Figure out an easy TIB tying method for Scott s locked TIB bowline

[kd8eeh]

I forgot to show something important - the ends  of the rope have to be twisted before wrapping the collars back.  I think this is why i was having trouble duplicating it.

[X1]

  I see it NOW !    Do not suppose that it is easy to anybody to follow the flips of the bights over the entire knot - especially when it is shown by a series of non-focused pictures ! 
  Increase or decrease the distance between the computer and the knot, until the depth of the field is right. Then you can always zoom the picture, crop it in the correct size, and present it. It is better if we have images of the knots on a lower pixel count, but well focused, than the opposite.
   Your method seems easier to me than Luca s - but perhaps I am simply misled by the different means of representation. 

[James Petersen]

Am I missing something here? This knot, albeit an interesting one, looks like a variation of the cowboy bowline rather than a standard bowline. If this is the case, I would hesitate to call it a modification of Scott's bowline, which is based on a standard bowline.

-- J:P

[xarax]

Am I missing something here? This knot, albeit an interesting one, looks like a variation of the cowboy bowline rather than a standard bowline. If this is the case, I would hesitate to call it a modification of Scott's bowline, which is based on a standard bowline.

The standard bowline does not work differently than the "cowboy bowline", when the angle of the eyes is small, i.e. in most cases ! Personally, I usually tie the ABoK#1010 as a mooring bowline, and only when I anticipate a wide eye, I tie something else, usually an "Eskimo" bowline. So, when we speak about "locked" bowlines, we do not distinguish between left-handed and right-handed locked bowlines ! The issue in this knots has moved away from this distinction, which does not play any role in the more complex knots.
So, it is a modification of the locking mechanism, what is the most important thing in this eye-knot, after being a bowline. The fact that the "initial" / "underneath" bowline is left-handed or right-handed does not play any role any more. The geometrical and structural difference between the two forms of the bowline are important only for the bare bowline, not for the re-tucked forms, where the knots formed during ring loading are very different than the Lapp knot. 

[James Petersen]

Am I missing something here? This knot, albeit an interesting one, looks like a variation of the cowboy bowline rather than a standard bowline. If this is the case, I would hesitate to call it a modification of Scott's bowline, which is based on a standard bowline.

The standard bowline does not work differently than the "cowboy bowline", when the angle of the eyes is small, i.e. in most cases ! Personally, I usually tie the ABoK#1010 as a mooring bowline, and only when I anticipate a wide eye, I tie something else, usually an "Eskimo" bowline. So, when we speak about "locked" bowlines, we do not distinguish between left-handed and right-handed locked bowlines ! The issue in this knots has moved away from this distinction, which does not play any role in the more complex knots.
So, it is a modification of the locking mechanism, what is the most important thing in this eye-knot, after being a bowline. The fact that the "initial" / "underneath" bowline is left-handed or right-handed does not play any role any more. The geometrical and structural difference between the two forms of the bowline are important only for the bare bowline, not for the re-tucked forms, where the knots formed during ring loading are very different than the Lapp knot.

All well and good, but I (fool that I am) was having a *#** of a time trying to get the knot tied by starting from the standard bowline, from which Scott's knot is derived -- it just doesn't work.

The knot in this thread cannot be tied when starting with a standard bowline. Scott's is tied by first tying a standard bowline and then "locking" it. So, again, with no disrespect to Scott or anyone else ( I like both versions very much), I feel it is misleading to call it a modification of Scott's locked bowline.

Starting from Scott's locked bowline you would have to remove the tail/lock and arrive at a standard bowline. You would then have to remove the tail from the TurNip (not a bowline anymore), take the tail around the SP in the other  direction, again creating a collar, and reeve it through the TurNip, arriving at a cowboy bowline. It is only this form (the cowboy bowline) that you can arrive at the knot currently being discussed.

-- J:P

[xarax]

I was having a *#** of a time trying to get the knot tied by starting from the standard bowline, from which Scott's knot is derived -- it just doesn't work.
The knot in this thread cannot be tied when starting with a standard bowline. Scott's is tied by first tying a standard bowline and then "locking" it. So, again, with no disrespect to Scott or anyone else ( I like both versions very much), I feel it is misleading to call it a modification of Scott's locked bowline.

  JP, the left-handed bowline and the right handed bowline have different topology ! You can not change topology by re-dressing ! We call both of them with the same name, because their shape/geometry/structure is similar, indeed, although their topology is completely different ( and that is a curious instance of two knots called by the same name, although they are different topologically ). However, just imagine what will happen if I propose to call the left-handed bowline by a different name ! 

   I have called it as a (slight) modification / variation of the Scot s original bowline, because that is how I had tied it, in the first place, and because the idea is exactly the same : a collar around the nipping turn s rim, and then a tucking through the opening formed by the collar. Scott himself has mentioned the difference, but never denied that it is a variation of his locked bowline, and should be named as such. If we call the one form of the bowline a variation of the other, because the structural difference can only be revealed during ring loading, why we should not call those two locked, by the same mechanism, eye-knots the one a variation of the other, when there is no structural difference, re. this ring loading, ever ?
   Now, Scott noticed that the sharp turn around the nipping turn may be better suited for the intended function, which is to prohibit any slippage of the Tail, and that the wider, smoother curve around 2 rope diameters in the "slight variation / modification" of his initial knot may actually be detrimental to this purpose : the rope can perhaps flow / slip around a wide curve easier than around a sharp one. I am not sure about this, we have to measure it, to see what actually happens.

[James Petersen]

  JP, the left-handed bowline and the right handed bowline have different topology ! You can not change topology by re-dressing ! We call both of them with the same name, because their shape/geometry/structure is similar, indeed, although their topology is completely different ( and that is a curious instance of two knots called by the same name, although they are different topologically ). However, just imagine what will happen if I propose to call the left-handed bowline by a different name ! 

IIRC, the one is called the bowline, and the other is referred to as a left-handed/cowboy bowline. The names are already different.

   I have called it as a (slight) modification / variation of the Scot s original bowline, because that is how I had tied it, in the first place, ...

I don't see how you could have managed it as "a (slight) modification / variation of the Scot s original bowline" (sic) since it is based on the cowboy/left handed bowline, not a standard bowline. Can you show the steps you went through? It could be called a "cowboy Scott". But that would be better suited to the lock going around the the TurNip only, as it does in his original knot. It would be more logical to call it a variation of that knot. We could even lock the Eskimo bowline in a similar way and call it an "Eskimo Scott". 

... If we call the one form of the bowline a variation of the other, because the structural difference can only be revealed during ring loading, why we should not call those two locked, by the same mechanism, eye-knots the one a variation of the other, when there is no structural difference, re. this ring loading, ever ?
 

Again, difference in the knot from which they are derived. The knot in this thread is easily tied, remembered, and showed to others when starting from a cowboy bowline (not so TIB), and impossible when starting from a standard bowline.

-- J:P

[X1]

IIRC, the one is called the bowline, and the other is referred to as a left-handed/cowboy bowline. The names are already different.

   
 
   It is called "Cowboy bowline", by whom ?  By Ashley who believes that it is "dinstictivelly inferior"(sic) from ABoK#1010 ? Or by that ridiculous Wikipedia article, written by some would-like-to-be knot tyer, who believes that the "Eskimo" bowline is a "faulty, insecure"(sic) eye-knot ?    Personally I have never called it as such, and I am sure that billions of people had not called it as such, too...
  The commonly used names are right-handed and left-handed bowline. Personally, I follow this convention, which sounds OK to my ears. When we speak about the "Common" bowline, we do not mean the one or the other form of the bowline  - if we do like to be specific, then we add the adjective right-handed or left-handed. Anyway, we had enough with the name game lately - let us not return to it. ( In my mind, I also call it καντηλιτσα, or noeud de chaise, and I would love to learn how it is called in Chinese, for example    ). The fact is that the differences between the names are slight, indeed, considered that we speak about two knots of different topology !

   I don't see how you could have managed it as "a (slight) modification / variation of the Scot s original bowline" (sic) since it is based on the cowboy/left handed bowline, not a standard bowline.

   
  The idea of the lock was/is the important thing, not the underlying form of the bowline. I have tried to avoid the sharp turn around one rope diameter that I did nt like in Scott s original knot, and it seemed very natural to me to try to base the same lock on an "other" handed bowline. We do this all the time, with the various Janus bowlines, for example, trying to force the working end to follow wider curves. I do not even pay any attention or remember on which form of the bowline a particular Janus "Common" bowline or a particular Janus "Eskimo" bowline is based on !
 

  It could be called a "cowboy Scott".
  We could even lock the Eskimo bowline in a similar way and call it an "Eskimo Scott". 

    Ask farmer Scott ! Both cows belong to him !    (The "Eskimo" cow has not been born yet.) 

  It would be more logical to call it a variation of that knot

 
   No, to me the main idea is the collar-around-the-rim-of-the-nipping-turn lock. The underlying form of the bowline is irrelevant. The same happens with the Janus bowlines, if we tie one that uses the same locking mechanism, based on the two collars, we do not distinguish it in Janus left-handed Common bowline or Janus right handed Common bowline...The handedness is irrelevant, it is the kind of the lock that it concerns us .
  Two knots that are topologically different can not be re-dressed so the one become identical to the other, by definition. I do not understand why you pay so much attention to this primordial fact !    The important thing in the Scott s locked bowline is the simple lock which does not need a second collar around an eye leg - it uses, as a post, the rim of the nipping turn, and it collars that post, not any eye leg... The TIB variation is just the same idea, where the orientation of the lock in relation to the axis of the knot has been reversed, so the working end can now encircle two strands, and follow a smoother path. I had not noticed at the time I tied this eye-knot that this slight modification / variation produced a knot which happened to be TIB - it was just a "historical accident"    !   

 

[James Petersen]

IIRC, the one is called the bowline, and the other is referred to as a left-handed/cowboy bowline. The names are already different.

   
 
   It is called "Cowboy bowline", by whom ?

By me, for one, and I don't use the term in a pejorative sense -- I grew up logging and ranching cattle. Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why cowboys tied the bowline in this manner? (It seems quite obvious, but I have never heard/seen a discussion of it.)

By Ashley who believes that it is "dinstictivelly inferior"(sic) from ABoK#1010 ?

Not inferior, at least for the purpose in which it is commonly employed by cowboys.

Or by that ridiculous Wikipedia article, written by some would-like-to-be knot tyer, who believes that the "Eskimo" bowline is a "faulty, insecure"(sic) eye-knot ?

I expect that Scott's lock might improve the security of the Eskimo bowline as well.

...
  The commonly used names are right-handed and left-handed bowline. Personally, I follow this convention, which sounds OK to my ears. When we speak about the "Common" bowline, we do not mean the one or the other form of the bowline  - if we do like to be specific, then we add the adjective right-handed or left-handed.

I wish to be specific. I believe that it is important from the standpoint of logic and clarity. Call it a modification of the knot which can be modified to tie it. Right-handed and Left handed are fine. Again, this knot cannot be tied starting with a right-handed bowline.

Anyway, we had enough with the name game lately - let us not return to it.

I agree wholeheartedly. I have made my point and will leave it at that.

 -- J:P

[James Petersen]

...  No, to me the main idea is the . The underlying form of the bowline is irrelevant.
...

I fully agree. The lock in this thread is a modification of Scott's lock which can be applied to the left-handed/cowboy bowline (and the respective form of the Eskimo bowline), but not the common/sailor bowline. It makes more sense to me to call this mechanism -- the "collar-aound-the-rim-of-the-nipping-turn lock" -- "Scott's lock." And the version used with the knot in this thread could be called.... uh..."Scott's LoX" .

-- J:P

[xarax]

I don't use the term in a pejorative sense Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why cowboys tied the bowline in this manner? (It seems quite obvious, but I have never heard/seen a discussion of it.)

   Neither do I ! However, the term " left hand bowline", used at ABoK#1034.5, which differs from the term "right-hand bowline" by just one hand  , describes very adequately ( the difference in ) the position of the two legs ( or hands ) of the bight component. I don not see any reason we should call the "right-hand" bowline as just THE bowline, and use an adjective only for the "other" bowline. Those "two" knots, although they have a different topology, the have a similar geometry/structure, at least until they are ring-loaded ( a rather rare situation )
  Do cowboys use the bowline ? What for ? I understand they need a noose, not a fixed eye-knot ...

I expect that Scott's lock might improve the security of the Eskimo bowline as well.

   Do not compare cows to bulls !  The Scott s locked bowline is a locked bowline - if it was not distinctly superior to ANY form of any not-locked bowline, we would have not been talking about it right now...Farmer Scott had this Columbus-egg idea of using as a rigid post, as an anchor for a second collar, the nipping turn itself, its rim, and not an eye leg - and doing this, he got rid of the complications caused by the widening of the angle between the two eye legs and the ring loading.

I wish to be specific. I believe that it is important from the standpoint of logic and clarity. Call it a modification of the knot which can be modified to tie it. Right-handed and Left-handed are fine. Again, this knot cannot be tied starting with a right-handed bowline.

1. I have used this term, "modification", many times, with the same sense : it is a procedure that changes the details of a knot, leaving the main idea unchanged. It does not matter if the modification changes something at the first stages of tying the knot, or at the last stages - as long as it leaves the main idea in place. To my view, Scott s locked bowline is just a bowline where the Working end had been forced to follow a more convoluted path after it has been tucked through the nipping loop for a second time, and, more specifically, where the Working end collars the rim of the nipping turn and then goes against the Standing part, until it leaves the knot s nub.

2. What is the "left-hand" bowline, in relation to the "right-hand" bowline ? I believe we can say that the one is a modification to the other, indeed, because the main idea is the same, although the topology is different - which means that one can not tie any of them by a simple re-dressing of the other, or a re-tucking of the other. You seem to use the term 'modification" with a more specific meaning, that describes something added on something that exists, something tied after something else has been tied already, and should not be untied, something on top of something else. I use it in a somewhat broader sense, which is not related to the temporal sequence of the tying process, but to the spatial arrangement of the strands in the final knot. If two knots are based on the same idea ( as the two forms of the bowline, for example ), even if they are have a different topology, and neither one of those two can be tied by adding something to the other, those two knots can be considered modifications of each other, IMHO.

  Scott s lox ? ? The modification of the original Scott s lock can not be considered anything more than a bell that makes a slightly different sound around the neck of a Scott s cow ! Scott himself prefers the sound of the original bell, but this bell is his, too - it is the cow which wears the bell, not the other way around ! The fact that one should first remove the one bell from the neck of the cow to put on the other, does not change the cow itself, or the relation between the farmer and the cow. 

[SS369]

Quickly and then I will retract/delete this.

I'm about ready for some steak.
;-)

SS

[James Petersen]

  Scott s lox ? ? The modification of the original Scott s lock can not be considered anything more than a bell that makes a slightly different sound around the neck of a Scott s cow ! Scott himself prefers the sound of the original bell, but this bell is his, too - it is the cow which wears the bell, not the other way around ! The fact that one should first remove the one bell from the neck of the cow to put on the other, does not change the cow itself, or the relation between the farmer and the cow. 

Well said. But you have put the bell (a different bell that makes a different sound) on a completely different animal from the same herd. Scott is getting hungry and has to choose which one he is going to eat for dinner. If he eats the wrong one, he might be lacking for butter, cream and fresh milk in a few days, and the bull might be brokenhearted.  But the steers will all be relieved.

-- J:P

[xarax]

... you have put the bell (a different bell that makes a different sound) on a completely different animal from the same herd.

   JP, a cow is a cow is a cow, for CowGod s sake ! A cow is not a completely different animal, it is the same animal - the DNA of the one is 99.99 % identical to the DNA of the other. To us humans ( farmers excluded...) cows are similar things...and I suspect that the same is true for a bull ! 

   Now, it is true that we have an odd / rare situation here : We have two geometrically and structurally similar knots, at least when they are not ring loaded, that have a different topology. We call them with the same name ( "bowline", "white" bowline or "black" bowline" - just like "cow", white or black cow ), even after we have decided that a different topology means a different knot - and most of us don't even notice which of the two we tie in everyday life. I have seen that most fishermen and sailors tie, as a mooring knot, the ABoK#1010, and they look at me with this " what this a.w.o.e is telling me now" look, when I try to explain to them the difference between 1010 and 1034.5... Myself I was not aware of this difference till I set foot in this Forum, a few years ago, although I was tying the bowline ( any of the "two"...) for decades !
    I do not know if there is a problem here, but I suspect this is a very rear situation, and it should not force us to re-consider the basic assumption of all knots, be them mathematical, ideal or physical and practical, that two different topologies mean two different knots. We have soooo many other problems even after this stage ( certain dressings that change the geometry / structure of the underlying knots drastically, so they force us to think of two different knots, albeit of the same topology...) that it is better if we just pass this  for the time being / put it under the rug, if you wish.
     See, for example, the Carrick X bend, at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4128
  and tell me if it is the same or different knot from the Carrick bend...I had not recognised it when I first tied it, and it was Luca that had pointed to me the similarity / identity - (or what else ?) in relation to the Carrick bend.

[James Petersen]

... you have put the bell (a different bell that makes a different sound) on a completely different animal from the same herd.

   JP, a cow is a cow is a cow, for CowGod s sake ! A cow is not a completely different animal, it is the same animal - the DNA of the one is 99.99 % identical to the DNA of the other. To us humans ( farmers excluded...) cows are similar things...and I suspect that the same is true for a bull ! 

Actually, ranchers refer to individual cows/bulls/steers/heifers as "animals". I was using the word in this sense.

   Now, it is true that we have an odd / rare situation here
....

Rare -- like trying to rubber-band a heifer.

: We have two geometrically and structurally similar knots, at least when they are not ring loaded, that have a different topology. We call them with the same name ( "bowline", "white" bowline or "black" bowline" - just like "cow", white or black cow ), even after we have decided that a different topology means a different knot - and most of us don't even notice which of the two we tie in everyday life.

We have two geometrically and structurally similar animals -- both bovine -- and most people who don't know better call them with the same name. Imagine the confusion if cattlemen referred to every animal in their herds as "cows"! Then you would have people trying to rubber-band heifers! But cattlemen know better and avoid this confusion by referring to individual animals in their herds as "animals" and being clear when talking about steers, bulls, heifers, and "cows." Then when someone who doesn't know better asks, they can easily point out the differences.

I have seen that most fishermen and sailors tie, as a mooring knot, the ABoK#1010, and they look at me with this " what this a.w.o.e is telling me now" look, when I try to explain to them the difference between 1010 and 1034.5... Myself I was not aware of this difference till I set foot in this Forum, a few years ago, although I was tying the bowline ( any of the "two"...) for decades !
    I do not know if there is a problem here, ....

I feel that there is a problem, and that not addressing it will lead to major confusion for those interested in learning about these knots. I fear that they will assume (as I did -- which led to a certain period of intense frustration) that the version in this thread is based on the right-handed/sailors/standard/common -- take your pick -- bowline, which it is not.

-- J:P