International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Knotting Concepts & Explorations => Topic started by: xarax on November 20, 2013, 02:49:35 PM
-
The simplest such cases are the Lehman s TIB bowline and the Scot s TIB bowline(s). The same trick applies also in the case of the Lee s link bowline ( The Lee s A1 X bowline, shown in (1))( See the attached pictures). Luca has also devised another, more stable but also more complex TIB Lee s bowline - and I wait for him to publish it, so I can post a picture of it !
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.msg27595#msg27595 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.msg27595#msg27595)
-
I should had said that, in all those TIB cases, the Tail end exits the collar through the same side the Standing end enters into it - but I had not found a way to include all this long sentence into the title of the thread ! :)
When the Tail end penetrates the nipping loop for the last time ( before it is re-tucked through the collar, as described above ), it can follow more than one distinct paths, because it can go "over" or "under" the returning eye leg, and perhaps " over" or "under" further continuations of it, that have already gone through the nipping loop. The interesting thing is that, regarding the TIBability, in the case of the common bowline(s)( the right- and the left-hand ones ), the particular path the Tail end follows through the nipping loop does not matter: the resulting eyeknot is always TIB.
Let us examine the four possible TIB bowlines we get by this re-tucking. Why four ? We have the right- and the left-hand bowlines ( 2 possibilities ), and the Tail end can go "over" or "under" the returning eye leg ( 2 possibilities ), so 2 x 2 = 4. In the case of the common bowline(s), instead of saying that the Tail end goes "over" or "under" the returning eye leg ( which may be confusing to some people - remember the War of the Two Sides... :)), let us say that the Tail end goes "inside" or "outside" the eye.
The right-hand / "outside" case is the Lehman s TIB bowline. The right-hand / "inside" case is, curiously, a knot that can be re-dressed into the ABoK#1051 : an Eskimo-like bowline, if loaded from the other end. The left-hand / outside case is shown at the attached pictures. The left-hand / "inside" case, the last member of the quartet, is not trustworthy : It is often out of tune with the rest, because its Tail and Standing end can be re-arranged within the collar, and the nipping loop can open up too easily.
Notice that the PET eyeknot shown at the pictures is the "inverse" of the "flying bowling" / Tugboat B, and can also be loaded by the other end, as a crossing-knot based TIB loop.
P.S
The bowline shown in the pictures, is identical to the single-nipping-loop TIB Tresse bowline, shown at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4595.0
-
The simplest such cases are the Lehman s TIB bowline and the Scot s TIB bowline(s).
The same trick applies also in the case of the Lee s link bowline ... [and ...]
The infamous Yosemite bowline is such a TIB eye knot,
too (though I don't think that this is well known).
Another way to look at this discovery/invention by formation
is to suggest another method of formation : insert a bight
through the turNip (and some other bases) and then do
"the "back-flip" (my term) as is done for the bowline in
the bight --which necessarily sweeps the tail back through
the just-formed collar.
E.g., I just tried this method and the turNip taking the
"anti-" approach --i.e., inserting the bight from the opposite
side--, and I got a previously seen (or like) eye knot in which
the SPart makes a slight helical bending between opposing
collars (and which might (a) require more sharpness in the
initial bend to weaken it to unimpressive strength and (b)
to even so slip at high loads (which could be a plus,
or not)).
--dl*
====
-
Hi xarax,
OK, here's the diagram of the "locked Lee Zep A1 X Bowline" mentioned in your first post: the closing here is in "Yosemite style" and, just as for the '"infamous" Yosemite Bowline, the portion of collar that curves parallel to the nipping turn under it,can potentially "climb over" it, leaving the tail free from the nipping turn (this is not serious in this case,since it actually transforms the loop into a retucked original (no X) Lee Zep A1 (but you already know this!)).
Before opting for this "Yosemite" solution I tried the simpler version that you show in the first post, but personally I'd discarded because in this case it is sufficient to swap the left/right position of the standing part and the parallel tail, so that the tail is free from the grasp of the nipping turn(although even in this case, maybe it does not happen nothing dramatic!).
Bye!
(http://)
-
...the portion of collar that curves parallel to the nipping turn under it, can potentially "climb over" it, leaving the tail free from the nipping turn
...it is sufficient to swap the left/right position of the standing part and the parallel tail, so that the tail is free from the grasp of the nipping turn.
True. That is why I said the your variation is "more stable". Notice also that that when this happens, the diameter of the nipping loop gets smaller, and the re-dressed eyeknot resembles the ABoK#1051, with an additional link around the nipping loop s crossing point. However, just as the ABoK#1051, it remains a relatively secure knot, considering its simplicity. On the contrary, when this happens in the case of the fourth member of the quartet mentioned in the second post ( i.e., the 180 degrees twist of the Standing end / Tail end pair inside the collar, which twist, is this case, can also happen both ways, clockwise or counter-clockwise...), the collar can not stabilize the nipping loop any more.
See the attached pictures of your more stable but also more complex TIB variation of the Lee s link bowline..
-
I just tried this method and the turNip taking the "anti-" approach --i.e., inserting the bight from the opposite side...
In the case of most Eskimo-like, "anti-bowlines" ( where the returning eye leg, at its contact area with the nipping loop, makes a beneficial, regarding friction and security, sharp inverted U-shaped turn downwards ), I see no reason to go beyond the obvious and instantaneous TIB-eyeknot generating method : just reeve the primary bight ( which, in this method, remains the eye ) through the secondary bight of a slipped ( through-the-nipping-structure ) Tail ( which, in this method, becomes a collar around the eye legs ). In other words, secure the secondary bight of a slipped Tail, by inserting the main bight through it, as a toggle. It seems to me that in the case of most Eskimo-like loops, this way the Tail end of the returning eye leg becomes as secured as it needs to be. See the attached picture, for the primary and the secondary bight of a Pretzel Eskimo-like adjustable loop (1). Just reeve the primary bight though the secondary bight, and you are done.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4464.msg28357#msg28357
-
So, all the members of the set of the "front-flipped" pet TIB loops shown at (1)(2)(3), belong also to this category. I repost their pictures here, for an easy comparison.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4603.msg29705#msg29705
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4603.msg29706#msg29706
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4603.msg29709#msg29709
-
I just tried this method and the turNip taking the "anti-" approach --i.e., inserting the bight from the opposite side...
In the case of most Eskimo-like, "anti-bowlines"
Whoa : the comma implies restatement, redundancy
--another way of saying the 2nd term--, and this isn't
the case here ; the Eskimo bowline is only one sort
of "anti-bowline", and not characteristic of the entire set.
I.p., the structure I was describing has lost its turNip
into a (more open) helix. Other anti-bowlines preserve
the central nipping loop with varying effectiveness,
and look much different. And a few of the anti-b. set
will have bowline counterparts that differ only
by swapping which part the returning/re-entering
eye leg connects to --i.e., cut off here and connect
to tail, & vice versa!
... . In other words, secure the secondary bight of a slipped Tail,
by inserting the main bight through it, as a toggle. ...
To ensure that readers understand, the image Xarax
shows is the start to the further tying advice he gives
above --which is to effectively toggle the slip-bight.
--dl*
====
-
the Eskimo bowline is only one sort of "anti-bowline", and not characteristic of the entire set.
I.p., the structure I was describing has lost its turNip into a (more open) helix.
Read my lips : I was not talking about the "Eskimo" bowlines, I was talking about the "Eskimo-like" bowlines : by this I mean the "anti-bowlines", AND/OR other bowlines, based on more complex nipping structures, where the returning eye leg does not go straight to the upper collar around the Standing end ( as it happens in the case of the common / standard, "not-Eskimo-like" bowlines ), but it enters into the nipping structure from the side, so to speak, and then makes this inverted U turn downwards. One can consider this U turn downwards as a first collar ( in the sense that it alleviates a great portion of the tensile forces from the continuation of the returning eye leg ), and the later genuine "Eskimo" collar, around the eye leg of the Standing part, as a second collar. So, it is the absence of any first collar around the Standing end that is the characteristic of the "Eskimo-like" bowlines, NOT the side of the nipping structure through which the returning eye leg enters into the knot s nub.
If you examine the "Eskimo-like" bowlines based on the Girth hitch or the Pretzel hitch, for example, either the more complex (1)(2) or the more simple ones (3), you will see what I mean. I do not know how else I should call those bowlines - but I know, for sure, that the side through which the returning eye leg enters into the nipping loop is irrelevant, so the term "anti-bowlines", even if it happens to apply, it does not describe the most important aspect of those eyeknots. Does the returning eye leg make a U turn downwards in its first contact with the nipping structure, so the eye is "hanged', so to speak, from the Standing part s first curve ? If it does, the bowline is an "Eskimo-like" bowline.
What I was trying to point out was this : If we have such a beneficial, regarding friction and security, situation, where the returning eye leg, making a U turn downwards, and the first curve of the Standing part, making a U turn upwards, are hooked to each other inside the nipping structure, before any further collar, a large portion of the tensile forces coming through the returning eye leg have already been diminished. This U-downwards to U-upwards embrace plays the role of an essential first collar. So, just another ( a second, in fact ) collar around whatever part of the knot, would be sufficient enough to secure the knot. There is no reason to make complex "back-flipping" moves with the "Eskimo-like" bowlines : just secure the Tail end by another collar - and, to keep the eyeknot TIB, just secure it by making it turn around both eye legs, as a collar, and then return back, and exit from the other side of the nub, by retracing its own path.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg28344#msg28344
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg28493#msg28493
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4009.0
-
... the term "anti-bowlines", even if it happens to apply, it does not describe the most important aspect of those eyeknots.
The first and probably the simplest loop that comes to my mind, where this does not happen to apply, i.e., an "Eskimo-like" bowline is not an "anti-bowline", is the ABoK#1451 bend turned into a loop - loaded the one way. I say "the one way", because it can be loaded, also as PET, the other way, too : as a common / standard, not-"Eskimo -like" bowline .
Curiously perhaps, considering the symmetry of the initial bend, the trick described in this thread does generate a TIB bowline in the case of the "Eskimo-like" bowline, but not in the case of the common / standard bowline. However, in the TIB version the re-tucked Tail end remains loose, so it does not seem to offer any improvement to the security of the knot, other than enlarging the diameter of the collar.
-
I tried the simpler version that you show in the first post, but personally I'd discarded it because in this case it is sufficient to swap the left/right position of the standing part and the parallel tail, so that the tail is free from the grasp of the nipping turn...
In the more complex version that you show we can also "swap the left/right position of the standing part and the parallel tail", AND the low/high position of the nipping loop and the second collar - so that the nipping loop does not encircle the Tail end any more. In fact, just because of the "#8" shaped collar structure ( similar to the structure of the retraced fig.8 loop, or of the shrank / single bowline-on-the-bight ), we can dress this knot in many ways - in some the nipping turn encircles three rope diameters but in some others it encircles only two. This can be considered a disadvantage for this knot, just as it is for any knot - it is always better if the knots "dress themselves" automatically, in their optimum / unique form.
Now, if, by applying a suitable easy-to-remember TIB tying method, we will be able tie the knot in its optimum form ( in the similar case of the shrank / single bowline-on-the-bight, I believe that we can, indeed ), then this disadvantage will not be an issue any more. So, we have to find a TIB method for this re-tucked Lee s link bowline, which automatically and unambiguously will generate a form where the nipping loop and the second collar will encircle three and two rope diameters, respectably.
-
It should be no surprize that the Girth-hitch-, as well as the Reversed-Girth-hitch-based bowlines ( the "Pretzel bowlines" ), can be transformed into two-collar TIB bowlines by this simple trick. As explained at Reply#2, with the "back-flip" method, we do not need more than a few seconds to tie and dress them. Although their two nipping loops and their two collars are not as wide as we would had wished, they are two nevertheless - so these bowlines are very secure loops, and, because they can be tied either in-the-end or in-the-bight, they are also very versatile knots.
I use the plural ("bowlines"), because there are 3 x 2 = 6, in total, different ways / variations - depending on the path the returning eye leg follows as it enters into the nipping structure of the Girth hitch ( 3 distinct paths ), and the side the whole nub is reeved through the penetrating bight which will be turned into the upper collar ( 2 district sides ). ( Perhaps the "slight helical bending between opposing collars" mentioned in Reply#2 is a description of the 2 distinct 8-shaped "Pretzel" nipping structures ? ).
There are no major differences / disadvantages in any of those six variations - although one might find easier to form and to inspect the two simpler Girth-hitch-based ones. Also, I do not expect any slippage, even under heavy loading - although if we do not dress the knots properly, the segments of the Tail Ends in between the two collars may penetrate the nipping loops through their "weak" spots, near their crossing points, where they will not be nipped by their rims but by their two crossing legs.
-
The one of the two very similar TIB Girth hitch bowlines - TIBed by the trick explained in this thread.
-
It should be also no surprize that the Girth-hitch TIB bowline can be tied by the implementation of the simple <term?> move, described for the Ampersand bowline, at (1). If we can figure out how the unfinished knot can be tied so that the collar does NOT encircle the free ends yet, then to apply the <term?> move ( that is, to reeve the whole knot through the to-be-collar bight ), so that the to-be-collar becomes a collar around the free ends, indeed, would be a piece of cake.
So, just have a look at the unfinished knot of the Girth-hitch TIB bowline, shown at the attached picture, where the collar does not encircle the free ends (yet). Can you figure out how THIS unfinished knot can be tied ? If yes, then, to tie the finished knot, where the to-be-collar would be transformed into an actual collar, would require to reeve this whole unfinished knot through the bight of this to-be-collar - that is, to apply the elementary knotting magic move described by the <term?> ( and, with many more blah-blah, in (1)).
I am sure that any knot tyer worth his/her salt will see at a glance how this unfinished knot can be tied - we have just to insert ( from the left side of the picture to the right, that is, from "below" the loop, to "above" the loop, if the loop is hanging vertically ) the bight of the to-be-collar through the two nipping loops of the Girth hitch, tied on the Standing Part.
I should perhaps mention that, although it has also two collars, this Girth hitch TIB bowline differs substantially from the not more convoluted, but perhaps more strong Mirrored bowline, in that each of the two nipping loops of the Girth hitch encircles two segments of rope, not three. I have no idea about how stronger the Mirrored bowline would be ( if it would be stronger ), and how the fact that the Girth hitch TIB bowline is more versatile ( as it can be tied in -the-end AND/OR in-the-bight ) can influence our decision to use it more often than the Mirrored bowline.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4877.msg31929#msg31929
-
Of course, instead of the Girth hitch, we can start from the Clove hitch, and do the same thing. The resulting Clove TIB bowline may be dressed in a more compact form than the Girth hitch TIB one, shown in the previous posts, because the "bridge" that connects the two nipping loops of the Clove squeezes them upon each other more than the "bridge" of the Girth hitch. Although I do not expect any significant difference in slippage or strength, I always prefer an eyeknot with a more compact nub : to me, knots should be as compact as possible, even if some loosening may sometimes be beneficial to their strength, because it may lead to wider, smoother first curves.
The only problem I see with those TIB bowlines, is that the very the way they are tied so easily as TIB, necessarily limits the number of segments going through their nipping loops to two - I can not see how, following this way, we can tie TIB bowlines with wider, rounder nipping loops, encircling three or four segments... unless we use this "twisting the bight of the eye" trick, I had used in the case of the Ampersand bowline ( and the topologically equivalent Scott s TIB bowline ). So, although we have too many TIB bowlines, if we exclude all that :
1, have a collar around their eye legs ( so they are severely deformed during ring loading ),
2, have a nipping loop encircling two, only, rope diameters, and,
3, can not be tied, as TIB, by the very easy to remember method of the "haltering" collar,
then we are left with too few ! :)
-
The nipping loops of those TIB bowlines ( tied with the simple, easy and quick "haltering collar" method, described at the previous posts ) encircle two, only, rope diameters - and this may be a disadvantage ( :-\ ) : a wider, rounder nipping turn, encircling three rope diameters, is probably a stronger and certainly a better-looking nipping structure. Also, in the cases of "secure", two-collar ( = double collar ) bowlines, the fact that the divided-by-three gripping power of a "wide" nipping loop is smaller than a divided-by-two "narrow" one, is not important - because, regarding the defence against the slippage of the Tail End, a more complex, double collar structure is always much more efficient than a more tight single, or a more complex double nipping structure . Contrary to one more of the many "popular" knotting myths, a double-collar bowline is always more secure than a double-nipping-loop one. It is always more beneficial to force the slipping Tail End to make one more 180-degrees U-turn ( as it happens in the case of the "Janus" bowline(s)), than to nip it a second time, on a second point, inside a second nipping loop ( as it happens in the case of the "Double" and of the "Water" bowline ).
There is very easy way, in the eye-knots tied with the help of this method, to dispense with the "narrow" nipping loop disadvantage, but retain the TIB advantage : we have only to transform the TIB bowlines to TIB crossing-knot based loops, as shown in this post. In those loops, the "haltering collar" is not tied on the returning eye leg, but on the Standing Part, before the eye ( see the attached picture, and compare it to the picture at Reply#13 ). And the fact that, by this transformation, the double nipping structure, tied on the Standing Part, becomes a double collar structure, tied on the returning eye leg, means that the first curve encircles two rope diameters - so, compared to what happens in the majority of the crossing-knot based eye-knots, this curve is now much smoother and wider.
I believe that the crossing-knot based loops have not attracted the attention of the knot tyers they deserve : their nipping structures are very stable and well-balanced, and they can remain "closed" without exploiting the integrity of the collar structures too much. Moreover, if they are arranged to be wrapped around double collar structures ( as the Girth hitch shown in the attached picture ), they distribute the high tensile forces coming from the Standing End to more segments, across a more extended area of the nub, so they may lead to not only very secure, but very strong eye-knots as well.
-
@Xarax
Just wondering if I am finishing the knot the right way.
You see in the second picture, the "back view" that I pulled the eye "sideway" to emulate the behavior around a big round object (a tree), the collar "slips" toward the standing part till it stabilizes itself.
I dont know if it's in the bowline family but it's sure fun to tie.
-
Hi All,
Xarax thanks for working on my loops, I have 2 TIB loops from (Chit Chat ? Visual Pleasure Loop Reply # 9)
謝謝 alan lee
-
Hi All,
One more TIB loops here from(Chit Chat ? Visual Pleasure Loop Reply #44).
謝謝 alan lee
-
The first is very similar to the Scot s TIB bowline, shown at (1) - and I believe that it is no better. ( In fact, it may be worse, because its nipping loop encircles two, only, rope diameters - in Scot s TIB bowline, it encircles three ). The second one is not an interesting knot, because the continuation of the Standing End, from the one hand, and the Tail End, from the other, can slide inside the collar, and swap positions - and when this happens, the nipping loop becomes very narrow, because it now encircles one, only, rope diameter, that of the second leg of the collar. The third one is also very similar to the "left-handed" Ampersand bowline, shown at (2)- but it is funny that, when I had seen it in one of your posts (3), I had identified it wrongly, as one of the many Janus bowlines (4)( it is not : the Tail End does not penetrate the nipping loop ) - and I had not noticed it was TIB ! :)
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4517.msg30269#msg30269
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4877.msg32239#msg32239
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg27100#msg27100
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg27101#msg27101
-
The beauty of the general TIB tying method described previously ( where a bight, which is tucked through the nipping loop(s) but it is not encircling the Standing End yet, at the end it does, and it does become a collar ), is that the shape of the knot before and after the transformation remains almost the same. If we can arrange the segments of the unfinished eye-knot in the stage where the bight has just been tucked through the nipping loop(s), but it has not become a collar yet, we can immediately and easily visualize the knot as it would look when it would be finished - when the ex-"free"-bight would become a collar. The relative positions of the various segments/parts of the knot before and after the transformation, remain almost the same. Retaining a more or less similar geometrical shape through the tying procedure, until the knot becomes tight and compact, is an advantage - a knot which can be tied by following such a method can be remembered and inspected more easily, than a knot which reveals its finished final shape in a more "spectacular" but tricky way, only at the very end. At the end of the day, what determines the properties of a practical knot ( alongside the material on which it is tied ) is its geometry, and the longer this geometry is stamped indelibly onto our memory, the better !
( This is the method I now use for tying the double bowline in-the-bight ( ABoK#1080 ), because it is conceptually simple, and it can not be forgotten ! :) )
See the two attached pictures, which have been taken in different times and with different ropes, but yet the knots look very similar.
One can describe this method in other words: Let us start from the knot shown at the first picture, where the Standing and the Tail Ends are not yet encircled by the tucked-through-the-nipping-loop(s). How can one transform this knot into a bowline, and end with the knot shown in the second picture ? By tucking the Standing End and the Tail End through this bight, of course. However, the far end of the Standing End is not accessible - in general, in most practical knots we suppose that the rope is not so short, to allow us to manipulate the Standing End, and tuck it through a knot already tied on its end. So, if we can not tuck the ends through this bight, what can we do ? The next best thing - which, in fact, is easier ! Instead of tucking the one side of the rope ( the pair of ends ), we can tuck the other side ( the whole knot : the eye part plus the nipping loop(s) part ) - which is, topologically, exactly the same thing. However, geometrically, it is far easier and quicker to tuck the whole knot, than to tuck one or two very looong ends...
Ashley represents this operation by showing, by thin black lines and arrows, that the two legs of this bight are pulled to opposite directions and spread out, the diameter of the bight itself is enlarged, and then the whole knot is reeved through this bight - which, at the end, to become a collar, should shrink again around the "neck" of the knot ( i.e., around the pair of the Standing and Tail Ends ).