Girth hitched bowline?

[Kost_Greg]

The stabilization of a simple helical loop with a girth hitch component, would be a desirable design goal for a bowline structure development.

I would add these remarks.....

1) There is a simple helical nipping loop

2) A girth hitch appears in place of a proper collar found in conventional bowlines, tied on the standing part of the rope.

3) Both girth hitch legs are being clamped by the nipping loop.

4) It is stable and secure, with two lines of defence and a solid ring loading profile.

5) The Tibness property is still in force, if the WE tracks SP's routing down through the girth hitch, as shown in fourth image. Yet still, my guess is that this additional complexity, would affect the jam resistance of the knot, so i would keep the previous non-tib instance, due to its conceptual simplicity.

Are these properties sufficient  to place it in the bowline family?

[agent_smith]

Hello tsik_lestat:

Thank you for your presentation.
Comments as follows:

1) There is a simple helical nipping loop

Yes - it is a left handed (S) chirality loop.

2) A girth hitch appears in place of a proper collar found in conventional bowlines, tied on the standing part of the rope

Although the actual 'collar' segment is created from the returning eye leg - it isn't necessary to view the collar as a more complex structure (ie girth hitch). You could in fact take another turn around the SPart before exiting through the nipping loop (sort of like creating a partial #1763 Prusik hitch around the SPart).

3) Both girth hitch legs are being clamped by the nipping loop.

Yes - although you could also say that both legs of the collar are fully encircled and clamped by the nipping loop.
NOTE: Although I am not sure how Xarax would interpret an exiting leg of a collar. He never defined the permissible length of a leg of a collar? If the exiting leg does not immediately re-enter the nipping loop - maybe he will reject it as a 'Bowline' - and call it something else? (eg a 'virtual' Bowline)

4) It is stable and secure, with two lines of defence and a solid ring loading profile.

It is fiddly to dress - but once done, it does appear to be stable and secure (via quick and dirty tests performed using my trusty EN564 Sterling 8.0mm accessory cord)
And it is resistant to circumferential loading (ie ring loading).

5) The Tibness property is still in force, if the WE tracks SP's routing down through the girth hitch, as shown in fourth image. Yet still, my guess is that this additional complexity, would affect the jam resistance of the knot, so i would keep the previous non-tib instance, due to its conceptual simplicity.

Only way to confirm jam resistance is t test it.
I dont have time to do this...

Are these properties sufficient  to place it in the bowline family?

By the definitions I had advanced in my Bowlines paper - the answer would be yes.

Usually, additional tail maneuvers after passage through the nipping loop are more effective in achieving security - rather than doing so before passage through the nipping loop.

I like how you are pushing the boundaries of the definition of what [a] 'Bowline' is... at the end of the day, it is these type of 'fringe' structures that put the theory to the test.
Once could view this as a situation where the exiting leg of the collar is 'delayed' - before it eventually passes through the nipping loop.

I tied a variation of this where there are 3 rope diameters inside the nipping loop.
The exiting leg of the collar immediately passes through the nipping loop then completes another turn before exiting through the nipping loop (and still forming a girth hitch). The final turn goes around 2 rope diameters - at the overlap/crossing point of the nipping loop).

[enhaut]

@tsik_lestat

Bravo, it is a simple elegant way to control the nipping part. I will always choose the TIB version over any other, but your argument against it seems reasonable.
This TIB offers one quality that I cherish; the working end exits away from the eye of the loop, I don?t like the encumbrance near or within the eye part.
For that reason, in the simple version I would have tied the Girth part differently, in bottom to top order ( in regard of the standing part).
That little adjustment his enough to clear "the eye.?
Nice loop.
jr.

[Dan_Lehman]

The stabilization of a simple helical loop ...
//
1) There is a simple helical nipping loop

It might be helpful to distinguish between a loop
and a helix --though either might transform
into the other.  A loop's continuation --like that for
the overhand *comes back* on itself.
A rolling hitch presents a challenge to such
handedness assignment, and the multiple OHs
do as well.
I continue to advance the point that handedness
in at least these simpler bowline cases is determined
by the SPart's initial turn --which in the OP's case,
is right-handed.

with a girth hitch component, would be a desirable design
 goal for a bowline structure development.

There is the mirrored BWL built upon a larkshead.
And I've played around with a set of common such
hitches and looked at how then a SPart could turNip
through them --and some cases seemed half-decent.   

Are these properties sufficient  to place it in the bowline family?

Many of my *bowlines* lack a "proper collar".
As for this one, it almost becomes a question of
*knot* vs. *knotted structure* if one separates
the parts (consider subbing a rolling hitch and you
can see this happening; and also beefing up the
simple nipping turn to a more stable nipper
--and then it's simple to maintain a span between
these structures 'a la sheepshank !
<sigh>

--dl*
====

[Kost_Greg]

Hello agent_smith

Getting straight to the subject......

Yes - it is a left handed (S) chirality loop.

Is it? i know that i have claimed exactly the same thing previously, but after giving it some thought and considering another interesting comment of yours that "no one has attempted to define the #206 crossing hitch with precision, is it possible that this girth hitch formation forces the nipping loop to deviate from the simple helix, pushing it towards a crossing knot or some structure in between?

Yes - although you could also say that both legs of the collar are fully encircled and clamped by the nipping loop.
NOTE: Although I am not sure how Xarax would interpret an exiting leg of a collar. He never defined the permissible length of a leg of a collar? If the exiting leg does not immediately re-enter the nipping loop - maybe he will reject it as a 'Bowline' - and call it something else? (eg a 'virtual' Bowline)

Xarax has no problem with any type of collar (delayed, single, double), as long as the nipping structure remains TIB, which leaves no remnant knot when the collar segment is undone, thus he would approve of the bowline qualification.

Only way to confirm jam resistance is t test it.

Normally, the girth hitch would not be a problem, though i'd concur to the above comment. Afterall, Xarax has reported some cases, where simple girth hitches have been turned into "stones", at high loading zone.
I would also add, that in TIB version, if you pass the whole knot through the collar (haltering the collar),you might end up with another tib bowline, which is rather a form of John's Smith/Dan lehman bowline found on page 57 in your bowline analysis paper.

I tied a variation of this where there are 3 rope diameters inside the nipping loop.
The exiting leg of the collar immediately passes through the nipping loop then completes another turn before exiting through the nipping loop (and still forming a girth hitch). The final turn goes around 2 rope diameters - at the overlap/crossing point of the nipping loop).

New variations, are always appreciated and well-received. The loose knot structure shown in first image, corresponds to my interpretation of your above verbal description. I believe you are introducing a very interesting concept here, which i like to refer to as a various girth hitch level implementation, just right after the first passage of the WE through the nipping loop. The girth hitch collar that frames your creation, passes through the nipping loop this time (second level), captures the crossing point before exiting through the nip for a third time. Notwithstanding that there is a lot going on in your nip, the result is a secure knot, comprising a non-jamming collar, and a more obvious path that leads to tibness (illustrated).

Three more structures are attached, to visualize this concept. All three have the same simple nipping loop with the initial instance, but are framed now with a cow hitch collar structure.

The second image knot, is a versatile knot, with various  loading profiles, tied as a mid line loop here https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6382.msg42856#msg42856, (second image), with the cow hitch tied above the nipping loop (level 1).

The third image knot, is your case, with 3 rope diameters in the nip, a very secure variation  with five pressure points that constrict and clamp the WE (cow hitch through the nip, level 2).

The fourth image knot has been described here https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6346.0. The cow hitch, is formed around the returning eye leg,down from the nip (level 3). Note that i had refered to all the sixteen variations as `cow/girth` hitched crossing knots, but now i have come to realize that some of them are indeed bowlines, like these four instances.

I apologise for the lengthy reply! Many thanks for your feedback!

[Kost_Greg]

@Enhaut

I will always choose the TIB version over any other, but your argument against it seems reasonable.
This TIB offers one quality that I cherish; the working end exits away from the eye of the loop.

 
I have a strong preference to TIB knots too, the tibness property is kind of magical and i feel somehow obliged to search for it! I would add that some tib knots deviate from the standard parallel two end configuration like the Angler's loop. As i mentioned in my previous reply, the tib knot, is a retucked version of a known bowline. Additionally, i would assume that there is more natural tibness in agent_smith's variation. Now that i see it dressed, it resembles with one other bowline i have tied.

I don?t like the encumbrance near or within the eye part.
For that reason, in the simple version I would have tied the Girth part differently, in bottom to top order ( in regard of the standing part).
That little adjustment his enough to clear "the eye.?

I understand that you don't want the tail to interfere with the eye part, and it is common practice to toss it out of the eye. This could be done by alternating the chirality of the girth/cow hitch component, embracing a cowboy fashion, with the tail to reside outside of the eyeknot, if that is what you mean.If not, potential structures are more than welcome.

Thanks for evaluating and providing feedback!

[agent_smith]

Xarax has no problem with any type of collar (delayed, single, double), as long as the nipping structure remains TIB, which leaves no remnant knot when the collar segment is undone, thus he would approve of the bowline qualification.

This isn't the precise meaning I had advanced (in relation to Xarax).

It is well enough understood that a nipping loop must be 'TIB'.
Without speaking with Xarax directly - I am not sure how you could act as his proxy?

My specific point is in relation to the precise definition on the exiting leg of the collar.

There will always be some 'fringe' cases where the theory is put to the test.

I'll contact Xarax and try to determine what his views are with regard to the definition of an exiting leg from a collar - and to what extent such an exiting leg can continue to perform maneuvers before finally feeding through the nipping loop.
A definition of a 'Bowline' being that both legs of the collar must be fully encircled and clamped by the nipping loop - and that there is an 'entry leg' and an 'exit leg'.

One could simply take the view that any additional maneuvers performed by the exiting leg of a collar are simply a continuation of that leg - and that such additional maneuvers do not disturb its status as an exiting leg.

EDIT NOTE: Your image isn't what I had tied... I'll photograph it and post an image for your reference (when I have time).

[Kost_Greg]

@ Mr Dan_Lehman

It might be helpful to distinguish between a loop
and a helix

I clearly see the difference between the two forms. Agent_smith has started a new thread, advancing some related definitions, and i see you have already weighed in with your perspective.

There is the mirrored BWL built upon a larkshead.

A fine knot indeed, but the mirrored bowline, comprises a larkshead as a nip segment and there is a proper collar. In the OP, it's kinda opposite.

Many of my *bowlines* lack a "proper collar".
As for this one, it almost becomes a question of
*knot* vs. *knotted structure* if one separates
the parts

That's a very interesting comment. Is it possible that you mean, that the collar/nip components might be considered as individual knotting entities brought together to form a non-bowline knotted structure? Does hitching around SP (larkshead/rolling hitch e.t.c) somehow diminish simple loop's nipping action?

Thanks!

[enhaut]

@tsik_lestat
Yes, we agree I don?t want the tail to interfere but both versions have their pros and cons.
I include a rendition of this bowline the way I like it. It gives me the occasion of testing my new "light".
Full north is the painter?s light as they say. I was able to shoot a 5pm a thing that was impossible at the other place.
I was located near a river tributary to the much bigger St-Laurent which is in my immediate surroundings.

Images
Girth hitched Bowline - tail out
The St-Laurent

[Kost_Greg]

@ Enhaut

The psysical lighting conditions in your immediate surroundings together with your artistic flair, favour you and us by extension, who have the privilege to enjoy your artwork (including landscapes vs knot/scapes ). Stunning, sunrise outlook from the riverside.

With respect to the knotting content, you have accomplished to exile the tail from its abidance inside the eye. All that remains, is to track down the Tibness, where you might pin down a structure that conceals itself in the shadows, lying between the TIB version of your illustrated knot structure and the unknot, begging for a ray of your light. Passing the whole knot (eye + nub) through the collar would expose it. It looks like a TIB bowline with a figure eight collar component, that forces the simple nip to take a strange helical form.

It would be interesting if this tangle would be recognisable by someone. I did not get around to capturing it with a snapshot.

[enhaut]

@ tsik_lestat

Honestly, I had some trouble finding what you meant. Yes, I had to tie the TIB version and carefully step back until finding the figure-eight components.
I hope I am presenting the right structure.
The strange helical form appears only in the very loose state when cinched the nip is more conventional in his appearance.
As you said maybe someone will identify this loop.
jr.

Images
TIB remains of TL-Girth hitched Bowline loose form.

TIB remains of TL-Girth hitched Bowline side A

TIB remains of TL-Girth hitched Bowline side B

[Kost_Greg]

Honestly, I had some trouble finding what you meant.
I hope I am presenting the right structure.

Yes that's the one. It is a standar procedure by haltering the collar once, to reveal the intervening structure, twice to completely undo the knot, holding the two ends firmly with one hand ,uninvolved to the untying process.

It might be helpfull to isolate and analyze individually these steps by reverse engineering the structure, in order to devise a TIB method of tying. The same apply to the TIB structure with the tail inside the eye.

My impression is that the nip takes a slight torsion caused by the figure eight collar segment.

Nice, illustrative, full detail images!

Without speaking with Xarax directly - I am not sure how you could act as his proxy?
I'll contact Xarax and try to determine what his views are with regard to the definition of an exiting leg from a collar - and to what extent such an exiting leg can continue to perform maneuvers before finally feeding through the nipping loop.

I have received feedback from Xarax, and i shall make an attempt to unravel his thought process in relation to OP's structure bowline qualification in plain terms  of my own wording.

At first, it is necessary to  be well understood the concept of a bowline collar whose function might be analyzed in three distinctive ways...

1. The collar is braced to SP (not hitched) and it does not slip because the nipping loop, holds its two extension cord segments (legs) together, like they were glued to one other, and vise them, multiplying the friction due to the increasing compression.

2. The collar can be considered as a pulley that distributes tensile forces to its both segments, enabling the nipping loop to restrain them and block their movement.

3. Last but not least function of the collar, is the reduction of its tug end tension, due to capstan effect. How would you restrain a rope with your hand that is being stretched in the opposite direction by some force? By snubbing the line, thus taking a turn (or more) around a vertical fixed post. The same thing applies to the bowline, with the U turn around SP, which contributes to a rather easy and effective tug end contain.

Now, in the OP, we have a (girth) hitch tied around SP, which does not need /demand nipping structure's full nipping action. The nipping component, acts just like a returning eye leg channel/runner, functioning as a non-walking brake, that prevents the hitch from sliding towards the eye of the knot (noose form).

Well, the theoretical problem that occurs, is if such knot structures that comprise a hitch around SP, and a TIB nipping structure whose only task is to prevent the hitch from sliding downwards and closing the eye, are being accepted as bowlines. Besides, hitches are prone to jamming, and if the basic bowline property is being lost, how much of a bowline is this?

Xarax has a strong viewpoint here, as the hitch is kind of independent from its nipping component. A loose nip, has nothing to do with the security of the hitch.

Agent Smith/Dan Lehman, appear to have picked up on something with regard to this exceptional situation, when they were talking about delayed collar legs, and separate parts to form a knotted structure, respectively.

A question that raises here is, which hitching around SP disorders the bowline condition, after first passage through the nipping loop, before or after collaring/capturing the SP (or both?)? 

[Kost_Greg]

Another " fringe" structure that puts the theory to the test, is the uppermost one, shown in first image. Note well, that Xarax had tied it long before me, with a moniker of Samisen bowline attached to it.

I understand that there are two distinctive schools of thought here, concerning this instance's bowline qualification.

1. According to the first, the nipping component is a crossing knot nipping structure, that clamps and fully encircles both collar legs. In other words, the collar segment, is fully contingent upon nip's nipping action, hence, this is a bowline.

Besides, the other loading profile of this knot (lowermost, first image), is widely known as Tugboat bowline, Flying bowline or Tugboat B. I always enjoyed its TIB flash tying methods .

2. The second, considers that the nipping loop now, does not constrict both legs of the bight component, hence this is not a bowline, more like a crossing knot based loop.

How all these are related to the original post? A retuck, like the one illustrated in the next two images, contibutes to the convergence of both theories.

The working end, is being fed through the nipping loop for a second time, (delayed), while it tracks down the girth hitch pattern, weaving through the nip, leading to a very stable structure with a solid ring loading profile. I count five tail end compression/contact points by the nip that enhance its security.

Beyond the lack of jamming components, there is a sense of Carrickness in the structures.

                                                            Second image / tail_inside_eye
                                                            Third image / tail_outside_eye