segments "bite" the tail from two sides, and form local concave and convex deformations of the surface of the ropes, "dents", that multiply friction forces between them.
Having said that, I mention the very effective security mechanism of "Fontus" bowline (1), where the tail does not pass through the nipping loop at all ! ( similar with the "hitch" mechanism of the Anglers / Perfection loop ). I am not sure that SS369 will accept this solution as a legitimate "simple lock" for the bowline, though... :)
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1202.msg19317#msg19317
-
Hi xarax,
it is not so much if I will except this, do you? Does this tangle satisfy you as the simplest solution to increase the common bowline's security.
Does it answer the "ring" loading factor? Or if one leg of the loop happens to load a bit more than the other leg?
The Fontus does start to "feel" a bit Dragonesque. ;-)
Will you be using this mod for your maritime pursuits?
IMHO, the sharper the turn of the tail into its locked position will give the greatest bite, arresting the working end, as long as it doesn't cause any sacrifices along the way.
Do we really think that three diameters within the nip is that much a better bowline? Some ropes/knots balk at that much stuffing and you end up having to secure the tail anyway because it is necessarily long and can get in the way during some usage.
SS
-
Pictures of Bowline Lock WE RT 1 are shown below.
. . . Now, let me point out that what I've called "end-bound..."
is just this knot but with the extension wrap of the tail
doing something more useful : nipping and locking (as best
it is able, which isn't always so great/enough) the main
nipping loop (which is reciprocating) . . .
Yesterday, I ran into the End Bound Single and Double Bowlines in the discussion on the Janus Bowine http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1202.msg8221#msg8221 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1202.msg8221#msg8221) and appreciate your comments above. I had come to some similar thoughts in my reply #61 of this thread where I first presented Bowline Lock WE RT 1 & 2 (WE RT, working end round turn). I believe my WE RT #2 is the same as the EBSB and the knot you are describing and thought it to be more interesting than WE RT 1. After another look at the mutual nipping loops in EBSB, I do see that I was mistaken in saying it is an OH knot structure and possibly "shake-proof" - youch. :o
DDK
-
I have found a very nice tuck for the modified collapsed Bowline on a Bight Locked Bowline (MCB). I call it modified because I have eliminated the final tuck through the bowline collar. In addition, I have included another tuck through the nipping loop. My truth in advertising disclaimer: This knot looks prone to being mistied as the half-hitch can slip through the nipping loop prior to the HH being tightened.
The knot before the final nip tuck is shown in the first two pictures. As mentioned previously (reply# 49), starting with the standard bowline, the working end is turned upward on the backside of the knot (okay, I have now adopted dl's convention for front vs. back), reeved between the standing part and the collar (goes under the WE collar leg first), turns around the collar, and then tucked under itself producing a half-hitch above the nipping loop. The HH can be tightened independently of the collar/nipping loop by pulling on the working end and the collar (and forms an overhand/slip knot with the collar legs). Tightening the HH prior to the nip tuck will improve your chances of not mistying. :P
The final two pictures show the knot with the nip tuck included. The knot can be tightened quite firm and compact in the somewhat flexible materials that I am using (in 2 COLORS! - THX to xarax for showing us such use in loops!).
After a few successful completions of this knot, it is fairly easy to tie, tightens firm ("shake-proof"?) and compact, and seems like it would be secure. It is very easy to untie. (yes, I know there are Yosemite finishes possible, I have not yet found a way to eliminate them ::))
DDK
-
MCB Nip Tucked Dressed - DDK edit: Sry, my labels were misleading. They have been corrected.
-
I am beginning to think that simplicity has gone out of the window in an effort to devise a completely different knot which is overcomplicated for everyday use. If the bowline is going to be placed under so much pressure that the end will slip out I think I'll simply use something else. For most purposes the round turn bowline is more than secure enough (and if I want to secure the end I'll just tie an overhand around one leg of the loop). I would draw the line at swinging from a rope terminated with a bowline, halfway up a mountain but I am never going to do that anyway (at least not willingly!).
Barry
-
Hi Barry and good day to you.
I "think" we've probably ventured into this topic a wee bit further than "simple" but the OP did ask for it in a way. And as you probably know from a few years of being here, things rarely stay simple.
We're just that kind of knotheads.
You say that for most purposes the round turn bowline is more than secure enough, but I would think that if there was a simpler method of "locking" the common bowline, you'd be in favor of it. Perhaps maybe even use it once learned.
If the simple lock actually improves various attributes of the "standard" bowline, eliminates the shortcomings along the way, I say explore away here.
I personally do not mind venturing a bit afield here to see if anyone gives a light bulb moment. And should it become necessary we can always take it elsewhere.
You may never be, but if you are on that mountainside, you could possibly remember this thread. ;-)
SS
-
Does this tangle satisfy you as the simplest solution to increase the common bowline's security.
It is just as simple as the Janus bowline. If you think that the Janus bowline is not a simple solution, then neither is Fontus bowline. I could not characterize it as a "simple lock", but it is a simple solution nevertheless.
Does it answer the "ring" loading factor?
I do not know how to test this ring loading factor, either in the Janus bowline or in this one. However, there are many instances, ( I would dare to say : most of the times ) that the bowline loop is not used as a tensioned ring, i.e. the two legs of the bight are long enough - relatively to its radius - to be almost parallel to each other. When the bight is approaching a circular shape, I would rather tie a more secure variation of the Eskimo bowline.
if one leg of the loop happens to load a bit more than the other leg?
I do not see any additional problem here either : This bowline is behaving just like a Janus bowline, in this matter
Will you be using this mod for your maritime pursuits?
Absolutely ! Just for the show of, of course, because the common bowline is 100% secure when tied with marine ropes.
I have used it today in another strange application : I tried to clean a high chimney from above, using a heavy iron ball hang from a rope. I did not want to even think of letting the ball fall into the chimney while I was weaving it up and down, in contact with the chimney s walls, so I tied a Fontus bowline on the end of the quite slippery nylon line. At the end of the dirty job, I was !@#$%^&*(), but very pleased to see how well dressed and rightly tightened was this knot at the end of the line.
the sharper the turn of the tail into its locked position will give the greatest bite, arresting the working end
It is not only the final turn that matters, but the way the tail is nipped by itself inside the encircling loop ( by the two segments of the tail that had passed through the nipping loop previously ). See the DDK s 1 and 2 tail, how effectively it is nipped in between the two segments of itself, and inside the nipping loop.
Do we really think that three diameters within the nip is that much a better bowline?
Yes, it is better for any nipping loop, and so for the bowline s nipping loop, too. Having said that, I repeat that he relative position of those three diameters, in general, and of the third, the tail s diameter, in particular, is also a very important factor we have to consider.
Some ropes/knots ball at that much stuffing and you end up having to secure the tail anyway because it is necessarily long and can get in the way during some usage.
Much stuffing is always a problem, but why do we have to leave a long tail ? It might need some more time and careful dressing, but we can always tighten the nub and leave as much tail as we feel it will be needed.( 6 rope diameters, I suppose ?)
-
(The "back" of) this MCB lady is a beauty ! :)
See two variations of DDK s new invention. I do not know if there is any noticeable security difference between the left- and the right- hand versions.
-
I am beginning to think that simplicity has gone out of the window in an effort to devise a completely different knot which is overcomplicated for everyday use. If the bowline is going to be placed under so much pressure that the end will slip out I think I'll simply use something else. For most purposes the round turn bowline is more than secure enough (and if I want to secure the end I'll just tie an overhand around one leg of the loop).
"Everyday use" depends on the user(s) --a rockclimber must
consider such safeguards for the bowline, and not because
of the activity so much as the nature of the line. There is
more intractable line for bowline security, too.
Now, some of the shenanigans above do go overboard into
a sea of complexity & tedium in tying (I'm abashed to look
at an old page of my initial ideas!) --one hopes for a simple
tying method, where the security is added in an easy step.
The common Yosemite bowline is fairly easily tied (and all
the more so, if taking the tail the opposite-to-common way
around that eye leg, creating an overhand vice fig.8 ) as
are the "Janus" variations; the "end-bound" wrap and tuck
come relatively easily, too.
Tying off the tail with an overhand hitch begs the question as
to how that knot can be secure, itself; so, many recommend
a strangle (though not by its proper name :P ). I've played
around with incorporating an overhand in the collar as a way
to nip that adequately to arrest loosening, and this o.'s tail then
is tucked through the central turNip --nothing terribly quick to do,
but for climbing, quickness is seated while surety has the floor!
(This variation looks much like Xarax's "Columbus", but the overhand
is (at) the collar, with the goal getting an overall knot locking
similar to a harness bend --half-hitch vs. overhand. )
--dl*
====
-
Does it answer the "ring" loading factor?
I do not know how to test this ring loading factor, ...
Which sounds, rather, like you don't understand what is meant:
simply, load the eye as though it is a (round) sling (or "loop")
--the knot becomes effectively an end-2-end joint.
(E.g., ring-loading the bowline loads the knot as an
inferior Lapp bend ("inferior" as the tail/Spart of the bight
part are on wrong sides of each other, and can slip).)
DDK, you write (post #61 (at this time))
(edit: call it Bowline Lock WE RT 2, for working end, round turn #2)
If the WE is not threaded through the collar but instead, the round turn
in the WE is around the crossing point of the nipping loop, an OH knot is produced
... and suggest above that this is the end-bound (single) bowline : no,
that knot doesn't have (nor actually do I understand how you see ...)
an overhand in the tail, but just a (round) turn.
(which seems much more effective with the dbl.bowline )
But, yes, the tail-wrap does go over that crossing point.
--dl*
====
-
some of the shenanigans above do go overboard into a sea of complexity & tedium in tying
Nothing went overboard into the sea of complexity, I can asuure you ! :) ( With one - and one only - more tuck further than the common bowline, everything remained onboard). I am not so sure about the tedium in tying, though...
I do not know how to test this ring loading factor, ...
Which sounds, rather, like you don't understand what is meant:
simply, load the eye as though it is a (round) sling (or "loop")--the knot becomes effectively an end-2-end joint.
I have not said that I do not understand what is meant by "ring loading", have I ? :)
To test this midline bend/joint, you have to control carefuly the loadings on each of the three limbs, because, in a real situation, they vary according to the angles they meet each other at the central nub, and the friction foces they encounter around the - round or not - object...If I were curious to test my own abilities in knot testing, I would rather start from a much simpler situation than this ! :)
-
DDK, you write (post #61 (at this time))
(edit: call it Bowline Lock WE RT 2, for working end, round turn #2) If the WE is not threaded through the collar but instead, the round turn in the WE is around the crossing point of the nipping loop, an OH knot is produced
... and suggest above that this is the end-bound (single) bowline : no, that knot doesn't have (nor actually do I understand how you see ...) an overhand in the tail, but just a (round) turn. (which seems much more effective with the dbl.bowline ) But, yes, the tail-wrap does go over that crossing point . . .
Yes, you are right that I had at first thought that the tightening in the mutual nipping round turns of the Bowline Lock WE RT 2 (which I still believe is an EBSB) was due to an OH. Your comments,
. . . But I have seen even that knot, tied in some recalcitrant, firm, soft-laid, slick, thin (4mm?) polypropylene hold only briefly, than all the round turns just simultaneously loosened/expanded !! :o . . .
referring to the EBSB made me curious, thinking it odd that an OH could behave so. Upon checking I did see that I had been mistaken regarding the OH in EBSB (what I had called Bowline Lock WE RT 2 prior to learning about end-bound..) and noted my error in reply #77 .
. . . I believe my WE RT #2 is the same as the EBSB and the knot you are describing and thought it to be more interesting than WE RT 1. After another look at the mutual nipping loops in EBSB, I do see that I was mistaken in saying it is an OH knot structure and possibly "shake-proof" - youch. :o . . .
-
. . . I am beginning to think that simplicity has gone out of the window in an effort to devise a completely different knot which is overcomplicated for everyday use. If the bowline is going to be placed under so much pressure that the end will slip out I think I'll simply use something else. For most purposes the round turn bowline is more than secure enough (and if I want to secure the end I'll just tie an overhand around one leg of the loop). I would draw the line at swinging from a rope terminated with a bowline, halfway up a mountain but I am never going to do that anyway (at least not willingly!) . . .
The addition of a half-hitch to a Bowline does not seem like a significant increase in complexity to me (see the MCB Nipped Tucked knot I have suggested). Especially given that the starting point, the Bowline, is fairly low "cost" in time and effort. I could see myself using such an addition if I was to have substantial load, valuable item at risk or was suspicious of the slickness of the material I was forced to use. Yes, I use Reef Knots, but, will switch to a (complicated?) Carrick Bend for a higher load.
DDK
-
I do not know how to test this ring loading factor, ...
Which sounds, rather, like you don't understand what is meant:
simply, load the eye as though it is a (round) sling (or "loop")--the knot becomes effectively an end-2-end joint.
I have not said that I do not understand what is meant by "ring loading", have I ? :)
To test this midline bend/joint, you have to control carefuly the loadings on each of the three limbs,
...
You have said --and here re-say--, not with direct words,
that you misunderstand, even in reply here to the simple
statement "the knot becomes effectively and end-2-end joint"
(emphasis added : 2 /= 3).
Consider a situation I recently found advocated for rockclimbing
belaying : belay off of not the harness's belay loop (wonder what
that is for, eh?) but off of one's tie-in loop. Or were some
suspended load of an eye knot lowered and the eye became
hung up on some protrusion, the former SPart slackening now
without load.
--dl*
====
-
you misunderstand, even in reply here to the simple statement "the knot becomes effectively and end-2-end joint"(emphasis added : 2 /= 3).
Caveat lector : When we tie and untie knots, we solve problems our brain was not evolved / wired to confront with. It is only natural we feel able, and proud about this, but there is a trap : we tend to believe that we are the only ones capable of understanding, and everybody else misunderstands every existing thing and every said word. ( A "komvos"(2), often leads us to a "kompos"(1) ("wonder what that is, eh?") :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3602.msg21052#msg21052 :) )
I am afraid you have misunderstood what I have said :) : During ring-loading, we should examine a loop as a midline bend with three(3) limbs, at different angles with each other. The knot effectively becomes a midline joint/bend, not an end-to-end joint/bend (emphasis added : three (3) limbs, 3 # 2 ). Both eye legs are loaded, and, of course, the standing part is also loaded ( not slackering - any limb that was loaded in the first place, remains loaded, and is not slackering), although loads vary with angles and friction forces induced by the encircled object on the two eyes. That makes ring loading a difficult thing to test accurately ( emphasis added : a difficult thing for me...).
-
Since we cannot test each and every scenario's input of loading(s), I suggest that if you tie a loop/eye knot and it is in tension, for the simple sake of testing its possible aversion to ring loaded influences, just spread the eye with your hands. Perform this spreading un-tensioned as well.
This simple test will give you indications of the tangle's resistance to coming undone. (Yes, not very scientific.)
SS
-
I believe the proper and most efficient loading profile to test for the effects of ring(eye) loading is "end to end". Introducing a third parameter (i.e. tension on the S.Part) only serves to minimize or mitigate the effectiveness of the test.
alpineer
-
hello alpineer,
please expand on what you've just written please. "End to end" can mean a few things.
Mostly, the eye will be loaded while the SP is in tension and a ring load is the spread of the eye during use.
Of course there could be times that only the eye will be spread and possibly with force, so I believe there is a case to sufficiently test that as well.
I am not of the opinion that the knot should be rated necessarily on its performance as a bend of the eye legs with a third leg (un-tensioned perhaps). But. if it does indeed pass this aspect, then all the better.
SS
-
I believe the proper and most efficient loading profile to test for the effects of ring(eye) loading is "end to end". Introducing a third parameter (i.e.tension on the S.Part)
I have never used a common bowline as a binder - around one round object, or around a bundle of many objects - and I believe that this is not a knotting situation which the bowline end-of-line loop is supposed to confront. If I anticipate that, at some instance, the angle of the eye limbs will be greater than, say, 120 degrees, I use an Eskimo bowline. Why we should test the bowline in unrealistic situations ? The primary element of the bowline is the nipping structure, be it a simple nipping loop, or a more complex one. This nipping structure does not function with an unloaded/ untensioned standing part, so what is the point of testing what is left of the bowline in this hypothetical unrealistic situation, where the two other limbs are loaded, while the standing part is not ?
(What makes much more sense, is to test the bowline with the one eye leg un-loaded / un-tensioned, because it might well happen to the other eye to be caught somewhere, and bear the whole load of the loop by itself. In crowded harbours, it happens to many bowlines to be tied around the same bollard or ring, the one on top of the other, so that their bights are tangled, and the standing part and one eye of one or more of them are their only limbs that are loaded simultaneously. Moreover, because of the not-so-rare fact that a bowline will not be able to revolve freely around a bollard, the tensioned limbs can be in wild angles the one relatively to the other, and to the centre-of-the-bollard on-dock / centre-of-the-bitts on-board axis.) Testing how a particular bowline holds when its three tensioned limbs converge at various angles on its nub, would be a useful test indeed.)
-
I have used a bowline around a wide board before and I feel confident that the angle exceeded 120 degrees. The load was not heavy and the task was completed. Yes, there may have been better knots for this task, but it was one of those times.....
So if there is divined a simple "lock" for the common bowline that happens to improve the ring loaded ability, then I would say that it is a winner.
And then the necessity of using another bowline form is unnecessary.
Would anyone say that this has been achieved with the samples offered so far?
SS
-
please expand on what you've just written please. "End to end" can mean a few things.
"End to end" as in simple 2 point loading from within the eyeloop; not involving tension on the S.Part. Note the two examples of this which were cited in post #89. "Ring loading" does not refer to loading the knot where the eye may have the physical form of a round(ish) structure, but simply refers to loading the eyeloop from within it's own boundaries. S.Part tension occuring simultaneously with ring loading only reduces the possibiliy of a knot failing as a result of ring loading. Or could there be exceptions?
alpineer
-
Hi alpineer,
I get what you're saying and I think that we can dream up possible scenarios where there could be circumstances that allow the eye loop to be loaded even with the SP tensioned. Lopsided loading in fact. As in, if the loop should snag as a load is raised or lowered, etc.
I am not too sure that ring loading dictates that the forces within the eye loop expand as the bowline in this thread is not necessarily a binder knot.
I can think of uses in construction or tree work that could have detrimental outcomes should the knot capsize due to ring loads.
Just a hypothetical here, but let's say a man has to lower a large tree limb, one that is well within the rope's capacity, but he needs to tie the loop almost snug to the limb. The angles of the eye legs would be fairly severe compared to "normal" use for the common bowline. The spread could cause the knot to loosen to the point of capsizing. Doom.
If the simple lock serves the purpose of reinforcing this challenge, then all the better.
SS
-
many recommend a strangle (though not by its proper name :P ).
A strangle knot as a collar of a bowline, can be tied in a number of ways. See the attached pictures for two variations of a "Strangle collar bowline". It may be seen as a complicated solution, but , conceptually, it is quite simple. The tail can pass through the nipping loop two times (A), or three times (B).
On the next post, see the attached pictures for another loop, also with a strangle knot tied around a simple nipping loop. Although not a bowline - we do not have a "proper" bowline collar here - this loop is also very secure, easy to tie and a good looking, compact knot.
-
A bowline-like end-of-line loop with a strangle collar.
-
you misunderstand, even in reply here to the simple statement "the knot becomes effectively and end-2-end joint"(emphasis added : 2 /= 3).
...
I am afraid you have misunderstood what I have said :) : During ring-loading, we should examine a loop as a midline bend with three(3) limbs, at different angles with each other. The knot effectively becomes a midline joint/bend, not an end-to-end joint/bend (emphasis added : three (3) limbs, 3 # 2 ). ...
I don't know why you make such difficulties!?
"ring-loading" is a defined term from rockclimbing,
and means what I said --the eye of an eye knot is
loaded from within, in opposition, as though one
had tied a round sling; the two *ends* are slack.
And I gave two examples of how this could occur
in practice, with one of them an advocated use(!).
Should you want to consider some other loading
that is a combination of ring-loading and normal
loading, well, fine with that; but don't presume to
hijack the term for this and then argue about others'
lack of comprehension.
--dl*
====
-
"ring-loading"[/i] is a defined term from rockclimbing
For the bowline ? I was under the impression that rockclimbers do not use the bowline, so they would not have much to say about it... and they should not say much about it. And if Ithey do use it, but use it as a binder, or in situations - like the two examples you provided - where it runs the danger to be reduced to something else, then this is their fault, not the bowline s ! The bowline works because its nipping loop is tensioned, and its nipping loop is tensioned only iff- and because - the standing end and the eye leg of the standing part are both tensioned. If, momentarily, the standing end is slackering for whatever reason, the two eye legs are slackering too, so there is no danger that any load moves towards any direction.
You stated that : "the knot becomes effectively an end-2-end joint". Well, the bowline that I know, and I have used as an end-of-line loop more times than any rock climber, never becomes an end-2-end joint : fortunately, the waist line of the mooring bollards does not expand during the night ! :)
...you want to consider some other loading that is a combination of ring-loading and normal loading
I do not want to consider it, I have to consider it, because it is the only thing it happens when the bowline is used properly, as an end-of-line loop, and not as a binder.
don't presume to hijack the term for this
That was not my intention, but now you mention it, I think that I / we should ! :) Why do the rock climbers have the monopoly for a term concerning a knot they do not use, they do not trust, and they do not understand? Let them keep the monopoly for the fig.8 bend, which they use, they trust... but, again, they do not understand ! :) And let us be free to define what "ring loading" should mean, that would be related with what the bowline is, and how it works, when it is used properly.
and then argue about others' lack of comprehension.
I believe you do not believe that it is sooo difficult, even for me, to test an eye-to-eye knot, don't you ? I was talking about my difficulties to test the many proposed solutions for a simple bowline "lock", in a most complex situation like the one we encounter many times, and is described here :
To test this midline bend/joint, you have to control carefully the loadings on each of the three limbs, because, in a real situation, they vary according to the angles they meet each other at the central nub, and the friction forces they encounter around the - round or not - object...
... or in Reply# 94. So, how we can test those things for all those solutions ? And even if we could, even if we could exhaust all possible scenarios, what would this mean ? Suppose we could conclude that the bowline lock A, is holding better than the bowline lock B, in some situations described by the scenarios A1, A2, A3, etc.., while in some other situations described by the scenarios B1, B2, B3, etc, what is really happening is the exact opposite. How would we chose which solution we will use, if we can not anticipate the future situations ? And if it turns out that we can not decide how to evaluate the most usual scenarios, where there is "a combination of ring-loading and normal loading ", why should we consider the most rare "pure" ring loading scenario - even if it is very easy to test our candidates in the simple situation described by it ?
It might be the case that there are many satisfactory "simple" locks for the bowline, but the decision which one we should chose is not a simple thing - not at all ! :)
-
"ring-loading" is a defined term from rockclimbing
For the bowline ? I was under the impression that rockclimbers do not use the bowline ...
So, you were under mis-impressions. The bowline has long been
used by climbers, and continues to be used --even in the face of
some strong opposition to it (and some confusion about what "it"
is --the advocates almost always mean using some precautionary
structure to prevent coming untied). It is favored for being quick
to tie and easy to untie after loading, in contrast to the fig.8 eye knot.
don't presume to hijack the term for this
That was not my intention, but now you mention it, I think that I / we should ! :) Why do the rock climbers have the monopoly for a term concerning a knot they do not use, they do not trust, and they do not understand? Let them keep the monopoly for the fig.8 bend, which they use, they trust... but, again, they do not understand ! :) And let us be free to define what "ring loading" should mean, that would be related with what the bowline is, and how it works, when it is used properly.
Dispensing with your misunderstanding, rockclimbers are who
introduced (Germans, i.p., I believe) and defined the term,
to articulate a circumstance that could arise --"proper" or not.
And it is one that is general --for any eye knot--, not particular
to a bowline (which simply is one with a particular vulnerability
to failing).
--dl*
====
-
rock-climbers are who introduced... and defined the term, for any eye knot--, not particular to a bowline
That makes sense. :) Rock climbers introduced and defined the "proper" use of the term "ring loading" for any eye knot : An end-of-line loop is "ring loaded", if it is loaded as a binder, even if and while the standing end is not loaded at all. Unfortunately, the bowline* is not meant to work like this... and it does not work like this ! The generalization of the use of this term in the case of the bowline*, is simply wrong. The bowline* - and all the bowline*-like loops that are based on a TIB nipping structure to hold and secure the tail -
...works because its nipping loop is tensioned, and its nipping loop is tensioned only iff- and because - the standing end and the eye leg of the standing part are both tensioned.
So, a "proper" ring loading circumstance - where the standing end is not loaded at all - makes sense to many eye knots, indeed most of them...but not to the bowline*.
I might even dare to DEFINE the bowline*, as an end-of-line loop that is automatically released and completely untied, if and when the bight is tensioned, while the standing end is not. The bowline* is a end-of-line loop that can not work as a pure binder. If the standing end is not loaded at all, the nipping loop is also not tensioned, it s not squeezing the tail any more... and a loaded eye leg of the bight would slip out of this loose nipping loop in no time.
* Here, with "bowline* ", I denote the common bowline - not the Eskimo bowline ( or anti- bowline ). The Eskimo bowline, (and all the Eskimo bowline-like loops that are based on a TIB nipping structure to hold and secure the tail ), when the eye legs are almost aligned to each other, or when the standing end is not loaded, works just like a Sheet bend ( with the standing end as the one tail of this Sheet bend). In that sense, the Eskimo bowline-like loops are suitable to withstand ring-loading, even in the case of a "proper", absolute ring-loading circumstance - when the standing end is not loaded at all.
-
Although not a bowline by any means, the Eskimo bowline-like "Double Harness loop" shown at the attached pictures could serve as a end-of-line loop that can withstand a "proper" ring loading. Even if the standing end is not loaded at all, the loop can be loaded safely, as it is turned ino into the quite secure "short" Double Harness bend.
-
Another end-of-line loop that works pretty well in "proper" ring loading circumstances - where both eye legs are tensioned, while the standing end is not. ( See the attached pictures ). In this configuration, Rusty s bend (a very simple and compact bend (1) ), looks like a crossing knot-based loop knot, with a symmetric inter-"locked" link tied at the end of the eye leg of the bight.
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2694.0
-
rock-climbers are who introduced... and defined the term, for any eye knot--, not particular to a bowline
... The generalization of the use of ["ring-loading"] in the case of the bowline*, is simply wrong. The bowline* - and all the bowline*-like loops that are based on a TIB nipping structure to hold and secure the tail -
...works because its nipping loop is tensioned, and its nipping loop is tensioned [] iff- and because - the standing end and the eye leg of the standing part are both tensioned.
So, a "proper" ring loading circumstance - where the standing end is not loaded at all - makes sense to many eye knots, indeed most of them...but not to the bowline*.
I might even dare to DEFINE the bowline*, as an end-of-line loop that is automatically released and completely untied, if and when the bight is tensioned, while the standing end is not.
Whew, you do spew!
Look, the term refers to a loading of a *knot*
--regardless of what transpires from the loading,
In fact, as you can readily see, the common bowline
can have satisfactory or catastrophic behavior --YMMV.
The so-called "cowboy bowline" should avoid the latter,
and is a Lapp bend (reverse sheet bend on ring-loading
--and is surely a *bowline* even w/a "proper collar"!
Hey, on that "dbl.harness loop", take the tail under itself
and tucked out the turNip --that looks pretty good (for
resisting loosening-when-untensioned) !
--dl*
====
-
The so-called "cowboy bowline" should avoid the latter,
and is a Lapp bend (reverse sheet bend on ring-loading
( I have used the term "common bowline" - or "bowline* - for both loops, the "left-" and the "right-" hand bowline - in contradiction to the "Eskimo bowline" . )
In the case of the common bowline, I do not believe that the "reverse Sheet bend",- indeed any bend where the one link is a loose nipping loop - can hold, when the standing end is not loaded at all. On the contrary, in the case of the "Eskimo bowline" and a "proper" ring-loading condition, the normal Sheet bend will hold. The difference you mention, between the two forms of common bowline, does not exist under those extreme circumstances you have described, because in that case both loops will not hold ! Would you trust a "reverse Sheet bend" that is the only thing left there, after a gradual untensionong of the standing end and loosening of the nipping loop? It will not be a Lapp bend you have tied and tighten, it will be a Lapp bend that should have been tied and tighten by itself...or else, a Lapp bend that you should have prayed to be self-tied, self-tighten and holding - if that would be of any help... Noope, if by "ring loading" we mean a completely loose standing end, we should not trust any form of the common bowline - and we should use a secure Eskimo bowline instead. ( In general, I use an Eskimo bowline when I anticipate that the angle between the eye legs would become greater than 120 degrees).( See the attached pictures for a secure Eskimo bowline).
Try the Rusty s loop : I believe it is a very nice, compact and quite secure loop, that is not known and used as much as it should. I do not like very much it as a bend ( two loaded limbs )- because I think it is a little unstable, - but as a loop ( three loaded limbs ), it is much better. You may also try your Sidewinder bend, in its untucked variation (1). Any similar elongated bend, where both tails leave the knot s nub from its middle, can form a loop suitable for "proper" ring loading ( where one of those tails takes the place of the standing end of the loop).
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2694.msg17078#msg17078
-
Looking over the site and trying out links found I see that the www.iland.net/~jbritton/bowline.htm link is dead.
That said, I want to offer an easy method of securing the WE of a "standard" bowline (instead of starting a new thread.
It appears to help with some anti-ring loading and most certainly inhibits shaking loose.
Adds a tad of bulk, but then so do other methods and the WE is pointed away from the loop, if that is a major concern.
I've not found reference to this simple method, as of yet.
Thoughts?
SS
Sorry for the tardy reply, but I didn't want to divorce this comment from the thread by starting a new topic.
I like many of the features of this backup, which in many ways is more secure than many common bowline backups.
On the other hand, this shifty (for lack of a better term) structure allows a number of different dressings. At least one dressing/form allowed the initial bowline coil to straighten out under a higher strain test which allowed the loop to suddenly shrink.
-
Looking over the site and trying out links found I see that the www.iland.net/~jbritton/bowline.htm link is dead.
That said, I want to offer an easy method of securing the WE of a "standard" bowline (instead of starting a new thread.
It appears to help with some anti-ring loading and most certainly inhibits shaking loose.
Adds a tad of bulk, but then so do other methods and the WE is pointed away from the loop, if that is a major concern.
I've not found reference to this simple method, as of yet.
Thoughts?
SS
Sorry for the tardy reply, but I didn't want to divorce this comment from the thread by starting a new topic.
I like many of the features of this backup, which in many ways is more secure than many common bowline backups.
On the other hand, this shifty (for lack of a better term) structure allows a number of different dressings. At least one dressing/form allowed the initial bowline coil to straighten out under a higher strain test which allowed the loop to suddenly shrink.
Tardy replies are welcome too roo.
Please explain your first sentence about "divorcing this comment, etc..."
I am glad you found the many features to your liking. What are they please?
This shifty-ness you allude to, can you be more specific? Because there was a picture of this method that I just can't see any confusion that could lead to what you've stated
Can you include a diagram/picture of some kind that shows the dressing/form that gave you the stated results.
When I tie this, I tie a standard bowline just loose enough to reeve in the working end, add the method of securing the tail, grab the central "knot" and pull each leg individually, the tail last.
I have used this secured bowline as a harness tie in (survived "test" falls of six feet a number of times on dynamic ropes), two of these secured bowlines to tow a tractor out of a ditch (using a 3/4" bull rope).
If the knot is tightened, as most knots should be before use, it should not fail. I have yet to fail it in any way. Using my own weight and strength, pulling, jumping, bouncing, with the loop narrow and widely spread, tugging hard on individual legs of the loop and as a whole, not only did it not capsize and not deform it was able to be untied by hands alone.
I look forward to what your other hand has to say. ;-)
SS
-
Tardy replies are welcome too roo.
Please explain your first sentence about "divorcing this comment, etc..."
I just believe it's relevant to this thread, and doesn't warrant a new topic.
I am glad you found the many features to your liking. What are they please?
Simplicity and security.
This shifty-ness you allude to, can you be more specific?
Sure. Depending on how hard I pull the different parts of rope after tying, I can get it to assume different forms; sometimes radically different.
Unfortunately, the neatest form, the very one you have pictured with the free end making a straight line exit, is, I believe, the form that had the sudden shrink problem. I think this tendency may be lessened if you force the free end to take a curvier, more serpentine exit from the knot while maintaining the underlying bowline structure.
-
Unfortunately, the neatest form, the very one you have pictured with the free end making a straight line exit, is, I believe, the form that had the sudden shrink problem. I think this tendency may be lessened if you force the free end to take a curvier, more serpentine exit from the knot while maintaining the underlying bowline structure.
I'd like to update my findings after further testing. I was doing more pulls in 3/16" nylon braid, and while I was getting capsized forms that were sometimes hard to untie, I wasn't getting the same sudden strinking problem I was getting earlier, until I gave the free end a firmer tug, which caused the "U"-shaped portion of the underlying bowline to flatten some and fall back a little. That form did give me the sudden shrink issue and a bit of a challenge to untie.
So I think my earlier recommendation would still be good, but perhaps more importantly, I'd add that you want to make sure that the "U" doesn't flatten or fall back. Also this issue may not arise at all under lower to moderate strains.
-
Just photographed a small quick test sample of this security modification.
I used 5/16 inch double braided polyester/nylon arborist rope (approx.tensile strength 4000lbs. new).
Tied the bowline with added modification, pulled each leg individually, the tail last, while holding the knot body till all space was removed and repeated the the pulls again.
Just so I know I have said it, the knot modification I presented earlier in this thread was of the loose knot, for clarity sake.
I loaded the loop with approximately 500 lbs. I added my own body weight and bounced "shocking" the knot.
I also tested the ability to resist ring loading by applying the same weight (no bouncing this time).
Here are some photos of the still tightened loop knot.
Please indicate on my photos where your testing is giving failure(s)
SS
-
Please indicate on my photos where your testing is giving failure(s)
Your pictures show a better dressing with the serpentine free end and a mostly non-flattened collar that should be good. But I've attached an image to show my guess as to what is transpiring at the moment of capsizing in a suboptimal dressing.
The red arrow indicates how a straighter free end would deform the bowline coil before loading.
The yellow arrow is my guess as to the primary capsizing event that starts the ball rolling, by sliding back and down. It happens too quickly for me to see firsthand.
-
When you've tied this, is this the configuration of the dressed knot (as shown in the most recent photos)? Or are you leaving the knot loose like my first presentation photo?
-
When you've tied this, is this the configuration of the dressed knot (as shown in the most recent photos)? Or are you leaving the knot loose like my first presentation photo?
While the dressing isn't loose, or at least not as loose as shown in the "presentation" photo, the collar is lower and flatter, which would allow for the slide. And this lower and flatter collar was caused by a harder tug on the free end (working end), which also left a straighter, non-serpentine free end, and the aforementioned deformed initial bowline coil.
Smaller, stretchier nylon rope is likely the easiest mode of seeing the effects under human power.
-
Please try it with your cord/rope, tightened as I have mentioned by pulling the individual loop legs, SP and tail last. Repeat this and give it your best shot.
I have tried this loop knot with basically every type of cord and rope I have, from 3/4" very stiff, old (Bull) rope, many relatively brand new BlueWater ropes 9mm -11mm static and dynamic, BW Titan 5.5mm Dyneema, 3/8" twisted nylon, 1/2" hemp/manila(?), 1/2" braided nylon, 6mm accessory cord, 3/16" starter pull cord, paracord, insulated wire, venetian blind cord 1.4mm, 1/16" aircraft cable and some of the cheapo box store cords.
I thought about trying it with the 1 1/4" climbing rope, but you have to stop somewhere.
I can not fail it by hand or by my "test rig" which is a ratcheting come-along and V-8 engine. Suitable rope of course. ;-)
I will say that tied using 1/8" braided nylon and some of the soft-ish, non stiff cord and the very small stuff it is a bear to untie after body weight and strength is applied, but doable. Yes with needle nose pliers. ;-)
-
Please try it with your cord/rope, tightened as I have mentioned by pulling the individual loop legs, SP and tail last. Repeat this and give it your best shot.
Why would I do this again? We agree here, as I have mentioned many times, that a good dressing is unlikely to have problems
I'm merely bringing up a suboptimal dressing and pre-loading knot deformation that occurs when one gets overzealous with pulling the free end (as I did on accident a few days ago).
I have tried this loop knot with basically every type of cord and rope I have, from 3/4" very stiff, old (Bull) rope, many relatively brand new BlueWater ropes 9mm -11mm static and dynamic, BW Titan 5.5mm Dyneema, 3/8" twisted nylon, 1/2" hemp/manila(?), 1/2" braided nylon, 6mm accessory cord, 3/16" starter pull cord, paracord, insulated wire, venetian blind cord 1.4mm, 1/16" aircraft cable and some of the cheapo box store cords.
I thought about trying it with the 1 1/4" climbing rope, but you have to stop somewhere.
It's strange to be testing the larger ropes when I specifically described (and encouraged the use of) the small 3/16", stretchy nylon that I was using, and, equally important, the suboptimal dressing in question.
It's not very feasible (and a little hazardous) to introduce higher strain in larger rope diameters. It's also harder to get a good feel of what is going on in terms of how close you are to rupture.
update, ref:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4480.msg32318#msg32318
-
Please try it with your cord/rope, tightened as I have mentioned by pulling the individual loop legs, SP and tail last. Repeat this and give it your best shot.
Why would I do this again? We agree here, as I have mentioned many times, that a good dressing is unlikely to have problems
I'm merely bringing up a suboptimal dressing and pre-loading knot deformation that occurs when one gets overzealous with pulling the free end (as I did on accident a few days ago).
I have tried this loop knot with basically every type of cord and rope I have, from 3/4" very stiff, old (Bull) rope, many relatively brand new BlueWater ropes 9mm -11mm static and dynamic, BW Titan 5.5mm Dyneema, 3/8" twisted nylon, 1/2" hemp/manila(?), 1/2" braided nylon, 6mm accessory cord, 3/16" starter pull cord, paracord, insulated wire, venetian blind cord 1.4mm, 1/16" aircraft cable and some of the cheapo box store cords.
I thought about trying it with the 1 1/4" climbing rope, but you have to stop somewhere.
It's strange to be testing the larger ropes when I specifically described (and encouraged the use of) the small 3/16", stretchy nylon that I was using, and, equally important, the suboptimal dressing in question.
It's not very feasible (and a little hazardous) to introduce higher strain in larger rope diameters. It's also harder to get a good feel of what is going on in terms of how close you are to rupture.
I must have read you wrongly then, don't bother with retesting then.
Suboptimal dressing can be a challenge with many knots and hopefully that is something understood by the members (I believe) and the ones to come (eventually).
Since I did my testing with larger diameter cords and ropes, and the smaller various as well, long before these most recent posts with you, I added the selection I have tried it with.
For others to read too.
Sometimes the size and material of what one ties a knot with can influence an effect such as jamming, slippage and not holding well at all, even with "normal" loads.
Testing to some degree using larger ropes makes sense. Perhaps not to extremes, but at least to see how the knot performs, whether it will close down and lock, deform or whatever. I think that the person who decides to try this knot modification out should use the type/size rope that they will most likely use this knot with.
And if someone has the desire and the wherewithal to safely test, as I did, then by all means they should.
Edit: BTW, I took the very same rope just now (the most recent photos), tied the knot loosely as in the original presentation and pulled it using the come along. It did not fail.
-
Testing to some degree using larger ropes makes sense. Perhaps not to extremes, but at least to see how the knot performs, whether it will close down and lock, deform or whatever.
I always prefer larger ropes, because only there I can SEE what is happening ! :)
However, I disagree with the light loading. Why not load the rope "to the extremes"? Even if you are not going to put this rope under such high a loading ever, you will put smaller diameter ropes under loads that are extreme for their size, at the limits of their ultimum strength. Presumably, the situations are similar, so it pays to have an idea, to get a glimpse of what is happening when the rope is deforming under high load, and near the rupture point. I do not understand why people are afraid of doing destructive tests...Just keep your body material at a safe distance ! :)
-
My own personal feelings about testing in the extreme are not fear centered at all. I regularly use rope in challenging myself and gravity. But, I can relate to anyone who does not want to take the limited amount of large diameter rope that they own, devise a method of destruction and then do it with the intent of never using it again. Then it is the method(s) for destructive testing. Not everyone has or will go out and purchase a device for this purpose alone. Or will feel it is a great policy to use their vehicle, etc.
So I can understand why it doesn't get done by the many.
Then there are those who wait and let someone else do it, just because.
Let's not hijack this thread to this topic. ;-)
-
The thread "simple lock for the bowline" has held my interest since casting my eyes on it.
There are few ways to achieve the "lock", some easy, some not.
There were many ideas and pictures in this thread that are quite interesting, and deserve a second life.
Trying to "lock" the bowline, there is always the temptation to deviate a little bit, and tie a "similar" loop, where an element of the bowline is replaced by something slightly different.
See the attached pictures for such a bowline-like loop, wih an "8" shaped collar. It is may be considered as "similar" to the bowline presented at Reply#19
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg2053n8#msg20538
and the loop presented at Reply#98
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg21088#msg21088
-
Nice!
I like that the tail gets squeezed in two places pretty securely.
Now to load it and see how difficult it is to untie, but this will have to wait until the sunshine visits.
SS
-
There were many ideas and pictures in this thread that are quite interesting, and deserve a second life.
Trying to "lock" the bowline, there is always the temptation to deviate a little bit,
and tie a "similar" loop, where an element of the bowline is replaced by something slightly different.
See the attached pictures for such a bowline-like loop, wih an "8" shaped collar.
...
Nearly bingo!
Here's a better finish, IMO, with reference to your upper image:
begin collar as you do, white crossing under itself,
but take it under orange eye leg, around and over
itself going back through turNip,
and the out as you do --which makes exactly a fig.8,
and better binds the turNip which itself secures parts.
And this general (unloaded) form may be put as *knots*
with various loadings : as *bowlines* in both directions,
and as a fig.8-based eye knot maybe also in both ways!
(I think that it was in one of the latter that I first recorded
it, and maybe the other-way bowline (much of the wrapping
around eye legs) came first or thereafter; later was the opposite
orientation qua bowline. (I have photos ... .)
It has just the 2 diameters through the turNip, but seems
to look pretty good, anyway.
--dl*
====
-
Thank you, Dan Lehman,
...and congratulations for the re-discovery of photography ! It was about time...( 1826 -2013 = 200-13 years )
Nearly Bingo ! :)
First things first. As you say, the loop in the picture is not a bowline - so let me call it (a particular) "fig.8 loop", for the time being.
Let me start from the great advantage : At this fig.8 loop, the eye-leg-of-the-bight, by following the path it follows at the point it enters and penetrates the nipping loop, and by the help of the eye-leg-of-the-standing-part, it squeezes the tail on the rim of the nipping loop - a line of defence against slippage which does not exists at all in the case of the "8" loop.
However... the price we have to pay in driving the working end through this path, is too high.
0. At the "8" loop, the tail is not squeezed underneath the eye-leg-of-the-bight at the same point it is squeezed at the "fig.8 loop", but it is squeezed on the rim of the nipping loop nevertheless - and by two overlapping segments, not only one. See this point, inside the blue circle, at the second picture.
1. At the "fig.8 loop", the continuation of the eye-leg-of-the-bight DOES NOT squeeze the continuation of the tail on the eye-leg-of-the-bight - because this continuation of the tail falls into the "canyon" formed there ( between the straight segment of standing part and the rim of the nipping loop), and it is free to slip. So, this is one less line of defence against slippage - and we can not abandon even a single one of our few lines of defence, can we ? :). See this "canyon", through which the continuation of the tail is free to move, inside the two concentric green circles, at the third picture.
2. Last but not least : I do not know if I will be able to describe this most serious disadvantage of this "fig.8 loop", in relation to the "8" loop ( and which forced me to present the later but not the former), but I will try :
The inclination of the plane of the nipping loop in relation to the axis of the loading, which protects it from becoming an open helix, is smaller in the "fig.8 loop" than in the "8" loop. This is due to the different path that the second leg of the collar follows : when it goes around / passes behind the eye-leg-of-the-standing-part, it is not as effective as a tendon (blue double arrow, at the fourth picture), that can drag the straight segment of the standing part towards the nipping loop, than when it goes over / passes in front of it - or, what is the same thing, it can not drag the nipping loop towards the straight segment of the standing part effectively enough, so the nipping loop settles in a smaller, less safe angle (red lines, at the fourth picture) in relation to the axis of the loading. In other words, in the "8" loop, the second leg of the collar follows a path close to the path it would have followed in the case of a standard bowline - and the great advantage of the standard bowline is, as we all know, that the collar pulls the nipping loop toward it, and prevents it from degenerating into an open helix. In the "fig. 8 loop", the plane of the nipping loop remains almost parallel to the axis of the loading - not good !
I should add just another thing, which can be said for all those attempts to invent a better mousetrap : In the king of knots, the common standard bowline, there is an equilibrium, a balance of structure and form, between the nipping structure on the standing part, ante the eye, and the collar structure on the tail, post the eye. Nothing plus than minimum, nothing is less or more than the other. I am afraid that the various "secure bowlines" are missing this point. We see either over-grown collar structures, or over-grown nipping structures, but we lose this miraculous and beautiful balance of the two structures/forms, that exists in THE bowline...
-
This is really interesting. You have my attention.
Will explore these simple locks...
To provide a practical use, these Bowline 'locks' must be secure and stable in a variety of loading profiles - eg so it is suitable as a tie-in knot for climbers.
In particular, the finished Bowline must be resistant to cyclic loading events (ie tension on>>tension off>>tension on>>tension off again...). Cyclic loading is the trigger mechanism for unsecured Bowlines working themselves loose (with potential catastrophic consequences for climbers).
The 'locks' would need to be tested in stiffer ropes as well as softer (ie good hand) ropes. Dynamic climbing ropes vary considerably from brand to brand...
I should disclose that I use my EBSB Bowline variant regularly - and have done so since 2009. I have had no issues with security and stability with the EBSB variant. But, I take X1's point about the increased size of the nub.
Note: I have come to realize that knot strength is an (almost) irrelevant concept - testing for pure breaking load strength to me is (almost) a pointless exercise.
Mark
-
Thank you Mark,
The original intention of this thread was something a lot more modest than the transformation of the common bowline into a climbing knot. Most of the bowlines presented here are more secure knots than the common bowline, but they are not meant to replace the retraced fig.8 knot used by the climbers.
I have no experience or knowledge of climbing whatsoever ( I use to declare that the highest peak I have conquered in my life, was the top of a step ladder...), so I can not comment on the complex issue of the safety of any "secure bowline". My gut feeling tells me that, in order for such a bowline to be able to compete with the retraced fig.8 loop, it has to have a double nipping loop and a double collar. The "mirrored bowline", for example, would be a knot than even I could trust my life on ! :)
I believe I have tied a great number of all the possible and not too complex bowline-like PET loops, so I have a rough idea of the landscape. However, there are always pleasant surprises, when a competent knot tyer leads us to unchartered territories. Alan Lee, for example, has recently tied many very interesting and good looking bowlines ( see the first attached picture for such a knot, just one of the many he has presented in this Forum ).
The only bowline that I have tied and can possibly be considered as a "secure bowline", is the Tweedledee bowline, which is nothing but the Tweedledee bend (M.A24) presented by Roger E. Milles in his beautiful book "Symmetric bends", turned into a bowline-like PET loop ( see the second and the third attached pictures ). However, I have not tested it under any of the conditions you describe ! :)
-
First things first. As you say, the loop in the picture is not a bowline
--so let me call it (a particular) "fig.8 loop", for the time being.
Where did I say this? What I show (which in a *quarter* is much
like what you showed) is a structure that if loaded on the purple
ends "1,2" (i.e., either one qua SPart) is IMO a "bowline"; if on
either of the other ends, a fig.8-based eye knot.
I should add just another thing, which can be said for all those attempts to invent a better mousetrap :
In the king of knots, the common standard bowline, there is an equilibrium, a balance of structure and form,
between the nipping structure on the standing part, ante the eye, and the collar structure on the tail, post the eye.
Nothing plus than minimum, nothing is less or more than the other.
I am afraid that the various "secure bowlines" are missing this point. We see either over-grown collar structures,
or over-grown nipping structures, but we lose this miraculous and beautiful balance of the two structures/forms,
that exists in THE bowline...
Where "the bowline" fails in performance, something better
must be sought, and we do have failures in security both of
the coming-loose & the slipping-under-load sort (the latter
in some high-strength, slippery line). (Many of the tail-end-heavy
imbalances are likely to fail in slippage.)
After wrestling with the very stiff old low-elongation rope
(BW II), I'm not confident of having just one solution but
want options; this particularly tough case might be one
best dealt with by some multiplicity of knotting, rather
heavy-handedly. It really is hard to bend the line around
3 diameters snugly!)
--dl*
====
-
First things first. As you say, the loop in the picture is not a bowline
Where did I say this? What I show ... is a structure that if loaded on the purple ends "1,2" (i.e., either one qua SPart) is IMO a "bowline";
No, it is not. It does not have a collar like the collar "the" bowline has ( a "proper" collar) - where the second leg of the collar enters into the nipping loop from the same side the first leg of the collar exits through - so, in either case ( "1" as the Standing end, or "2" as the Standing end ) it is not a bowline. It is one "the-other-way bowline" :) :), just as you said - in the sense that the second leg of the collar enters into the nipping loop the other way than it should !
the other-way bowline ...the opposite orientation qua bowline
Bingo ! :)
See three similar loops, where the simple collar structure of the common bowline has been replaced by a not-so-simple strangle-like one ( Replies #98 and #99 ):
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg21088#msg21088
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg21089#msg21089
-
First things first. As you say, the loop in the picture is not a bowline
Where did I say this? What I show ... is a structure that if loaded on the purple ends "1,2" (i.e., either one qua SPart) is IMO a "bowline";
No, it is not. It does not have a collar like the collar "the" bowline has ( a "proper" collar)
- where the second leg of the collar enters into the nipping loop from the same side the
first leg of the collar exits through - so, in either case ( "1" [SPart], or "2" [SPart] ) it is not a bowline.
It is one "the-other-way bowline" :) :), just as you said - in the sense that the second leg
of the collar enters into the nipping loop the other way than it should !
No to your "no" : as I wrote, "IMO", and as you have acknowledged
elsewhere, some definitions of "bowline" require only the central
nipping loop (aka "turNip") --and that is my position, "proper collar"
be darned!
And my "other way" referred to which side of my intentionally
ambiguous image (with identified *ends* awaiting assigned tasks)
and which part would be the SPart, et cetera. Given the purple
rope's turNip, taking either of its ends qua SPart yields
a *bowline* "IMO". (And know that I'm right.) :P
Moreover, re my "anti-bowline" (which you recognized using "anti"
as for "anti-cyclone" to denote something about direction),
there my determinant is on the returning leg of the eye,
whatever collaring is done (and so in the case at issue above,
one sees a "normal" return & entry of this eye leg).
Bingo ! :)
Amen!
where the simple collar structure of the common bowline
has been replaced by a not-so-simple strangle-like one ( Replies #98 and #99 )
The strangle knot embedded here doesn't work so well,
unable to draw up to its rumored tightness. Actually, used
qua "tie-off" knot, I find the strangle to be less secure than
I once thought --and have heard some rockclimbers testify that
it came untied on them--, and note that it doesn't make a full
wrap, really, its extension over the (single) overhand form
being not fully a 360degrees wrap in binding effect. So, for the
task of tail tie-off, I've mused about either a double strangle
or some wrap-wrap-&-tuck knot (stevedore, e.g.).
--dl*
====
ps : re photography, 18xx-2012..., it was a recent news item that
more photos have been uploaded(?) --not certain what was the measure--
in the past year or two than were taken (by some measure)
in all prior history !!! It was pretty amazing datum,
in that of the "prior history" were many years into the digital era,
but prior the ubiquitous smart-phone-camera ubiquity, I guess !!
-
No to your "no" : as I wrote, "IMO", and as you have acknowledged elsewhere, some definitions of "bowline" require only the central nipping loop (aka "turNip") --and that is my position
No. to your "no" to my "no" :) : as I wrote, and as you know, some definitions of "bowline" require both the nipping loop ( like the one that exists in "the" bowline ), AND the collar ( like the one that exists in "the" bowline ), and that is my position. I do not understand why "your opinion" should become everybody else s opinion - it is your OPINION, not your PROOF. I believe that one of the few persons that has expressed arguments in favour of your opinion, is me (1) - but I am still not convinced 100%, and I can not ignore the fact that most knot tyers are not convinced either. So, when the legs of the collar structure of a eye knot / loop do not exit from and enter into the nipping loop from the same side, I always prefer to refer to it as a "bowline-like" eye knot / loop. I should also remind you that you did not write " this is a "bowline', IMO "- you wrote :
Here's a better finish, IMO, with reference to your upper image:
I know very well that it is hard to repeat something a million times, and do not succeed in convincing even a single one member, about something that sounds reasonable to you... it happens to me all the time ! :) Why do you believe you should have a better luck ? Most knot tyers are very attached to the traditional name and the image of the common bowline, and they are not prepared to accept what seems to them as a radical change, even if there are reasonable arguments in favour of it. I have not convinced anybody that the nipping loop is something different from a half hitch, which is something that is much more evident to me - but not to anybody else ! :)
And my "other way" referred to ...
That was clear - as it should have been clear that I utilized, on purpose, your phrase in another sense, to highlight my point.
Moreover, re my "anti-bowline" ... there my determinant is on the returning leg of the eye, whatever collaring is done (and so in the case at issue above,
one sees a "normal" return & entry of this eye leg).
(This "returning" leg of the collar, I call the "second leg of the collar". )
I beg your pardon, but I do not understand what exactly you do mean here : do you call as "normal" the "orientation" of the returning/second leg, as it moves towards the nipping loop ? That makes sense - but the "entry" of this second leg on the nipping loop is through the opposite side from its "exit" : So, if the "entry" and the "exit" of the first leg were "normal", the entry and the "exit" of the second leg ( into/from the opposite side of the nipping loop ) can not be so ! Follow the working end as it "moves" from the standing end to the tail. Watch the side it enters and exits into/from the nipping loop each time. Then, see what I mean : this is not the way the working end of "the" bowline is "moving".
The strangle knot embedded here doesn't work so well, unable to draw up to its rumored tightness.
Actually, used qua "tie-off" knot, I find the strangle to be less secure than I once thought
I has presented THREE strangle-like colar structures, not one. They are entangled with the nipping structure of those three loops in three very different to each other ways - so, even if what you say is true for the one or two, it is very unprobable that it is also true for all the three ! :)
However, I do not deny that this might be the case, indeed - my main objection to your comment about the Strangle is that, in this case, we do not have a common Strangle tie-off knot, we have a Strangle-like knot, used as a collar structure : that is, interwined with the nipping structure in a very complicated way - so it is hardly a Strangle knot at all !
I suggest you forget about the Strangle as a tie-off knot, and tie those three bowlines and bowline-like knots as they are. I am sure you will find that at least one of them is utilizing this shape "8" collar structure in an interesting and secure way.
Having said that, I also do not deny that this Strangle-like collar structure seems "over-grown:, in relation to the common nipping loop - I would prefer a bowline-like loop where such a complex collar structure would be accompanied by a equivalently complex nipping structure. In general, I prefer a double collar attached on a double nipping loop - in this case, I sense some equilibrium, also present in "the" bowline, but absent in most of the other better mousetraps ( most of the "secure bowlines", as the Janus bowlines, for example ).
it was a recent news item that more photos have been uploaded?
No, I have already notiiced that, but I feel I have to repeat the mention, so the attitude would have more chances to be embedded - in the conscious or subconscious side of this nipping loop.
In the present case, the pictures accompanied the clear description offered in the text, in a balanced way - that was the best thing of it. A clear description, in a clear language (not in any sociolect or argot...) of an interesting knot, AND two pictures of it - we do not demand the gold of the Persian Empire...
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg23683#msg23683
-
Moreover, re my "anti-bowline" ... there my determinant is on the returning leg of the eye,
whatever collaring is done (and so in the case at issue above,
one sees a "normal" return & entry of this eye leg).
(This "returning" leg of the collar, I call the "second leg of the collar". )
Perhaps if your desire to be combative got out of your eyes
you could read what you're quoting and spare the reply to
something else which wasn't uttered? "leg of the EYE" :
do not read "leg of the collar" for this.
::)
-
To watch this loop you have presented, and be forced to see it as a bowline ( because the "leg of the eye" is "normal" - whiile, obviously, everything else is not...), THAT got my eyes out ! :)
-
To close this long diversion away from the main theme of this thread, I would like to mention yet another secure bowline-like loop, in the spirit of the "belance" I seek between the nipping structure and the collar structure in the nub of the PET loop knots / eyeknots (1). Although in this loop the orientation of the two Constrictor links is not the optimum ( alongside to the "vertical" axis of the loading, as in the Tweedledee bowline-like loop ), this knot is compact, it is able to withstand ring-loadimg, and it is worth of further examination, I believe.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg26690#msg26690
-
When I had tied the eyeknots shown at Replies #38 and #46 (1)(2), I had chosen a tight double "collar structure" that was resembling a Constrictor knot, in an effort to keep the two adjacent and parallel segments ( the continuation of the returning eye leg and the tail ) "under" the "riding turn" / "bridge" ( the segment which connects the two nipping loops ). Now I have tried those eyeknots again, and I see that the variations where the "bridge" goes "over", and those two parallel segments go "under", are also very secure and tight knots. We can also try the "simpler" Clove-hitch resembling similar double "collar structures", where those segments are not crossed - if we anticipate that the standing end will always remain under tension, the constricting action of the nipping loop would be the main factor that would keep the tail locked inside the knot s nub, so we have to examine in which variations the rim of this loop contact the tail and blocks its slippage more efficiently. In mid-line bends, where we presume that the main line would always be under tension, dfred had chosen the ("simpler" than the Constrictor) Clove-hitch resembling double collar structure (3).
Many variations are possible here, including a constrictor instead of a clove hitch. I didn't identify anything simpler and less bulky than a clove hitch though. I experimented going either right or left first after the first pass through the loop, but wasn't able to discern much difference, at least when using a clove hitch.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg20905#msg20905
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg20922#msg20922
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3020.msg17965#msg17965
-
Hi All, I have two good looking Simple lock bowline, hope you like it.
Thanks alan lee.
-
The first is a variation of the Eskimo Janus bowline(s)(1) very similar to the one you had presented at another post (See the attached picture) - the difference is that now the "bridge" ( the segment of the rope that connects the two collars ) goes "over" the returning eye leg and the tail ( as shown in the picture ). However, in general, it would be better if this "bridge" penetrates the nipping loop - because a nipping loop that encircles three rope diameters is rounder and wider.
The second is a "locked" bowline, with the lock being an overhand knot around the rim of the nipping loop. However, if one is going to spend more material and tie an additional overhand knot, I think that he should better use the opportunity and enhance the stability/security of the nipping loop itself - by making this overhand knot turn around its crossing point, for example, not only around its rim.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4329.0
-
We do not have such a great number of "Double-Double" bowlines ( Double nipping loop + Double collar ), so that the rejection of one of them would have made no difference... I had hoped that the Constrictor x2 bowline shown at Reply#133 (1) would have been a viable alternative to the Double Collar bowlines based on the Clove hitch or the Girth hitch nipping structures ( = Double Collar Water bowline and Mirrored bowline ), but, after some more careful tests on various materials, I was disappointed by its performance.
I have seen that, under heavy loading, the nipping structure s Constrictor becomes much more compact than the collar structure s Constrictor - and the result is a deformed, non symmetrical nub, that bears no relation whatsoever with the nice form of the unloaded knot shown at Reply#133. And this ugly appearance, as it often happens, reveals a real structural problem : The nipping structure s stronger Constrictor shrinks and "closes" more around itself, than around its twin, the weaker collar structure s Constrictor - which is now forced to "open" up, and to remain somewhat lose ! So, the tail is not squeezed onto the returning eye leg as much as I had hoped it would. However, the initial purpose was the exact opposite : the stronger nipping structure was supposed to "close" around the weaker collar structure, and so enhance the friction forces within it. I think that, in the Constrictor x2 Double bowline, the constricting power of the complex double nipping structure is "wasted" within itself, so it is not utilized by the double collar structure as much as it should.
There can be no evil without good - and the good thing is that the collar structure s Constrictor can not / does not jam, and can be untied rather easily - and when this weaker Constrictor is released, the nipping structure s stronger Constrictor is released and can be untied easily as well.
I think that we should demand a more "balanced" behaviour by the two structures of such a complex "Double-Double" bowline, so I return to the Golden Standard, the Tweedledee bowline, which satisfies this " equivalence" condition to a much greater degree.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg26753#msg26753
-
Hi All, I have two good looking Simple lock bowline, hope you like it.
Thanks alan lee.
The first is a version of "end-bound" bowlines where
this binding occurs as the tail makes its initial pass
through the turNip. I think you get a better
binding if you reverse the handedness of the wrap
--it more centers the wrap over the crossing point
of the turNip. (Alas, it's not so secure a binding
in springy or firm, slick rope.)
The first is a variation of the Eskimo Janus bowline(s)(1) very similar
to the one you had presented at another post (See the attached picture)
- the difference is that now the "bridge" ( the segment of the rope that
connects the two collars ) goes "over" the returning eye leg and the tail
( as shown in the picture ).
No, the Eskimo bwl. is an *anti*-bowline and collars
the eye leg --this is/does neither. (Which shows that in
working through the turNip one has either a loop or
a bight --a binding or a collaring--, and the former really
doesn't take *sides* (leg vs. SPart) but the latter does.
Combining one with the other can seem to nudge the
loop towards taking an leg or SPart *flavor*, so to speak.)
--dl*
====
-
The first is a variation of the Eskimo Janus bowline(s
No, the Eskimo bwl. is an *anti*-bowline and collars the eye leg --this is/does neither.
It ( first) collars the eye leg + the rim of the nipping loop - so it is more an "Eskimo" bowline than a "common" bowline. I had not said that it is an "Eskimo" (-) bowline = "anti-bowline", had I ? The characteristic that makes it a variation of the "Eskimo" bowline is the L-shaped returning eye leg. In the "common" bowlines, the returning eye leg goes straight to the U-turn around the standing end.
-
The first is a variation of the Eskimo Janus bowline(s
No, the Eskimo bwl. is an *anti*-bowline and collars the eye leg --this is/does neither.
It ( first) collars the eye leg + the rim of the nipping loop
No, it wraps the turNip --and is no more "collar"
to the eye leg than to the SPart, as noted (despite the bias
in layout in the image).
I had not said that it is an "Eskimo" (-) bowline = "anti-bowline", had I ?
I did; it is : that is why the eye leg is collared
--because of the opposite-side ("anti-bwl" side) entry.
The characteristic that makes it a variation of the "Eskimo" bowline is the L-shaped returning eye leg.
In the "common" bowlines, the returning eye leg goes straight to the U-turn around the standing end.
That's not a good discrimination/definition. The Eskimo bwl starts
(i.e., the name originates with ...) a collaring of the "wrong" side
courtesy of tail entry similarly "wrong". Variations spring from
this, and interruptions to this fundamental path fit among
these --so, binding the turNip is just such an "interruption"
en route to defining structure.
Were I to accept that the tail's initial wrap is a defining
attribute, I'd see "straight" as logical --i.e., w/o any other
structure/shape--, and the Eskimo bwl having the tail
go "straight" to the collar. Then, it might be that one
speaks of "collared" (as an extension/addition) Myrtle /
bollard loop knots per side of entry --giving the definitional
prominence to the tail's initial (wrapping) vs. subsequent
(collaring) path (to which a finishing wrap would fit in
with my label "end-bound", as in "EBDB").
--dl*
====
-
It ( first ) collars the eye leg + the rim of the nipping loop
No, it wraps the turNip --and is no more "collar" to the eye leg than to the SPart, as noted
OK. However, I still do not see this "turn" as a collar around the Standing END - which is what the "common" bowline s collar does.
I had not said that it is an "Eskimo" (-) bowline = "anti-bowline", had I ?
I did; it is : that is why the eye leg is collared--because of the opposite-side ("anti-bwl" side) entry.
I do not deny that the side by which the returning eye leg enters into the nipping loop is important, and you have good reasons to distinguish the (+) from the (-) bowlines. However, when the continuation of this leg is L-shaped, when it forms this "step" or "handle" I was talking about the other day, I think that this loop is more "Eskimo"-like than "common"-bowline-like.
The characteristic that makes it a variation of the "Eskimo" bowline is the L-shaped returning eye leg.
In the "common" bowlines, the returning eye leg goes straight to the U-turn around the standing end.
That's not a good discrimination/definition. The Eskimo bwl starts (i.e., the name originates with ...) a collaring of the "wrong" side courtesy of tail entry similarly "wrong". Variations spring from this...
I'd see "straight" as logical --i.e., w/o any other structure/shape--, and the Eskimo bwl having the tail go "straight" to the collar.
I prefer to focus on the main purpose of the collar structure, which is to remain attached to the ( non-"opening" and non-"walking" ) nipping loop. So, I tend to pay attention ( too much ? ) to the form/shape of the continuation of the returning eye leg itself. When it is "physically" L-shaped - regardless if this is the only "logical" option/form/shape it has/it can have - I tend to see the loop it belongs as a variation of the "Eskimo" rather than of the "common" bowline.
-
Hi All, As it was suggested, I am submitting this loop to the "simple lock for the bowline" thread as well, this particular loop is the better one then the rest of loops from the same class that I had presented. I think it is not that hard to tie this loop, even though there is an over hand knot tie on it, it seems to have no detrimental interference to the bowlin nipping loop to do the work.
Well come to all comments.
Thanks alan lee
-
On second thought, the Luca s TIB bowline can be considered as a "locked" bowline, too - where the "lock" is the fig.8 knot tied around the standing end and the rim of the nipping loop. The comparison of the Lee s locked bowline to the Luca s TIB bowline is very interesting !
-
Hi X1,
The Luca s TIB bowline can be considered as a re-dressing of the so-called Yosemite bowline, the Lee's locked bowline is more similar as a further re-tucking of the latter,where the second leg of the collar enters the nipping turn before "turning back"to form the Figure 8;I can not really say the pros and cons of Yosemite vs. Luca s, and even the pros and cons of Lee s (Yosemite) re-tucking (I like!) vs. a similar re-tucking of the Luca s(I think I have seen it somewhere in the thread "Look alikes loops" by Alan Lee (Alan, sometimes you are too prolific for the time I have! :D)).
Bye!