International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: agent_smith on December 09, 2008, 12:21:44 AM
-
Hello IGKT members (and Dan Lehman in particular),
I need some assistance in tracking down some clear images of the janus bowline.
In fact, I would appreciate any technical info on the bowline - its use in vertical rescue and industrial rope access is set to make a comeback here in Australia...the knot has had a lot of bad press over here but in the USA it appears to be preferred.
I found an old post (below), but perhaps there has been more advances on this subject material?
As soon as I saw Janus Bowline and Dan Lehman in the same post, I thought Eureka! But then, the links are dead and its old info...so maybe not Eureka.
The standard bowline ABoK #1010 is generally agreed to be insecure for rescue/climbing applications. ABoK #1013 is an improvement, but the Janus variant intrigues me Mr DL!
I welcome any technical and other useful info that IGKT members can provide.
I found this link; http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_SingleLoops.htm#DoubleKnottedBowline but I need some more direction please...
agent smith
...
Dan Lehman - Old post (2004)
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
? Reply #10 on: December 19, 2004, 11:56:07 PM ?
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.
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)
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 need some assistance in tracking down some clear images of the janus bowline.
In fact, I would appreciate any technical info on the bowline - its use in vertical rescue and industrial rope access is set to make a comeback here in Australia...the knot has had a lot of bad press over here but in the USA it appears to be preferred.
Now if you cannot find any images of it, just how "preferred" can it be?
-
Thats funny Mr Roo... you know, I used to look at roos through the sights of my rifle many years ago (one shot one kill)! These days, I prefer to admire the bouncy fellas...
Clarification in order:
[ ] Cant find images and detailed technical data on the 'janus' variant of the bowline
[ ] I can find plenty of images and info on the 'yosemite' variant of the bowline
In the USA, the yosemite variation is popular - particular with Reed Thorne and his loyal followers..plenty of Australian tech rescue people have made a pilgrimage over to the USA and signed up for Reed Thornes courses and then come back to the the land down under (Australia) with lots of new ideas and techniques. The Bowline is one of the knots featured and it is the 'yosemite' variant that seems to be favoured.
As I stated, I am interested in Dan Lehmans take on the 'janus' variant... and any other opinions he might have.
And Roo, do you have an opinion, or are you just making a quip about bowlines?
If you can throw some light on this subject I would be interested in what you have to say...
agent smith
-
I found this web site ( http://www.thepirateking.com/knots/knot_bowline.htm (http://www.thepirateking.com/knots/knot_bowline.htm)) that had the same pictures as were on the "jbritton" site that Dan had referenced in the original post... if that helps. I believe the pictures are exactly the same, but I'm not sure which site was the original owner. I'm guessing it wasn't the pirate king. ;)
-
Thats funny Mr Roo... you know, I used to look at roos through the sights of my rifle many years ago (one shot one kill)! These days, I prefer to admire the bouncy fellas...
Clarification in order:
[ ] Cant find images and detailed technical data on the 'janus' variant of the bowline
[ ] I can find plenty of images and info on the 'yosemite' variant of the bowline
In the USA, the yosemite variation is popular - particular with Reed Thorne and his loyal followers..plenty of Australian tech rescue people have made a pilgrimage over to the USA and signed up for Reed Thornes courses and then come back to the the land down under (Australia) with lots of new ideas and techniques. The Bowline is one of the knots featured and it is the 'yosemite' variant that seems to be favoured.
As I stated, I am interested in Dan Lehmans take on the 'janus' variant... and any other opinions he might have.
And Roo, do you have an opinion, or are you just making a quip about bowlines?
If you can throw some light on this subject I would be interested in what you have to say...
agent smith
Ah, I think I understand. You're interested in more than just the Janus variation. Well, I know the standard Double Bowline is used in climbing without reports of problems, to my knowledge. The Water Bowline is more secure, and can be tied in a similiar method to a standard bowline. I cannot find any Janus variation images either.
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/waterbowline.html
Update: also see: http://notableknotindex.webs.com/monsoonbowline.html &
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/gnathitch.html
Although it's not a bowline variant, you might be interested in the Zeppelin Loop if you don't find it too difficult to tie. I find it fast to tie, adjust and easy to inspect:
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html
By the way, what kind of "technical info" are you after?
P.S. Ironically, I kinda wonder what kangaroo meat tastes like. :D
-
Errm, thanks Znex...but that site sheds absolutely zero light on the janus variant of the bowline that DL was referring to. It was like receiving a microsoft answer (its perfectly correct for a standard #1010, but utterly useless at the same time).
Hmmm Roo, I'm aware of the Rosendahl bend and loop method you refer to. The loop variation of the Rosendahl is interesting but I doubt whther it will be taken up by the rescue community due to complexity of tying issues. Do you have any technical data on this variation of the Rosendahl? See below for a description of what I mean by technical data!
I'm not sure if the 'water bowline' is the 'janus' variant that DL was specifically describing.
And as for technical data, I did say any data would be helpful. But if I really need to be that damn specific, try this:
[ ] Original developer of the janus variant
[ ] Details about its security - particularly if it might be suitable for rescue applications...evidence to support a theory.
[ ] Any test data on breaking strength in comparison to ABoK #1010, the water bowline (ABoK number?), and say comparison strength to #1047, etc, etc
[ ] Stability - any experience, evidence, any info whatsoever to support claims that the janus variant might be more stable than the original #1010
[ ] Evidence of the knots performance in kernmantel rope (ie EN 1891 certified rope, and EN 892 certified rope)
[ ] Any other data, information, history or even just personal notes...?
Does this make sense to you Roo...?
PS If I've ever seen you through my telescopic gun sight Roo, I obviously missed the shot. I ate parts of a Roo a long time ago out in outback West Australia during a survival training course. Killed the bouncy fella with a single blow to the head with a fence 'star picket'.
-
The Janus variant and the Water Bowline are two different animals. I can at least say that much.
Most of your technical info can best be obtained by doing tests yourself, specifically on the type of rope you plan on using. Published tests done by others may or may not use the type of rope you are using and may or may not have been conducted in a proper or objective manner. See end of the following page for some tips:
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/knotfaq.html
Anyway, use what you feel comfortable with. I doubt you'll have much sway with influencing "the rescue community" as they likely have a varied host of criteria that changes from person to person. Some might find the Zeppelin Loop easy while others might have significant trouble even remembering how to tie a Figure 8 stopper knot.
-
THIS is so clearly a Practical knotting topic: why ChitChat about it???
Errm, thanks Znex...but that site sheds absolutely zero light on the janus variant of the bowline that DL was referring to.
Yes, thanks much Znex for finding a ghost of the now-missing Dan Britton images!?
(Hmmm, I've been meaning to give him a ping re what's doing, and here's an obvious question to ask.)
Now, A_S, if you're keen to know, then Znex has put the Key in the words of mine you quoted
for you to get there (though I think the ghost images are upside-down to my reference).
--considerably more than M$ has done (they, under pressure, would seek to buy out the
innovative small firm with the answer).
And while we have THIS image available, let me again assert that a GREAT deal of trouble in learning
the Bowline can be attributed to its backwards presentation of perspecitve--i.e., the "front" side that
is used in most of the instances I've seen is wrongheaded, and the opposite facing should be given.
In the images at the cited URLink ( www.thepirateking.com/knots/knot_bowline.htm ), it is the lowest one,
labeled (wrongly, I say) "rear view".
Similarly, the quick-tying method presented immediately following this image is going to again give
one the wrong facing (the "front view"). Moreover, this way of tying it--i.e., the initial maneuvre of taking
the end OVER the SPart vs. UNDER it, is problematic in that upon completion it leaves a SPart
unsupported; whereas going the the opposite direction (take the end under, up-around-&-then-down)
will render both a better facing of the knot AND a self-supported SPart (i.e., it rests upon the closure
of the knot's loop component rather than falling away from it). BUT, dumb is dumb and knotters love
copycat repetition, it seems--errors and all!!
With the proper (so-called "rear view") facing, one can well see all of the interesting variations that
can be done with the bowline; it is very easy to understand where the hidden bight parts lie, in
contrast to the "front view" where the bight parts are atop the less obvious crossing(s) of the SPart.
Hmmm Roo, I'm aware of the Rosendahl bend and loop method you refer to.
The loop variation of the Rosendahl is interesting
As was presented to this forum a little while ago (this summer), that is but one way
of equating bend & eyeknot. The Butterfly is asserted to be another, and one can see
readily that it's a different relation (eye chopped off to reveal Bend ends). There is
another, wherein the SPart of one rope of the bend is converted into the eye, with
the re-entry tracing itself until necessary to *fuse* into the other rope's end and become
thus a single rope's eyeknot. In the case of Rosendahl's Zeppelin bend, the obvious
resultant knot is TIB (Tyable Inthe Bight), even! (There are some other variants that
center the SPart between the eye legs.) It is necessarily bulkier than the eyeknot
formed by simply directly fusing the one rope's end into the other's; but it better maintains
that particular P & Q loading profile.
Now if you cannot find any images of it, just how "preferred" can it be?
Sharp remarks like this can cut through the bs admirably!
But I must point out that I've not seen any real hint of what I call a seizing hitch used in
commercial fishing, a (my term again) "Reverse Groundline Hitch", and yet I have found a good
many of them in use, in various capacities (e.g., being the hinges of some sort of holding cage
of wire mesh). --among other seizing hitches, some of which appear to be best-guesses.
But for rockclimbing/SAR/caving/canyoneering, yeah, the point is valid. And shows the
assertion/guess of "preferred" to be presumptive.
In any case, though, there is a good deal of knotting outside of mainstream knowledge
that merits much better attention and even use-in-place-of. I have long grumbled about
the too-popular "Yosemite Bowline" being a less than wonderful solution to the problem
of bowline security; but it has a considerable following. (Indeed, I'm surprised that in this
day that an Australian--or anywhere not deep in the outback or Amazon ...--would need
to refer to some exploratory party's physical traveling to have knowledge of it: it seems
de rigueur, to me, in rockclimbing circles. (And Spydey likes it climbing upright woody things.)
1) "Janus" is MY name for it: because it is the same form "coming or going" (from eye/SPart).
But there are other knots that could lay similar claim to the two-faced aspect (and, I guess, Janus
implies two but not two identical faces: the Angler's Loop is like this, then, and in spades!!
Angler's Loop (#1017) can take ANY of its four ends qua SPart, and yields a better YoBowl
in one case, a tenuous (dress/set carefully) quick-Bwl in opposite on that through strand,
and the two Overhand-based eyeknots with the other through strand qua SPart.)
Again, there are other identical-faced Bwls to be had, too; and I now favor a couple of these.
2) The knot was introduced (as has been presented here previously) in 1928 in the Alpine Journal,
same article that presented the better-known Butterfly mid-line eyeknot. It was later presented in
1990 (or thereabouts) by Heinz Prohaska in the Nat.Speliological Soc.'s newsletter Nylon Highway
(w/o awareness of the 1928 presentation). In fact, the two presentations differ (I think) in the exact
crossing of ends--left or right of each, a trivial matter. You can Search this forum for
http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Alpine_journal/ [Wright &Magowan in 300dpi format in pdf, courtesy of Bob Thrun]
Call it a lack of foresight, but the 1928 authors did not use synthetic or kernmantle rope. :D
You can also find it here (devoid of recognition of W&M's presentation, alas):
http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg (http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg) which might be manifest in image in-forum via ... (?)
(http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg)
Okay, now, with the rightmost, "Janus" image in mind, here's another version:
instead of the finishing tuck shown (end going turning around eye-leg and then exiting
Over_loop-Over_eyeleg-Under_loop), take the end around under the 2nd eyeleg and
then exit through the loop (turn Under-Over other eyeleg, Over loop Under loop in the exit).
--the end sort of makes a shoelace tying Overhand with the right eyeleg.
All of these knots put THREE diameters of rope through the nipping loop component,
which is a better approximation of a circle (than just 2 dia.), and can be oriented in
favor of better strength, kinder bending of SPart, IMHO. The turn around the eyeleg
on the left is what gives security: by keeping this handle-end of the nipping loop from
springing open, the inevitable feed of material through the main collar (corresponding turn)
around the SPart should not result in a loosening of the nipping loop, which holds the
ends etc. tight. This is to some degree a matter of degree, but I think you'll find it practically
effective in many common materials.
I'm not sure if the 'water bowline' is the 'janus' variant that DL was specifically describing.
We are: it is NOT.
However, later exploration revealed that the Clove Hitch & --mayBEtter-- Cow Hitch
("LarksHEAD" (not "...foot", which Brits on the rocks can't free themselves from)
make for some interesting & satisfying "Mirrored Bowlines" (guess-who's names?).
And, no, geesh, I don't have color pics to post, but the simple tying advice:
form the said structures (around fingers/air), and take them as the loop/"rabbit hole"
of a bowline through which the end is reeved in a bight form, but make a bight
"coming AND going"--both directions (going around the corresponding/through leg of the eye.
The result is a complex-looking knot that can be pretty loose w/o fear of failure;
in a LEAD (not 2nd, not TR) climber's orientation--i.e., eye-up, SPart-down--, the end will hang
down, gravity-assisted to staying in place. IF it were to come out of both knot-loops (loops of
the two so-called "mirrored" knots), you would have in the Clove case THEN a Water Bwl,
and it would be nipped still by those loops (and long & dangly obvious).
There is yet another trick that can be played with either of these two (Clove/Cow) starts:
having inserted the end INTO the two loops (but not back through opp. way),
pull-straighten the eye-side loop, capsizing its turn into the inserted end (!!);
now finish the knot w/the 2nd pass of the end back through. Esp. with the Cow/LarksHEAD
version, the eye-side loop can be brought pretty snug up into the SPart-side loop.
(And, yes, one can stop here, or make the "... & going" further turn & through-tucking
of the end, gaining that 3rd diameter and pointing the end towards SPart.)
ANNNND, although this by my terms removes the classification of "bowline",
one can use the Clove/Cow basis but reverse the orientation of its ends--i.e.,
the SPart will be seen to come in OVER the "2nd loop" into the first (in the same
sense as both Two Half Hitches & Buntline Hitch use a Clove Hitch form--it is
the direction that the Clove's ends go that determines the knot). I think that
the Cow works better, here. There is a matter further of how the two ends
cross, as they must, each en route to the other's side of the world.
ANNNND-2, all above versions/variants can add the difference between the
Cowboy & Common Bwl.s--the direction of the turns in the collar(s). Please
don't ask for some large matrix of variants & testing, in added dimensions of
materials & setting & loading & ... . For some of these in practical terms, it
will not matter. For the simple variation I verbally presented above to the
Janus Bwl (which knots have equally "Janus" faces), both the given one
and its Cowboy cousin look good.
What all of these Lehman-suggested secured Bwls HERE do (not the EBDB, or not in same way)
as a means to improved security is to hold the eye-side of the central nipping loop more snug
to itself, to inhibit it from opening/loosening. (The EBDB more directly binds the (dbl) loop.)
In some cases, this even seem more effective than the EBDB's direct binding: I've some quite
resilient, slick, soft-laid PP cord in which the EBDB just ... loosens--all the turns of the knot just
opening in unison; but in the Janus Bwl, the cord is bent more sharply in its two collars,
and the cord there tries to open like scissors, and the central loop's enclosure prevents this;
the knot is (like many Bwls) loose in a way, but doesn't seem to quickly get too loose.
In contrast, for a stiff--nearly intractable re knotting(!)--kernmantle rope such as PMI's Max-Wear
(aka "no-bend"), the EBDB can be tied and the knot holds, and I'd feel better about it than any
of the Janus variants, for long-term (fixed ropes?) security; the EBDB takes a bit more effort
and a proper method to untie (1st draw some SPart through the collar; 2nd pull the bight
ends (end & end-side eye leg) apart to lever some SPart through the End-Binding; 3rd,
now push & pull and work looser).
And as for technical data, I did say any data would be helpful. But if I really need to be that damn specific, try this:
[ ] Original developer of the janus variant
[ ] Details about its security - particularly if it might be suitable for rescue applications...evidence to support a theory.
[ ] Any test data on breaking strength in comparison to ABoK #1010, the water bowline (ABoK number?), and say comparison strength to #1047, etc, etc
[ ] Stability - any experience, evidence, any info whatsoever to support claims that the janus variant might be more stable than the original #1010
[ ] Evidence of the knots performance in kernmantel rope (ie EN 1891 certified rope, and EN 892 certified rope)
[ ] Any other data, information, history or even just personal notes...?
Citations above show two innovators (at decades remove), and me, for further variations.
Breaking strength is (1) a dubious attribute to a knot (your safety margin should well accommodate any),
and (2) not an obvious thing to determine (what material(s), how loaded to rupture, how conditioned
prior to loading, and (3) the exact geometry of the knot taking the load--differen tyers, different settings).
In some testing of nylon-to-HMPE slings, Kolin Powick found the nylon to be what broke in most/all
cases of slow-pull loading; and the reverse in drop-loading (suggesting that the HMPE's low-temp
threshold played a role); that is ONE case.
www.bdel.com/scene/beta/qc_kp.php#current (http://www.bdel.com/scene/beta/qc_kp.php#current) [Kolin's 2006-11-09 test of nylon & HMPE slings]
--dl*
====
-
Thank you Dan Lehman...this is exactly the kind of in-depth reply I was looking for!
I will now have to digest your post and go from there.
Dan, I wish I could actually meet with you one day and undertake a knotting skills workshop...!
As for your comment that this is the wrong thread for this subject matter - I apologise.
I took a guess where to post this topic and perhaps I guessed wrong. Then again, chit chat is allegedly where "you can talk about anything' - so I guess I decided to just to have a bit of a 'chit chat'.
Perhaps we could ask the moderator to shift this whole post to 'practical knots'?...
...........................................................
DL quote:
I have long grumbled about
the too-popular "Yosemite Bowline" being a less than wonderful solution to the problem
of bowline security; but it has a considerable following. (Indeed, I'm surprised that in this
day that an Australian--or anywhere not deep in the outback or Amazon ...--would need
to refer to some exploratory party's physical traveling to have knowledge of it: it seems
de rigueur, to me, in rockclimbing circles.
..........................................................
All I can tell you Dan is that the Bowline HAS received bad press here in Australia. 'Bad' to the point that many technical roping instructors actively outlaw its use in climbing, rescue & industrial roping applications.
A lot of this bad press is no doubt chinese wispers, past by word of mouth from one alleged 'guru' to the next. I was actually at a high-level meeting of industrial rope access 'experts' last weekend in Sydney Australia where the notion of re-introducing the bowline was put to the committee. I took careful note of the shocked look on most peoples faces and resistance to the idea of introducing the the bowline (#1010) at all levels of training. The guy that floated the idea had been over in the USA with Reed Thorne...its Reed that uses Bowlines for quote "everything" unquote. Reed Thorne of course is seen by many players as a world expert on technical roping.
What I really want is to hear from you Dan as to what your professional/expert opinion is so I have ammunition to put the wives tails / chinese wispers to bed once and for all. Dan, you are seen as an 'expert' and people take note of what you have to say. Indeed, your opinion matters to me...I need to know where you stand.
In terms of vertical rescue, industrial rope access and rock climbing/mountaineering applications, I believe the bowline (a secured version of the standard #1010) has merit.
To put the fears of my peer group to rest, I could not merely make a push for #1010 in its basic form - I would need to put a case together for something that is SECURE and STABLE. I agree that strength alone is not a decisive factor - but security and stability have greater weighting.
As for Znex's link that he posted, I'm sorry but I could not see anything in the images other than a standard #1010 - I was looking for technical drawings and a degree of substance about the 'janus' variant of the bowline. I'll have another look at his post but for the life of me I couldn't see any specific info on the janus...
Anyhow, thats my say for now... If you have anything further to add on bowlines that specifically could provide me with guidance on a secure and stable variant of #1010 that in your opinion would 'revolutionise the rescue and mountaineering world as we know it', I'd love to hear from you!!
I'll post again when I have more questions.
agent smith
-
Still chit chatting...oh dear, I can feel the wrath aiming at me.
The moderator hasn't moved this post to practical knots so I'll tread carefully.
Am still plugging away at the bowline and playing with variations of ABoK #1013.
I have had a good look at the 'janus' variant but my view is that it seems unwieldy and perhaps not offering as much scope for security and stability (and strength) as the double round turn variants - I'm sure DL will disagree with my thoughts on this. Derivatives of ABoK #1013 (using the double round turns) in my humble view, hold some promise for a strong case to re-introduce the bowline into mainstream thinking here in Australia.
I have experimented with using the clove hitch as the beginning point (instead of the 2 superimposed loops as in #1013) and then continued as per #1013. This is a similar concept to the water bowline shown by Roo at http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/waterbowline.html , but I've then taken the tail on a further U turn and passed it back up through the bight so it lies parallel to the Spart.
Have also taken on board DL's comment about having 3 strands of rope which are encircled and crushed by the hitches (coils). Most other so-called variations only have 2 strands of rope being encircled and crushed by the hitches.
Indeed, I've used #1013 as the starting point and then taken the tail and performed a 360 degree loop around the cross-over of the hitch so that the tail ends up pointing the opposite direction to the Spart and lies parallel to the loop (right side). This also creates 3 strands of rope which are encircled and crushed by the hitches (coils).
Will take some photos tomorrow and post to clarify my description.
agent smith
-
...........................................................
DL quote:
I have long grumbled about
the too-popular "Yosemite Bowline" being a less than wonderful solution to the problem
of bowline security; but it has a considerable following. (Indeed, I'm surprised that in this
day that an Australian--or anywhere not deep in the outback or Amazon ...--would need
to refer to some exploratory party's physical traveling to have knowledge of it: it seems
de rigueur, to me, in rockclimbing circles.
..........................................................
All I can tell you Dan is that the Bowline HAS received bad press here in Australia.
Your reply makes no sense vis-a-vis my comment: I know that the Bwl has--deservedly--
a bad reputation; I remarked only that (a) I don't like how popular the not-so-great-IMO
YoBowl is, and pertinent to your report (b) how odd it seems that such popularity (IN
KNOWLEDGE) hadn't penetrated Down Under. I didn't mean to suggest that it should
be much used, only well known as a structure. Or do you mean that the YoBowl has bad press?
A lot of this bad press is no doubt Chinese whispers, passed by word of mouth from one alleged 'guru' to the next.
It is appalling how lame some of the rumor-mongering can be. The Bwl deserves its warnings of caution;
but there are ways to deal with that. I've seen the HMPE-slings-cut-themselves rumor fly off the Net waves
w/o any stopping to think, and so have fought hard to stomp that myth; Kolin's testing should put it to rest,
but that presumes that people consider the testing vs. parroting the myth--most do the latter.
I was actually at a high-level meeting of industrial rope access 'experts' last weekend in Sydney
Australia where the notion of re-introducing the bowline was put to the committee. I took careful note of
the shocked look on most people's faces and resistance to the idea of introducing the the bowline
One tactic could be to suggest using the, um, Partial Fig.8 eyeknot--where the end is not further
"traced"/"re-woven" at the point that it points towards the eye (argh, there are of course TWO main paths
it could take--interior/exterior--, and this is seen in Ashley as #1043, -57, -58). Witness the reactions to
THIS suggestion; THEN present **a** "Janus" Bwl as the corresponding sort of *completion* for the Bwl
(i.e., of making a further, u-turn & re-tuck). That might help shed some insight & sense.
The guy that floated the idea had been over in the USA with Reed Thorne...its Reed that uses Bowlines for quote "everything" unquote.
Reed Thorne of course is seen by many players as a world expert on technical roping.
Okay, put a Thorne in their butts to think better of the Bwl.
What I really want is to hear from you Dan as to what your professional/expert opinion is so
...I need to know where you stand.
What, my prior tome on this above was not clear?
What you might endeavor to do is get a good sample of relevant materials (this would include
new & not-so-new cordage (maybe SAR folks more often replace and so have newer stuff?)
of a variety (as noted above, PMI MaxWear is damn intractable; so, too, old BlueWater II) of
natures--likely to be of concern to your constituency--,
and set up some kind of " j i g g l i n g " test: i.e., some way to give a set of knots a duration
of vibration, in order to assess their slack-security. (Security under load isn't an issue, here
(it IS, for HMPE 12-strand, e.g.!).) Maybe somebody's ancient klunker of a truck, firing on
all 4 & a half of 6 cyclinders could provide the impetus. Carefully *calibrated* results aren't
important, just end-of-sufficiently-long-duration survival, yes-or-no, binary pass/fail, matters.
I believe the bowline (a secured version of the standard #1010) has merit.
Yes, I've said as much. The Bwl (unlike most eyeknots) can be tied after the rope has been
brought around something (forming/sizing the eye); it is easy to untie after loading.
I agree that strength alone is not a decisive factor - but security and stability have greater weighting.
Mostly what "strength" is is a misleading but simply obtainable/citable number.
--no matter if it was correctly figured or applies to the materials & exact knot at hand, et cetera!!
As I above pointed out.
As for Znex's link that he posted, I'm sorry but I could not see anything in the images other than a standard #1010
... . I'll have another look at his post but for the life of me I couldn't see any specific info on the janus...
You aren't reading closely: it has, yes, only the common Bwl. Which images--well, the important "Rear View"--
then can be referred to with my verbal (prior) imagery. Subsequently, you have a graphic of ONE so-called
"Janus" Bwl, which should suffice to figure out a great many others.
Indeed, I've used #1013 as the starting point and then taken the tail and performed a 360 degree loop around the cross-over of the hitch
Which to me sounds exactly like the EBDB, pictured & described above.
(There's a similar sort of thing that can be done with a Fig.8 start, btw.)
I have had a good look at the 'janus' variant but my view is that it seems unwieldy and perhaps
not offering as much scope for security and stability (and strength) as the double round turn variants.
Then maybe your look ::) hasn't been all so good. "unwieldy" ???
Esp. the "the" part: "the many !" --which itself is a potential problem, if there needs to be careful
discernment & selection (i.e. what happens if the knot's tied with a wrong move here or there). In
light of the general reinforcement to behavior of any re-tucking, I think that such variance is tolerable.
The "Janus" pictured graphically above might fare more poorly w/stiff cordage than one of the ones
I verbally sketched, which don't entail the harder u-turn (around the one leg).
One might e.g. wrap the end a full round turn around the legs of the eye before re-tucking.
A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT IS TO STOP TYING THE BOWLINE IN THE ORIENTATION GIVEN
BY ASHLEY AT #1010 etc.--reverse that orientation to show the opposite face. (That quick-tying
hand should be coming around from BENEATH the SPart, not over top of it (where it somehow is
magically going straight out from the tyer!).
You go a LONG way in improving the understanding of the knot by doing this, and in showing
this quick-tie maneuvre (which avoids the into-which-side-of-rabbit-hole selection (going through
the "wrong" way leads to "Anti-bowlines", of where there are some rather nice-looking knots,
but that's another battle).
--dl*
====
-
Dan, my comments/response is this:
I like your feedback and technical input - thats what I seek in these forums. I am a person who likes technical data and evidence. I make evidence-based decisions. Perhaps it reflects my way of thinking and approach to solving problems...I also study law (I like the precise use of language).
Which brings me to this point - I find reading your posts is rather like reading a judgment from a high court justice. You need to read through reams of technical jargon and pages rich in content. Its hard to find the actual 'reason for judgment' (known in law as the ratio decidendi) which is in contrast to obiter (comments in passing).
So I spend a fair amount of time reading your post and then sorting the obiter from actual ratio decidendi!!
I say all this with the greatest degree of respect.
In relation to the bowline, it is definitely #1010 which scares roping technicians. All other variants also scare the majority of these roping technicians simply because of the root fear of #1010 and that a novice could inadvertently die or cause a death. I am merely the messenger boy here Dan, I fully realise that the inherent risks of #1010 can be mitigated - and this is what you might call judgment (ie the possession of knowledge and wisdom).
The technical committee here in Australia seemed less resistant to the notion of #1013 and its derivatives such as the YoBowline..but only to the extent of teaching and applying it at advanced levels of training (certainly not at entry level training).
As for the Janus variant, its just my reaction - my gut instincts that tell me it wont be suitable. I'm sorry if you don't like me stating this...the tying method and shape do not inspire confidence that a novice could accurately reproduce a janus Bowline 100% of the time. I think the way forward is via derivatives of #1013.
I'll post some photos of my handy work and which will clarify the direction I'm going... and then I'm sure you'll comment!
agent smith
-
As for the Janus variant, its just my reaction - my gut instincts that tell me it wont be suitable. ..the tying method and shape
do not inspire confidence that a novice could accurately reproduce a janus Bowline 100% of the time.
I think the way forward is via derivatives of #1013.
Again with "the": there are many bowlines (described above) that have the aspect of being the same
"coming & going"--from end/SPart perspective or eyelegs perspective (i.e., fuse the end to the SPart
and cut open the eye and, voila, same knot, oriented the opposite direction). And the tying is plenty
simple! --simpler/quicker than making the round/double turn of #1013 (though the same re-tucking
can be done, of course, to that base; and then there's the EBDB on it). After all, what else are we
expecting those of your constituency to be doing along with the rope work, which might be done
w/such slight understanding as is being feared for the knotting?
--dl*
====
-
The technical committee here in Australia seemed less resistant to the notion of #1013 and its derivatives such as the YoBowline..but only to the extent of teaching and applying it at advanced levels of training (certainly not at entry level training).
One of the advantages of advocating a widely-used alternative knot, such as a Double Bowline, is that you can go to your committee, and present statistics based on a large sample size of real-world users. For example, you might be able to estimate that the Double Bowline is used in rescue scenarios by an estimated XXXX number of personnel in the U.S., and there have been Y (hopefully zero) number of accidents or near-misses reported because of it.
This goes a long way to ease gut-feeling fears and rumor-driven paranoia. The hard part would be actually tracking down numbers.
Of course, you could also present numbers based on controlled testing, but controlled testing can only go so far in simulating all the real-world scenarios encountered, not the least of which is the incidence of user mis-tying.
Now, once you establish the safety of the Double Bowline, it might serve as a starting point to argue for other knots that can be demonstrated to be better than the Double Bowline in various ways.
-
As promised, here is a link to a pdf file which illustrates some bowlines... www.paci.com.au/IGKT/BOWLINES.pdf
Its about 336 KB in size.
I have included a terminology page to ensure that we are all cooking from the same recipe book...any errors/omissions please advise.
I'll only keep this link alive for a few days..enough time for interested parties to download and comment.
I would particularly appreciate comments/analysis of the #1013 (3 core variant) on page 3.
I have tried to incorporate Dan Lehman's notion of creating 3 strands of rope which are held and crushed by the encircling loops (the 'hitches').
Just to recap my objectives/performance criteria with introducing the Bowline back into mainstream thinking and actual learning curricula here in Australia:
1. Easy to untie - particularly after high loadings
2. Can be tied around an object (eg tree or structural member) without first having to pre-tie a knot (eg re-threaded figure 8 loop)
3. Offers security
4. Is stable in all loading profiles
5. Relatively easy to learn and remember (with correspondingly low error rates with learners)
6. Offers reasonable level of strength relative to same design/model of unknotted rope
Edit: I'm going to add photos of the water bowline, Janus & EBDB tomorrow... I'll end up having a smorgasbord of photos illustrating high quality photos of all the secured bowlines and its derivatives!
agent smith
-
As promised, here is a link to a pdf file which illustrates some bowlines... www.paci.com.au/IGKT/BOWLINES.pdf
Thanks for the images. I'll just note that the Double Bowline with the repeated finish approaches the rope length usage of the Figure 8 Loop (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/figure8loop.html), but on the upside, should be jam resistant.
The Double Bowline halfway violates your #2 requirement, as it tends to require a little pre-fiddling to form the coils, which can also introduce some possibility for error.
Just thinking aloud.
-
As promised, here is a link to a pdf file which illustrates some bowlines... www.paci.com.au/IGKT/BOWLINES.pdf
I have included a terminology page to ensure that we are all cooking from the same recipe book...any errors/omissions please advise.
Change "loop" to "eye"--"loop" is a much overloaded term, and it can be rid of this job to
a ready, understood non-confusing one.
[ "EYE SPLICE" is a univerally used term, yes? (Dutch, German, French folks ... ?!)
I'm shifting from "loopknot" to "eyeknot", myself. ]
Now, seeing the Bwl as a marriage of a bight and loop returns the term and
possible confusion, where here "loop" must go vice your (or should we say, Chisholm's)
"hitch"--but this is how many knots books define "loop".
(And you could end up talking more easily of a "double loop" rather than "double hitch",
aka "round turn" (which really sn't so well defined as 720degrees but more like 540).)
Also, for "hitch=>loop" and "bight", the arrow should somehow--by multiplication or different
graphic from arrowhead--point to a broader segment of material (as the bight entails both
the end and one leg of the eye). "Stem" (a dubious distinction) is shown as an outlined
segment--which, btw, will quickly move out of the nub on serious loading (or the exact bit
of material so delimited will change.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, I REJECT THE DEPICTION AS "FRONT" / "REAR"--that is one damnable
failing of the presentation of the Bowline, and actively works against ready comprehension of it,
as I have well argued above (prior msg. here)!! I do not care re Bwl what others have done; I do care
about getting it RIGHT for a change (if that is how to see it--"for a change", i.e.).
I would particularly appreciate comments/analysis of the #1013 (3 core variant) on page 3.
Why depart from the EBDB, which is pictured previously in this thread?
I see no reason to prefer the variant you show. You wrote above that you were going to do something
which was tantamount to tying the EBDB (though why you didn't refer to that puzzled me)--to wit:
> I've used #1013 as the starting point and then
> taken the tail and performed a 360 degree loop around the cross-over of the hitch
which yields precisely the End-Bound Dbl.Bwl. But now in your pdf, you do NOT go around the
CrossOver Point, but beside it--omitting the key element of security that the EBDB had
--preventing the SPart-through eye leg from loosening, from jointly w/SPart relaxation loosen
the central, nipping loop of the knot!
Just to recap my objectives/performance criteria with ... the Bowline ... :
1. Easy to untie - particularly after high loadings
2. Can be tied around an object (eg tree or structural member) without first having to pre-tie a knot (eg re-threaded figure 8 loop)
3. Offers security
4. Is stable in all loading profiles
5. Relatively easy to learn and remember (with correspondingly low error rates with learners)
6. Offers reasonable level of strength relative to same design/model of unknotted rope
These are good criteria--to the point and readily comprehended (#2 might take some example
to make clear: around a big boulder, e.g.; and possibly the forming of an eyeknot when at
first it wasn't expected (and so, of course, no Fig.8 was pre-tied in anticipation)--a sort of,
impromptu, on-the-fly capability). I still believe that #6 is overstated: it comes with such
a nice apparent ranking aspect--i.e. e.g., 75% > 65% --, that it appeals; but it hardly
comes with direct relevance to what is of importance (even at THIS point of immediate testing
--i.e., the slow-pull standard might yield a different result that rapid loading (as per Dave
Merchant's asseritons re Fig.8 & esp. Fig.9 eyeknots vs Overhand)). At this point, we don't
have testing of any of the 3-dia Bwls; we can look at testing non-differences between
2- & 4-leg (bunny ears) Fig.8 eyeknots, and muse that the extra material will NOT matter;
but we can also cite >one< test report showing breakage in the Fig.8 to come at the collar
but in the Bwl at the loop/"hitch", and muse that since that is where the extra dia. will come
into play, that it might matter, at least a little (and not much separates the two).
Also, "security" has practical significance for both in-tension & out-of-tension states:
testing of Amstel Blue HMPE half-inch (IIRC) 12-strand rope saw it slip free in a Bwl,
as it did in testing reported by Brion Toss in SAIL mag (2001-09?). Putting an Overhand
stopper resulted in the knot holding for the former testing (Left Coast forestry interest
in replacing heavy cable for logging), but breaking at about 33% (!!). YOUR and most
kernmantle-rope concerns are NOT of this sort, but of UNtensioned loosening; and the
testing of this property takes some innovation & insight--my "jiggling" remark, above.
(I think of maybe a washing-machine's vibrations, but really something with a cyclical
back'n'forth of, what, 6 inches (stroke) would be good?! Flapping from a flagpole line
might be nice, but I'd think that were several eyeknots attached, there might be some
variation in the stimulus given to each; still, if one treats it as I assert with pass/fail
judgement at the end of sufficient duration, the flagpole shaking might suffice.
(It seems that the Bwl loosens most readily if the end points UPwards, and gravity
thus is pulling it out--otherwise, the end will have to be raised: for rockclimbers,
LEADING, thus the Janus re-tucks have the benefit of pointing the end down.)
(Re "not of [tensioned loading] sort" concern: Dave Richards did testing of kernmantle
ropes--10.5mm dynamic, 12.7mm low-elongation, & 7mm low-elongation--and did find
tensioned slippage (instead of breakage) for some knots (Sheet Bend, Fisherman's).
--not for Bwl, which was tested.)
cf. www.caves.org/section/vertical/nh/50/knotrope.html (http://www.caves.org/section/vertical/nh/50/knotrope.html)
[advisory NB re report: 2 bar graphs 3,4 have swapped indicated data (12.5, 10.5mm);
"bend back" = bight, "turn through" = loop/hitch, re Sheet bend; data listings are right, IMO]
The inclusion of a 2nd diameter of rope through the collar (sorry, but I see this as a section
of the "bight") tends to increase the collar's size ("tends", for in stiff rope that collar might be
wider just from resistance to bending around the 1-dia of SPart), and a larger collar makes
the Bwl more vulnerable to capsizing--where the "hitch"/=>loop goes from a HH-like form to
a round turn form to an opening coil, and nearly straight. The side-by-side end & SPart will
in my experience tend to orient themselves more, should we say, parallel with bight sides
than compressed against each other--the SPart will press against the bight/collar tip, alone.
Secondly, let me remind you that the Bwl (#1010) is vulnerable to ring-loading--a sort
of "abnormal loading" in some people's terms. So, starting with the Cowboy Bwl (#1034.5),
you have a base that is resistant to coming untied upon ring-loading (it becomes a Reverse
Sheet Bend so loaded).
I will use your Terminology image to define a "Janus" variation that look good:
1) (magically/mentally) swap legs of the bight--i.e., make this a Cowboy Bwl #1024.5
2) take the new-end --as per (1), the rightmost strand-- leftwards OVER TOP of eye legs;
3) then turn the end around the left leg, and come BEHIND all parts to tuck INTO the
triangular open small space at the knot's center (where the end, emerging, will run OVER whatever.
These "Janus" variants, as I've defined them, amount to making the same "rabbit-around-tree"
maneuvre a 2nd time, around the tree's *root* so to speak; if one can be expected to do that
once, surely it can be repeated.
AND, frankly, most any such re-tucking even gone slightly awry will still give a more secure
knot and the trio of rope diameters through the nipping loop. QED.
I'm going to add photos of the water bowline, Janus & EBDB tomorrow... I'll end up having
a smorgasbord of photos illustrating high quality photos of all the secured bowlines and its derivatives!
Great. And do try making the 2nd around-the-tree(root) maeuvre with the Water Bwl,
and see THAT variation; you might then be moved to do so with a Larkshead vs. Clove base,
and achieve "Mirrored Bowlines" variation. They seem to survive even when amply loose
(in the two nubs, if you will--keeping these two halves close to each other). Conceivably,
the Water Bwl can be tied in the quick-tie method by simply repeated the loop-forming
maneuvre, but practically I don't find this so easy; better to form the intended base
structure (Cow, pref. to me, or Clove), and make the "rabbit" run.
--dl*
====
-
I have uploaded a new and revised version of the Bowlines pdf file... have tried to incorporate all of Dan Lehman's and others comments.
Grab the file at: www.paci.com.au/IGKT/Bowlines.pdf
I'll leave it up for 2 days.
I hope I have achieved the correct terminology - this is important to ensure that we all interpret information consistently and accurately.
At this point in time, I am at an impasse and don't know which way to proceed.
I need to select a candidate Bowline that is worthy of incorporating into climbing, rescue and industrial roping curricula.
It has to meet the baseline criteria I highlighted previously which are:
1. Easy to untie - particularly after high loadings
2. Can be tied around an object (eg tree or structural member) without first having to pre-tie a knot (eg re-threaded figure 8 loop)
3. Offers security
4. Is stable in all loading profiles
5. Relatively easy to learn and remember (with correspondingly low error rates with learners)
6. Offers reasonable level of strength relative to same design/model of unknotted rope
Help me Obi Wan Lehman!
agent smith
-
If I might add just a couple of small things that seem to have been missed =
1. Tucking the working end of the Yosemite tie off method was, as well as adding security, intended to provide an eye which is clear of obstructions (as it is/was common practice to half hitch the working end around the eye on one side) and the working end taped to the standing part (not shown in the pictures) also has advantages.
2. Remember 'Ashley' was not referring to modern braided ropes - pinch points and sharp bends (bowline eye in a Karabiner)
affect braided polyamide/polyester/polypropylene/polyethelene in a very different manner to three strand natural fibre ropes. And dont even think about pinching or bending some of the later rope fibres like PBO.
Gordon
-
It has to meet the baseline criteria I highlighted previously which are:
1. Easy to untie - particularly after high loadings
2. Can be tied around an object (eg tree or structural member) without first having to pre-tie a knot (eg re-threaded figure 8 loop)
3. Offers security
4. Is stable in all loading profiles
5. Relatively easy to learn and remember (with correspondingly low error rates with learners)
6. Offers reasonable level of strength relative to same design/model of unknotted rope
Just my opinion based on your requirements above, assuming a standard Bowline is not in the running:
Regarding 1: All proposals seem acceptable
Regarding 2: I'd give preference to a Water Bowline or Janus variant for being free of pre-fiddling as I mentioned before. In almost all situations this will be irrelevant anyway since you have easy end access when tying an end loop.
Regarding 3: None of the proposals seem completely inadequate and quite frankly I haven't done much testing on some the non-traditional variants. I think this is one point where you or your organization can work on investigating more thoroughly with various rope types.
Regarding 4: Closely related to 3.
Regarding 5: I tend to give a slight edge to the Water Bowline if it is taught properly, but a Double Bowline isn't bad either. If someone wraps the rope around the wrong leg of an attempted Janus variation, a very bad knot can result.
Regarding 6: All proposals are going to be adequate.
Overall, I tend to give a slight edge to the Water Bowline based on your requirements. Of course if one requirement has a much heavier weighing/importance, that could skew the outcome.
-
If I might add just a couple of small things that seem to have been missed =
1. Tucking the working end of the Yosemite tie off method was, as well as adding security, intended to provide an eye
which is clear of obstructions (as it is/was common practice to half hitch the working end around the eye on one side)
and the working end taped to the standing part (not shown in the pictures) also has advantages.
I have seen various methods to bind the end: tucking through the lay OR BRAID (have some pics
of this w/8dble-strand CoExOlefins), electrical-taping it, and tucking it back through the SPart
(of which I thought--yet think--I have some photos, but ...).
The common "Yosemite" wrapping requires flexible rope, and puts a Fig.8 in the end side;
a simpler like-tucking where the end passes around the other side of the particular leg
yields and Overhand there, and cannot deform as can the Yosemite way if the end it too
firmly set to an otherwise loose knot (which vulnerability was pointed out by Heinz Prohaska
in reference to the On Rope (1st ed.) Ch.3 "Knots" cover image of such a misformed knot!).
2. Remember 'Ashley' was not referring to modern braided ropes - pinch points and sharp bends (bowline eye in a Karabiner)
affect braided polyamide/polyester/polypropylene/polyethelene in a very different manner to three strand natural fibre ropes.
I don't follow this reference: the sharp bend around a 'biner/krab (of roughly equal diameter to common
climbing-caving-SAR-canyoneering ropes) seems NOT to be the weak point in break tests--i.e., the
break comes in the knot (and in the SPart for the Strangle noose-hitch in one test). Mariners who
might employ eye splices--where the apex of the eye is fixed (i.e., the rope isn't variously re-spliced
with different positioning, in contrast to re-tying an eyeknot--are advised to broaden this bend
by use of a thimble or prudent choice of what the eye surrounds; but for the eye of a knot,
there is the prior bending of rope in the knot that will be more severe. I'm of the belief that
friction vs. relative lack of around smooth metal plays a big role in strrength/material-damage.
The revised/expanded pdf has obvious improvements, and of course retains yet the
"front"/"rear" problem in older images. Good job. You really should try the main other
version of the "Janus" I described, as it is more *comfortable* in your stiffish kernmantle.
One can further amend that with a roundturn before re-tucking the end.
Also, note the the EBDB's looped end takes some firm hauling snug: upon loading,
when the nylon cordage lengthens & shrinks, a gap will actually open up between
this securing wrap and the double nipping loops! --not that that matters all so much,
for security under tension isn't the issue; but it does show that the knot will not be
overtightened by loading: its tightening that secures it is manually controlled, and
hence the ability to manually untie it after loading (with the careful method previously
described--first bring some slack through the collar, for the prying apart is going to
draw that collar tight atop the SPart!).
Regarding 2: I'd give preference to a Water Bowline or Janus variant for being free of pre-fiddling as I mentioned before.
I don't see how the Dbl.Bwl entails ANY "pre-fiddling". It doesn't accommodate the quick-tie
maneuvre which can be used even for the Water Bwl (though is rather awkward to my
experience there), but it is entirely tied after sizing/placing the eye.
... haven't done much testing on some the non-traditional variants.
I think this is one point where you or your organization can work on investigating more thoroughly with various rope types.
It's important to recognize that much of the "done" testing is not well investigated to see
how applicable it is to the intended cordage/use domain. The testing cited above by Dave
Richards does use materials of this particular domain of interest to Agent_Smith, though
even there, if used/older materials are in use in practice, those need to be considered
and not just new cordage. New will bring flexibility & slickness into test; old will in contrast
tend towards inflexibility and frictiveness, both of which aggravate setting a knot (but which
likely help a knot stay tied). It's hard to conceive what one should expect of any surprise
in testing the EBDB vs. Dbl.Bwl, except maybe improved strength. But here there are such
variances in how the knot is set vis-a-vis the collar's tightness (and hence guiding) on the
SPart that the testing would have to explicitly and wisely focus on this point, to be valuable.
--dl*
====
-
I don't see how the Dbl.Bwl entails ANY "pre-fiddling". It doesn't accommodate the quick-tie
maneuvre which can be used even for the Water Bwl (though is rather awkward to my
experience there), but it is entirely tied after sizing/placing the eye.
As I have mentioned earlier, the Double Bowline only halfway violates one of his requirements, and I don't mean to indicate that it is a deal-breaker, but only that other candidates edge it out.
You may argue that the "fiddling" of producing the coils can be done after placing the rope with mild torsion being introduced into the line. While this may be, it is harder to do this while keeping hold of the end the rope, thus the partial violation, in my opinion.
-
I don't see how the Dbl.Bwl entails ANY "pre-fiddling". It doesn't accommodate the quick-tie
maneuvre which can be used even for the Water Bwl (though is rather awkward to my
experience there), but it is entirely tied after sizing/placing the eye.
As I have mentioned earlier, the Double Bowline only halfway violates one of his requirements,
and I don't mean to indicate that it is a deal-breaker, but only that other candidates edge it out.
You may argue that the "fiddling" of producing the coils can be done after placing the rope with mild torsion being introduced into the line.
While this may be, it is harder to do this while keeping hold of the end the rope, thus the partial violation, in my opinion.
???
"With mild torsion being introduced ..." : what is the issue here? (At first I was reading "tension". which is different.)
Both structures entail two turns (round turn of 720deg), so both can torque the line;
but I figure that this is seldom an issue, esp. in the context of the OP.
And, contrary my assertion above, the Dbl. Bwl CAN be tied w/a quick-tie method:
one operates on the SPart-side eye leg on for the 2nd turn vice the SPart again in Water Bwl.
--dl*
====]
-
???
"With mild torsion being introduced ..." : what is the issue here? (At first I was reading "tension". which is different.)
Both structures entail two turns (round turn of 720deg), so both can torque the line;
but I figure that this is seldom an issue, esp. in the context of the OP.
And, contrary my assertion above, the Dbl. Bwl CAN be tied w/a quick-tie method:
one operates on the SPart-side eye leg on for the 2nd turn vice the SPart again in Water Bwl.
If I'm holding the end of the rope with one hand as I form coils for the Double Bowline rather than forming the coils ahead of time, it's mildly annoying to have the rope twist and kink from the coil making.
I'll just say that I'm not particularly fond of the quick-tie twist method for the Double bowline. I find I have a tendency to make less than clean and clear coils.
-
"With mild torsion being introduced ..." : what is the issue here? (At first I was reading "tension". which is different.)
Both structures entail two turns (round turn of 720deg), so both can torque the line;
but I figure that this is seldom an issue, esp. in the context of the OP.
--dl*
====]
If I'm holding the end of the rope with one hand as I form coils for the Double Bowline rather
than forming the coils ahead of time, it's mildly annoying to have the rope twist and kink from the coil making.
But how is that any different than forming the two turns of a Clove H. for the Water Bwl ?
Depending how this is done, the torsion should be put into the SPart, and often dissipated
w/o much notice--if tying the knot facing the SPart-side, vs. the eye-side. Otherwise, the
SPart-side eye-leg will be torqued (facing eye); but, again, this is true for either case.
So how can you single out the Dble.Bwl vs. Water Bwl on this ground?
I'll just say that I'm not particularly fond of the quick-tie twist method for the Double bowline.
I find I have a tendency to make less than clean and clear coils.
The method loses much of its swiftness (in my hands, anyway); but a key benefit
to the method (for single, esp.) is the correct orientation of the end through the loop,
irrespective of speed.
--dl*
====
-
"With mild torsion being introduced ..." : what is the issue here? (At first I was reading "tension". which is different.)
Both structures entail two turns (round turn of 720deg), so both can torque the line;
but I figure that this is seldom an issue, esp. in the context of the OP.
--dl*
====]
If I'm holding the end of the rope with one hand as I form coils for the Double Bowline rather
than forming the coils ahead of time, it's mildly annoying to have the rope twist and kink from the coil making.
But how is that any different than forming the two turns of a Clove H. for the Water Bwl ?
Depending how this is done, the torsion should be put into the SPart, and often dissipated
w/o much notice--if tying the knot facing the SPart-side, vs. the eye-side. Otherwise, the
SPart-side eye-leg will be torqued (facing eye); but, again, this is true for either case.
So how can you single out the Dble.Bwl vs. Water Bwl on this ground?
There may be a couple reasons for the difference. First, with the Water Bowline, my right hand finger and thumb are actually conducting the end of the rope and can twist it as it's being maneuvered. With the Double Bowline, I'm just trying to hold the end of the rope while I would focus on manipulating the coils separately.
Second, with the Water Bowline, the second twist manuever is somewhat isolated from the end of the rope by virtue of the first half hitch structure.
Of course, this is a fairly trivial issue.
-
i prefer th DBY; but this Round Turn version is best in more flexible lines (rope type being a consideration of choice of what is maximum. i like tying the Double (or Water) Bowline by the slip knot method, the dble rings give more of a complication to reeving rabbit around and thru, but in slip knot, the mountain comes to our lil'rabbit (Mohammed). This also works out well in some situations where can make (DBY using slip knot method) half way (as a slip knot), lay aside, hang or just hold on extended thumb, then seal the deal in a hurry when required(by reeving bitter thru to form eye (after it encompasses host/load/implemeant). It is easy enough for me to tie blindfolded, behind my back, upside down..
The configurations that allow strength (of line) retention are those that ease the deformity of the Standing; even if that is just by giving the same deformity over a longer distance (thus a less sharp/impacting change/deformity). The Round Turn of the Dble. does that, but not the Water IMLHO.
A krab in the eye divides the load of the system to 2 legs of line (the eye); their equal and opposite is the Standing, that is therefore double the loading of either leg of the eye(as is the parent device/krab)... So, i think the tendency would be not to break at the eye; except perhaps in some kind of line that the sharpness of that bend over ruled the half loading (per leg of eye compared to krab or Standing). Rope gets leveraged (as other things) only when they resist on the across/wide axis. Various rope materials, constructions, diameters and tensions, give that resistance(to sidewards/non inline forces) at different levels, loadings and occasions etc. Generally, we find rope to be a tension (not compression), inline (not leveraged) device, because mostly it only resists on inline axis of tension. Force being made up of distance and power; no resistance means all distance, therefore no power...
The 'open' , 'clean' eye of Yosemite type configurations is a good drawing point when loading devices in and out of that eye all day etc. Furthermore, for better part of or all day or more useability, i might go further and sieze down the bitter of the DBY with electrical tape (bright red or something that doubles as giving more visablity, and perhaps a different color on other eye/end for further easier identification.
-
I'll just note that the Double Bowline with the repeated finish approaches the rope length usage of the Figure 8 Loop,
Can you quantify this?
Probably not. But this is the sort of thing that we could collectively come to put into some
detailed quantification. Heinz Prohaska had done some of this sort of measuring, and I
undertook to do so for a few knots, too, to move beyond "seems ..." to "is roughly <data>";
I employed colored thread woven through at the *ends* of a knot, then untied and measured.
With a few folks taking such measurements over some misc. varieties of rope, we can build
useful reference data. (I'd say that manual setting would be the knot-state to use.) There is
some further consideration to be given beyond the pure consumption of material IN the knot
--how much is needed in order to tie the knot (some knots might need a more than
others, for formation): this quantity, however, seems much harder to define & measure.
And, for practical purposes, sizing for some applications will need to include a certain
amount of tail, for safety assurances (often more peace of mind than actual knot need).
((Now, to try to find that old back-of-pale-yellow-envelope (IIRC) list of measurements ... !))
i prefer th DBY; but this Round Turn version is best in more flexible lines\
?! Rather, the YoBowl (or Dbl.Bwl w/YoTOff) is what really needs flexibility, as its finishing
tuck comes from a wrap of the end around a single diameter of rope. (This is an aspect not present
if the end is wrapped in the opposite direction, putting an Overhand vs. Fig.8 into itself.)
The configurations that allow strength (of line) retention are those that ease the deformity of the Standing;
even if that is just by giving the same deformity over a longer distance (thus a less sharp/impacting change/deformity).
The Round Turn of the Dble. does that, but not the Water IMLHO.
Absent testing, this is just speculation. I think that there might be an element of friction to be
found in variations on what the SPart bends around, in the following sense: for the common Bwl,
the SPart first draws against the end, and pulls it towards the collar and then a bit to one side;
it then turns around the end-side eye-leg. In the first case, I think that varied loading will see
movement that shifts the position of the end, as the end comes w/draw of SPart; whereas in
the latter point the eye-leg holds its ground and will feel the SPart draw around it, frictionally.
So, there might be some (probably slight) observable difference over the suffering of several
sudden loadings between some knots & versions of knots given such differences in how the
movement of the heavily loaded strand affects others it contacts--if they can move with it,
then there will be less damage. Note that this is a result that will NOT show up in slow-pull testing,
yet it could well be more practically significant (for a tow line, e.g., taking varied loading for hours).
The 'open' , 'clean' eye of Yosemite type configurations is a good drawing point when loading devices in and out of that eye all day etc.
If those devices can take it, the rope would prefer to be cast into twin eyes, to share the load.
However, the added *width* of twin eyes will increase strain on something like a 'biner/krab,
putting load onto a more leveraged point.
Btw, a simple enhancement to the Common Bwl is to reeve into it a 2nd eye, for tying-in for rockclimbing.
Even if the end slips out of the final tuck through the loop of such a twin-eye knot, one still has
two eyes w/some effect, and the base/initial Bwl is intact, with a pretty obvious dangling free end.
A lead climber's Bwl will be oriented eye-upwards, and gravity might help pull the end out,
in contrast to a 2nd or top-rope climber, where the belay line runs upwards to a top anchor or belayer,
and gravity will be pulling the end into place more. For the lead climber, should the end come out
of final tuck, it should hang long & w/gravity-assist against pulling out of the penultimate tuck
(and still run back through the harness and then to the initial two tucks making a Bwl #1010).
Sadly, in true bonehead fashion, as the only twin-eye bowline climbers can bring to mind,
the 2nd eye is typically finished as though "re-weaving/-threading" a Bowline on a Bight,
rather than simply making a 2nd collar--and gaining 2 diameters of material through the loop!.
Moreover, the 2nd rabbit-out-of-hole-&-around-tree collaring can be dressed & set between
the central nipping, loop and the initial collar, and so thereby inhibit the loosening of the collar
with the end! Please don't get "hung up"/enthralled by the potential of completely "re-threading"
the Bowline--it's not a great result; it's much better as just described, added a 2nd collar with
the redundant/twin eye.
--dl*
====
-
Have been hard at work and have uploaded another new and revised version of the Bowlines pdf file...
Grab the file at: www.paci.com.au/IGKT/Bowlines.pdf
Once again, it will only be available for a short period.
Having tied and played with all of the variations illustrated, I am leaning towards the last image - the 720 degree variant. Why? Because:
[ ] It has 3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the loops
[ ] It It has double loops acting to encircle and grip the bight
[ ] The collar describes a larger radius
[ ] The tail parallels the Spart leaving the eye clear
[ ] It is simply an extension of ABoK 1013 and improves upon it (in my view)
[ ] The structure exhibits a degree of symmetry and compactness and also appears to be secure and stable
I would of course welcome opinions/feedback...
agent smith
-
Having tied and played with all of the variations illustrated, I am leaning towards the last image - the 720 degree variant. Why? Because:
[ ] It has 3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the loops
[ ] It It has double loops acting to encircle and grip the bight
[ ] The collar describes a larger radius
[ ] The tail parallels the Spart leaving the eye clear
[ ] It is simply an extension of ABoK 1013 and improves upon it (in my view)
[ ] The structure exhibits a degree of symmetry and compactness and also appears to be secure and stable
That's nice, but be aware that you now have a loop that actually consumes more rope than the bulky old Figure Eight Loop. This may also have implications for how easy or hard it is to adjust loop size, position or excess.
Secondly, I'd be more concerned with what you think "3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the loops" and other simliar appearance-related attributes actually achieves, rather than striving toward appearance. If you find a loop that is more secure, even if it doesn't look like it "should" be, it should obviously score higher in the security arena. Don't judge a book by its cover or a knot by its topography.
-
Having tied and played with all of the variations illustrated, I am leaning towards the last image - the 720 degree variant.
:o ??? :oWhy? Because:
[1] It has 3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the loops
[2] It It has double loops acting to encircle and grip the bight
[3] The collar describes a larger radius
[4] The tail parallels the Spart leaving the eye clear
[5] It is simply an extension of ABoK 1013 and improves upon it (in my view)
[6] The structure exhibits a degree of symmetry and compactness and also appears to be secure and stable
I would of course welcome opinions/feedback...
I'm absolutely amazed/appalled: that you can HAVE the EBDB, and yet go on to produce and prefer
the grotesque derivative "#1013 720deg" variant!? --incredible!
Firstly, your presentation should orient all knots the same (re SPart turn/handedness)
which will make comparisons easier and surer. Currently, you have reversed handedness.
And there is still the problem with some "rear/front" view labeling--540 is *wrong*. Yes, it entails
the most work--as it's the most annotated/labeled--, but starting the series off correctly with a
nice "FRONT view" for the Common Blw #1010 will set the tone & orientation basis.
(You could also anticipate some criticism (pretty much just baseless hearsay/rumor) of the
Cowboy Bwl (#1034.5) by having a ready image of it and 1010 ring-loaded, and indicating
what part (the end) will often slip out in the 1010 form abnormally loaded--that should shut
a few mouths (maybe).
Secondly, your #1013 variant is more varied than you state in that it is a "Cowboy" (1034.5)
collar direction; that could lead someone to a bit of confusion. This change was made presumably
to have the end finish adjacent to the SPart.
Re criterion #2, that begs a So what? challenge. I found it quite interesting to see in the cited
(above) Dave Richards testing that in the low-elongation-rope cases (12.5 & 7mm), the DOUBLE
Sheet Bend slipped (but not in the 10.5mm dynamic rope)--and for the 12.5mm rope, the single
SB did NOT!? This goes to question the efficacy of the double turn, which I'd have thought would
improve security. (It also begs the question of What-form-of-sheet-bend?, sadly--I don't think that
I found out (yet).) In any case, for THIS eyeknot, given the follow-on securing of the end, and the
materials, I don't think that one should put much weight on this. (Note, before Spydey chimes in
with relationships between ... , that the eyeknot (normally loaded) tensions the nipping loop from
both sides, whereas in a sheet bend, the end-side is untensioned, just nipped--significant re security.)
Re #3: how is this at all beneficial, vs. detrimental, even?!
--detrimental in that with a larger collar there is more material to all knot deformation at high loads.
And I think that it's partly illusory in regards to the stuffing of the end back through it (and having,
at the point of setting, some sense of added tightness): for, on serious loading, the end will likely
swing around behind (in proper "front" perspective) the SPart, and the looseness of the enlarged
collar will lead to an inferior orientation of the nub--SPart then going too directly into the nipping
turn vs. pulling over the dble.turns into it (for note that the other end of this dbl.turn coil is going
to be farther away and trying to capsize it--SPart pulling back in opp. direction, to flip ... ).
Re #4, well, big whoop. One can do that with the EBDB. One can do that in a better way with
the Water Bwl (or should we better say, "The Clove Bwl"--as it seems there's been an unjustified
shift of the postion of the added HH/turn from removed to adjacent by authors not well advised!),
taking the end back towards the SPart through the original nipping loop. A clear eye seems a
pretty trivial distinction to me, for many uses. The EBDB leaves the eye clear, too, even w/o
pointing the end SPartwards; there are various ways of dressing ... .
Re #5, no, as noted above, it is not simply an extension (any more than it is of 1034.5).
But I sense that you hope to buy credibility sort of ad hominen vis-a-vis such a comparison.
Big whoop, again. Now, EBDB **is** such a quite simple extension (though, it too can be tied
in a Cowboy orientation)--one repeated tucking of the end (and one can choose inside or outside
of the collar, for that. But the EBDB binds the central nipping dbl. loop at the one point
where the binding has sure, lasting effect (in the materials of concern here); "720" does not.
Finally, re #7, as Roo noted, we are some distance from compactness now. Not that it's unheard
of to add a Strangle tie-off for the Fig.8 even (oh, yes, a flame debate that flares up every so often
between climbers), which adds to consumption. I have some inkling that using a variety of knots
to tie off --and consequently sharply bending the rope at different places-- might less quickly
degrade the strength of the rope ends--"the sharp end".
If you want efficiency, the Lehman8--D.Britton linked image now lost--would do well.
"Do Not Pass Go" is the old board-game saying I'll lay on the latest innovation. You have much
better & detailed hints above to explore, really.
As for Roo's "what you think '3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the loops' ... actually achieves" ,
it has pretty obvious implications for what must happen for the knot to come untied--that the end
must go back out of the loops the extra time, and in cases to repeat this (to come completely out)
it must then go in the opposite direction, which gives some assurance that it won't happen
(and there should be a longer, flapping end to notice, for a climber and her tie-in, anyway).
The presumption re strength is, yes, just that; but it seems plausible, though I note some
aspects that might be unfavorable (re friction); also, OnRope1.com had a MythBuster that
challenges this notion--YMMV.
--dl*
====
-
Thanks for feedback,
New version is uploaded... the reversed image is corrected. Modification of the description of the 720 degree variant is also added...yes it is bulky.
I only stated that I was 'leaning' toward the 720 cowboy variant - not an outright declaration of confidence.
Yes, I like the EBDB version - but need to do something with the tail - like a Yosemite finish or similar. Will work on it and take photos for you.
Please advise if there are still further glaring errors to correct!
agent smith
-
only stated that I was 'leaning' toward the 720 cowboy variant - not an outright declaration of confidence.
But that is, still, leaning towards something unappealing and away from something good.
Yes, I like the EBDB version - but need to do something with the tail - like a Yosemite finish or similar.
I don't see such "need"--the remarks about a clean eye are not compelling to me,
especially for the applications of kernmantle ropes, which is the main context here
--where, historically, people have been tying "back-up"/"safety" knots ON THE EYE legs,
hardly the model of such clean-liness!
But, if you insist, the "End-Binding" wrap of the tail can be made to run diagonally across
(under, from the (proper!) "front" perspective) the end-side eye-leg and so emerge just
outside of the eye, but still pointing generally eye-wards vs. SPartwards. (And it should
be noted that this path can be used vice the popular one to make a YoBowl that cannot
deform on setting into that On Rope (1st ed.)-Chap.3-cover-photo peculiarity.)
(And this End-Bound wrap can go either inside or outside of the collar on its turn.)
And I'll reiterate: presenting the proper aspect (my urged "front" view) of the Bowline
from the start is a big step to making clear it and all the variations of it--all of the various
securing extensions that are done are much more clearly understood from viewing the
knots from this perspective (as it is pretty easy to comprehend the course of the
end's/bight's legs, and the pure turns/wraps in a Clove-Bwl ("Water") or Dbl.Bwl).
--along with the much better quick-tie behavior (i.e., support of the unhandled SPart
by the handled SPart-side eye leg after the initial capsizing of the Overhand maneuvre).
:)
-
But, if you insist, the "End-Binding" wrap of the tail can be made to run diagonally across
(under, from the (proper!) "front" perspective) the end-side eye-leg and so emerge just
outside of the eye, but still pointing generally eye-wards vs. SPartwards.
Will try to tie this variation and photograph it.
And I'll reiterate: presenting the proper aspect (my urged "front" view) of the Bowline
from the start is a big step to making clear it and all the variations of it--all of the various
securing extensions that are done are much more clearly understood from viewing the
knots from this perspective
I am happy to do as you request - but I must confess that I am unclear as to exactly how you want me to orient the knots. I'm saying I'm confused...can you give me clear instructions as to the correct orientation! (its very late at night where I am at present and I can't think clearly...got to sign off for now.
agent_smith
-
I am happy to do as you request - but I must confess that I am unclear as to exactly how you want me to orient the knots.
I'm saying I'm confused...can you give me clear instructions as to the correct orientation!
1) FLIP THE ORIGINAL BOWLINE (1010) OVER--show opposite face as the "Front".
(Yes, this is the opposite to what is commonly done; we have common difficulty with this knot
so let's get rid of the common confusion and show the proper perspective.
You want to see how that "hitch"/"loop" crosses itself; the paths of the bight parts are
easily enough understood and so can be more hidden.)
2) KEEP ALL OF THE VARIATIONS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION VIS-A-VIS THE STANDING PART.
So, if the SPart makes its nipping loop (and crosses UNDER itself in going into the eye-leg) with
the flow going to the LEFT (crossing point on left), say, keep that orientation for all knots,
and thereby it will be easier to recognized each variation's differences.
As a right-hander, I find it natural in TYING-IN TO A HARNESS (so, eye at me, SPart leading
away) to hold the END in my right hand; doing the quick-tie maneuvre by coming UNDER
the SPart, then leftwards-over-eye-leg-down-and-pull-away-rightwards to capsize a turn
into the SPart, I arrive at the above-specified orientation: SPart flows in OVER its crossing
point, exits to my/viewer's left, and returns on the right side to complete the knot.
Thanks for all the good work in making images.
Would like to also see one of the specified alternative "Janus"-like ones (where the end
goes around both legs before tucking back into the nipping center). (A Cowboy Bwl version
will have end on right side, so pass it around the legs by going UNDER them rightwards
and back up over and down through the center, making a nice same-coming&going variant.)
--dl*
====
-
Am still working on some new images...sorry for the delay Dan.
Christmas is hectic at the moment and the weather and lighting conditions have not been favourable (I take the photos outdoors to get the best results due to my camera limitations).
Hope to post another version of the bowlines tomorrow.
Will eagerly await IGKT and Dan Lehman's feedback.
agent smith
-
i first saw the slip knot method described in a rescue scenario. Victim is on side of sheer cliff face, and holding on with 1 hand. Line is lowered from overhead cliff or copter, victim makes slip knot with 1 hand and lets it hold self. Then draws tail around self, then reeves thru slipknot; folds back and pinches off to self. At this point, even if they fall, as long as they keep that pinch of Bitter to itself (through slip), the lacing should close and lock safely.
i thought of this because of your rescue scenario. But also, it has become my favorite way of making a Round Turn (double) or Clove(Water) especially. The 2 part way of forming, can make it a preset and finish quickly type of strategy too. This can be especially useful if someone is bringing Bitter End around tree, hitching up to a truck pull, stretching line to a point to tie off quickly, evne for same in forming Sheetbend on fly etc. The slip/noose after formed can also be set aside or hung and keep well until precise , moment needed.
-
Will eagerly await IGKT and Dan Lehman's feedback.
Agent Smith - Have you written to the Guild for feedback? This is an open forum NOT the voice of the Council of the IGKT - and currently only one member who uses this forum (Squarerigger) is a member of the Council so please be sure that you do not quote anything said in this thread as being from the IGKT.
Gordon
-
Line is lowered from overhead cliff or copter, victim makes slip knot with 1 hand and lets it hold self.
Were the report given by Ashely, it would not be a "slip knot" that got (first-) tied,
but a simple, Overhand noose.
--dl*
====
-
Will eagerly await IGKT and Dan Lehman's feedback.
Agent Smith - Have you written to the Guild for feedback? This is an open forum NOT the voice of the Council of the IGKT - and currently only one member who uses this forum (Squarerigger) is a member of the Council so please be sure that you do not quote anything said in this thread as being from the IGKT.
Gordon
I apologise to other posters for hijacking this thread slightly, but it is an important issue which I feel should be made straight away.
Gordon, I think you have your world view a little upside down. The Council is not the IGKT, the MEMBERS are the IGKT. The Council are a group of volunteers to whom we the members are deeply indebted for running the administration of the IGKT, but the heart, the muscle, the conscience and the voice of the IGKT is that of the members and those closely associated with us.
To hear the 'voice' of the IGKT where do you need to go?
Certainly you will hear the voice at the AGM and EGMs, you will also hear it at the local branch meetings every month or so and every venue where members are present to promote knots and the IGKT. One of the most prominent places to find the voice of the IGKT is of course through our Knotting Matters monthly publication, particularly as it better reflects the internationality of the membership than most of the physical meetings can achieve.
But by a long long way, the best place to go to speak to the IGKT is here, on its Forum. It is fully international, it is 24/7, it reflects a significant membership presence and through the course of a year it covers massively more knotting issues and aspects than probably all of the other avenues put together.
You are right that Lindsey Philpott, our new Editor is the only Guild Officer to regularly post here - that is very much to his credit. But the other Officers are busy people and we should not criticise them for not posting here as well as doing the jobs for the Guild which they have so generously volunteered to serve. But that does not change one jot the fact that if you want to speak to the International Guild of Knot Tyers, the very best place to do it is HERE.
DerekSmith
Member of the IGKT
-
Line is lowered from overhead cliff or copter, victim makes slip knot with 1 hand and lets it hold self.
Were the report given by Ashely, it would not be a "slip knot" that got (first-) tied,
but a simple, Overhand noose.
--dl*
====
It seems to me that whether it is a Noose or Slip; would depend on if it's use would be to choke(mercilessly) or release. Hear; it is in fact maid to slip out, but in doing so capture in an 'inverted noose' or slip(?)! But, by any name, the mechanics the same.
-
It seems to me that whether it is a Noose or Slip; would depend on if it's use would be to choke(mercilessly) or release.
Hear; it is in fact maid to slip out, but in doing so capture in an 'inverted noose' or slip(?)!
But, by any name, the mechanics the same.
Eye herd, but herd mentality kneed knot rule: cf. p.14 ABOK , #43, 44
--it's #43 that ewe wont fore beau line cap sizement!
;)
-
Version 1.4 is up for review...
Go here: www.paci.com.au/IGKT/Bowlines.pdf
And yes, I realise that any comments made herein do not constitute a formal endorsement by the IGKT.
Dan, I hope I got the photos right this time...I am trying but its not an easy process.
I still need to take some photos of a janus variant you mentioned but need more direction as to exactly how you want it tied.
I am also unsure about some of the EBDB variants... A quick attempt of mine is shown in figures 16 & 17 in that I took an educated guess with the tail (yosemite finish).
But, if you insist, the "End-Binding" wrap of the tail can be made to run diagonally across
(under, from the (proper!) "front" perspective) the end-side eye-leg and so emerge just
outside of the eye, but still pointing generally eye-wards vs. SPartwards.
Still to tie and photograph this variant...
And I want to close in on the best candidate (ie ideal) knot for mission critical life support applications - am running out of time for this project. Figure 12 & 13 also seem reasonable to me.
You'll also note that my water bowline (fig eight) varies slightly from Roos... in trying to present the correct image perspective, I stumbled on this form...
agent smith
-
And yes, I realise that any comments made herein do not constitute a formal endorsement by the IGKT.
Frankly, I can't imagine what or how such a thing could come to be.
But that's a separate thread.
I still need to take some photos of a janus variant you mentioned but need more direction as to exactly how you want it tied.
The words are above; they should suffice; take them slowly, and if you reach
a problem, let's note THAT point of issue. It's a pretty simple thing, after all.
No Yosemite for me.
But, if you insist, the "End-Binding" wrap of the tail can be made to run diagonally across
(under, from the (proper!) "front" perspective) the end-side eye-leg and so emerge just
outside of the eye, but still pointing generally eye-wards vs. SPartwards.
In the normal EBDB, the tail simply continues up and around ... ;
re the above, the tail crosses behind the other side of the bight it makes (the other
leg), and THEN goes around, and so encompasses that leg also. And while the
finish isn't forced outside of the eye area (your goal--"clean eye"), it rather naturally
is pointed that way, and on hauling it tight (which one needs to do esp. w/stretchy
rope, which is going to shrink in diameter on heavy loading), you'll further set it
into a pointing-to-side-of-eye position. (And, yes, the same can be done for 1010,
w/o any end-wrap, as a way of anticipating the draw of the SPart on the tail, which
will pull it up out of the eye and a bit to one side.) Otherwise, the end-wrap can
be taken sort of down through the collar--i.e., just on the other side of itself in
making its "end-bound" turn--and will then be more forced to exit to the side.
And I want to close in on the best candidate (ie ideal) knot for mission critical life support applications
"Mission-critical life support" has an SAR ring to it, which to my mind stands in
some distinction/contrast to a rockclimber's tying in--which, yes, is critical
to his mission, but ... . Recall that seemingly of rather recent popularity or at
least consideration is the "re-threaded" bowline, in which a 2nd/twin eye is
made (and so to come completely untied, a LOT of rope must pass out of the
nub). This has some merit I think for contact with the harness (not that there
has been any reported problem with a single strand running through (much
to my surprise, thinking of nylon-on-nylon heat!?)). Well, there is a good
variation of that, too, which I'll guess adds strength & security. But such a
twin-eye knot will be problematic for connecting to D-shaped 'biners, as
it will leverage the metal more.
You'll also note that my water bowline (fig eight) varies slightly f...
I sure did! And I don't count it as all so "slightly", in behavior: that knot will JAM!
(It might have a superficial resemblance to the EBDB, but note that the overwrapping
part here is given full tension; the EBDB's binding wrap is manually tensioned only!)
One beauty of the Clove Bowline (putting aside "Water" for further historical review
--as the original images show quite separated half-hitch parts, NOT a Clove as
Budworth (perhaps?) has originated (just as, in contrast, directionally, the ancient
"Killick/Killeg/K..." hitch had snug parts, and not the widely spaced Timber H.
and HH: the original, I'm pretty sure, was really a Cow hitch with the tail "dogged"
for security, and was intended to jam in water-swollen natural-fibre ropes and so
bind well to the object left on uncertain sea floor to anchor). whew, where am I?
Oh, yes, Clove Bwl. A beauty of this and --better, IMO-- Cow Bwl are the "mirrored"
variations in which you "collar" both ends of the loop-making parts, "coming & going";
as these knots seem resistant to coming untied, even when tied rather open & loose
("rather")! They provide (yes, Roo, consume) a good bit of material which might have
some bit of energy absorption (helpful maybe on shorter vs. longer falls).
--dl*
====
-
Version 1.5 is up...Merry Christmas!
Go here: www.paci.com.au/IGKT/Bowlines.pdf
Added original clove bowline and placed on same page to enable comparison (to see why the reversed clove bowline will jam under load).
Added a clove bowline with yosemite finish (I think I have yosemite on the brain). I am also considering adding a yosemite finish to the EBDB (p8, fig 22) and photographing it - hope that won't offend!
Does anyone have any historical and technical data on any of these variations to the original #1010 bowline?
Will take one or two more photos tomorrow (time permitting) and then upload.
Will need to do some serious think tank over next few days and make a few bold statements about which variation is the better candidate. By 'better', I mean a knot that has the 'easy to untie' property of a bowline but also has the security and stability of a figure 8 eye knot (now I'm calling it an eye knot).
Dan, do you have any issues with the so-called 'yosemite bowline' (page 4, figure 6). If yes, what are your issues?
Also, how do I tie this?
Oh, yes, Clove Bwl. A beauty of this and --better, IMO-- Cow Bwl are the "mirrored"
variations in which you "collar" both ends of the loop-making parts, "coming & going";
as these knots seem resistant to coming untied, even when tied rather open & loose
("rather")! They provide (yes, Roo, consume) a good bit of material which might have
some bit of energy absorption (helpful maybe on shorter vs. longer falls).
It seems you are alluding to something here but I am unclear as to exactly what form and structure...
agent smith
-
Version 1.5 is up...Merry Christmas!
A fine present, no doubt, but I'm not able to download this, at the moment;
I'll read your notes on its changes.
Added a clove bowline with yosemite finish (I think I have yosemite on the brain).
I am also considering adding a yosemite finish to the EBDB (p8, fig 22) and photographing it - hope that won't offend!
People have been drawn & quartered for less. Yes, you do have --for whatever? reason--
"Yosemitis", which is a serious brain affliction. Get rid of it.
Does anyone have any historical and technical data on any of these variations to the original #1010 bowline?
Beyond what has been discussed above?
1. One needs to drive home the point that "technical data" is very seldom attached
to a well-specified knot structure: use the case of the Fig.8 eyeknot in which it is
seldom indicated which of the two ends bears the load from the knot--a simple,
obvious, fundamental point, ... ignored.
2. Beyond that, one can show that knots behave sometimes differently in different ropes.
(On this forum, years ago but I think in the present archive, one fellow reported finding
the Butterfly eyeknot noticeably weaker than the bowline; but Dave Richards's tests
(the URLink given previously, above) show things much the other way 'round: and
--to emphasize my initial point here-- neither case specifies the exact geometry of the Butterfly,
or which of its potential SParts (it's an asymmetric knot) was loaded.
3. The only "data" one is likely to find (aside from the implicit sort of some considerably
useage w/o cited problems, as Roo remarked) for knots is slow-pull testing of break
strength; this data is not directly applicable to in-use conditions; Dave Merchant has
pointed out that testing he did showed differences for some knots between slow and
rapid loading for strength. We don't know of a test for security.
Will take one or two more photos tomorrow (time permitting) and then upload.
I should have returned to HQ by then and be ready to receive ... . ;)
Will need to do some serious think tank over next few days and make a few bold statements
about which variation is the better candidate. By 'better', I mean a knot that has the 'easy to untie'
property of a bowline but also has the security and stability of a figure 8 eye knot (now I'm calling it an eye knot).
Note that the Fig.8 is not all so stable on ring-loading. (Note that "the Fig.8 ..." glosses over
the fact that there are VARIOUS actual geometries carrying that moniker and presented in
the literature and tied in practice!!) (Note that there are some who will debate this knot(-set)'s
need for a "safety/back-up" knot, too!)
Dan, do you have any issues with the so-called 'yosemite bowline' (page 4, figure 6).
I sure do. This knot requires the end to make a 1-diameter turn, and many kernmantle ropes
--the particular domain of interest to the OP--resist bending so sharply. The making of this turn
and the setting of the knot can displace the curved tail from its most favorable into dubious
positions (witness that misformation on the Ch.3 cover page of the original On Rope.
The tucking through the collar is a weaker means to security than other extensions.
In short, I don't find the YoBowl doing a good job for what it is tasked to do.
And, although Craig Connally (Mountaineering Handbook) is all agaggle gung-ho
for the YoBowl, claiming it to be stronger than the Fig.8 eyeknot, I remain skeptical
that the extension can do anything much for strength (for what that's worth),
and must question his basis for assertion.
Also, how do I tie this?
Oh, yes, Clove Bwl. A beauty of this and --better, IMO-- Cow Bwl are the "mirrored"
variations in which you "collar" both ends of the loop-making parts, "coming & going"
You do as it says--make the same "collar" on the eyeside of the central loop(s) as done
just prior for the SPart side (it is as though, at the point in the "rabbit...hole" tying riddle
you reset the riddle to "comes out of the hole" as it has just "gone back into the hole"
from forming the SPart's collar. "Mirror" has sense, here.
I was verbose, on the 8th post of this thread (p.1), my 2nd.
I might wonder, here, why none of the many Constrictor afficianadoes has suggested
replacing the Clove H. in the Clove Bwl with the Constrictor, for greater security?!
Yeah, one could do this, too. --not clear that it really helps, FYI, there it is.
Or, we could merge Roo's preference for the Water vs. Dbl. Bwl by doing BOTH:
form a Rolling Bowline (Rolling H. vice Clove, dbl turns in the SPart). Well, yeah,
another possibility. The list goes on & on.
But simplicity sells, here. And so I've repeatedly urged an easily formed variation
of "Janus" bowline, from maybe best a Cowboy Bwl (1034.5) start. This also suits
your seeming insistance on the end pointing SPartwards or at least being "outside"
of the eye.
-----------
I'll reiterate (voluntarily): if you are really faced with some committee to hear your
use-the-bowline case, present the "partially tied Fig.8" as an eye-knot candidate,
and show the finish to form the Fig.8 as an "extension" to that--one that most
folks take so much for granted that they don't consider the briefer knot complete.
THEN cast the extension(s) to the Bowline as similar, and challenge them to why
they should treat it differently!
--dl*
====
-
On a roll here..ver 1.6 is uploaded.
Same link as before.
Added a constrictor bowline (p6, Fig 16), but lighting conditions were poor so the image is not ideal. Will try to improve image quality another time.
Added yosemite finish to Dan Lehman's EBDB which should bring a smile :) - see p8, fig 24. I actually like this variant...and believe it has some merit.
I acknowledge DL's points re the inherent difficulties with adding a yosemite finish but dont these issues also occur with a standard figure 8 eye knot (ABoK #1047)?
Quote
Also, how do I tie this?
Quote
Oh, yes, Clove Bwl. A beauty of this and --better, IMO-- Cow Bwl are the "mirrored"
variations in which you "collar" both ends of the loop-making parts, "coming & going"
You do as it says--make the same "collar" on the eyeside of the central loop(s) as done
just prior for the SPart side (it is as though, at the point in the "rabbit...hole" tying riddle
you reset the riddle to "comes out of the hole" as it has just "gone back into the hole"
from forming the SPart's collar. "Mirror" has sense, here.
I was verbose, on the 8th post of this thread (p.1), my 2nd.
Sorry Dan, I'm lost here.
You might need to hold my hand a bit and walk me through once more please... or it could be a touch of inebriation on my behalf due to xmas spirits..no pun intended!
Overall, this is still a work in progress but its certainly adding to my toolbox of knowledge... the permutations/variations on #1010 are seemingly endless.
Again, which variation is the holy grail? Maybe there is no holy grail and I'm on a wild goose chase? But I do like the EBDB with yosemite finish....
agent smith
-
Still going strong...VER 1.7 is uploaded.
Go grab it here: www.paci.com.au/IGKT/Bowlines.pdf
Okay, I've made some improvements to the images and added a few new ones.
I think I had a eureka moment with figure 26 & 27 on page 9.
I felt a cold shiver and broke out into a sweat (what does this mean?).
I tied what I am calling an End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB) and then added a Yosemite finish (ha!).
Now I like this form because:
1. The base structure is a standard ABoK #1010 bowline that most of earths population are familiar with
2. It has three rope diameters inside the loop (like the EBDB from Dan Lehman)
3. It dresses well and has a reasonably compact form
4. The eye is clear - due to the infamous 'yosemite' finish (I am not convinced about any potential issues caused by the tail taking a tight turn around the eye leg and then through the collar).
5. It seems relatively easy to tie and remember
6. It may well be stronger than the original bowline (ABoK #1010) - due to the 3 rope diameters inside the loop - by stronger I mean % MBL remaining relative to an unknotted rope of same type.
Dan/Roo/DerekSmith, I am very interested to have some feedback/opinion here... eg has this particular form been tied and tried before, and if so what performance data exists?
I also added what I hope is the correct depiction of the Janus variant that Dan Lehman was referring to. It took a few attempts...but I hope that I got it right!?? I'm sure Dan will point out any issues if I erred.
Anyhow, its still a work in progress but I feel I AM closing in on my holy grail of discovering the ultimate Bowline (for mission critical applications in a life support role).
agent smith
-
Just because I feel the need to ask: Is this, when it is potentially settled, going to be any better, in any way, than the much used fig.8 tie in? Seems to me the fig8 has done a reliable job for a while now. Pretty compact, easy to tie, relatively easy to untie, been secure.
Just asking.
Scott
-
OK,
Although I dislike the Bowline for anything other than non critical work, here are three you might find interesting.
The first is a tiny variant on the basic Bowline - take the WE back up the outside of the knot, alongside itself in the bight, then pass it between the bight and the SP
(https://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/f/Bowline%20backlock.jpg)
This end is now clamped by the bight which is clamped by the HH which is now clamped by this returned end. The knot is now self holding.
The second one is another clamping variant of the basic Bowline - take the WE left and back around the eye, then bring it back up the RHS and pass it between the legs of the eye, up the back of the knot and pass it through the primary bight loop alongside the SP.
(https://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/f/Bowline%20bightlocka.jpg)
A similar self locking effect is achieved, but it is susceptible to rocking.
Finally the variant I climbed with for many years after I saw a basic Bowline simply fall open.
Take a long bight in the end of the rope and use it to tie a basic Bowline. Pass the two loops formed through the small eye in the WE. Draw up the WE loop until it is snug and dress the Bowline.
For me this variant had a number of advantages whilst still being easy to untie -
- The WE being a loop was now trapped by the working loops (eyes)
- The new WE was orders of magnitude more secure
- The knot was slightly stronger in that it now had a larger radius at the load point
- It gave me two loops at the belt either of which are loadable independently
It suffers the 'Sin' of requiring to be clipped to my harness via a bina instead of tying right into the belt. However, I use a DMM locked screwgate bina for this job because I prefer to be able to unclip from the climbing rope rather than have to untie, and as the rest of my protection relies on the use of binas I do not consider it to be an undue risk.
I liked the security of this knot and only moved to the '8' because of the undue strain the Bowline imposes on the rope if the need comes to load it heavily.
Regarding your last question - "is any bowline going to be preferred to the '8'?", not by me it won't and that is down to security and strength (but I still clip my '8' eye to my belt with a bina)
BUT, you have moved from simply exploring the world of Bowlines into the search for the Grail and that is an altogether different question...
Derek
-
What do I want it to be?
- Easy to tie
- Easy to remember
- Hard to get wrong in the cold or the dark
- Easy to untie even after extreme loading
- Secure
- Strong
The bowline fails on the last two and even the more secure variants fail on the last one and start to loose out on the first three. Even my preferred bight method failed on the last requirement.
The '8' fails on the first four, especially the fourth.
So, take a step back, pick up your climbing rope, make a bight in the end (or in the mid if you prefer).
Are you ready?
OK, tie a nice fat slipped overhand knot. Now you have two options - first, bend the single bight loop down alongside the two slipped loops and clip all three loops together, or, option two, pass the two slipped loops through the bight loop, dress the OH and set the bight loop snugly against the SP('s), then clip the two loops together.
- Easy to tie -- very
- Easy to remember -- the OH is probably programmed into our DNA
- Hard to get wrong in the cold or dark -- even with your hands behind your back
- Easy to untie even after extreme loading -- try it, the OH has a 'hinge' on both sides and the slipped double has plenty of meat to allow it to move, plus the 2/3 loops seriously spread the load on the loop side of the OH
- Secure -- the end is either secured against the SP('s) or is one of the holding loops, there is nothing that can slip out or go anywhere
- Strong -- leaving the best to last - it has the long diagonal load shifting structure of the '8' and a lot more meat to 'give' in the case of shock loading.
- ..and did I mention that you can tie it midline?
OK, you cannot reasonably tie it though your harness ring, but then no one has stated that need yet, and as I mentioned earlier, it is my preference to clip to my harness/belt anyway.
Immediate reactions - no way, it's only a flimsy little old OH - it can't be any good - but before anyone jumps off in that direction give it a try in climbing rope, you might just be surprised - this simplest of knots really has an awful lot going for it !!
Derek
-
Firstly thanks for the feedback/comments.
First to SS369:
Just because I feel the need to ask: Is this, when it is potentially settled, going to be any better, in any way, than the much used fig.8 tie in? Seems to me the fig8 has done a reliable job for a while now. Pretty compact, easy to tie, relatively easy to untie, been secure.
Just asking.
Scott
Response: In the world of climbing, dynamic (EN 892) ropes are getting thinner and crucially - lighter in weight. Hardly anyone lead climbs with 11.0mm diameter ropes anymore. The sweet spot is now in the 9.1 - 10.2mm range. For example, Beal make a 9.1mm diameter rope called a 'joker'. It is certified in all 3 categories or single, half and twin.
Thinner ropes cinch up tighter after lead falls (ie potentially hard falls). The figure 8 eye knot becomes quite difficult to untie after repeated hard falls (as happens when you are working a new route or climbing at your limit).
In top rope climbing, 11.0mm diameter ropes are still popular and obviously you dont take long hard falls in top rope climbing (unless the belay person has failed in his basic duty of care and dropped you). Therefore, you will tend to find that figure 8 eye knots are a popular tie-in method in this context.
So the issue... modern climbing ropes are getting thinner. 11mm ropes are no longer the norm. Figure 8 eye knots are definitely harder to untie after repeated lead falls. Consider also that the climber would have tired hands - from all the hard cranking on tiny pockets and holds with forearms 'pumped'. I know that after some hard climbing I couldn't even squeeze an orange to save my life...imagine trying to untie a stubborn knot in this scenario. Also, consider extreme cold and numb fingers in alpine environments.
I agree that a figure 8 eye knot (ABoK #1047) is easy to tie and learn - but it still requires a 2 stage tying process. Anchoring your rope to a sturdy tree can be slow and cumbersome (for inexperienced persons). They would first need to form a simple 8 and then go round the tree and then re-thread the rope back through this pre-formed knot to complete the process.
A bowline avoids this tedious process...
Consider also that the ability to tie a rope directly through the harness to make a direct rope-to-harness connection is of paramount importance (see my rant below). Again, the bowline avoids the tedious 2 stage tying process of securing the rope to your harness.
There is also the needs of vertical rescue teams - in a patient/stretcher/medic scenario there could be loadings of up to 250kg at the knot interface with the stretcher. Again, the knot needs to be secure, stable and strong (and easy to untie after high loading). And Bowlines seem to be the norm in the USA with SAR teams... can anyone explain this? The 2 forms of Bowline that are in common use in the USA include the Yosemite bowline and what I will call a long tail bowline (a standard #1010 but with super long tails). The long tails are used to make a backup tie in for the medic and the patient (if the patient is wearing a harness in the stretcher).
To DerekSmith:
Thanks for the drawings. I tied the first variant - yes its simple but I don't think it adds anything remarkable to the subject. Its not blowing any wind up my skirt! It is a contribution - but I don't think it is the equal of say Dan Lehman's End Bound Double Bowline (EBDB) or my variant the EBSB with yosemite finish. There could be issues with novices tying this form and not leaving enough tail protruding or perhaps too much tail and getting confused (we call it 'house-keeping' in Australia). In that, too much tail can become a trip/snag hazard or can interfere with attempts to clip into a carabiner (tail gets in the way). I prefer the yosemite finish because it places the tail on a parallel exit path with the standing part - thereby allowing users to tie a backup double overhand knot to finish (if they wish). It also keeps the tail out of the way which is a good thing.
As for the second drawing - I can't understand it - is there an error with it? - The red line is broken/disjointed from the blue line... Can we also agree on some terminology - you use the the term Working End (WE) instead of tail..any reason for this? I would like to establish common ground for defining the anatomy of a knot.
I have one other major issue - and that is the notion of using a clip-in method of securing a rope to a climbers harness (ie the carabiner forms the interface between the users harness and the eye knot). This is DANGEROUS!
Why is it dangerous. In a word; cyclic loading.
Cyclic loading causes the carabiner to rotate into a sideways (ie cross-loading) configuration.
The weakest part of a carabiner is the gate. The last thing you want to do is direct the force of a fall across the gate of a carabiner - this is simply a bad idea.
I will point out a landmark case here in Australia known as the 'Jade Francis case'.
Jade Francis was 15 yrs old when she became a paraplegic in an indoor climbing gym accident.
The owner/proprietor of the climbing gym was convicted of an offense under the Occupation Health & Safety (OHS) Act for failing to provide a safe and healthy workplace and safe system of work.
It was held that using a clip-in method (with carabiner) was inherently risky on account of cyclic loading which leads to rotation and misalignment of a carabiner.
There was a public outcry and the State Government responded by enacting legislation to prevent clip-in attachment methods at artificial climbing surfaces and other fixed sites such a challenge ropes courses.
Both the manufacturer of the carabiner and harness and the supplier gave opinion evidence in the court that cyclic loading leads to carabiner misalignment. They testified that tying the rope directly into the harness was the only way to eliminate the risk of cross-loading a carabiner (that is, remove the carabiner from the equation).
...
Now I can tell you from my climbing experience (which is considerable), carabiners do rotate in your harness. I see it happen virtually all the time. It is a particular problem in abseiling - as you make your way to the edge you get cyclic loading events and it is not uncommon to see the locking carabiner rotate into a cross-loaded configuration with the descending device bearing on the gate. I see many abseilers almost subconsciously looking down and monitoring their carabiners and giving it a bump with their hand to re-align it. But, it only takes one momentary lapse of concentration and you have unacceptable risk.
Edit: It is also a common occurrence while belaying a climber - the locking carabiner in the harness is subject to cyclic loading events which cause the carabiner to rotate and become misaligned. Again, if you watch a belayer in action, you'll see that they (the belayers) regularly look down and monitor their carabiner alignment and give it a bump with their hand to straighten it out (so the load is directed along the spine and not across the gate). The reason they look down is that they know (like an unconscious competence) that carabiner misalignment while belaying is common... it tends to be more of a problem while belaying a lead climber than a top rope climber - but it can also happen easily in a top rope scenario.
I would argue that if this is the way you have been attaching a rope to you harness - you have been LUCKY! Its a numbers game... one day you'll get caught out just like poor Jade Francis.
Anyhow, I am still keen for feedback/opinion on the EBSB with yosemite finish..
agent smith
EDIT: Added important fact that ropes are getting thinner, but more importantly, they are also getting lighter in weight (weight per meter is a crucial factor when climbing long hard routes).
-
Okay, just completed a quick field test of the EBSB with yosemite finish. Please refer to figures 26 & 27 on p9 of my Bowline analysis paper VER 1.7.
I took a 1.0m lead climbing fall on to a Beal Joker 9.1mm diameter dynamic (EN 892) kernmantel rope.
I'm still alive, which is a good sign. The EBSB was easy to untie and held its structure and form after the shock load.
I repeated the fall using a figure 8 eye knot (#1047). This knot was very hard to untie...in that it took some working to loosen it.
I weigh 100kg.
I am reluctant to take bigger falls at this stage - mainly because I'm a coward and secondly, it stresses and strains my gear (and my nice new Joker rope).
I also did some static hangs in my garage where I suspended myself from a bolt using a length of my Joker rope - and did a few aggressive bounces up and down to stress and load the EBSB.
Again, the knot performed well in that it held its shape and form and was easy to untie after loading. I repeated this bounce test using a Butterfly knot and a Figure 8 eye knot to anchor the Joker rope to a bolt. The Butterfly knot was very difficult to untie - took quite some effort before I eventually managed to loosen it. The figure 8 was also a little difficult to untie, but not as hard as the Butterfly.
Am still waiting for some considered feedback/opinion on this End Bound Bowline variant... I don't think it has been published before and I can find nothing in any texts anywhere recommending its use.
Dan, what say you?
I imagine you might have played with this variant while devising your EBDB, but did you publish it anywhere? Is it reported anywhere by anyone as a possible life support knot?
I am somewhat excited about the structure of this knot - it borrows from Dan Lehman's EBDB masterpiece but simplifies it... I know you are not a yosemite supporter, but creating such a finish sets the tail on a parallel path with the Spart thereby mimicking the form of #1047 - which has some spin-off benefits...eg, some users are adamant about using a double overhand knot to secure and finish the bowline. It also keeps the tail well clear of the eye (which I think has merit).
EDIT: Did a google search and found this link: http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=4
Has anyone ever heard of an Edwards Bowline? (attributed to Rowland Edwards)
I tried it but I am not a big fan...however it does place 3 rope diameters into the nipping loop but the methodology is a little contrived for me... I prefer the EBSB with yosemite finish (but I am biased).
agent smith
-
Wow, you bite !!
Nomenclature -- WE working end - the end you are working with to tie the knot - it isn't a tail until you have finished with it and as I was continuing the knot, it was still the WE.
First variant -- indeed it does not have the mass of rolls and tucks you seem to think confers security. Instead it utilises the principle of self holding, the three functional holding parts of the knot each hold one another, much like the constrictor holds itself. Follow the functional gripping parts around and you will see how each holds the next like a snake eating its own tail. It is the foundation of a stable knot and should not be confused with tangles that rely on mass friction to imbue stability.
Second variant, sorry, missed out the curve which shows the old WE taking the new red path (this one is pretty, but not as good as the first) - no wind up your knickers here.
Re clipping in. I did make the point that I use the DMM Belay Master
(http://www.actionoutdoors.co.uk/shop/images/dmm/belay%20master.jpg)
After locking the screwgate, the clamp is closed creating an 8 configuration. This design stops cross loading and prevents accidental opening of the screwgate. It also nicely isolates my harness from the climbing/belay rope and equipment. I was not aware that your legislature had stepped in and made such attachments illegal. That is sad, because the law is always a blunt and ignorant tool and can never be appropriate for all occasions, but will be applied so none the less. Luckily, you have to live with it and not me.
As to your assertion that climbing is a numbers game, you are Oh so right, and that is why it is critical to have the thinking brain in gear all the time and always consider overall system functionality. I had been climbing for over four years before I saw a bowline slide open. Pretty new shiny climbing rope, a class of beginners had been roped up and checked and were about to make their first assents of a nice 'Nursery slab', then before my eyes, a properly tied dressed and set bowline simply untied itself and the climbing rope hung open ended through climbers harness. Once in four years, but that number was 'up', only by luck that the situation was not perilous.
I tried a couple of security tie outs, but finished up tying the bight back lock method described in variant three. Little did I know at the time, it was also giving me considerable protection against the greatest failing of the bowline - its fundamental design flaw - it is designed to be just about the weakest knot possible. Fine for mass tiedown, non critical applications but how on earth did it ever become the primary link between a climber and their lifeline? Probably no one gave it much thought ??
Take the Sheetbend - a half hitch around a bight(Becket).
Easy to tie and release, only secure if the load is constant and can flick open if the load evaporates, but strength wise this little knot is surprisingly good. The half hitch (or 'simple hitch') is used as a self holding load shedding fixing. The load is shed frictionally through a two diameter round turn, and the end is clamped by the sheet load. The more load, the more the end is clamped and the more the frictional load can be generated into the two Becket lines. The load transfer geometries of this knot are extreemly good and hence its surprising strength.
But the Bowline is the same structure, a half hitch to a bight, where then did the strength go? The answer comes from a total misuse of the half hitch. Instead of simply being a self gripping structure, in the Bowline the HH becomes a critical load transfer point with almost the worst possible geometry.
To break a cord by hand, you make two interconnected loops in the hand and snatch load one end. The load is focussed on a single diameter 180 degree turn - maximum compression on the inner face and maximum elongation on the outer face and the cord snaps at the junction of the loops. The Bowline has almost an identical construction in its primary load path, created by loading both sides of the HH. The cord makes a 90 degree turn about itself (single diameter), so as the load force enters this critical point it immediately meets the restraining force from one side of the load loop. This is the weak spot of the Bowline and cannot be designed out without it becoming no longer a Bowline.
The Bowline is great for quick, bulk, non critical fixings. It is arguably the last knot you would use in a life critical application.
"It is a numbers game", yes and the greater the complexity and the higher the frequency, the harder it becomes to ensure the numbers are low enough to 'take the risk'. Ropes are changing - getting thinner, lighter and stronger. But thinner means smaller and therefore tighter one diameter turns and this is making the critical weakness of the Bowline ever more relevant. Enhancements like the double turn and the Edee Bedee are good, but they do not focus on the critical weakness of the Bowline, while changes in rope may well focus so heavily on this weakness that it might push the numbers game into another actual event.
So I repeat, safety is about "having the thinking brain in gear all the time and always consider overall system functionality". It is not about blindly following the law, it is not about blindly believing that new rope design does not bring with it its own issues and it is not about deliberately choosing a knot known to have a fundamental strength flaw. Go figure.
Is it starting to feel chilly around the knickers yet?
Let me know if you want to discuss the Bowlines G spot further (in this case, G is for grief).
Derek
-
EDIT: Did a google search and found this link: http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=4
Has anyone ever heard of an Edwards Bowline? (attributed to Rowland Edwards)
I tried it but I am not a big fan...however it does place 3 rope diameters into the nipping loop but the methodology is a little contrived for me... I prefer the EBSB with yosemite finish (but I am biased).
agent smith
This is a variant of the second alternative I showed before, except it only collars one of the loop (eye) lines and adds yet another 8-esque end tuck. Yet more attempts to prevent that falling apart which is natural for the basic Bowline.
But look in detail at the structure.
(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/Edwards%20Bowline.jpg)
image courtesy of UKClimbing.com
The loaded HH (simple hitch) structure is there in its full glory (even though there are three diameters in the nipping loop there is still a 90 degree single diameter load transfer 'G' spot). But I guess the author does not worry about this because he claims the Bowline has the same strength as the fig 8 and the only reason people are taught the 8 is because it is so easy ???
It also has the credit of having been posted on UKClimbing, so it must be right - mustn't it?
Stuff like this sends the shivers through me, loads of faux security yet the 'G' spot sits there in full view and it's even given the accolade of being as strong as the '8'.
Derek
-
Okay, just completed a quick field test of the EBSB with yosemite finish. Please refer to figures 26 & 27 on p9 of my Bowline analysis paper VER 1.7.
I took a 1.0m lead climbing fall on to a Beal Joker 9.1mm diameter dynamic (EN 892) kernmantel rope.
agent smith
I just took a look at the spec for Joker. 37% extension !! are you sure you are not climbing on bungee cord?
You stated that you took a 1m fall - could I ask what Fall Factor was involved?
Derek
-
I could reply in msg.-per-msg., or try to limit that number; I'll attempt to limit the posts,
but there are many things to respond to between Agent_Smith & Derek!
Firstly, thanks to A_S for the good work in updating ... ;
but no thanks for the Yosemite-finish predilection--the Yo-disease is one to contain.
I acknowledge DL's points re the inherent difficulties with adding a yosemite finish
but don't these issues also occur with a standard figure 8 eye knot (ABoK #1047)?
No: turns are 2-diameter, and there's no simple "(Half)Hitch"/"loop" structure so readily loosened.
Nor can the Fig.8 be misformed in setting, as can the YoBowl.
Also, we're trying to improve on that, not copy it. (Well, okay, the Lehman8 does both.)
Quote
Oh, yes, Clove Bwl. A beauty of this and --better, IMO-- Cow Bwl are the "mirrored"
variations in which you "collar" both ends of the loop-making parts, "coming & going"
Sorry Dan, I'm lost here. You might need to hold my hand a bit and walk me through once more please...
Fine, but I want to see your *work* first--following the steps given in post#8 up until you are lost.
It just isn't that difficult (esp. in that, as with the Fig.8, there are several workable exact knots indicated).
Again, which variation is the holy grail? . . . for mission-critical applications in a life-support role.
I remarked above about the intended user domain--pointing to dffering needs & materials
between SAR/caving & rockclimbing, e.g.. One knot might not fit all as best. I sense that your
explorations have been accompanied, physically, by only a limited (maybe just one) rope set;
in maybe stiffer ropes in which I'm trying these variations, many just don't feel good at all.
[re Derek's 1st-shown Bowline extension (shown in Rigger's Apprentice and elsewhere) of tucking
the end back perpendicularly between SPart & collar]
This end is now clamped by the bight
which is clamped by the HH
which is now clamped by this returned end. .:. The knot is now self holding.
I don't find the HH so well clamped by this tucking, esp. in firm rope, which as has been pointed
out repeatedly above--the collar is not snug around the SPart and things loosen here.
Moreover, the end is given a hard/1dia turn en route to the tuck.
---------
In Derek's 2nd secured Bowline, well, that's interesting but a long-winded way to do less well
what I've described above as "Janus" variants--one of which Agent_Smith has sort of shown
in version #6 of his pdf ("sort of" in this sense: the tail must be tensioned more, and the collar
around the eye legs drawn tight, not allowing that broad spread of the image (the goal is to
keep the SPart-side eye leg up snug to the nub, providing thus sufficient friction on the SPart
to prevent it from loosening into the central nipping HH/loop)).
There is a similar variation for the Common Bwl (#1010).
---------
The 3rd Bowline variation Derek presents--that of tying the knot with a bight, and using the
nature of its "end" (i.e., its being a bight/loop/eye) to completely lock the knot. This is a very good
knot to use vice the Fig.8 for TR (top-rope) anchors where the two ends are taken to separate
anchor points (redundancy); it can take a day's worth of climbing and be easily untied. Also,
by some dressing of it (relatively obvious), BOTH potential SParts look to have beautiful paths
into the knot--look quite strong, to me: they bend around **4** diameters of rope to compress.
A quite similar knot can be tied in the more usual method, by repeating the threading-rope-through-harness
and then the "rabbit-out-of-hole-&-around-tree-&-back-into-hole" collaring , and then, take the end
around under (re "front" view as freshly defined here in the pdf from Agent_Smith) all legs and have it
dive back down through the central nip (bing: diameter #5) for a securing lock)--this, and some other
like finishes, look much better to me than what is now done by some climbers, which is to tie the usual
Bowline on a Bight in this "re-weaving" method (and wasting the end in forming a shadow "HH"/loop).
And re clipping in, geeesh.
1) "cyclic loading" isn't the issue: it's UN- & RE-loading (with the emphasis on "un-", allowing the
'biner orientation to change). Frankly, I think that the rockclimbers' lust for using locking 'biners
everywhere is unwarranted; using two non-locking 'biners, opposed , would be my choice.
2) the locking 'biner could be employed to simply clip off the bight-end after direct, through-the-harness
attachment with the rope bight (which, yes, looses Derek's ability for easy unclipping). (On some
rockclimbing one can read the specious rationale against a 'biner as it being "another link in the
system, which increases chances of failure" --um, oh sure ... .)
I liked the security of this knot and only moved to the '8' because of the undue strain the Bowline imposes on the rope if the need comes to load it heavily.
Regarding your last question - "is any bowline going to be preferred to the '8'?", not by me it won't and that is down to security and strength
This makes little sense to me. Strength of many knots--indeed, ANY knot--is adequate in the OP's use,
but maybe there's some wear'n'tear aspects of those-testing-weaker-on-slow-pull. One can read all
sorts of data for the Fig.8 (which, need I reiterate, is never specifically oriented) and the Bowline (which
allows of various settings, and some variations). And NONE for the Derek-used 4dia-crunching version,
which I'll guess tests stronger than most Fig.8s ("most actually tied like this/that" Fig.8s, per user, I mean).
The Bowlines with 3 diameters in the central nipping loop do not have a known test history. (I have just
returned from the beach with some 400' of 7.x & 8.x mm marine kernmantle : yes, far from ideal (although,
by golly, someone might need to knot just such material--and should that act be guided by tests on
new rope?!), but at least I hope it's stable enough (equally strong/weak overall) to shed some light
on knot mechanics (on that in frictive rope, anyway).
And these extensions of the Bowline, made initially to redress the vulnerability to loosen in some
materials, are going to be secure, and maybe more so than the Fig.8 (which can resist being set
tight (despite risking becoming "welded" tight upon heavy loading), although usually without much
risk of coming untied, OR with the loose knot being prone to capsizing--it isn't (it would only be
quite vulnerable to flyping on ring-loading, which loading might be completely unlikely).
* Easy to tie
* Easy to remember
* Hard to get wrong in the cold or the dark
* Easy to untie even after extreme loading
* Secure
* Strong
The bowline fails on the last two
and even the more secure variants fail on the last one and start to loose out on the first three.
Even my preferred bight method failed on the last requirement.
The '8' fails on the first four, especially the fourth.
As argued above, these extended bowlines w/3-4-5 diameters within the nipping loop
should be strong. Might they induce friction-heat on cyclical loading (such as mooring
a boat), I don't know, but the looseness inherent in the knot might come with this issue.
But I completely disagree with Derek's assertion here--and so should he, as these knots
don't fit his rationale of the sharp turn. (Moreover, testing of the Bowline often shows it
to be rather strong, as noted.) And these variations are secure--at least adequately so
for various uses.
OK, tie a nice fat slipped overhand knot. ...
This topological structure can go into various forms--such as #1696, intended qua hitch
(and found by me in a net's anchoring to single bricks in a museum (Rock Hall, Maryland, USA))--;
the general tactic of inserting a bight end of an eye into the nub and then doing the "back-flip"
works in all sorts of knots--and the Honda knot would be my Overhand orientation of choice,
for ease of untying. I do not believe this other one will be.
The ability to form the eyeknot easily in the end--not using a bight-tying method--should be
obvious for tying in, which is in the OP; and why start off with something limited in this regard?
you use the the term Working End (WE) instead of tail ... any reason for this?
I would like to establish common ground for defining the anatomy of a knot.
[VS]
Nomenclature -- WE working end - the end you are working with to tie the knot -
it isn't a tail until you have finished with it and as I was continuing the knot, it was still the WE.
Yes and no: Derek points to an aspect that I think applies also to the standard use of "[SPart]"
--i.e., an implicit state of the knot, either finished (re "tail") or being tied ("WE" & "SP"). Good to keep in mind.
But re WEnd, the fact is that in some knots the part that one is actually working with is not
the end, or not the side that will become a "tail"--and ditto, of course, for SPart--, but I get the sense
that it's generally presumed that the matching exists (although there's not so well established a
term for my use of "SPart"--"live end", "mainline" are a couple I've seen. Tricky aspect, and one,
yes, it will be helpful to get clearly articulated.
I also want a term to designate any/all of the parts of a knot that leave the "nub", which in the case
at hand are, in my terms: SPart, end/tail, eye legs (SPart-side, end-side).
I also did some static hangs in my garage where I suspended myself from a bolt using a length of my Joker rope
- and did a few aggressive bounces up and down to stress and load the EBSB.
Although neither of these loadings should've been in doubt. Rather, it is the jostling (& rubbing against rock!)
of the knot without tension that is of greatest concern for security. (Except in, e.g., tying a Bowline in super-slick
HMPE (bare, not what climbers call "Spectra") or other material where it has been seen to slip by great tension.)
I repeated this bounce test using a Butterfly knot and a Figure 8 eye knot to anchor the Joker rope to a bolt.
The Butterfly knot was very difficult to untie - took quite some effort before I eventually managed to loosen it.
The figure 8 was also a little difficult to untie, but not as hard as the Butterfly.
And I'd better remind readers that both of these knots can assume various orientations,
and that the Butterfly is Asymmetric, so varies depending on which *end* is loaded in opposition to the eye
(I'm assuming that you weren't talking about through-loading this mid-line eyeknot.)
Am still waiting for some considered feedback/opinion on this End Bound Bowline variant...[aka EBSB]
I don't think it has been published before and I can find nothing in any texts anywhere recommending its use.
Dan, what say you?
GRATUITOUSLY COMPLEX ; TOO CLEVER BY HALF ! !
--especially regarding tying it: the more tucking you require, the more of a pain in the ass
it is to do, and the people who will do it, and fewer times they do so! And, not so effective re security.
I imagine you might have played with this variant while devising your EBDB, but did you publish it anywhere?
Is it reported anywhere by anyone as a possible life support knot?
The EBDB's end-binding wrap doesn't work so well on a single Bowline, as it wraps around
just 2 diameters, which is a poor, non-circular-like bending. One CAN orient the end so that
it wraps around the end-side eye-leg, and thus gains a diamter, and holds better. But if one
is going to this trouble, I think it's worthwhile to use the EBDB, which should still hold better
(and itself allows for the inclusion of the eye-side eye-leg, but that I think goes into excess
bulkiness and diminished/dubious returns in behavior).
There are all sorts of knotting components , so to speak--the back-flipping of a bight-end,
the end-wrapping, the YoBowl-tucking, the "doubling" of some part, ... : one can work out
a table of combinations and fall over from exhaustion at having to give each one consideration.
(It's best if the YoBowling is first to go, to ease this situation.) And to this, you added this
"Eureaka" aspect of another tuck of the end beneath its very binding wrap!! How do you
expect to tighten this wrap, which is loose 'til the end is stuck through it, and then ... ?
--leave sufficient end to have as a small bight's worth of material to tighten down and then
have to pull that excess out to dangle? --quite wasteful of material & time & effort & memory.
but creating ]b]such a finish sets the tail on a parallel path with the Spart[/b] thereby mimicking the form of #1047 [Fig.8]
- which has some spin-off benefits: eg, some users are adamant about using a double overhand knot to secure and finish the bowline.
It also keeps the tail well clear of the eye (which I think has merit).
We keep going over this. If you want an easy Strangle hitch tie-off, the Janus bowlines are good,
and they are very quickly tied. All this "end out of the eye" business leaves me cold: I've never much
found the end to actually be IN the eye (the normal Bowline's SPart's draw on the end in fact
pulls it up to one side). But I've pointed out ways to avoid this. A simple step to do both is let those
who suffer this defect in desires tie off the end with the strangle from wherever it ends up. The Janus
versions, incl. those with a "double Bowline" base, and the "mirrored" ones (which you need to take
ALL of you time spent fancying the Yo-ness into learning instead :D ) send the end SPartwards.
To MY mind, having the end going SPartwards implies that, for a LEAD climber, with a dangling eyeknot
tie-in, gravity is holding the end from easy loosening. (Though I'm not implying a need for an "Up" and
a "Down" pair of knots!)
Has anyone ever heard of an Edwards Bowline? (attributed to Rowland Edwards)
I tried it but I am not a big fan...however it does place 3 rope diameters into the nipping loop but the
method[ology] is a little contrived for me... I prefer the EBSB with yosemite finish (but I am biased).
Yes, it has been discussed, questioned. "Too clever by half" I deem it, also. --and seemingly with the same
fancy for YoBowling. It's a messing structure entailing/allowing too much slop in formation, though it will
likely perform fine, all the material keeping things pretty well in place. But it does so with less *directness*
and clarity than what I've presented here.
--dl*
====
-
[2nd half, split as over 20k characters!]
Take the Sheetbend - a half hitch around a bight(Becket).
Easy to tie and release,
only secure if the load is constant and can flick open if the load evaporates,
but strength wise this little knot is surprisingly good.
The half hitch (or 'simple hitch') is used as a self holding load shedding fixing.
The load is shed frictionally through a two diameter round turn, and the end is clamped by the sheet load.
The more load, the more the end is clamped and the more the frictional load can be generated into the two Becket lines.
The load transfer geometries of this knot are extreemly good and hence its surprising strength.
But the Bowline is the same structure, a half hitch to a bight, where then did the strength go?
The answer comes from a total misuse of the half hitch. Instead of simply being a self gripping structure,
in the Bowline the HH becomes a critical load transfer point with almost the worst possible geometry.
...
The Bowline has almost an identical construction in its primary load path,
... and cannot be designed out without it becoming no longer a Bowline.
The Bowline is great for quick, bulk, non critical fixings.
It is arguably the last knot you would use in a life critical application.
Incredible!!!
Derek, was the URLink above to Dave Richards's testing not working for you?
Or, frankly, just about ANY / every data shown for some "sheet bend" and "bowline" ?!!!
Because in most if not all cases, the eyeknot is shown as stronger and often considerably stronger
than the bend. And, i.p., and most relevant to the OP (the kernmantle) domain, Richards's testing
shows (1) much weaker bends, both single AND double, and (2) INsecure bends--which slip WHEN
loading is increased, hardly a testimony to greater "frictional load" and viability for such loading.
(Former forum poster Jimbo remarked that this is what he found in sheet bends he stressed.
Commercial fishers, perhaps gratuitously, usually take some means to secure the end.)
Richards notes, for 10.5mm dynamic rope:
| With 8" tail, pulled to 912 lbs. resulting in 4" tails ;
| @ 1600 lbs., the knot pulled out.
Heckuva genius in knot structure you have there!! :P
I think that your view of the Bowline's geometry is overly *flat*, 2-dimensional; there are indeed
ways--and shown here, in fact--to design a better bowline SPart curvature: starting by putting
in more material for the loop to compress--and orienting it just so--is exactly that!
As for "non-critical fixings", that will come as a big surprise to most of the maritime users,
who have a lot of history of its being so used. Now, they have some new materials to use
as do others, and there will be some adjustment, but the Bowline persists. (But in the
trawler mooring lines, darn, there are a bunch of other things--including the capsized bowline--
put to work, and I'm not sure how much of that is by design.)
but I guess the [Edwards Bowline UKClimbing article] author does not worry about this because he claims the Bowline
has the same strength as the fig 8 and the only reason people are taught the 8 is because it is so easy ...
Stuff like this sends the shivers through me, loads of faux security yet the 'G' spot sits there in full view
and it's even given the accolade of being as strong as the '8'
In full view !!!
Here's what another author has to say about these sorts of things, maybe also w/o worry:
[Craig Connally, The Mountaineering Handbook (c) 2005 ; p. 139]
I've strength-tested rethreaded figure eights against Yosemite bowlines many times; it's an
easy test, fry, wet, or frozen. Advantage: bowline, but many knots area adequately strong
for tie-in--that's not what determines the best choice. More important for mountaineers are
the ease of tying the knot quickly and correctly and the ease of untying it.
Enhancements like the double turn and the [EBDB] are good, but they do not focus on the critical weakness of the Bowline,
while changes in rope may well focus so heavily on this weakness that it might push the numbers game into another actual event.
??? The EBDB, and most of the extensions discussed here, exactly promote putting in an extra
rope diameter for the SPart to bend around, making it bend more gently (and there are further
dressing elements that go some way to ensuring a better vs. worse curvature--just having 3 strands
there isn't a guarantee of goodness, and this is something I have noticed), so the supposed increase
in bending abuse from smaller diameters is countered. But I think of the bending as something that
scales--or that the individual multi-filament fibres are WAY far from being sharply bent--;
re the rope composite, it is the same measure in diameters, hawser to cordelette!
But you can check Richards's test results for 7mm accessory kernmantle vs. 12.7mm rope and see
if your assertion rings true for the Bowline: in fact, by about 4 %-points, it doesn't.
So, your
safety is about "having the thinking brain in gear all the time and always consider overall system functionality".
has to beg the question re history and what hard data we have readily at hand,
even seemingly cut to order, for this OP.
(Chisholm's "reasoning" on "Why the bowline breaks" meets with like challenges from reality.
--dl*
====
-
Thanks for all of your considered feedback and critique DerekSmith.
I don't want this thread to divert to off-topic discussion - particularly on the legalities and intricacies of rope attachment methods for climbing. I will repeat my preference for direct tie-in methods (ie direct rope to harness interface) in contrast to carabiner clip-in methods. The DMM carabiner you refer to is not widely known or immediately familiar to all of the visitors to this forum (since many may not be climbers). What concerns me is that your words may be taken as advice since you might be perceived to be an expert on the subject. It is conceivable that some may try to emulate or try your clip-in technique using a standard locking carabiner with no captive pin, forged eye or retro-fitted device for rope containment.
However, very briefly, I should inform you that I am often called upon by Government authorities and Occupational Health and Safety inspectors to provide what is known as opinion evidence (ie expert witness testimony) in court proceedings in Australia involving height related accidents.
I would like to email you a court report I prepared for another incident involving the clip-in method (I have deleted the names of those involved for privacy reasons).
The carabiner had a captive pin to prevent cross-loading and other misalignments.
This did not stop a horrific accident involving a school boy who fell approximately 13m and sustained severe injuries. The failure mode will surprise you when you see my report...
Please confirm your email address (via private message) and I'll send it to you...
...
Back on topic.
There is another factor I ought to mention with regard to the search for the holy grail of a bowline variant that is suitable for life support applications (eg in climbing and rescue contexts).
And that is, the knot must appear to be secure. This is both a visual and a psychological factor - for example, when I momentarily peer down at my rope tie-in while executing a tricky sequence of moves on a difficult climbing route, I like to see that all is in order - dressed, compact, shape and form, etc.
Your first bowline variant has merit DerekSmith, but I just can't see it being adopted in mission critical life support applications - for the simple reason that it doesn't look secure! This is a tacit implication and one which is not easy to quantify.
I will have a play with the second knot and comment...
As for the Joker rope, I failed to mention that I climb with 'double ropes' - that is 2 x EN 892 category 'half' ropes. When the joker rope was released to public, I immediately adopted it as one of my double ropes. I try to clip the joker rope into protection in crux sections of a route - so in the event of a fall, it will be the joker 9.1mm rope that takes the initial impact. My other rope is a standard 9.0mm diameter 'half' rope.... double ropes offer many advantages over single rope systems but I wont go into detail here as it is off-topic...
..
The EBSB with yosemite finish does require a couple of tucks to finish but this is just conditioning in my view. It could be argued that all knots require a degree of concentration and attention to detail. This can be learned. Anyhow, I'm still on the hunt for my holy grail (remember, for life support applications of a mission critical nature). At this stage, the pendulum has swung in favour of the EBSB variant for me... but I am actively searching.
agent smith
EDIT: Jeesh... Just missed your post Dan - we must have crossed posted at the same time. I am taking time to carefully read and understand your considered feedback...
-
Our we saying the 'lock' in a SheetBend is a Half Hitch; even though all the force terminates on one side of this 'mechanical module'/no Tension in its Bitter End? And Simple Hitch is a Half and not a Full Hitch? Or would it be a Hitch if mounted to something else, but as a Bend, it is then a Half Hitch?
To me a SheetBend has a Hitch to a Bight, and a SheetBend to self to form eye is a Bowline, but also the Hitch has tension on both ends, so is now a Half (in a BowLine)? Another difference, i call an eye a Becket(and SheetBend to Eye a Becket Hitch, and an Eye with Hitch around (but not thru); then Bight of Hitch leg pulled down thru eye and locked with rod a Toggled Becket).
i've used a DBY plenty to trust it in the correct lines; which are lines you are familiar with and that aren't too stiff (fishing line, tight doublebraids, others as pointed out). i too think we keep looking for the Holy Grail hear. But, keep coming back to nothing is perfect in all situations, line stiffnes-strength-elasticity-slipperyness, personal educations, age group, purposes, load ranges, impacts, other similar knots used in said field etc. all are part of the mix too, for choosing one over the other tailored to suit.
Nice lil'paper; but due to the above insights that Smith points out; it does of course need a disclaimer?
-
Dan, I have read one part of your post in detail...
GRATUITOUSLY COMPLEX ; TOO CLEVER BY HALF ! !
--especially regarding tying it: the more tucking you require, the more of a pain in the ass
it is to do, and the people who will do it, and fewer times they do so! And, not so effective re security.
and;
The EBDB's end-binding wrap doesn't work so well on a single Bowline, as it wraps around
just 2 diameters, which is a poor, non-circular-like bending. One CAN orient the end so that
it wraps around the end-side eye-leg, and thus gains a diameter, and holds better. But if one
is going to this trouble, I think it's worthwhile to use the EBDB, which should still hold better
(and itself allows for the inclusion of the eye-side eye-leg, but that I think goes into excess
bulkiness and diminished/dubious returns in behavior).
Okay, I am looking closely at the structure of the EBSB. The binding loop appears (to me) to wrap around 3 rope diameters. I am counting the tail as one of the diameters. My tying method illustrates that the tail passes underneath the binding loop and then exits through the collar. I see this as three rope diameters.
I also don't think it is that complex. I find the janus variant more complex! There are degrees here.. and I think it might be a spacial/geometrical problem solving issue - with some people being better at solving 3D geometric problems than others. I tend to think that since the Yo/Bowline is already so popular (particularly in USA), the concept of tying a yosemite finish is well known and proven to work in the field. Adding the extra binding turn through the structure should not present too many technical difficulties for the masses. Again, these are only my views...
I also agree that there will never be just; one knot to bring them all and in the darkness bind them! There will always be a need for several knots within a toolbox of knots. I see the successful variant bowline as having perhaps several roles - one being a tie-in method for climbers. Other uses could include; stretcher attachment knot, and method of anchoring a rope to a tree.
Which brings me to a point about the key salient features I am looking for in this 'holy grail' of knots:
[ ] A desirable trait appears to be the tactic of placing more than 2 rope diameters into the nipping loop(s) re Dan Lehman's technical genius of his EBDB variant.
[ ] The knot must be easy to untie, even after repeated high loadings
[ ] The knot must not be too bulky
[ ] The knot should have the least possible number of tucks/turns and/or movements to complete its structure - that is, be of relatively low tying complexity (which in turn makes it reasonably easy to learn)
[ ] The knot should have a relatively high knotted to unknotted strength ratio - ideally greater than or equal to 70% strength remaining in its knotted form
[ ] The knot must actually be stable and secure
[ ] The knot must look and feel stable & secure(these are tacit factors)
[ ] The tail should ideally be clear of the eye (this is a controversial objective but one I feel should be included as a desirable outcome)
[ ] The knot must perform well in EN 1891 and EN 892 kernmantel rope construction
ABoK #1047 will always be a prominent knot in a climbers/rescuers toolbox. I personally have used #1047 for 20 years with countless numbers of lead falls on a range of rope diameters (all EN 892 certified). At no stage have I died or the knot catastrophically failed. I will readily admit that as ropes have become thinner and lighter over the years, there has been a corresponding degree of difficulty in untying the knot (I weigh 100kg). I have never had a situation where I couldn't untie the knot - but it has taken some considerable effort in some instances. And this was in a warm climate - not a snow and ice environment.
The fact remains that the Yosemite bowline is popular and gaining more popularity every year amongst climbers. My question is; Is there a better way? Is the Yo bowline the best choice? Perhaps its a question with no answer, like how big is the universe. Perhaps I want to build a better mousetrap. What has spurred me on is the concept behind the EBDB and increasing the radius of the nipping loop. This is a great concept - and the Yo/bowline doesn't have this benefit. And one comment I would like to add is that we have been focusing on putting 3 or more rope diameters into the nipping loop - but not much has been said about putting 2 rope diameters through the collar. The yosemite finish does increase the radius of the collar - if curvature (specifically a tight radius) is a factor in rope stress and strain, then anything that increases the radius of bends is surely a good thing? The EBSB with Yosemite finish therefore also acts to increase the radius of the collar. Again, I know that this may be an untested and controversial feature.
I am still leaning toward the EBSB with Yosemite finish... look, I know that by making outright/bold comments as I have just done will immediately draw everyones attention. If I am popping up on your radar screen and I have your attention, then I am another step closer to crossing the finish line (which seems to always be just over the horizon!)...
In relation to the EBDB - I see this knot as a demonstration of engineering par excellence. But, for me, it fails on the tacit features of "looks" and "feels" secure and stable. I also am of the opinion that it may tend to work itself loose after cyclic loading (load on, load off, then load on and load off...ie tension, then no tension, then tension again...repeat the cycle). This might also be more pronounced in stiffer brands of EN 1891 and EN 892 ropes. I would be happier if the tail was tucked somewhere to lock it all together. I should point out that I am speaking in relation to mission critical applications in life support context (eg vertical rescue and climbing). I would have NO hesitation in using the EBDB in any other non mission critical application - eg for use in rigging/lifting with a crane, camping, boating, etc...
The Janus also fails on these points (for me). It doesn't look and feel stable and secure to me. I can also foresee that it may work loose when subjected to cyclic loading.
A paradox is that the standard Yosemite bowline does look and feel stable and secure to me! But it could benefit from having a third rope diameter inside the nipping loop, blah blah blah...
...
Be that as it may, I am still reading through all the posts...
And by the way, I still would like a definitive answer re the EBSB with yosemite finish - has it been published anywhere before? Has it been described or documented in any way?
...
To answer DerekSmith's question re the fall factor of my 1.0m lead fall... There was 10m active rope fed out from the belay device and I had a 1m fall. This equates to a fall factor of 0.1 (three fifths of sweet bugger all). But, it did act to put some stress and strain on my knot. Remember, I weight 100kg. The figure 8 eye knot was very difficult to untie with the joker 9.1mm diameter rope - in that I had to apply some considerable effort to work the knot loose. The EBSB with Yosemite finish was easy to untie - in that I did not have to apply any force or significant effort to loosen the knot.
agent smith
-
GRATUITOUSLY COMPLEX ; TOO CLEVER BY HALF ! !
--especially regarding tying it: the more tucking you require, the more of a pain in the ass
it is to do, and the fewer people who will do it, and fewer times they do so!
And then, it's not all so effective re security.
I also don't think it is that complex. I find the janus variant more complex! There are degrees here ...
The EBSB with yosemite finish does require a couple of tucks to finish but this is just conditioning in my view.
First off, the name "EBSB" belies the actual degree of variance with the EBDB;
implicit in the EBDB is an EB(s)B, which is the undoubled-loop/hitch knot,
to which you have added both a further tuck through the "EBinding" AND the Yo.finish.
I call "foul"!
It is more than adding further tucks to an already mind-boggling extension for the masses,
but that tuck cannot be well made--drawn tight, as it should be--without attentive and
difficult working !! Yes, your AEBSB (Adulterated) w/Yosemite sparkles involves
a 3rd diameter within the end-binding, but that diameter is the tail and must be added
prior to tightening the wrapping but then the tail is going out and tucked yet again and
there is nothing left to haul the binding tight with, unless you budget just enough bonus
rope ... --which is a waste of material, and might beget a "safety" knot just to remove
the annoyance of a long flapping tail! --which would OTHERWISE be a ready alert
to the knot having lost some tying and been coming loose: you remember, that thing
you might see when glancing down just before you lunch for your crux move!
To see this as no more complex than any of the Janus variants is to seriously fail
to assess the knots reasonably. In the little space that one has between a couple
and a few more wraps, this is a huge difference.
Which brings me to the point of your illustrations (photos): they are good for seeing
pretty much what is entailed in each knot (again, getting that proper facing prominent
is a help), but they in some cases leave unshown what the knot should look like
DRESSED & SET--which is, afterall, what the belayer should be double-checking
for, not for the slightly intermediate form.
I set the EBDB by: quickly giving some tug to the whole knot, and barring some gross
imbalance in looseness, I tension the EndBinding, and haul tight the SPart-side eye-leg
(which , were the EBinding not adequately tight, would be in vain--any tensioning
immediately lost back into a loose knot), which puts the clamp upon the EBinding,
which then gets a final setting, and finally the collar is sized to try to anticipate its
stretch such that it will see the SPart firmly pressing around the knot: coming sort
of around over the double turns as it flows into them, some pressure put on them
and not all upon the constricted legs of the bight.
And you simply canNOT do this direct, full setting of those knots with the tail tucked
through the EBinding--not easily, not marketably to a user community resistant
to change and skeptical of the bowline.
-----
For the Janus-ii let's call it--one you got verbally and put into a photo (Fig.32-3)--,
tying flows from the quick-tie's HH/loop-forming maneuvre to selective collaring
that yields a Cowboy/1034.5 Bowline base, and then the end is swung easily
behind the eyelegs to come back over/around them and back down into the
central nipping HH/loop, making a symmetricly formed (aiding inspection) knot;
setting proceeds much like for a common Bowline with the added hauling tight
of the eye-leg collar--set tighter than the SPart's collar, for a bend in this only
half-loaded part is not a liability, and the eye leg needs to be snug to the nub
to press secure the SPart's turn in the HH. --same finish to a Dbl.Bowline of
"Cowboy" orientation gets good results.
--------
Btw, re the history of the Janus Bwl attributed to Prohaska, please see
http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Alpine_journal/ (http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Alpine_journal/)
and note Wright & Magowan's well prior such knot, which I think differs
only in the passing/crossing of the end with itself on final tuck-exit,
which is a trivial thing. And THAT is a 3-diameter bowline.
And that is, the knot must appear to be secure. ... for example, when I momentarily peer down at my rope tie-in
while executing a tricky sequence of moves on a difficult climbing route, I like to see that all is in order - dressed, compact, shape and form, etc.
Un-huh: and in a stressful quick glance you can see at most whether a seemingly
longer tail is dangling--hardly whether the right tucks/wraps have been made,
which is a pre-climbing check, arguably done jointly with the belayer (who doesn't
want to catch you in the lap!).
Your first bowline variant has merit DerekSmith,
but I just can't see it being adopted in mission critical life support applications
- for the simple reason that it doesn't look secure! This is ...
... absolute poppycock: why, it doesn't LOOK secure because it won't even stand still
for a picture, let alone a walk up the wall!! What in the world are you tying this knot
in that in any way gives the slightest disguise to its considerable INsecurity? I cannot
let this pass w/o rebuke, for the knot is VERY lacking in security in the climbing rope
I've tied & re-tied it in now several times, completely baffled by its recommendation
and now a seconding. ???
As for the Joker rope, I failed to mention that I climb with 'double ropes' - that is 2 x EN 892 category 'half' ropes.
Which is something I've never quite understood, since diagrams of half-rope use show that
many falls can essentially be on JUST a half-rope, the other being unclipped relative to that
particular fall point. In any case, relevant to this discussion, what IS the tie-in method: TWO
tie-in eyeknots (so, two strands of rope running through the harness)? --conceivably, one
rope could be tied into the 2nd and the 2nd alone tied to the harness. If two strands ... ,
then one wouldn't be wanting to use a twin-eye/redundant-eye eyeknot!
--dl*
====
-
VER 1.8 is up... still have enough fuel in the gas tank to spur me on...
Dan, I have deleted the last two grotesque variants as I agree with you in that they are not in the same engineering class as the other variants in this paper.
I have had a second go at photographing what I'll tentatively call a cowboy janus variant...hope it looks better this time!
With regard to cinching up and dressing all of the knots - I am trying to strike a balance between obtaining high quality images and still being able to follow/understand the knot geometry. I agree that maybe I should indicate that none of the images are properly cinched up & dressed - they are all generally loosely tied.
... with regard to climbing with double ropes - there are numerous and significant benefits to be had, particularly if you are establishing new long multi-pitch routes in wilderness areas. This subject perhaps is best let for another thread (but then it wouldn't be a knotting topic).
And I am still not hearing definitive argument as to why the for want of a better name EBSB with yosemite finish should NOT be used...
agent smith
-
[ ] The knot must look and feel stable & secure(these are tacit factors)
[ ] The tail should ideally be clear of the eye (this is a controversial objective but one I feel should be included as a desirable outcome)
[ ] The knot must perform well in EN 1891 and EN 892 kernmantel rope construction
The first is silly (and how would you expect to test for that?).
The second is without a compelling rationale for a tie-in knot.
And then there's that issue of what a "mantel" is, contrasting with what the rope has.
(But we've been over that previously. Google has interesting counts on this.)
The fact remains that the Yosemite bowline is popular ...
A variation is more easily made by bringing the tail across UNDER itself (given the
"front" view), in which case it would bend around 2 rather than 1 diameter; this is also
an easier knot to tie and to tie as a Single Bowline in the Bight. --something for your
blank pages, maybe. But with all your going astray, you're still due to figure out at
least one of the various "mirrored" bowlines--ones with the Clove, Cow, or --how to
say-- "split Clove/Cow" bases. (The "split" cases loose on the easy understanding grounds,
but I do like one of them!)
but not much has been said about putting 2 rope diameters through the collar. The yosemite finish does increase the radius of the collar
- if curvature (specifically a tight radius) is a factor in rope stress and strain, then anything that increases the radius of bends is surely a good thing?
But I have addressed this: that extra material in the collar could simply shift such that the two diameters
aligned to become a 1-diameter bend with the 2nd strand just, so to speak, "standing in the shadow"
of the 1st (recall my point that 3 diameters better approximates a circle). I think that should push come
to shove, the end will shift out of any helpful compression--though it just occurred to me if in fact it
could possibly provide enough compression on the SPart to give Connally's asserted strength gain
--something I've not seen otherwise documented (and Prohaska claimed brief testing to show his
Janus being stronger). The collar around the SPart isn't desired to be enlarged--that is no way
a weak point--; it might be beneficial to have an end snugged into it, but not for the purpose of
making the collar bend less.
I am still leaning toward the EBSB with Yosemite finish...
Yeah, and you thought Derek's 1st had "merit", too. I'm getting a feel here.
That "EBSB" is DOA in anyonElse's consideration, believe it.
And yet YOU think, quite a surprise, given the post it was in reply to:
And I am still not hearing definitive argument as to why the ... EBSB with yosemite finish should NOT be used...
So, I'll put the entire sentence (vs. part done before) in bold--to wit:
It is more than adding further tucks to an already mind-boggling extension for the masses,
but that tuck cannot be well made--drawn tight, as it should be--without attentive and
difficult working !!
Now, it does give good grip on the end to resist loosening, but at a price of
tying, setting, and inspecting (and some material). And in the face of simpler
alternatives that can win acceptance. (One can take the A_S aspect of the
extra tuck a step further, with slightly different-than-Yosemite wrapping and
tucking and gain a 3rd partial cover to the end. But one can work much
more happily with Mirrored Bowlines and other variants.)
... the EBDB ... fails on the tacit features of "looks" and "feels" secure and stable. I also am of the opinion
that it may tend to work itself loose after cyclic loading (load on, load off, then load on and load off.
Maybe you're not setting it adequately? Is there some reason that this knot might be vulnerable
to cyclic loading loosening? --can we see some action at a point where relaxed strands will
work something loose? I don't.
The Janus also fails on these points (for me). It doesn't look and feel stable and secure to me.
I can also foresee that it may work loose when subjected to cyclic loading.
A paradox is that the standard Yosemite bowline does look and feel stable and secure to me!
"Paradox" is one word one might use for it; others are suggesting themselves.
My shake test (in hand) is better than mere looking; how to get uniformly distributed shaking
for some duration to test a set of knots, that's a quest.
And by the way, I still would like a definitive answer re the EBSB with yosemite finish
- has it been published anywhere before? Has it been described or documented in any way?
Are you looking for someone who has read everything ever published?
The EBinding and the Yosemite tuck have been described. Some people, though
not all, can add one plus one and get to two. (Some can see one plus another
certain one leading to zero, too.)
But, it did act to put some stress and strain on my knot. Remember, I weigh 100kg.
I'll wager that you can do as much with a pulley, and more easily.
Which will tell you nothing about security & stability, and maybe not much re strength,
unless you know what to look for.
--dl*
====
-
Thanks for all of your considered feedback and critique DerekSmith.
snip...
What concerns me is that your words may be taken as advice since you might be perceived to be an expert on the subject.
snip..
agent smith
Thank you for the reminder AS, you are quite correct, I am not an expert in climbing safety and I certainly am not giving advice by stating what in my considered opinion is the the best course for myself.
However, I would post caution to you.
You clearly are taken to be an expert and are called upon to give expert testimony and particularly, your project is also clearly intended to be promoted as advice. Yet you are ever more repeatedly using terms like "It feels Like" or "It gives confidence" or "A desirable trait appears to be". You seem to be focussing on a solution which 'feels good in your opinion' but you are not developing any factual basis (assuming any exists) for this position, simply propounding and compounding 'likes' and 'feel goods'. Yet because you are taken to be an expert, your findings will be taken seriously and will not be questioned in detail or understood in context (by climbers or legal people) as they might be by the very focused expertise of the members of this forum.
Expertise is a two edged sword my friend, wield it carefully.
Derek
-
This topic is generating so many sub issues, each warranting a sub thread of their own in order to retain focus on the sub issue within the overall issue. Sadly, these sub issues are being lost in the rapidly growing volume of replies (I went to sleep and a whole new page has been added). At times like this one wishes for a forum facility to spawn off sub threads from within the primary thread, but this does not seem to be possible.
Perhaps we should consider making some 'hand made subs' by calling them 'Janus Bowline Sub... etc'
Some subs might be ...
Janus Bowline Sub... Strength
Janus Bowline Sub... Security
Janus Bowline Sub... Aesthetics
Janus Bowline Sub... Grail definition / requirements
I particularly have issues with the Strength aspect which I would like to develop in more detail, so unless you are in complete disagreement, I will post them into a new subthread.
Derek
-
Thanks for all of your considered feedback and critique DerekSmith.
As for the Joker rope, I failed to mention that I climb with 'double ropes' - that is 2 x EN 892 category 'half' ropes. When the joker rope was released to public, I immediately adopted it as one of my double ropes. I try to clip the joker rope into protection in crux sections of a route - so in the event of a fall, it will be the joker 9.1mm rope that takes the initial impact. My other rope is a standard 9.0mm diameter 'half' rope.... double ropes offer many advantages over single rope systems but I wont go into detail here as it is off-topic...
agent smith
Absolute off topic here, so I will make it short.
You stated that you climb on double ropes, one of which is the Joker - i.e. they are different ropes.
From memory, normal dynamic ropes have a ca 8% - 10% extension factor, but when I looked at the Joker spec. it stated 37% extension (AKA bungee cord).
Isn't this a bit like mixing radial and cross ply tyres on the same axle?
When you fall, your second will have both ropes through the belay and will check both at the same time, so your falling force will go roughly equally (protection permitting) into both ropes. But if one of those ropes has a high modulus of elasticity (ME) it will extend without taking an equal share of the load - essentially, the lions share of the load will go into the stiffer of the two ropes.
Imagine the analogy of climbing on one static and one dynamic rope. As you fall, all the force would be taken by the static rope and either your back would break or your protection would be smashed while the dynamic rope was only starting to think about taking any load.
Have I misunderstood the technical spec for the Joker or does your other line have a matching ME?
Derek
-
You stated that you climb on double ropes, one of which is the Joker - i.e. they are different ropes.
From memory, normal dynamic ropes have a ca 8% - 10% extension factor, but when I looked at the Joker spec. it stated 37% extension (AKA bungee cord).
Isn't this a bit like mixing radial and cross ply tyres on the same axle?
When you fall, your second will have both ropes through the belay and will check
both at the same time, so your falling force will go roughly equally (protection permitting)
into both ropes. But if one of those ropes has a high modulus of elasticity (ME) it will
extend without taking an equal share of the load - essentially, the lions share of the load
will go into the stiffer of the two ropes.
...
Have I misunderstood the technical spec for the Joker or does your other line have a matching ME?
Yes, you've grossly misunderstood: the UIAA limit on extension on the drop test is 40%; if you'd
looked at some other ropes you'd seen a range e.g. from 29% to 35%. THIS IS FOR THE DROP,
and IIRC for some subsequent drops, depending on the richness of the information given.
Your recalled figures make sense only for "static elongation"--stretch from bearing "body weight",
again using 80kg for that. What is sadly often omitted from 6,7, & 8mm accessory cord ropes is
just such information, which is relevant to abseiling, which is often done using a climbing rope
joined to a thin haul line--and I've seen it presumed that the latter will stretch more, being
weaker, but being non-dynamic I'm not so sure that this is true--but a sort of *simulated*
stretch can obtain via the thin rope's slipping through the belay device more easily.
Also, in the use of " H A L F " ropes--in contrast to using " T W I N " ropes (and "Joker" name
is won by qualifying for both of these AND qua SINGLE rope to boot!)--, it should often be
the case that only one rope bears the fall (which aspect has really puzzled me), as e.g. the
paradigm of use is where a route zig-zags up a wall, and each rope stays to its respective
left/right side, and so on any given fall, one rope is likely fetching up on the high anchor
point while the other's latest/highest anchor is well lower & away; I guess, the harder
the fall and longer the stretch, the more the 2nd rope will get to pitch in. YMMV per climb.
TWIN ropes are touted as being best for durability and resistance to cutting (qua twin),
as well as being their own 2nd-rope abseil partner.
--dl*
====
-
Again, I wish to personally express my gratitude for all the considered responses in relation to the bowlines... thank you.
Another point i wish to make is that I am trying not to direct anything as a personal attack against anyone on this forum. For example, I respect DerekSmith's bowline variant with the tuck under and across the bight. I used the word 'merit' out of respect for the man. Depending on application (perhaps in non mission critical applications involving human life support) perhaps it does have merit. I am trying to be respectful at all times...DerekSmith does have expertise in knotting matters...so I listen very carefully when he speaks/writes in this forum.
The same can be said of Dan Lehman. His technical genius at times overwhelms me. I feel that I am merely a member of parliament sitting and debating with eminent politicians of considerable power and stature...so I listen and take it all in and try to add my opinion here and there.
On the subject of the clip-in method of attaching a climbing rope to a persons harness - I have been involved in investigating several horrific cases where children have had their lives virtually destroyed - and I guess it pulls some of my heart strings. I do get emotional on this subject...sorry.
I will say that in some climbing contexts - eg indoor climbing facilities and fixed outdoor challenge ropes courses, a clip-in method can work - provided staff had accurate and well directed training and assessment. There are certain conditions that MUST be met in order to reduce the risk levels down to what I'll refer to as an 'acceptable' level (in many Australian legal jurisdictions, the phrase 'acceptable risk' appears from time to time).
In the State of New South Wales (where Sydney is located and the Opera house and all that..) a simple clip-in method has effectively been eliminated by court precedent. So what some climbing gym operators have done is to use a combination system using both a carabiner clip-in together with knot tie -in. This is now back on the subject of knots.
The clip-in + tie-in combination offers many advantages and fewer disadvantages. The State does not specify which knot is required - that is left to the owner of the workplace (or climbing gym proprietor). I have seen ABoK #1047 (figure 8 eye knot re-threaded) and ABoK #1053 (Butterfly knot). But I have yet to see ABoK #1010 (Bowline) or its derivatives.
Personally, I prefer the Butterfly since its geometry allows for tri-axial loading.
DerekSmith, I sense in your replies that you are firing a shot across my bow. I do not mean to offend - but I have an opinion (like you do). In your expert hands, you have the depth and breadth of knowledge and skill to overcome any inherent residual risk when using a clip-in method to your climbing harness. I meant to say that others in this forum may not have your climbing AND knotting skill. As I indicated, provided certain actions are taken to reduce risk, the clip-in method can and does work in top rope climbing applications (I would never recommend the method in LEAD climbing applications) and on fixed challenge ropes courses. Human error is a factor and this is what occurred in the accident involving the schoolboy who sustained horrific injuries. The carabiner was a locking design with a captive pin. I'm happy to email you the (edited) report.
Other than that, I am still actively searching for the ultimate bowline and when I use words like 'leaning toward' or 'prefer' it means just that. It is not an outright declaration of affirmation. Its just that the evidence collected thus far - makes me lean this way or that. It doesn't mean I have hit the jackpot.
As more new technical data is gathered (from experts such as Dan and DerekSmith and Co.), I might lean another way!
So far, I have stated that the EBDB is a demonstration of engineering excellence. But, I tried to point out tacit criteria (tacit is something which cannot be measured by ordinary means) plays a role for me. And I knew that this would land me in hot water. I cannot find any better words in the English dictionary to explain myself... for me, there are certain aspects of evidence and criteria which can only be explained by using the word tacit.
I can't foresee that I would use the EBDB as a tie-in method for lead climbing.. but thats only MY reaction and it may well be based on flawed logic.
I am still trying to understand WHY the Yosemite Bowline (YoBowl) has become so popular... perhaps there are tacit factors at play which I do not yet understand. For example, if a YoBowl can gain widespread acceptance, why can't an EBDB? Why do I not see the EBDB in widespread use in climbing and rescue communities? Perhaps if I could answer that question, I could find my holy grail knot...
agent smith
-
Just found this link:
http://www.dickeyfamilyresearch.com/knot_pics/bowline_list.htm
and this related link at same site:
http://www.dickeyfamilyresearch.com/knot_pics/bowline_pics_0.htm
and of course there is always one of my favourite sites (which is known to all IGKT members): http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_DoubleLoops.htm
While you've got time, have a quick look at this site: http://members.tripod.com/johnnycl/CLIMBINGKNOTS.htm
Note the 4th image down (described as a "double bowline follow-through"). It uses a yosemite finish and makes a claim that 'many sport climbers prefer this knot'). Interesting comment!
And I also found this site - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-97-61/ch4.htm while not directly Bowline related - its got some knot terminology and other information.
Will sift through all the Bowline variations therein...
The hunt goes on...
agent smith
-
I respect DerekSmith's bowline variant with the tuck under and across the bight. I used the word 'merit' out of respect for the man. Depending on application (perhaps in non mission critical applications involving human life support) perhaps it does have merit.
..DerekSmith does have expertise in knotting matters...so I listen very carefully when he speaks/writes in this forum.
I don't care if the angel Gabriel came down and blew his horn over it,
you need to call a spade a spade, and be willing to put to test the assertion.
You have the material(s) to do that. And that lame tuck-through-collar/SPart-space
Bowline is an obvious dud in climbing rope; and, quite frankly, with little to recommend
it for anything, given the NUMEROUS better alternatives! Didn't you get the story
about the king who was naked? (Or the Bush administration who were lying?)
And then the wild conjecture about the Bowline vs. Sheet Bend,
in the face of ages of evidence to the contrary (in testing & usage),
and i.p. cited test data exactly relevant to the OP given in the discussion?
On the subject of the clip-in method of attaching a climbing rope to a persons harness - I have been involved in investigating several horrific cases where children have had their lives virtually destroyed - and I guess it pulls some of my heart strings. I do get emotional on this subject...sorry.
I had left this alone, but it strikes me as most dubious to find a failure in
a 'biner--ANYway loaded--with the falls that should be occurring in a climbing
gym, which I think was the scenario--esp. of young (read "light") children!?
--at their weakest, most 'biners should be amply strong enough.
You've not responded about how a climber with Half (or Twin, for that matter)
ropes ties in: what exactly is done (in the latter case, which end (bight/ends)
has the climber?) ?! (As remarked above, I could SEE a Fig.8 eyeknot as one
end's attachment, as usual; and then the 2nd rope is tied into this Fig.8,
as though making a bend to join ropes.)
The clip-in + tie-in combination
... begs the question: why ... ? Is it that the facility has pre-tied all ropes
to the 'biner, and is sure of their security, and so sees the clip as a back-up
to possible mis-tied knots (and the latter to some back-up to 'biner failure)?!
Personally, I prefer the Butterfly since its geometry allows for tri-axial loading.
Ha! Nice rumor, but hard fact ... ? Interestingly, in data published in the CMC Rope
Rescue Manual, the through-loading difference between the Butterfly & Fig.8 was
small (one can see ranges for the B. from lousy to super (Richards's, e.g., are good);
I have to wonder at the exact geometry (a question others ignore)).
Other than that, I am still actively searching for the ultimate bowline
Here's another, which seems more snug in set form than some,
and is no more cumbersome. From the Common Bowline (#1010) start,
as you present it, pg.2 fig.1,
take the tail right over the Spart-eye leg,
and back around it leftwards under BOTH eye legs,
and up around the left-/bight-side eye leg
to be tucked down BETWEEN END & HITCH CROSSING PARTS (Derek's red zone);
- - you have now formed a loop around the eye legs - -
and finish by tucking the tail down through the just formed loop,
parallel to the eye legs, working this loop as snug as possible.
.:. This version gives a GOOD curvature to the SPart, and good friction against
various parts to help keep the knot from loosening and from loosening much
(even if it loosens some).
I can't foresee that I would use the EBDB as a tie-in method for lead climbing..
but that's only MY reaction and it may well be based on flawed logic.
Well, yes, the Janus'd Cowboy Bwl is simpler & quicker, I agree.
I am still trying to understand WHY the Yosemite Bowline (YoBowl) has become so popular
Monkey see, monkey do. If the knot gets the press, it can get more
in a nothing-succeeds-like-success fashion. Why was the "cordelette"
anchor structure so popular? It had some popular, big-name advocates
(viz., John Long), and as such things typically don't get pushed to the
extremes that might reveal deficiencies, who really knows ... ? To me,
and to some others, it seemed obvious that in many cases one would
be loading a single anchor point rather than distributing force to three;
but only upon doing testing for the 2nd edition of his Climbing Anchors
book did John do testing that documented this shortcoming. (Heck, I even
had a special cordelette powerpoint knot published in Outdoor Knots,
which, btw, was a bowline of sorts.) So, the YoBowl gets known and
insofar as there are non-Fig.8-eyeknot tyers, it gets some popularity.
Authors do a lot of copying, too--uncritically--, which is vastly easier
than researhc. E.g., the --as GBudworth-titled article leads me to call it--
Wot?knot was repeatedly published and botched or modified over a
century by many authors, and none of the variations made a decent
knot--and some were outright comical--, but if one were to measure
sucess by publication, the Wot?knot succeeded for much longer than
it should have (it shouldn't have received any press).
Will sift through all the Bowline variations therein...
That's a very lame sight, geesh.
You are "still searching", but I've yet to see your attempt at the Mirrored
Bowlines. How hard of a search is this? Take the Cow /Girth Hitch as
a base; do the bowline maneuvreing with the tail on both sides, in the
fashion of the slow-tie method ("rabbit round the tree"); this is child's
play, and I'm impressed that the Search for the Holy Bowline hasn't
managed it yet (a bowline with two rabbit holes, no less!). Alice in
Wonderland, it might put a Cheshire Cat smile in your spirit! This is
a loose-looking knot (various versions) w/good resistance to untying;
might have a bit of shock absorption, to boot. (AND it can give Derek
TWO GeeWhizSpots to color!)
--dl*
====
-
Thanks for this,
I don't have your depth and breadth of knowledge and skill Dan - and it takes me a while to understand the geometry of your creations...but I am a reasonably fast learner.
You are "still searching", but I've yet to see your attempt at the Mirrored
Bowlines. How hard of a search is this? Take the Cow /Girth Hitch as
a base; do the bowline maneuvreing with the tail on both sides, in the
fashion of the slow-tie method ("rabbit round the tree"); this is child's
play, and I'm impressed that the Search for the Holy Bowline hasn't
managed it yet (a bowline with two rabbit holes, no less!). Alice in
Wonderland, it might put a Cheshire Cat smile in your spirit! This is
a loose-looking knot (various versions) w/good resistance to untying;
might have a bit of shock absorption, to boot. (AND it can give Derek
TWO GeeWhizSpots to color!)
Attempting to tie and photograph this variant for you now...
Got it - I think. Wow, another example of your engineering genius! I just hope that I don't make a fool of myself and post the wrong damn image!
Dan, please advise if I am on the right track.
Respectfully,
agent smith
-
p. 4, Fig.8 (no, not that "Fig.8"--a real figure ) Yosemite bowline variant?
This page is currently blank. A good candidate for a YoBowl variant is the #1010 Bowline
with an Overhand-shaped vs. Fig.8-shaped (YoBowl) extension. Which is as follows:
reverse the 1st crossing of the bight's end (the tail) over the bight's other leg--i.e., make
the tail cross UNDER it (between it and loop);
and then--presto--tuck it out through the collar, YoBowl-like, ta-da!
We might call this a Single Bowline on the Bight; it (and the YoBowl, for that matter)
can be TIB (Tied Inthe Bight). Note that in this variant, the Overhand's finish entails
a 2-diameter wrap, vice the YoBowl's 1-dia. wrap.
----------
And as long as the collar is getting this gratuitous traffic, I should note that the
collar could be made with a round turn through which the Yo'd tail would be
squeezed for that tacit feel-good quality. (And it kinda resembles a wrong-way
Dbl. Bwl.) ((And this version + round-turn'd-collar is still TIB.))
Dan, please advise if I am on the right track.
I sense a Yosemite finish aching to come out.
:D
-
VER 1.9 is uploaded...
Same link: www.paci.com.au/IGKT/Bowlines.pdf
I have added what I am tentatively calling a girthed bowline (see figures 34 & 35). I think this is what Dan Lehman was describing... I noted that the geometry did not provide for 3 rope diameters placed inside the nipping loop...so I added figures 36 & 37 in a hasty attempt to provide this benefit... which may be totally screwing up Dan Lehman's creation! Anyhow, I'm sure I'll receive feedback in close to light speed...
My initial reaction was excitement over the girthed bowline but this is now tempered with thoughts that it could still be improved either by adding a third rope diameter into the nipping loop and/or a combination of locking the tail in some fashion (perhaps in some type of Yo/Bowl geometry..!).
I have also tried to incorporate DerekSmith's knot terminology to better describe a knots anatomy. Hope this is an improvement! Am seeking guidance here...
A good candidate for a YoBowl variant is the #1010 Bowline
with an Overhand-shaped vs. Fig.8-shaped (YoBowl) extension. Which is as follows:
reverse the 1st crossing of the bight's end (the tail) over the bight's other leg--i.e., make
the tail cross UNDER it (between it and loop);
and then--presto--tuck it out through the collar, YoBowl-like, ta-da!
We might call this a Single Bowline on the Bight; it (and the YoBowl, for that matter)
can be TIB (Tied Inthe Bight). Note that in this variant, the Overhand's finish entails
a 2-diameter wrap, vice the YoBowl's 1-dia. wrap.
No comprendi...trying to tie this but getting confused.. I am starting from #1010 via its front orientation right? Not exactly sure what to do with the tail...
agent smith
-
VER 1.9 is uploaded...
Faster than a speeding bullet!
I have added what I am tentatively calling a girthed bowline (see figures 34 & 35).
I think this is what Dan Lehman was describing... Anyhow, I'm sure I'll receive feedback in close to light speed...
Turnabout is fair play!
"Mirrored Bowlines" was the given name (you didn't need to search for that),
and heed the words:
1) "Take the Cow /Girth Hitch as a base;
CHECK, YOU GOT THIS. (I will note that in the COW base, unlike the CLOVE, one can reverse-orient ends.)
2) "do the bowline maneuvreing with the tail on both sides,"
BUT YOU DID >>>NOT<<< do this. We see thus only the one, usual collar. b o r i n g . --a Water Bowline-like knot.
You need this "on both sides": recall the moniker, "MIRRORED"--that means as though
a mirror was the dividing plane across (perpendicular to) the mid-section of the nub,
bisecting the Cow/Girth hitch base. The collars *reflect* each other (each around an
end of the Cow H.). I guess we could say it's a Janus-ing of a Clove/Cow/... base, then!?
And the reflection naturally provides the third diameter through the loops
(which strictly speaking breaks pure *reflection*).
And I'll remark: if you back the end out of the 2nd loop (2nd half of Cow),
and then haul hard that loop to capsize/straighten it,
you'll put the loop into the other eye leg; you can then continue with the
tucking & collaring from here. In some orientation of this added-on/reflected nipping loop,
you can get a good jamming on setting the knot (re security, not serious jam-cannot-be-loosened);
and with the loops now one in each leg of the eye, I suspect there should be some
better **spring** in the structure to absorb shock (though still ONE of the trio of
diameters running through the core is purely straight, without any hope of some
*mechanical stretching*).
Put another way re this splitting the loops, it's probably easiest (re torsion, e.g.) to start
with a common bowline, then in bringing the tail back to the nub, first make the desired
HH/loop around the 1st/SPart-side eye leg, then reeve up through original loop,
collar SPart, back through both loops now, collar end-side/bight-side eye leg,
and back ("up", as AS orients knots; "away", for a climber tying in) through the loops.
Position of the trio of diameters matters only for the 1st-formed, heavily loaded loop,
for strength.
-----------
It should be seen in this long-winded exploration of bowline variants that various mechanisms,
rope component structures, can be used in all sorts of combinations: e.g., the extra turn in the
common Dbl.Bowline can be combined with the "EBinding" of (for the EBDB) or with the
eye-leg collaring of the Janus Bowlines or with either of the Yosemite-like tuckings; so, too,
with the Clove or Cow or Rolling Hitch base; and then of those bases, as I just noted,
the turns can be split between parts rather than in the single/same strand). In short,
there are sufficient components here to project into a great many knots.
(And a Janus'd Dbl. Bwl. looks much better than the Yo'd variant! The extra turn,
you see, directly affects the Janus's tucking the end back through the loop(s),
but not the Yo's sending the end over them through the collar. .:. Invest where
your investment gains interest!
And this great variety is much a doublEdged sword, though for many its sharper edge
will be a dangerous one of confusion in instruction and "KISS"--in keeping the user's
knot repertoire to a manageable and commonly understood set.
--great ambivalence--
--dl*
====
-
Okay, finally figured this variant out:
1) "Take the Cow /Girth Hitch as a base;
CHECK, YOU GOT THIS. (I will note that in the COW base, unlike the CLOVE, one can reverse-orient ends.)
2) "do the bowline maneuvreing with the tail on both sides,"
BUT YOU DID >>>NOT<<< do this. We see thus only the one, usual collar. b o r i n g . --a Water Bowline-like knot.
You need this "on both sides": recall the moniker, "MIRRORED"--that means as though
a mirror was the dividing plane across (perpendicular to) the mid-section of the nub,
bisecting the Cow/Girth hitch base. The collars *reflect* each other (each around an
end of the Cow H.). I guess we could say it's a Janus-ing of a Clove/Cow/... base, then!?
And the reflection naturally provides the third diameter through the loops
(which strictly speaking breaks pure *reflection*).
Thanks for SHOUTING the instructions at me - that did the trick!
Will photograph and upload in a few hours...
My initial impression is that these 'mirrored' bowlines are a technical exercise in knot tying but do not really impress upon me as offering anything elegant and simple in structure. Okay, they are seemingly secure and stable but I just can't see the masses adopting it into their daily repertoire.
I know you don't like me stating this but I would opt for my so-called EBSB with yosemite finish before considering a mirrored bowline (but tht's just me).
Am also still trying to fully understand the geometry and possible benefits of DerekSmith's crossing knot/munter variation of the bowline. Now I see that structure as being much simpler than the mirrored bowline.
EDIT: VER 2.0 is up. Go here; www.paci.com.au/IGKT/Bowlines.pdf
Added mirrored bowline and made a few other image enhancements.
agent smith
-
Okay, finally figured this variant out:
...
Will photograph and upload in a few hours...
Great, thanks! (I leave open any exact *routing* of the tail on its near
stitching of the mirrored loops together--and that lack of (needed) specificity
is one of the beauties of the structure (but, again, again, we should recognize that
many of the commonly known knots have much the same vagueness to them
(with or without actual insignificance to behavior--it simply isn't noted & known!)).
My initial impression is that these 'mirrored' bowlines are a technical exercise in knot tying
but do not really impress upon me as offering anything elegant and simple in structure. Okay, they
are seemingly secure and stable but I just can't see the masses adopting it into their daily repertoire.
Bah, humbug, on this mistaken impression (IMO ! ).
Rather, you should see how nice it is to employ a well-know structure
(I do think that the Girth/Cow hitch base is better than the Clove)
with also should-be-well-known tying method (the "rabbit in/out of hole" travel of the tail)
to get a robustly secure, amply loose & easily loosened, and likely strong--both from
gentler bends AND from some force absorption from all the *knotting* in the structure--
knot so easily. Granted, the "rabbit" tying method isn't as handily quick as others,
but with the given base of the Cow (especially!), the tyer is unlikely to bring the end
through it from the wrong (anti-bowline) side of the now-mirrored central loop(s).
AND note that with the Cow base, doing so results in a workable interesting (and
(**NON**-bowline, like Derek's is non-) eyeknot. (Well, the knot I'm thinking of has
the "wrong side" entry, but then the tail must collar the "live" line / SPart, not an eye
leg.) It seems a very good knot to deal with STIFF ROPE. (I simply find it hard to
accept that the YoBowl and the ancient simple Overhand tie-off can work in it,
despite some now assertions to use of both in PMI Max-Wear & other stiff ropes.
I'm saying this upon my own tying it in 11mm (or 10.x, geesh) climbing rope and
some old low-elongation rope of unknown origin.)
And consider how much friction the reeved tail has in going back'n'forth parallel
to itself: there is a lot of material contact there for movement to overcome, not
merely at the points of contact with the two loops.
Note that in the common bowline (#1010), when in use as a LEAD climber's tie-in,
the tail points upwards, and gravity can help pull it back down through the loop;
whereas the Janus variants point the tail SPart-wards/downwards, and have gravity
assist in keeping it so. (Note that top-grade climbs have challenged this assertion
by having such severe overhangs that the knot might be in a horizontal plane!)
So, in some of these variants one can see that the tail must go in opposite directions
re gravity in order to come completely untied (and will reveal partial untying by having
a long flapping tail to be aware of, felt/seen).
with yosemite finish
And note my guidance on an alternative like finish, given previously, to nicely complement
the YoBowl's appearance on top-half of that page. DO give this other path a presence.
Am also still trying to fully understand the geometry and possible benefits of DerekSmith's crossing knot/munter
variation of the bowline. Now I see that structure as being much simpler than the mirrored bowline.
Again, don't call it a "bowline" and further the corruption of that knot-notion.
Please reflect on what "simple" constitutes: doing an easy action many times
can build a maybe complicated-looking structure, but repetition itself is pretty simple.
(I have now a remaining 100' or so of simply grossly entangled conch-pot warp, just
salvaged from the beach, which had some duration of water-worked pot rotation to
build considerable wrapping & inter-bight knotting. Patience, and some backward
unwrapping, and backing out ever-lengthening ends (and some uttering of oaths)
is bringing me nearer to success. --hoping to put this rope to use in destructive
testing (yes, aware that it is of dubious uniformity and quality to be greatly indicative
as a model, but, hey, it's free and some results might shed insights ...).
Added mirrored bowline and made a few other image enhancements.
NOTE THAT THE MIRRORED BWL. SHOULD **NOT BE SO TIGHT** ON THE SPart!!
Wow, Derek's GeeSpot is throbbing, there!. And in Janus cases, too: although the
structure has symmetry of entanglement, the setting should be biased so that
it is the collar around the eye-leg getting pulled relatively tight, while that around
the SPart is not.
--dl*
====
ps: How does 2009 look, so far (you early adopters!) ?
-
Six pages. I didn't think it'd go this far.
Agent Smith, have you come up with repeatable pass/fail security criteria for what loops would or would not be recommended by your group? If so, it may stop a lot of wheel spinning in the form of multiplying permutations because you are not sure where to stop.
-
Hello Roo, you've bounced back in...good to see the bouncy fella again.
I like spinning my wheels - it gives me time to think. And when I've had time to think, then I might stop spinning my wheels.
And its not my group, its but one class of roping technicians - but I would have thought by now that you would have appreciated that this forum (and thread) is much bigger than you or me. All of the posts (including yours) are a contribution to world knowledge. I can't really say with any certainty if such a concentrated effort has been made on the subject of bowlines before - can you?
As far as I can ascertain from all of these important posts, no-one has yet come forth with a declaration that any of the discussed knots is the holy grail (and such a thing may not exist).
And even if it turns out that this was all one big exercise in spinning my wheels...at least the journey was a fulfilling and rewarding experience. Its what the human spirit is all about.
Happy new year!
agent smith
-
I like spinning my wheels - it gives me time to think. And when I've had time to think, then I might stop spinning my wheels.
Exploring permutations is fine, but if you are interested to coming to a conclusion, you'll eventually have to start nailing down variables and eliminating false or superfluous leads. If a person reading this thread or your report was interested in a good climbing/rescue alternative to the Figure of Eight Loop, they might leave confused or frustrated if your final report ended in 20 bowline variants, fuzzy criteria, and no conclusions.
Cheers.
-
Roo, I am not quite ready to begin moving on to the next phase of this project...still have to tie and photograph a variant to the Yosemite bowline and maybe one other variant as suggested by Dan Lehman.
I want to make sure no significant bowline variant has been missed or escaped my attention. I think I am closing in on defining the limits of bowline variables that are of practical value, and not mere demonstrations of engineering elegance or simply art forms.
You must understand that this is a work in progress.
Also Roo, consider this:
1. I am doing this out of personal interest - not as paid work
2. I can only fit this into my spare time (which I have a bit up my sleeve at the moment due to my holiday period)
3. It is a self driven project - I am not working to anyones time line - only my own
4. Progress relies on contributions from other like minded individuals - who see value in making contributions to world knowledge (in particular, our knowledge of knots).
5. I can end this project at any time I choose - since I am its originator - as long as I see value in it, I'll continue.
...
--hoping to put this rope to use in destructive
testing (yes, aware that it is of dubious uniformity and quality to be greatly indicative
as a model, but, hey, it's free and some results might shed insights ...).
Dan, we must be on parallel thought patterns... I have geared up for destructive testing of a selected range of Bowlines. Shopping list of gadgets I have purchased thus far:
[ ] 5 ton Dynafor digital load cell (can be set to output kN or kg and can remember highest load achieved - 50ms sampling rate - will check this) - check
[ ] concrete driveway with screw-in eye bolts (love that word 'eye') - check
[ ] 4.0mm diameter kernmantel construction accessory cord (purchase tomorrow)
[ ] Safety glasses (check)
[ ] Hearing protection (check)
[ ] Winch (yet to purchase - might purchase a simple lever hoist or similar chain block setup that I can get for reasonable dollars) - perhaps a boat winch (hand crank variety)?
I am thinking that 4.0mm diameter accessory cord is workable for me - because I don't have to apply huge forces to break the cord and risk injury to myself or my load cell.
I'll consult with Dan and DerekSmith to make sure I get everything right...
Some things I know for sure already:
1. I'll test the ultimate breaking strength of the 4.0mm kernmantel cord first - maybe 3 breaks to obtain a mean value - MBL (will be interesting to compare it to manufacturers claims)
2. Care must be taken in tying and dressing the knot specimens
3. Need to take care to isolate the forces with respect to the knot - will need to use large D shackles to obtain reasonable diameters at end termination anchor points
4. Results obtained will be compared to unknotted MBL of accessory cord
5. Will need to perform 3 tests on each knot to obtain at least some form of statistically valid sample (bearing in mind cost factors involved for each length of cord I break which eats into budget)
6. Will pause test at various loads to photograph the progressive knot geometry - eg pause at 1kN, 2kN, 3kN, 4kN and maybe at a point momentarily before failure (without risking personal injury)
...
agent smith
EDIT:
Trying to tie this Yosemite Bowline variant...
A variation is more easily made by bringing the tail across UNDER itself (given the
"front" view), in which case it would bend around 2 rather than 1 diameter; this is also
an easier knot to tie and to tie as a Single Bowline in the Bight. --something for your
blank pages, maybe.
And note my guidance on an alternative like finish, given previously, to nicely complement
the YoBowl's appearance on top-half of that page. DO give this other path a presence.
Dan, have to admit (once again) that I am confused...(it IS the first day of the new year...). Would have liked to have started 2009 with completing any missing links in the Bowline genealogy.
Can you give me clearer instructions please!
-
Six pp., yes, with some actual deliberation! (Yet a drop in the bucket compared with the
infamous seminal Equalette thread on RC.com; and likely w/better results, though one of
those anchors did make it into print of a prominent book.)
[ ] 5 ton Dynafor digital load cell (can be set to output kN or kg and can remember
highest load achieved - 50ms sampling rate - will check this) - check
Hmmm, a worthwhile NON-(competely)-destructive test is this:
drop-test (you can figure Fall Factor, aim for something common, for the point
is durability and likely damage, if ...) a weight repeatedly, on a test specimen
comprising BOTH a Fig.8 & <some/various> Bowline eyeknots; check for abrasion
damage from whatever material movement there is. Maybe between drops you
only give a glance and handle the material to feel for warmth, and then to some
detailed inspection of the material (looking for GeeSpot marking) after the full
sequence is run. (One must still deal w/issue of dressing & setting options
--i.e., recognize that there might be much you've not tested.)
I have some suspicion that a knot like the bowline that stays unjammed might
be prone to chafing (though where the SPart moves the tail with it, there shouldn't
be any; for parts that do not move and the SPart moves around them, there could be).
(Here I'll remind myself that the accessory cord isn't so dynamic as the target rope.)
5. Will need to perform 3 tests on each knot to obtain at least some form of statistically valid sample
(bearing in mind cost factors involved for each length of cord I break which eats into budget)
6. Will pause test at various loads to photograph the progressive knot geometry - eg pause at
1kN, 2kN, 3kN, 4kN and maybe at a point momentarily before failure (without risking personal injury)
YEA!!! for the photography. I should think that a break will give you a good idea of where
you have sure safety margin (and likely the breaking knot will leave the immediate region
in flying to opposite ends)--i.e., at what force you are well safe. And you might see after
a test that a particular knot body doesn't much change after such&such force (so no real
need to photo that, other than to SHOW us that it hasn't changed, which is something
--something not needed for every test).
You might try to employ some *exploding-knot-&-parts*-dampening mechanism,
such as bungee cord or other cord tied to 2kg? sand bags, or draping rope in heavy
towel/cloth!?
To my mind, it makes good sense to test TWO eyeknots in each specimen: you end up
(1) showing that TWO knots survived forces up to <break_force>, and can presume that
the survivor maybe gets some 4% higher grade (speculative statistics at work :o), AND
(2) you have a near-rupture-load knot to examine for its severely loaded state.
In order to determine WHERE THE BREAK OCCURS (so we can send Derek off ... :-),
I suggest stitching colored threads through the knot--things readily photographed.
The post-mortem can then count "5 threads on SPart end of break, 2 on other,
so that would place the break as seen in high-load state photo'd at about <X marks the spot> !
I think we can begin to home in on this.
(Btw, at this writing, I have no idea where a common Sheet Bend breaks EVEN AS TO WHICH
OF THE BIGHT OR LOOP rope breaks! THAT is something we should know (or know that it's
variable, not consistently one or other) by now, centuries after the knot has been much used
--but we don't.
Possibly you could stitch in the threads after some initial loading (when you'll have a good
idea of what part of the cord/knot to mark).
----------------
Trying to tie this Yosemite Bowline variant...
A variation is more easily made by bringing the tail across UNDER itself (given the
"front" view), in which case it would bend around 2 rather than 1 diameter; this is also
an easier knot to tie and to tie as a Single Bowline in the Bight. --something for your
blank pages, maybe.
that page. DO give this other path a presence.
Dan, have to admit (once again) that I am confused....
Can you give me clearer instructions please![/quote]
I can *yell* in bold. The YoBowl takes the end clockwise, say (whichever);
the indicated variation takes it the opposite way; thereafter, ... out through the collar.
How much simpler can this be (and still be doing anything) ?! (The given start is
1010, then contrast w/YoBowl extension--i.e., all the new stuff (incl. YoBowl)
happens after <state_#1010>.)
(I don't want language to die.)
--dl*
====
-
Exploring permutations is fine, but if you are interested to coming to a conclusion,...
Conceivably, a version of this report can be used more to lay out the variations
than to recommend to any user group some one knot; or might point out some
seemly knots to each of a few user groups.
Anyway, it will be good to have test data on a variety of geometries irrespective
of their viability in practice just for the sake of gaining insight to rope mechanics
(though we might be pushing interpretation, with only so many results--a matter
of *resolution* of results, which are coming only by one means of loading, and so on).
------
Re my "Mirrored Bowlines": I have a version in which the tying/form goes
like this, and looks pretty good--the mainline's side of the knot is tied as a
Cowboy Bowline, the eye-side's side as a common Bowline, and the final
tuck is taken sort of between/BELOW (from our "front" perspective) the first
two passes of the end, which seems to give a nice curvature to the SPart.
(But there are many ways of doing this, and the recommendation shouldn't
depend upon doing it just so and not ...--that would be risky.
--dl*
====
-
Just uploaded VER 2.1... added the yosemite bowline variant that DL suggested earlier. I didn't realise it was that simple - I was looking for something more intriguing and another example of his engineering prowess (thats why I couldn't figure it out - because I was looking TOO hard!)....
I thought that was just about it...then I noticed another mirrored bowline from Dan Lehman.
Re my "Mirrored Bowlines": I have a version in which the tying/form goes
like this, and looks pretty good--the mainline's side of the knot is tied as a
Cowboy Bowline, the eye-side's side as a common Bowline, and the final
tuck is taken sort of between/BELOW (from our "front" perspective) the first
two passes of the end, which seems to give a nice curvature to the SPart.
(But there are many ways of doing this, and the recommendation shouldn't
depend upon doing it just so and not ...--that would be risky.
Hmm, looks like I will have to take just ONE MORE photo!
Then that's it... time for testing.
In another thread on knot testing, I put up a short list of knots for testing.
I am not going to test every Bowline variation... too expensive and too time consuming.
I'm going to have to narrow my work to a well defined range.
agent smith
-
In another thread on knot testing, I put up a short list of knots for testing.
I am not going to test every Bowline variation... too expensive and too time consuming.
I'm going to have to narrow my work to a well defined range.
If you're getting read-outs of peak loading--or, better, a graph of loading--,
the Mirrored Bowline should be a good candidate for possibly yielding lesser
peak loads on repeated drop tests (non-destructive), which should interest
"sport climbers".
To my eye, the Cowboy Janus makes a nicer SPart curve than either W&M's or Prohaska's.
And, consider, the EBDB uses much less material than your variations on it that extend
the end to be tucked under the wrap and out through the collar.
--dl*
====
-
If any of you want to read Heinz Prohaska's two-page article where he discusses the Yosemite finish and the Janus bowline, I have scanned it and posted it in a message at http://forums.caves.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7818&start=15
-
May I respectfully suggest what I call the "Triple Tuck Bowline". It appears to me to be incredibly strong and secure, and no more difficult to tie than making two additional tucks of the tail through the cuckold (edit: nipping loop). However, it requires scrutinous testing to be considered a viable alternative for climbing/rescue applications.
-
May I respectfully suggest what I call the "Triple Tuck Bowline". It appears to me to be incredibly strong and secure, and no more difficult to tie than simply adding two extra tucks in the cuckold (collar). However, it requires scrutinous testing to be considered a viable alternative for climbing/rescue applications.
As I posted in another forum thread, Have you read the associated pdf here?
There are Bowline variations w/added tucks. Btw, "cuckold" is the central
nipping "loop"; "collar" is the bunny's path out of the "hole" (cuckold) "around
the tree (SPart) ... ". "Incredibly strong" really benefits no one, though it's
such a compelling marketing gimmick (not even measured by means modelling
the intended use). With the plain ol' bowline, we're seeing 70% or so, which
is good; with some of the 3-diameter-in-loop knots, we'll hope for 80%. But
this difference will have effect only in understanding knot behavior and in print,
not in practice.
--dl*
====
[edit: yeppers, "c." was not it--now it is (both places)! ::) )
-
ummmm Is that "cuckold"?
We need to look at different categories IMLHO, like ease of tie, untie, return on effort, security etc. but a lot towards dividing between static and dynamic considerations, and if the dynamic considerations if the same properties are immediately re-accessible or not.
i've always looked at trying to relieve the first point of change/deformation in the Standing in the Bowline (and many others) for greatest strength (generally). The eye loading is equal and opposite, and has more deformation; but is (equal and opposite) / 2legs (as opposed to Standing's matching loading on 1leg). Points in between (primary deformation of equal and opposites Standing and Eye) are usually behind friction buffering(s). They can store force (be tighter than rest of lacing, or tight when rest of line is relaxed etc.) and / be a stash of line to be (fairly) singular impact buffer (IMLHO). Now drDan has pointed out in stiffer line, that 2nd story/Turn can work against ya to give more leverage to invert the works. So, like anything else, these forces (the Round Turn device hear), can work for or against ye, or offer some of each, depending on the way the forces apply to the situation. i won't use a Bowline in stiff dblBraid, huge diameter nor fishline etc.
i think a 3rd Turn (making dblRound Turn) gives less 'return' for your 'investmeant' of time and line as far as lowering the impacts of change on the fully loaded single leg of the Standing (open to most immediate and impacting changes). But, could give more rope 'stash' of distance to be drawn thru frictions to handle impactings. Also, more compressions for same.
In the Yosemite (Sam) tie off i think we can see more security than strength gain because of these factors. And not any really dampening qualities either. But as we add more 'tucks' we would then increase 'cockhold' diameter; which would give more secondary than primary relief to the primary deformation in Standing (static strength); but would give more compressible diameter ('compressible fluff') for more increase in dampening of dynamic forces than strength in handling nonDynamic / static forces/loadings. So, to me any of these 'Bitter' tucks give security (but even that seems like it would have an inverse at some point), and secondary increae in static and dynamic properties iff inside of 'cuckold'.
i think the 2nd Turn of a dblBowline, also allows less of an impacting change, by giving the same deformation a longer path to occur. Also, be more shock worthy because of the coils stash of 'distance' that has to be drawn thru frictions(mimicking somewhat braid construction strategies) to be accessed, adding another dampening strategy to the dampening properties (which include elasticity etc.). But, like elastic 'hysterics' that doesn't immediately 'reset' itself (or never does like a 'damaged' permanent extension), the lacing might have to be retied or redressed to perform at this level after a significant loading. Another point to strength tests vs. actual use and who is conducting the orchestration (and their personal habits) of events of either (actual use or testing).
The simple answer to the questions of this search for the holy grail; is perhaps that there are no global, simple answers. In real loadings and activities it is an orchestration of events in relation ship to their orchestration of loadings; and also the same in the devices temporary constructions/ lacings (straight/inline and curved/leveraged portions of lines, and their frictions) and the permanent constructions(material, braid, diameter etc.). Anything that can stand for you to your aid, can also have the binary switch flipped to use the same forces against ye (and equal and oppositely the reverse too).
i due appreciate the effort as a work in progress, a journey for us individually and collectively hear now. Each gives (k)new reaches for the next like the coral. Even in the dynamics inbetwixt; things are even spring boarded higher as the ping-pong back and forth. Then in years coming, someone else will trump us all, not to lessen the contributions though. All wee can due is give as much structure to the sum total as possible during our 'watch'.
-
May I respectfully suggest what I call the "Triple Tuck Bowline". It appears to me to be incredibly strong and secure, and no more difficult to tie than simply adding two extra tucks in the cuckold (collar). However, it requires scrutinous testing to be considered a viable alternative for climbing/rescue applications.
As I posted in another forum thread, Have you read the associated pdf here?
There are Bowline variations w/added tucks. Btw, "cuckold" is the central
nipping "loop"; "collar" is the bunny's path out of the "hole" (cuckold) "around
the tree (SPart) ... ". "Incredibly strong" really benefits no one, though it's
such a compelling marketing gimmick (not even measured by means modelling
the intended use). With the plain ol' bowline, we're seeing 70% or so, which
is good; with some of the 3-diameter-in-loop knots, we'll hope for 80%. But
this difference will have effect only in understanding knot behavior and in print,
not in practice.
--dl*
====
[edit: yeppers, "c." was not it--now it is (both places)! ::) )
Please excuse my rather "raw" knowledge of knot terminology. Definition of "cuckold" and "collar" noted.
As regards strength, still, I like the idea of wringing out every ounce of it (if only for psychological reasons). More practically, I would conjecture a knot of greater strength would impart less wear and tear on a rope, although your point may also apply here to a fair degree. Also, if I had to use a scary small diameter rope in an emergency situation... (scenario non positus, if my Greek is correct :D).
-
May I respectfully suggest what I call the "Triple Tuck Bowline". It appears to me to be incredibly strong and secure, and no more difficult to tie than simply adding two extra tucks in the cuckold (collar). However, it requires scrutinous testing to be considered a viable alternative for climbing/rescue applications.
As I posted in another forum thread, Have you read the associated pdf here?
--dl*
====
Dan,
I don't think the pdf is now available. Certainly the links I have tried recently are now dead.
Derek
-
Please excuse my rather "raw" knowledge of knot terminology. Definition of "cuckold" and "collar" noted.
Excused. In any case, knots nomenclature--both of how to speak of parts of a knot,
of steps in tying, ... , and of names for knots (and how many knots for each name !)
is a royally confused area! So, welcome to the fray.
"Collar" comes (to me) from Charles Warner (author, A Fresh Approach to Knotting
and Ropework) and seems an apt name for those lobes formed in Ashley's #1452
and Carrick Bend and others, and of in the Bowline.
As regards strength, still, I like the idea of wringing out every ounce of it (if only for psychological reasons).
Though one doesn't buy climbing ropes based on strength (as that usually isn't specified).
And the pertinent strength might not be what is measured by slow-pull testing,
but by some other method. !? E.g., as I've noted above, I wonder at whether the bowline's
non-jamming behavior might result in a movement of rope back'n'forth between loaded
and relaxed states such that it garners more chafing wear than is desireable!? The test
for this, I think--and suggested--, is to do a series of (reasonably loaded, not super heavy)
of drop tests, and to check for such wear. (Sounds like "sport climbing", yes?!)
More practically, I would conjecture a knot of greater strength would impart less wear and tear on a rope,
although your point may also apply here to a fair degree.
Yes, I've wondered as much. AND whether the use of a variety of tie-in
knots--presumably thereby putting hard-bend stresses at various points--,
would be a help. But the likely hard-wear spot of climbing-rope ends (which
leads to some users buying long ropes and chopping ends maybe twice in
the course of the rope's life qua lead rope (before retiring to TR use))
comes at the hard bend over the top 'biner, not at the knot so much (or that
this is another point of wear, not so easily varied by knot variance).
--dl*
====
-
Dan,
I don't think the pdf is now available. Certainly the links I have tried recently are now dead.
In that case, the answer must be "no". ::)
Well, Apineer, reply #7 (8th post) in this thread has some images,
and a URLink to the 1928 Wright&Magowan article from which one
of the illustrated knots could be said to originate. Beyond these,
what I've named "Mirrored Bowlines" is simply made by forming a
Cow/Girth Hitch as the base for making a bowline, and then making
that "rabbit comes out of the hole (cuckold), goes around the tree,
and then ..." AND THEN treat its retreat back into the hole as a new
beginning, and "go around the tree" on the eye side of the Cow hitch,
giving a sort of *mirrored* result. The knot's loading, of course, will
be asymmetric--one SPart vs. two eyelegs. So here's one more bowline
extension putting three diameters through its loop.
--dl*
====
-
May I respectfully suggest what I call the "Triple Tuck Bowline". It appears to me to be incredibly strong and secure, and no more difficult to tie than simply adding two extra tucks in the cuckold (collar). However, it requires scrutinous testing to be considered a viable alternative for climbing/rescue applications.
Regarding the two extra tucks in the cuckold, to be more clear (?), they are iterations of the primary tuck which forms the standard bowline, such that when viewed from one side of the knot gives the appearance of a three-wrap coil around the crossing part of the nip (loop). From the other side it appears as a two-wrap coil.
-
May I respectfully suggest what I call the "Triple Tuck Bowline". ...
Regarding the two extra tucks in the cuckold, to be more clear (?),
they are iterations of the primary tuck which forms the standard bowline,
such that when viewed from one side of the knot gives the appearance
of a three-wrap coil around the crossing part of the nip (loop).
From the other side it appears as a two-wrap coil.
I've pointed you to IMAGES: why don't you reference them?
So far as I can tell from your verbal sketch, such a knot is shown
there by me (one "tuck" fewer--vis., the EBDB); but you could
easily confirm or correct that by direct reference to this common
image (e.g., that the EBDB you'd call a "Dbl.Tuck Bwl", or that,
no, the tucks are made in the other side of the end-bight).
--dl*
====
-
May I respectfully suggest what I call the "Triple Tuck Bowline". ...
Regarding the two extra tucks in the cuckold, to be more clear (?),
they are iterations of the primary tuck which forms the standard bowline,
such that when viewed from one side of the knot gives the appearance
of a three-wrap coil around the crossing part of the nip (loop).
From the other side it appears as a two-wrap coil.
I've pointed you to IMAGES: why don't you reference them?
So far as I can tell from your verbal sketch, such a knot is shown
there by me (one "tuck" fewer--vis., the EBDB); but you could
easily confirm or correct that by direct reference to this common
image (e.g., that the EBDB you'd call a "Dbl.Tuck Bwl", or that,
no, the tucks are made in the other side of the end-bight).
--dl*
====
Dan, I did view and study those IMAGES. Thank You. These Bowline Extensions do not reflect the knot I'm wishing to describe. It is not necessary to refer to them.
I will instead refer to the color image posted by DerekSmith in the "Janus Bowline Sub" thread. This is the starting point of my description.
Simply wrap/coil the Working End twice around the "Red Crossing Part" ;) and tuck through the Loop to finish. Four rope diameters are now inside the Loop.
After the knot is tightened by pulling tension on the Standing Part and the Tail, there is one additional step I like to finish with, that is feed the Tail directly back through the Collar so that it runs alongside the Standing Part.
Cheers
-
Alpineer,
I think I have followed your description and what developed is a very nice variant indeed. Easy to tie, very easy to remember, significantly more secure than the unadorned bowline and because of the additional diameters, potentially stronger.
But have I tied the knot you described?
Taking the standard bowline, the tail ends as marked in red in the following diagram.
(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/Bowline%20pre%20Alpineer%20variant.jpg)
Taking a longer tail, over to the right, and make two raps, then out through the collar beside the SP. With a little 'jiggling' the tail naturally reseats itself into this structure -
(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/Bowline%20-%20Alpineer%20variant.jpg)
I have attached the .cyp file for this diagram, so if I have got it all wrong, just load it into FCB4 and modify it to what you meant, then post the cyp file back on here please.
(Note if you do not have the little FCB4 drawing utility, you can download it from here http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/The+FCB+Cypher (http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/The+FCB+Cypher) )
Derek
-
May I respectfully suggest what I call the "Triple Tuck Bowline". ...
Regarding the two extra tucks in the cuckold, to be more clear (?),
they are iterations of the primary tuck which forms the standard bowline,
such that when viewed from one side of the knot gives the appearance
of a three-wrap coil around the crossing part of the nip (loop).
From the other side it appears as a two-wrap coil.
I've pointed you to IMAGES: why don't you reference them?
So far as I can tell from your verbal sketch, such a knot is shown
there by me (one "tuck" fewer--vis., the EBDB); but you could
easily confirm or correct that by direct reference to this common
image (e.g., that the EBDB you'd call a "Dbl.Tuck Bwl", or that,
no, the tucks are made in the other side of the end-bight).
--dl*
====
Dan, I did view and study those IMAGES. Thank You.
These Bowline Extensions do not reflect the knot I'm wishing to describe.
It is not necessary to refer to them.
It would be helpful (to me) if you did. (It is not necessary that
anyone understand what you're trying to say, either--unless you
want communication, but I'm not sure you do.)
I will instead refer to the color image posted by DerekSmith in the "Janus Bowline Sub" thread.
This is the starting point of my description.
Simply wrap/coil the Working End twice around the "Red Crossing Part" ;)
and tuck through the Loop to finish. Four rope diameters are now inside the Loop.
Except in your "... and tuck through the Loop to finish"--which is necessarily what
"wrap/coil the Working End twice ..." must do--go through the loop--, this is exactly
what I show as the EBDB, with (1) just a single bowline base (not "Dbl.") and (2) only
one wrap of the end, not two. And THAT could've/should've been said, simply and neatly,
several msg.s ago. How can you NOT see this?!
Now, what Derek diagrams above is different in the direction of the wraps
along the loop--taking the tucks sort of through the collar rather than towards
the eye. This better positions the end for that Yosemite finish (which to my
mind is superfluous).
After the knot is tightened by pulling tension on the Standing Part and the Tail,
there is one additional step I like to finish with, that is feed the Tail directly back
hrough the Collar so that it runs alongside the Standing Part.
Which, but for the extra wrap, is what Agent_Smith has tested as the EBSB w/Yosemite
Finish.
--dl*
====
-
Alpineer,
I think I have followed your description and what developed is a very nice variant indeed. Easy to tie, very easy to remember, significantly more secure than the unadorned bowline and because of the additional diameters, potentially stronger.
But have I tied the knot you described?
Taking the standard bowline, the tail ends as marked in red in the following diagram.
(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/Bowline%20pre%20Alpineer%20variant.jpg)
Taking a longer tail, over to the right, and make two raps, then out through the collar beside the SP. With a little 'jiggling' the tail naturally reseats itself into this structure -
(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/Bowline%20-%20Alpineer%20variant.jpg)
I have attached the .cyp file for this diagram, so if I have got it all wrong, just load it into FCB4 and modify it to what you meant, then post the cyp file back on here please.
(Note if you do not have the little FCB4 drawing utility, you can download it from here http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/The+FCB+Cypher (http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/The+FCB+Cypher) )
Derek
Hi Derek,
Thanx for the FCB4. I didn't know it existed. When I read your post I thought you had it because all of the attributes you listed I believe could apply to my Bowline Variant. Sorry, but it isn't.
Question, in your wiki diagram should the "cord end tiles" not be switched around?
I will address your post in more detail later, but for now here is my image along side yours in the attached .cyp file. I hope this helps until I can address in more detail.
-
Wow, you're fast off the blocks !!
Very interesting.
Re the ends
The whipped end symbol is intended to represent the tail or WEnd.
The arrow pointing into the knot represents the returning leg of a loop while pointing away from the knot signifies the SPart. I took the liberty of changing these over on your diagram for uniformity.
For those who don't want to use FCB, here is the slightly modified drawing Alpineer sent me in his attached .cyp file.
(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/Bowline%20-%20Alpineer%20variant%203.jpg)
There are three key differences, but these are ALMOST the same knot. Your rendition on the right, my coloured up version on the left.
The first difference is that in your diagram, the WEnd exits to the left of the SPart, and in mine to the right. This is a tiny dressing variant. I drew it to the right because there is a slight propensity for the WEnd to move to the right of the SPart as the WEnd is tensioned to draw up the two loops.
Second difference, you make two full turns while I have made one and a half ish and is due mostly to the move of the WEnd to the right. There is a slight advantage to having slightly less turns in that the turns have to be tightened by pulling the WEnd and if you have two full coils, it is hard for the tension to reach all the way around to the second coil and properly tension it.
The third and most significant difference is the fact that I took the tail and wound up from the bottom while you have taken it from the top and wound it down to the bottom. Again, in security terms, the advantage lays with the left hand version. To explain the advantage, I have coloured the two loop returns red and black. You will see that as force is applied by the loop, the force in the red leg feeds around the shoulder to the bottom of the turns, firmly clamping them against the tension of the returning black loop leg, as well as the SPart tension on the 'rabbit hole' eye, whereas the winding top to bottom variant only has the SPart eye tension holding the turns in place.
As a consequence of the missing half turn, the RHS variant has four diameters in the SPart 'rabbit hole nip vs only three in my attempt.
They are almost 'peas in a pod', it will be interesting to compare them strength wise. Anyone fancy giving them some extreme jiffling?
Derek
-
Wow, you're fast off the blocks !!
Very interesting.
Re the ends
The whipped end symbol is intended to represent the tail or WEnd.
The arrow pointing into the knot represents the returning leg of a loop while pointing away from the knot signifies the SPart. I took the liberty of changing these over on your diagram for uniformity.
For those who don't want to use FCB, here is the slightly modified drawing Alpineer sent me in his attached .cyp file.
(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/Bowline%20-%20Alpineer%20variant%202.jpg)
There are three key differences, but these are ALMOST the same knot. Your rendition on the right, my coloured up version on the left.
The first difference is that in your diagram, the WEnd exits to the left of the SPart, and in mine to the right. This is a tiny dressing variant. I drew it to the right because there is a slight propensity for the WEnd to move to the right of the SPart as the WEnd is tensioned to draw up the two loops.
Second difference, you make two full turns while I have made one and a half ish and is due mostly to the move of the WEnd to the right. There is a slight advantage to having slightly less turns in that the turns have to be tightened by pulling the WEnd and if you have two full coils, it is had for the tension to reach all the way around to the second coil and properly tension it.
The third and most significant difference is the fact that I took the tail and wound up from the bottom while you have taken it from the top and wound it down to the bottom. Again, in security terms, the advantage lays with the left hand version. To explain the advantage, I have coloured the two loop returns red and black. You will see that as force is applied by the loop, the force in the red leg feeds around the shoulder to the bottom of the turns, firmly clamping them against the tension of the returning black loop leg, as well as the SPart tension on the 'rabbit hole' eye, whereas the winding top to bottom variant only has the SPart eye tension holding the turns in place.
As a consequence of the missing half turn, the RHS variant has four diameters in the SPart 'rabbit hole nip vs only three in my attempt.
They are almost 'peas in a pod', it will be interesting to compare them strength wise. Anyone fancy giving them some extreme jiffling?
Derek
Hi Derek,
Thank You for correcting my diagram. I understand the terms now.
btw FCB is a neat little program (a blank tile on the palette would be nice for editing, though).
Re the winding direction of the coils, I would have a difference of opinion. The advantage may lie with the R.Hand version. It's the Chinese finger puzzle principle having the dominant effect. The R.Hand version's coils would work as a friction hitch on the S.Part and it's Eye Leg.
Two full turns around the "crossing part" of the nipping loop are an essential component of this Bowline Variant which make it the best candidate for the applications being discussed here. It has the best balance of attributes for the intended purpose, and that's really what it's all about.
I cannot overstate the importance of SIMPLICITY as an attribute of an Extended Bowline for use in climbing and rescue applications. What could be more simple than adding two turns around the nipping loop's crossing part? (Yes, one turn. One is good, but two is best.) Include other attributes such as easy to recognize, great security and stability with relative ease of untying after loading, and for what it's worth superior strength. And don't forget EASY TO REMEMBER!
P.S. Derek, thanks for posting my image. It was confusing to me at the time how to do it.
-
May I respectfully suggest what I call the "Triple Tuck Bowline". ...
Regarding the two extra tucks in the cuckold, to be more clear (?),
they are iterations of the primary tuck which forms the standard bowline,
such that when viewed from one side of the knot gives the appearance
of a three-wrap coil around the crossing part of the nip (loop).
From the other side it appears as a two-wrap coil.
I've pointed you to IMAGES: why don't you reference them?
So far as I can tell from your verbal sketch, such a knot is shown
there by me (one "tuck" fewer--vis., the EBDB); but you could
easily confirm or correct that by direct reference to this common
image (e.g., that the EBDB you'd call a "Dbl.Tuck Bwl", or that,
no, the tucks are made in the other side of the end-bight).
--dl*
====
Hi Dan,
My apologies for not making direct reference to your image. Re the EBDB, you interpreted my words correctly. And yes, I would call the EBDB a "Dbl. Tuck Dbl. Bwl".
Perhaps "End WOUND Bowline" would be a more appropriate term than "Triple Tuck Bowline"?
Alpineer
-
Hi Derek,
Thank You for correcting my diagram. I understand the terms now.
btw FCB is a neat little program (a blank tile on the palette would be nice for editing, though).
Re the winding direction of the coils, I would have a difference of opinion. The advantage may lie with the R.Hand version. It's the Chinese finger puzzle principle having the dominant effect. The R.Hand version's coils would work as a friction hitch on the S.Part and it's Eye Leg.
Two full turns around the nip are an essential component of this Bowline Variant which make it the best candidate for the applications being discussed here. It has the best balance of attributes for the intended purpose, and that's really what it's all about.
I cannot overstate the importance of SIMPLICITY as an attribute of an Extended Bowline for use in climbing and rescue applications. What could be more simple than adding two turns around the nip? (Yes, one turn. One is good, but two is best.) Include other attributes such as easy to recognize, great security and stability with relative ease of untying after loading, and for what it's worth superior strength. And don't forget EASY TO REMEMBER!
P.S. Derek, thanks for posting my image. It was confusing to me at the time how to do it.
Hi Alpineer,
A blank can be 'picked up' from the drawing area by right clicking on a blank cell - right clicking any cell in the drawing area selects that tile for drawing with - saves going back to the pallet all the time. Once you have right clicked a blank cell, you can paint blank cells to wipe out mistooks. A blank cell has been added to the next version and a User Guide can be found here -- http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/FCB4+User+Guide (http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/FCB4+User+Guide)
Re the coils direction. I agree it is good to design the coils to act as a friction hitch, but to do this the load force needs to bear down onto the coils, as in the sliding grip hitch shown here -
(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/GripHitch3.jpg)
The load is taken to the end of the coils and compresses them towards the unloaded tail, much as I have shown the red loop leg compressing the coils up towards the tail / WE.
(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/Bowline%20-%20Alpineer%20variant%203.jpg)
By wrapping the loops in the other direction, the load from the loop has the reverse effect of simply pulling the loops open without any grip being created. However, in both variants this effect is virtually negated by the fact that the coils are clamped by the primary SPart loop. As all of the load is in that loop, those coils are not going anywhere, grip hitch structure or no griphitch structure.
As for SIMPLICITY and EASY TO REMEMBER - I could not agree more. A knot might be perfect in every respect, but if you need the manual to hand in order to tie it, then it is nothing more than an intellectual exercise, and in that aspect, this is a nice little variant, be it wrapped up or wrapped down.
Derek
-
I cannot believe that Derek is using real rope or has his eyes anywhere but
embedded in FCB lines: for the bowline abomination he suggests is just that,
worse than the gratuitous tucking indulged by Agent_Smith & Alpineer!? In
the target domain (rockclimbing & caving/SAR (& canyoneering)) or kermantle
cordage, it's a non-starter; frankly, it's awkward in thinner, more flexible stuff, too.
The EBDB works because the end-binding goes around 3 diameters, which
is an effective approximation of a circle. Trying to achieve such binding around
just two diameters suffers from their modeling an oval space; repeating such
a wrapping only provides a second not well snug binding. The single Bowline
can provide a 3rd diameter by having the wrap take in the end-side eye-leg,
but the geometry of this just doesn't equal that of the Double Bowline base.
All this conjecture about the coils having some "friction hitch" effect is silly:
they are untensioned; they don't begin to have a chance in the cordage of
issue (where one insists on smaller cordage hitching to thicker--not equal
diameters, as in some arborist cordage with Blake's/ProhGrip hitch.
(Which, we might note, doesn't have "the force bear[ing] down on the coils.")
One could try to impart force into the coils by making the binding wraps
on the end's entry into the nipping loop; but this will just aggravate
the friction with the S.Part. (From my stressing, the--what I call--"Bowl-in-a- Bowl"
(with a Single Bowline and one such binding wrap) doesn't deliver much force
into the coils, surprisingly (it must do so at high loads, else we'd never hear
of bowlines jamming/cinching!). (To put this in terms Derek will appreciate:
this is the Myrtling of the Bowline! ))
:)
-
Aha, you have caught me out Dan, sure enough I do not use 'real' rope, so all my comments are biased by this limitation.
I know that I do not use 'real' rope, because I saw some once. There was the time that I found the end of a piece snaking up onto the beach out of the sea - it was too massive for me to salvage, and then I saw some in a naval museum - stuff was over a foot thick and weighed a ton. Not being a Naval man, I have to accept that I am only playing when it comes to handling and using 'real' rope.
In reality, I use a very limited array of 'cords'. My fiddling string is 3mm and 5mm cored polyester braid. The 3mm can take 100kg, so I will put my bodyweight onto a knot in it to see how the knot performs under hard load. Then I have some horrible cheap blue poly laid rope in 6mm, 8mm and 12mm that I will occasionally knot, but that tends mostly to be for real use rather than testing. I have a nice length of 8mm cored braid, again polyester, that I use for all load tie-down jobs and which I can give realistic hauling loadings on. And finally I have my pride and joy, a single climbing rope that I will tie all the knots such as the ones in this thread, i.e. (http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/DT2%20Bowline%20front.jpg)
Mostly, I use this and the 8mm braid for 'jiffle testing' to see how secure the knot is to repeated thrashing.
As for having my eyes 'embedded in FCB lines', I do seem to be one of the few people prepared to diagram what they are doing and posting the diagrams here so that others do not have to try to decypher verbal contortions attempting to relay meaning. You know what I mean don't you Dan, how many times has some idiot posted back - Sorry Dan, I don't understand, can you explain that more clearly please. Which is why I take the time to make and post a diagram so folks don't come back and say 'Sorry Derek, I don't understand...'
Give it a try Dan, it is a tiny utility, it is free and does not need any complex installation - just download and run. You can then either post the cyphers here or copy and paste the drawing into Painter (which is free and part of windows) to crop out the bits you want, then you can either attach the image using the additional options available when putting a reply together, or you could open a free PBWiki and store your files on there, then link them into a post like the one above.
So much easier than miles of confusing verbiage.
As for the Alpineer knot, it is easy to remember and is a lot more secure than the basic Bwl. but it is a bit chunky and I don't think it adds significantly to the strength, like the one above does, because although it has numerous cores in the wrap, it still suffers a very tight turn as the SP makes its first significant turn.
However, if you want a Bwl. that is secure and STRONG, then I am working on a structure that will make your eyes water. Now, I am not saying it will be through laughter or crying in horror, but the brute should definitely get a response from you.
Derek
-
>>> I will tie all the knots such as the ones in this thread, [e.g.] (http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/DT2%20Bowline%20front.jpg)
Here is a secure knot re-formed: to form the Locktight I from this,
push the extra turn of the S.Part (lower, in image) back up around
its beginning, rather Blood-knot/Grapevine-like. The wrap(s --one
or two more can be practical, YMMV) will bind down upon the
S.Part and, well, "lock tight" upon it; but the upper collar etc. is the
*backdoor* to loosening & untying it, easily.
:)
[edit in bold part: "will not" => "will"]
-
Here is a secure knot re-formed: to form the Locktight I from this,
push the extra turn of the S.Part (lower, in image) back up around
its beginning, rather Blood-knot/Grapevine-like. The wrap(s --one
or two more can be practical, YMMV) will not bind down upon the
S.Part and, well, "lock tight" upon it; but the upper collar etc. is the
*backdoor* to loosening & untying it, easily.
:)
Pardon ??
-
Oops, make that "WILL bind down" on top of the S.Part and bind it.
Take your right hand, grasp knot at bottom, and with right thumb
press that part coming up from the coil (into S.Part-side eye-leg)
right-back-around the nub, until it is fully seated above the S.Part's
beginning wrapping--all wraps now going around/over the S.Part.
(Then orient the end a bit leftwards under the end-side eye-leg
so that the S.Part makes its hard impression into the end and
draws it clockwise around, cushion against the end-side eye-leg.)
--dl*
====
-
Are you saying Dan, that just by riding the two coils up over themselves, so the SPart comes down inside them and out the bottom, starting the wraps from the bottom up, that this knot then becomes the Locktight-1 ? (do you have any pictures or diagrams of the Locktight-1?).
When I allow the knot to naturally dress itself, it takes on the form in the climbing rope picture - I have attempted to diagram it in the LHS diagram attached. But if I force the dressing into the configuration you (I think) described, then it takes on the form in the RHS diagram.
In moderate loading of the RHS version (Locktight-1) the SPart first wrap - marked in red - jams into the coils above it and as you aptly named it - LOCKS. While the naturally dressed version shown in the climbing rope picture does not jam in my limited selection of test cord, is nicely secure and offers an SPart path which should be slightly less drastic a load shedding geometry than the standard Bwl. It's also a doddle to tie and easy to remember.
Derek
-
Are you saying Dan, that, just by riding the two coils up over themselves,
so the SPart comes down inside them and out the bottom,
starting the wraps from the bottom up,
tthis knot then becomes the Locktight-1 ?
Bingo!
There used to be images of this on Dan Britton's Knot Knowledge site,
but that is now defunct. But you have it (or the 1st of the series, varied by
wraps). There are some variations on this that seem better for stiffer rope,
as well as more secure vs. ring-loading--where the end, after making the
collar, enters amid the coils.
In moderate loading of the RHS version (Locktight-1) the SPart first wrap - marked in red -
jams into the coils above it and as you aptly named it - LOCKS. While the naturally dressed
version shown in the climbing rope picture does not jam in my limited selection of test cord,
is nicely secure and offers an SPart path which should be slightly less drastic a load shedding
geometry than the standard Bwl. It's also a doddle to tie and easy to remember.
Which is the point: to lock--security. Which locking is only of the knot from
general loosening, as the collar offers quite easy untying otherwise. It is a
structure better suited to slick rope, which will see early movement of the
wraps and better distribution of the tension. The reddened part is a critical
area, and prone to a hard bend; this can be mitigated by dressing so that
it bears upon the end and draws it with it. But, again, at issue in such ropes
is security more than strength.
There IS some concern about such knots where movement comes in the
critical, SPart-bending area: at high, dynamic loading, will friction generate
heat too much. Dave Merchant alleged that this phenomenon gave the Fig.9
eyeknot varied results, whereas the Overhand eyeknot was more constant
between slow-pull & rapid-loading tests. So, the freedom of movement in
the knot you present nicely in photograph, as well as in bowlines, might have
its drawbacks; another instance is not in severe but rather cyclical/repeated
loading, where chafing might occur with the change in tension.
--dl*
====
-
I cannot believe that Derek is using real rope or has his eyes anywhere but
embedded in FCB lines: for the bowline abomination he suggests is just that,
worse than the gratuitous tucking indulged by Agent_Smith & Alpineer!? In
the target domain (rockclimbing & caving/SAR (& canyoneering)) or kermantle
cordage, it's a non-starter; frankly, it's awkward in thinner, more flexible stuff, too.
The EBDB works because the end-binding goes around 3 diameters, which
is an effective approximation of a circle. Trying to achieve such binding around
just two diameters suffers from their modeling an oval space; repeating such
a wrapping only provides a second not well snug binding. The single Bowline
can provide a 3rd diameter by having the wrap take in the end-side eye-leg,
but the geometry of this just doesn't equal that of the Double Bowline base.
All this conjecture about the coils having some "friction hitch" effect is silly:
they are untensioned; they don't begin to have a chance in the cordage of
issue (where one insists on smaller cordage hitching to thicker--not equal
diameters, as in some arborist cordage with Blake's/ProhGrip hitch.
(Which, we might note, doesn't have "the force bear[ing] down on the coils.")
One could try to impart force into the coils by making the binding wraps
on the end's entry into the nipping loop; but this will just aggravate
the friction with the S.Part. (From my stressing, the--what I call--"Bowl-in-a- Bowl"
(with a Single Bowline and one such binding wrap) doesn't deliver much force
into the coils, surprisingly (it must do so at high loads, else we'd never hear
of bowlines jamming/cinching!). (To put this in terms Derek will appreciate:
this is the Myrtling of the Bowline! ))
:)
Dan,
Firstly, there is no GRATUITOUS TUCKING in any of the knots being offered up here for comment. They serve to change the balance of a knot's properties.
Secondly, re the "coils having some friction hitch effect" as being silly, my comment to Derek's was in the context of allowing for some obscure (to me) action involving a dynamic high loading scenario.
Thirdly, per Reply #97, this is NOT a Yosemite finish (which as you know takes a turn around the Bight Side Eye Leg). After taking the last tuck through the Nipping Loop, the Tail simply heads STRAIGHT NORTH and through the Collar.
Finally, I do this Northward tuck not to clear the Eye, but to position the Tail where it may be better seen. There may be other reasons re security/stability in stiffer line.
-
The EBDB works because the end-binding goes around 3 diameters, which
is an effective approximation of a circle. Trying to achieve such binding around
just two diameters suffers from their modeling an oval space; repeating such
a wrapping only provides a second not well snug binding. The single Bowline
can provide a 3rd diameter by having the wrap take in the end-side eye-leg,
but the geometry of this just doesn't equal that of the Double Bowline base.
Dan,
Firstly, there is no GRATUITOUS TUCKING in any of the knots being offered up
here for comment. They serve to change the balance of a knots properties.
IMO, there are several gratuitous tuckings. As I explained above, putting
the end-binding on a Single Bowline does not give good security in the
target domain of cordage--I'm looking at considerable open space between
the wrapping and wrapped two strands, after considerable effort to set,
in 11mm dynamic rope. And I've just been to a shop and felt the various
skinnier ropes (and even played around with one loose end of one) now
in vogue, and they equally resist 1-diameter bending. And the tucks added
by Agent_Smith through an end-binding also are gratuitous IMO--much
fiddling for little or no return.
In contrast, the EBDB can be set tight. It needs to be, for, on loading,
the two turns of the S.Part will shrink with extension, and likely some gap
will open between them & end-binding; but on relaxation, the binding should
come into effect again.
Thirdly, per Reply #97, this is NOT a Yosemite finish ...
Yes, well, it is the part of it that runs back through the collar, which was
all I meant to indicate.
--dl*
====
-
Hey agent smith,
WHERE ARE YOU? please touch base and let us know you're still alive.
I'd like to offer some thoughts re secure bowlines. There are 2 extended versions of the SINGLE Cowboy Bowline which give a turn around 3 rope diameters ("Nip and Eye Legs"), then a tuck through the Nipping Loop and then directly through the Collar (no Yosemite) with the Tail running parallel to the S Part. One version tucks the Tail through the Nipping Loop and on the OUTSIDE of the Collar (preferred?), the other version tucks the Tail through the space intersected by the Nipping Loop and the Collar. IMO tucking the Tail back through the Collar is MANDATORY for maximum security (no backup knot necessary), and also allows the knot to be tied loosely and then drawn up tight with greater ease.
Let me say that I have NOT tied these extensions in stiff, slick line as I do not have easy access to this stuff. I respectfully defer to Dan Lehman on this matter, if he would care to comment. This is a rather long thread and I haven't read everyone's post, so please accept my apologies if I am waxing redundant here.
Cheers,
alpineer
-
Hey agent smith,
WHERE ARE YOU? please touch base and let us know you're still alive.
DITTO! --glad someonElse said it, too!
Meanwhile, a dead logic board (I must've been trying to both do & not do something :-)
has reduced my e-time and I've been so busy in borrowed (library) time researching the
replacement that I've not gotten around to these parts since whenever. Okay, new
machine en route, and here I am.
:-\
-
However, if you want a Bwl. that is secure and STRONG, then I am working on a structure that will make your eyes water. Now, I am not saying it will be through laughter or crying in horror, but the brute should definitely get a response from you.
Derek
Hey Derek,
Any updates, please and thank you. :)
-
Just letting you all know that I am alive and kicking!
Have been away traveling (for work) a fair bit this year - and been totally bogged down with work commitments (and earning money to survive).
Will endeavor to get back on track with my knot testing as soon as time permits...
I'm sure Dan has been wondering what the heck I've done with the specimen knots and photos...
agent smith
-
Good to hear from you, at (lonnnnnng) last!
Yes, as the posts indicate, we've been keenly awaiting further data
(AND PHOTOS).
Got an eyeful of lobster rope over Mother's Day: several miles of
new, sinking groundline, to try to prevent Right whales from
entangling themselves in it as they open-mouth feed.
(-;
-
Firstly, I would like to apologise to Dan and Derek (and others) for delaying on this project and basically dropping off the radar screen.
After the economic woes...I too fell into some scary times and had to focus on other matters to keep my business running.
I admit that I have lost touch with, and lost focus on my knot testing project.
I still have all the sample bags containing the destroyed knots (pulled to failure) - and I still have the tools and equipment to press on.
Its just that I've lost my way...
I need to regain my drive and motivation again.
Sorry.
agent smith
-
Agent_Smith, good to hear again from you, and that you are among the
steadfast if challenged among us. I'm sure I speak for all in wishing you
well, et cetera.
I admit that I have lost touch with, and lost focus on my knot testing project.
...
Its just that I've lost my way...
I need to regain my drive and motivation again.
On this, I'll recommend that you simply enjoy some time looking back
over your so-far work, re-familiarize yourself with it, and remember that
your step-by-step progress through the testing was putting out some
quite interesting, useful data. (Even without the urged photographs
-- of whatever quality!). We had, recall, at lonnnnnng last -- after some
centuries of ignorance or silence -- nearer indications of where certain
knots actually broke. And, with photos of the pre-rupture tautness to
complement, we'll have further insight to the behavior of cordage at
the high-load point. (Though we might need to temper enthusiasm
for this being key to much, as --ideally-- one should hope that usual
practice doesn't put rope to such extremes.)
Pardon if I'm reaching here --not sure of what's entailed-- ,
but you might re-post/re-URLink your latest pdf of images for those
here to refresh their memories, and for newer-reading members to
get a first glance into some of what you've been crafting. (We have
results contained above.)
[Note to self: for that matter, I could perhaps help out by posting
my own photos (make & post, i.e.) of knots you're testing!] ::)
So, all that should be both satisfying and reassuring. And your example
can help others to do similarly -- to not merely pull things apart and
record some numbers from a device reading, but to have noted by
photograph and by material marking how the knots are transformed
through the tensioning cycle.
:)
Cheers,
--dl* (and, I suspect, the rest of the IGKT Forum)
====
-
I'm apprehensive about engaging in verbal imaging with you again,
but from the Slip Knot or --otherwise loaded-- Overhand Noose, one
gets either of the two collared Bowlines & Eskimo Bowlines, and that's
four right there; I see no Tugboat Bowline, even barring the counting.
And while I know how to insert the bight through the loop for the above,
I can't imagine what you mean by "the bight has passed through the loop
for a second time" -- a double bight thrust into the loop (which begs
the question about the span of the bight), or ... what?!
Photos / images would be great help, here -- either specially produced
and shown, or URLinked or otherwise referred to.
--dl*
====
-
Eskimo Bowline simply is a name for a knot; we can leave the discussion of anthropology somewhere else. No matter who ties it, it is an eskimo bowline, which evidently may be tied in four different ways, The Tugboat Bowline, Flying Bowline or Angler's Loop ABoK #1017, also is just a name for a knot, which tells those that knows it by such a name which knot we're talking about. Whether it was ever used on a tugboat or by an angler is irrelevant. In verbal communication, it helps to have common ground in nomenclature.
I'm sorry to say that from there, I lost you completely, I don't have the slightest idea of what constitutes a dropper loop, and I cannot decipher the meaning of "form a loop and twist it around the overlap" once or twice or in what sense.
That's why pictures often are so helpful. Ashley designed his great book around pictures, as they indeed sometimes say more than a thousand words. Words without pictures often cannot be reliably interpreted. So much verbosity, so little information conveyed.
It should also (firsthand) be considered, that all these variations violate an important prerequisite; namely ease of remembering and tying correctly without risk of erroneously introducing a fatal error. It's the KISS principle that we must adhere to. If we are to teach a knot to which we will trust lives, our own and other's, then it is important not only that the intended knot is secure, but also that we indeed tie the correct one and do not mistie it, forming some other contraption that may not be secure.
What we are looking for is not a smorgosbord of knots that may be formed out of a simple start, but one simple knot that may be securely tied every time, and that will serve the purpose under demanding conditions, including flogging, ring loading and extreme load. The Janus Bowline http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg (http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg) may be an answer to this, and my preferred knot would be the Wave Loop, which is built upon the Carrick Bend pattern http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=434.msg3568#msg3568 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=434.msg3568#msg3568). Testing should be undertaken with both of those. It should also be considered that mistying the Wave Loop is possible, making the first turn in the standing part (as in the bowline) instead of in the leg of the eye, making another form of the Carrick, a different knot, which also has to be tested. Possibly both will be secure and strong. If so, one may consider teaching this second way, as its resemblance with the start of the bowline will make it easier to memorize. This latter variation might also be drawn up by ring-loading, making another different knot which will also have to be tested in the same way. This last one is probably the easiest to tie in a consistent way.
-
I hoped you should not return to the erroneous conception of eskimo/Inuit. There are various populations of Alaska, Northern Canada and Greenland, and the term eskimo (raw meat eater) might be frowned at by all of them, just as a French person might be intimidated by "frog-eater". Several of those might not object to be called inuit, as it just means people, but in that sense I am just as much inuit as they are. If they would want to be identified by their tribe, it would perhaps be Yupik, Inupiat, Aleut, Athabaskan, Tlingit, Haida or Tsimshian. Of course I would not call a Yupik eskimo, but by his name, which might be George. That discussion surely is anthropologic. But referring to the Eskimo Bowline, it is only a name of a knot, nothing else, and there is no reason for anyone to feel offended. My grandma would also not be offended because a certain knot is called the granny. And I recognize only one human race, regardless of skin colour. So I am not calling a Yupik neither eskimo nor inuit, but I call the knot commonly known as Eskimo Bowline so, because then people reading it might understand which knot it is, and the knot would not feel offended. I would not suggest changing the name of the knot for reasons of political correctness.
But the subject at hand is that of a secure loop for rescue work. That loop must be reasonably simple to tie, withstand any possible kind of offset loading and also be rather easy to untie. Moreover, it shall not be prone to errors in tying or drawing up, and if there are different ways of doing it, they must all be safe. i think the best would be to start testing those knots that might work for the subject at hand; the proposed Janus Bowline and maybe the Wave Loop.
-
. But the Zeppelin loop, a knot that is topologically identical with the Zeppelin loop, is violating the KISS principle, because its tying method is so complex, prone to many errors, and difficult to memorize. So captain Rosendahl, who used the Zeppelin bend was clever, and the next guy who used the Zeppelin loop was stupid ! :) What we have here is two almost identical knots, the one obeying the KISS principle and the other not.
I don't think it's "so complex". Overhand Knot. Follow Down. Follow Up. It's pretty simple if it's practiced. Most knots need some practice to master.
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html
-
Xarax, maybe you missed that I don't call anyone eskimo, just as little as I would use the derogatory term "frog" for someone from France.
I did try your way of tying a bowline, and a double twist delivers the bowline proper, left- or right-handed depending on which way it is twisted. That knot already has been ruled out, because it is regarded not safe enough. With another twist, it becomes a different knot with double collars and the "working end" making a second turn around the nipping turn of the bowline. It's quite as easily done while tying the bowline in the ordinary way, and it is not very far from the Janus Bowline shown here. Easily tied, yes, and I have tried that extra turn before for further securing a bowline. Whether it is safer than the Janus Bowline has to be tested. I have doubts about its resistance to ring-loading.
All of these of course are worth trying.
The objection to all these knots might be the ease of checking what one has done. How do I know what knot would result from certain actions. In that way, the bowline with either an extra turn added or an extra collar on one leg has a clear advantage, because knowing the bowline, one would know how to make either the Janus Bowline or the one with just one round turn where the end comes back once more through the HH/TurNip.
The variations of the Wave Loop are a bit more difficult to evaluate, but for someone that knows the Carrick Bend well, less so. However, doing them as a pattern, will give consistent results, while the "drop-loop" method will not give the same result each time unless you always do the same number of twists in the same direction.
-
If a knot like the Zeppelin loop may be considered; i.e. a two step operation, then perhaps some other well known knot might also be considered for the ease of tying and checking. The latter is not unimportant. After dressing the knot, anyone in a team should be competent to check the knot. That might outrule the drop loop variants, because their topology is too complicated even for an expert to know what has actually been tied.
If we are not bound by restrictions on physical size of the knot, the simplest one that I could think of that includes two well known knots done in two step operation would be an eye tied in the bight, to which the end is attached with a double becket hitch. The knot would allow easy inspection, and it would resist offset loading and be fairly easy to untie. For example a Butterfly Loop formed with a conveniently long end that can be thrown around the object that it should attach to, and then the end joined to the Butterfly with a double becket hitch, which I think would be safe enough to use and allow for easy inspection. The Butterfly should be known to all mountaneers, and the double becket hitch is a straight-forward thing easily inspected with little risk of mistying. One advantage over the Zeppelin Loop is that the Butterfly may be tied in the bight at any position along the rope. One may even tie more than one butterfly and leave in place if the rope is relocated frequently, to allow for different size loops.
-
Trust should not be taken too far. Easy inspection of a knot is a boon, and I would appreciate if my partner took a look at my knot and told me whether he had any doubts about it, before putting my life at stake. So I still think that anyone that might use a rope should also be able to inspect the knot and its anchorage. If I tie one for myself and go down, I have only myself to blame, but sometimes more than one person will descend on the same rope. They should all be able to inspect the knot before descending. If the knot is doubtful, it would have to be retied. A Butterfly is easily inspected, and a Becket Hitch as well. It even has the advantage of being easy to open and relocate, without undoing the whole structure. And importantly, it includes two well known elements that should already be in anyone's toolbox. The cue is that we already know it, nothing new has to be learned, just a somewhat different practice with two objects that are already available.
-
If a knot like the Zeppelin loop may be considered; i.e. a two step operation, then perhaps some other well known knot might also be considered for the ease of tying and checking. The latter is not unimportant. After dressing the knot, anyone in a team should be competent to check the knot. That might outrule the drop loop variants, because their topology is too complicated even for an expert to know what has actually been tied.
If we are not bound by restrictions on physical size of the knot, the simplest one that I could think of that includes two well known knots done in two step operation would be an eye tied in the bight, to which the end is attached with a double becket hitch. The knot would allow easy inspection, and it would resist offset loading and be fairly easy to untie. For example a Butterfly Loop formed with a conveniently long end that can be thrown around the object that it should attach to, and then the end joined to the Butterfly with a double becket hitch, which I think would be safe enough to use and allow for easy inspection. The Butterfly should be known to all mountaineers, and the double becket hitch is a straight-forward thing easily inspected with little risk of mistying. One advantage over the Zeppelin Loop is that the Butterfly may be tied in the bight at any position along the rope. One may even tie more than one butterfly and leave in place if the rope is relocated frequently, to allow for different size loops.
While we all "consciously or unconsciously" add further simple knots to a basic one in order to add security, the quiet act of realising the principle of compounding simple knots to contribute the component for which they are each exceptional, while each compensates for the weaknesses of the others, coupled with the deliberate announcement of this idea - is nothing short of pure genius and for me, is one of life's very occasional 'EUREKA' moments.
Our intuition to take an already 'goodish' knot and further complicte or compound it to reduce its weaknesses, is turned completely on its head - instead we start with a simple knot which is particularly good at perhaps only one aspect of what we want the final assembly to achieve (i.e. ring loading), then finish the knot with an equally simple knot yet ideal for a totally different function. It is said that 'simple things please simple minds' - I then must have the simplest mind going, because this Oh-so simple concept is giving me goosebumps over its potential.
Props to you Inkanyezi - you are a genius. Perhaps I could coin The Inkanyezi Principle - 'Why use one complex knot when two simple knots can do the job better'
Now we can think about divorcing the various functions we have previously attempted to design into a single knot, perhaps now we can start asking questions like-
What is the simplest way of forming an inline loop that has the least impact on strength reduction? We want to tie a loop which is :- Strong, Resistant to ring loading, Secure, Simple, Easy to untie - a big ask to get all of those into a single knot.
Now we can think in terms of taking out security and concentrate on the rest, then add the security as a second simple easy to untie knot - such opportunities abound...
Derek
-
Mine is a Taurean, and I have already found her (multi functional? I'll say, she is writing a shop for a web site at the moment...).
"a problem that is not yet solved, I believe, and possibly it will never be solved, isn't it that so ?"
Once you have a problem in perspective and can see a way forward, then solutions (if they exist) can be found - isn't that so?
Derek
-
If we are not bound by restrictions on physical size of the knot, the simplest one that I could think of that includes two well known knots done in two step operation would be an eye tied in the bight, to which the end is attached with a double becket hitch. The knot would allow easy inspection, and it would resist offset loading and be fairly easy to untie. For example a Butterfly Loop formed with a conveniently long end that can be thrown around the object that it should attach to, and then the end joined to the Butterfly with a double becket hitch, which I think would be safe enough to use and allow for easy inspection. The Butterfly should be known to all mountaneers, and the double becket hitch is a straight-forward thing easily inspected with little risk of mistying. One advantage over the Zeppelin Loop is that the Butterfly may be tied in the bight at any position along the rope. One may even tie more than one butterfly and leave in place if the rope is relocated frequently, to allow for different size loops.
A double becket isn't terribly secure. Then beside using two knots, the amount of rope used is going to make adjusting loop size, position, and excess a chore.
As far as "any position along the rope", aren't we talking about end loops?
-
Somewhere I think I posted the attached images in this forum,
but Search doesn't grab attachment labels and I'm not up for
more work re that; besides, it will help to put them in place for
this thread.
There is some aspect of the problematic concept/definition of knot
in these discussions: it would help here if instead of looking to what
some general geometric structure purportedly does --how it
behaves, in general-- that one spoke/thought of How should
this material be knotted? For in many instance previously,
and now w/Xarax's here-proposed "bowline" complexity, I find the
advocated knotting of particular materials absurd -- and must believe
that those structures wouldn't have been proposed had the relevant
material been employed (vice the thin, flexible stuff shown)!
We are here talking about knotting typical nylon (also PES) kernmantle
ropes as are used (and have been used for years) in rockclimbing,
caving, SAR, & --more newly-- canyoneering. Although there is some
reason to be chary of recent additions to such cordage --the sometimes
firmer, HMPE-/aramid-cored cords & ropes (canyoneering!), and maybe
also the polyester (PES) ropes. These ropes range from highly elastic
to highly inelastic; from slick & smooth-surfaced to less smooth (i.e.,
worn by use, sometimes to fuzziness) & less slick. In most cases,
they tend to be fairly firm, though here too have a range from
those whose cross section flattens somewhat at bends to those
so packed with core strength and snug mantle that they hold
a round cross section and bend only grudgingly.
As Roo noted, the Sheet bend is not all so secure, and esp. not
so in some kernmantle ropes. (Paradoxically, I think that one of
the ropes tested by Dave Richards was less secure in this than in
the single form!) It is not secure-when-slack (Richards shows
that it can slip at high loads). And as one of if not the main
use for the subject eye knot is tying to a harness, there one
will typically want a small eye, close knot; the knot-within-eye
scheme thus cannot meet this need.
The End-Bound Double Bowline which is shown in the TinyURL'd
sketches Inkanyezi noted seems amply secure in the cordage domain
of interest here. Surprisingly --IMO--, it was not secure in a firm,
soft-laid, slick polypropylene (monofilament) cord; whereas looser
knots could hold their (loose) form better.
But for simplicity and use of extant knowledge (well, this is a bit
debatable as to how "extant" it is) --i.e., the Bowline base--, the
simple wrap-&-tuck with the end used for the various "Janus"
bowlines seems a good, simple solution. It remains to be seen
what help a 3rd diameter of material in the main, nipping loop
is re strength --early test results from Agent_Smith suggest it's little--,
but strength is in any case adequate; security is key, and ease of
untying.
So, I'll show what I now regard as a preferable version on the "Janus"
theme --a moniker of my choice to connote the symmetry of the knot--,
as well as one going a bit more complex, being a sort of Water Bowline
(which has been seen to hold in super-slick HMPE 12-strand rope).
This latter knot can be rather loose and yet get no looser, which
perhaps will have some benefit for those "sport climbers" who take
repeated falls in working out some "problem", for which the ability
of the knot to shed tension --to relax somewhat-- could help
(but regard: could lead to abrasion/heat damage?). This latter
knot sure looks "sloppy", but climbers aren't tying knots as art,
but to do a job.
These are both PET (post-eye(formed) tiable) knots, unlike the
standard eye knot, the Fig.8, which must see a Fig.8 tied in the
S.Part prior to completing the knot -- an awkardness in some
situations (but not so much for tying into a harness).
--dl*
====
Note that this "Janus" Bowline is based on what Ashley called
"Left-handed"; this resists ring-loading.
The 2nd knot I call a "Mirrored Bowline", as it can be regarded as
a bowline with a mirror placed across the eye legs perpendicular
to the axis of tension (to the rope), showing like knotting on
both sides. This can be pretty loose (but keep the Cow Hitch
base reasonably snug), and yet resist shaking to further loosen
-- so many parts abutting and inhibiting turn expansion & material flow.
The upper (grey (Spectra 12-strand)) rope shows the knot at an
intermediate stage, essentially a Water Bwl but w/Cow vice Clove
structure; in the lower knot, the continuation is shown with a
white (cotton) cord serving qua instructional-arrow where
the end is finally tucked -- a particular position here, for hoped-for
strength boost (nicer shape of S.Part curve), which is not important
in general use. In short, this general knot can be formed with a
variety of particulars --just get in the two S.Part TurNips and the
three end-tucks. I tie it by the rabbit-&-tree-&-hole method with
the base formed in the S.Part -- a timely method perhaps but not
overly complicated and too much to ask when you're about to go
spend a lot of time climbing & (re-)falling (or to put heavy load
on serious rope for which easy untying will be much valued!).
-
End loop is the proposed usage, but I envisaged that it might sometimes be used for tying around a rather large object, where ring-loading would occur. For tying into the harness, I would prefer another knot. My own climbing has only been in masts, and I always used a bowline, which never has failed for me. On the other hand, I use an 11 mm hollow braided nylon cord that has a very good grip and I have so far never taken a fall with that kind of equipment. I have tried the fig8 rethreaded but think it's overly complicated without adding anytning for me. In situations with repeated dynamic load the bowline might behave differently, and kernmantle rope is a very different animal when it comes to knotting.
So I guess it must relate to the job at hand. I know that the single becket hitch does the same job as the double, but I usually make it double. The double can sometimes be easier to untie. The becket hitch is somewhat different from the sheet bend, but of course different cordage may fare differently. The rope I am used to is a lot softer than kernmantle, so it might behave differently.
-
...it would help here if... one spoke/thought of How should this material be knotted?
kernmantle ropes range from highly elastic to highly inelastic; from slick & smooth-surfaced to less smooth (i.e., worn by use, sometimes to fuzziness) & less slick. In most cases, they tend to be fairly firm, though here too have a range from those whose cross section flattens somewhat at bends to those so packed with core strength and snug mantle that they hold a round cross section and bend only grudgingly.
So, of WHAT rope material are we speaking of ?
Common nylon kernmantle climbing & SAR ropes, principally.
The main characteristic that they do NOT have is the supple flexibility
of even trawler hawsers (some), which can lazily be folded back upon
themselves. For the most part, I guess that some of the notoriously
stiff ropes --either well-used old ones, or the PMI "pit"? ones-- should
be regarded as special cases, though we might adequately handle them.
The more complex bowlines I proposed ... Been used by the professional fishermen from times immemorial,]
??? So far as I'm aware, they are "new" knots as of your
presentation here; I have never seen mention of such eye knots.
And the dropper knot that is formed in the bight doesn't
begin with a Slip knot, but with many wraps, the bight
tucked only later; this knot is to be set so that it resembles
the Blood knot properly set in monofilament fish line -- I must
add this last clause because the Net (and books) have shown
a misformed knot, S.Parts twisting from center outwards,
vs. going straight to opposite ends and coming back with
overwraps to be tucked through the center.
(Incidentally, I've never seen it pointed out that, as the dropper
formed in the bight (vs. making an Overhand), it is asymmetric,
and might be better oriented one way than the other (as it is
not such a strong knot -- some authors make it seem odd that
it isn't as strong as its lookalike Blood knot kin w/o noting the
obvious difference in loading from the eye).)
And I have to repeat, ... that one of those knots that can be tied with the same dropper loop "base" method
is the Janus bowline itself, in its mirrored form, a not-so-absurd knot that lies in between the "normal" and Eskimo
bowlines and the "dropper loop bowline" I proposed.
I've re-read your posts and don't see quite this particular assertion
realized -- you state it, but you show something different: it has a
"Myrtle" bowline S.Part collar, not a (regular/Janus) collar formed of
a bight extending from the nipping loop.
And I have had quite some time trying to tie the knot in some softish
laid 3/8" nylon rope, which adds to the difficulty its grooves/ridges,
yes. But I simply do not find the slip-knot tying method all so easy
or so reliable (esp. w/vagaries of the capsizing to the ultimate geometry).
I have played with a similar knot, formed by collaring Eskimo-wise first
and then collaring the S.Part -- and thinking that as long as one collars
both, the order isn't critical, and this might help those who sometimes
do the Eskimo by mistake. But, then, it's a rabbit-around-tree tying method,
for the quick-tie by capsizing turNip into S.Part orients the end with wrong
entry (an anti-bowline entry is needed).
the EBSB and EBDB with a Yosemite finish ( fig. 24, 26 ), are also more complex and
less easy to be inspected forms of bowlines , but supposedly more secure end-of-line knots, too.
I've tried desperately to kill Agent_Smith's infatuation with the @&*&@ "Yosemite finish"
-- but so far he carries on as if it were handed down from On High. The EBDB devoid this
gratuitous finish is plenty inspectable/respectable, though it's yet to receive much of either.
--dl*
====
-
I can see the virtue of the Janus Bowline in stiff round-profile rope, where the nip may be poor due to stiffness, so that the nipping loop tends to be kept open by the springiness of the rope itself. The Janus Bowline has better fill in the nipping turn, while at the same time providing more friction and securing the end. I cannot see how an eye tied into the harness would receive offset load, and when I have tried the Janus, it is not extremely good at handling ring loading. It can pull a considerable part of the end back when it's ring-loaded, so I'd go for a long end if ring loading is expected.
It resolves a puzzle for me, because it seems as the springiness and resistance to bending in addition to the round profile is what resists knotting that works well in other materials, and maybe that is the reason for preferring knots as the water knot and double fig8, as they have more fill and work with larger bight radius. The same properties help a lot in keeping a knot from jamming and to facilitate untying, by simply pressing the parts into the knot to open it.
I have played around a little with a stump of discarded kernmantle that I got, and one of my old lines displays some of those properties. That line is not safe for tying a bowline, because it will not nip unless deliberately dressed to nip and maintained so until load is applied to it. Water knot however works fine as well as the Janus Bowline.
I use the slipknot method extensively for tying the bowline, because for me, it is the fastest and simplest method of tying, and it is consistent and will form the knot dependably, provided the end is held away from the SP when the knot is drawn tight. This works in any material, but the doubts about kernmantle and how it would provide nip remain. It springs back and releases the nip as soon as it is left to itself, and then the end may work itself out of the knot, widening the collaring bight and ultimately maybe undoing the knot. So what works in a supple material is different from what would work in a springy and form-stable material. The slipknot method is not practical when the SP is away from you, as when tying into your harness. It is designed for hitching to a closed structure and working away from the SP, as when tying up a boat. It will of course work when you wish to attach a line to someone else, as in the firefighter case, but again, kernmantle rope raises serious doubt about the security of the bowline.
I have tried to combine the last tuck of the Janus Bowline with the slipknot method, but I don't find it very easy to accomplish. It is a bit easier just to make a round turn with the end around the nip of the bowline and up through its hitch to get more fill, but all those variants are difficult two-hand operations that might not be the easiest thing to do if you are in a situation where you also must think of your own balance and safety. If a carabiner might be considered, maybe it would be simpler to pre-tie a large loop with a knot that provides a smaller loop where you could connect the two with a carabiner, so that you would not need to rely on tying a knot. I have tried making the Butterfly with the doubled rope, and it works well, although it violates a few of the proposed requirements.
-
Inkanyezi, I don't see the slip-knot method for tying a bowline all so
unusable in tying to one's harness; why do you? As for some of the
hype re this method's quick efficacy, I've had partial capsizing when
doing that, to check it, where the result wasn't as intended. And that
was with an incomplete transformation to setting the collar; it can go
the other way, too, I think -- collar too large. So, there is likely some
need for further attention, to dress. (I'm thinking of the Brion Toss
Rigger's Apprentice example where as a boat moves near
enough to a pile the rope's cast around, the Slip-knot bight gets the
end, and --whizz-bang-poof, voila-- continued boat movement capsizes
a beautiful bowline. Except it might not. I think in such a situation
I'd feel surer about putting in a HHitch and then a Rolling Hitch behind
this initial guard structure (which would buy me time to tie).
Ring-loading a tie-in eye, btw, seems to be a possibility for some who
choose to use this eye qua belay loop, clipping their belay device to
it (as opposed to a belay loop usually in a harness).
You mentioned the Overhand (& Fig.8) eye knots as being compactly secure.
There is some favor of the variation that brings the end into tracing the
base Overhand from the opposite side (i.e., same side as S.Part)
which I guess one could think of as a corresponding eye knot to the
Offset Ring Bend ("EDK"). It tends to be more easily untied; ring-loaded,
it is a Ring bend (stronger orientation). But it's not Post-Eye Tiable.
I found a way to simulate this eye knot in a PET form, and it
looks, hmmm, maybe okay (maybe it's the ring-loading aspect that
was less impressive).
The more complex bowlines I proposed ... Been used by the professional fishermen from times immemorial,]
??? So far as I'm aware, they are "new" knots as of your presentation here; I have never seen mention of such eye knots.
??? As I have said, ...
I quoted what you said, which needn't be repeated: that the oddball "bowline" was
used by fisherman. And I said that that was news to me. If you have any documentation
of it, we'd like to learn of that. --not the method of tucking a bight to make a
dropper loop, but the actual resultant eye knot suggested by you here. I am unaware
of any hint of such a knot, from any literature I've seen. And, frankly, the results are
such that I don't expect to see them. The SINGLE bight tuck, and the capsizing of
that Slip knot to suck in a snood into a Sheet-bend-like (or reverse) form, yes, that
I've seen; but nothing beyond that. Nor have the mid-line dropper eyes been formed
as you show, but rather with a bight wrapping several times and being tucked once,
resembling a ends-on-same-side Blood knot w/ends fused.
I attach the relevant picture again, with the name "Eskimo / Myrtle "bowline that I now prefer, after your remark.
Please take another look at it, and tell me if it is promising as a more secure form of bowline for climbing/rescue purposes, as the Janus bowline itself is.
A rose by any other name ... : renaming (and re-posting the photo) isn't
going to help the knot. This is a lousy knot for the target material.
It takes a bit of working to get into final form, too, btw.
(Where's Alpineer in all this, btw? His climbing ropes should have many fewer
"new" knots recorded in them and thus be freer for this try-&-see play than
mine. (But I did just give it a go in old smooth firm 11mm dynamic rope.))
--dl*
====
-
Inkanyezi, I don't see the slip-knot method for tying a bowline all so
unusable in tying to one's harness; why do you? As for some of the
hype re this method's quick efficacy, I've had partial capsizing when
doing that, to check it, where the result wasn't as intended. And that
was with an incomplete transformation to setting the collar; it can go
the other way, too, I think -- collar too large. So, there is likely some
need for further attention, to dress. (I'm thinking of the Brion Toss
Rigger's Apprentice example where as a boat moves near
enough to a pile the rope's cast around, the Slip-knot bight gets the
end, and --whizz-bang-poof, voila-- continued boat movement capsizes
a beautiful bowline. Except it might not. /.../
Of course it may be usable, but then it would force the learning of a different method to form the slipknot, which of course is feasible. However, I don't see the virtue of it, as it would not in my eyes be superior to the twist-of-hand method mostly used. Thing is, that the method I use for forming the slip-knot bowline consistently forms a perfect knot and never misses. I got the idea from Brion Toss, I shall not deny that, more than twenty years ago, and trying his suggested slipknot, I failed to collapse it into a bowline about four times out of five.
Thinking that there must be something I do wrong, believing that Brion would not be totally off, I tried to figure out exactly what went wrong. The things that were missing was the position of the end and a firm grip on it while drawing up the knot, and a sufficiently open "slip-knot", which should in fact be more like a marlingspike hitch than a slipknot. So those are the two essentials for reliably using the method. The "slipknot" is not a slipknot but a marlingspike hitch, and the end can not be left to its own devices, but must be firmly held away from the standing part, thereby forming the collaring bight, around which the TurNip/HH will be formed upon pulling the SP. It can all be seen at the video clip I made. The video clip (in Swedish) is at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTApTsLIe1g
About one minute into the clip, those two essentials may be clearly observed. The open slipknot/marlingspike hitch, and the end that is held away from the standing part. At about 1"45' into the video, I form the marlingspike hitch by the "soft method", which does not require any twist of the hand. This is important ergonomically, and in this way I can form the knot in a hawser. I do it in a fluent movement, only lifting the end, hanging a bight over my left hand, then lowering the right hand to grip the bight of the line with my right hand. Then I lift this bight, which forms a round turn at the level of my left hand, where I push my fingers past the lifted part and back through the round turn. This effectively forms the "slipknot", or rather a marlingspike hitch, around my left hand. All seems a rather loose tangle, but it is very organised. The next movement is to put the end through the structure where the line is to be attached, it may at this point be passed twice for an extra round turn, and this is done without losing grip of any of the parts. Then, when the end is hugging the belaying point, it is gripped with the left hand, pulled through the marlingspike hitch and held away from the standing part which is pulled. The marlingspike hitch then conveniently rolls over into a half hitch, which elegantly rolls over the bight formed by the end.
I have done it so many hundred times without missing once, that I regard it as quite reliable. Like any choreography, you have to learn the steps and turns, but the end result is consistent. Generally, the knot is completed between three and five seconds after gripping the end of the line. I trust the method so much, that it has become my standard way of forming the bowline wherever it is to be attached to an object that I am facing. It is a fluent movement, choreography is not a misplaced term, and I have done it in situations akin to the one Brion Toss describes. The difference: It is reliable, the knot will positively take its final form each time. There's no snag, like when the slipknot is drawn up as in Brion's picture, and the marlingspike hitch rolls seemingly without resistance into the nipping hitch of the bowline. Brion's sketch and story was my inspiration to invent a reliable way of tying it, as I found it unreliable and dangerous as described, although it seemed to have potential. It has!
So I never do it in the way described in The Rigger's Apprentice, I always make sure that:
- the marlingspike hitch is open
- the end is held away from the standing part when drawing up
So much for the whizz-bang-poof. It needs the help of a keen hand.
-
... Nor have the mid-line dropper eyes been formed as you show, but rather with a bight wrapping several times and being tucked once,
resembling a ends-on-same-side Blood knot w/ends fused.
I have tied hundreds of trolling lines exactly with this method, thousands of traces on them...and they have been used on millions by fishermen all over the world.
So, the snood attachments that you have made have been just like
what you've presented: the not-like-a-dropper-loop bight re-tucking
sucks in an inserted end to make the end wrap multiple times, while
the main line transforms to a simple loop?!
I have seen the Blood-knot-like dropper EYE knots, most recently ones
with twisted eyes. These eyes are what are attached to by the snood
or whatever.
And one knot that can be tied with a 10 mm rope with the help of the quick bowline method, might be more difficult, or indeed impossible, to tie with a 12.5 mm rope...So this knot is NOT "a lousy knot" or "an oddball bowline", or one should not judge it so after a superficial view as a lousy knot if he does not try it repeatedly on specific materials, situations, instances, sizes, etc, as we must do with all knots. Of course, anybody can judge anything as he likes, as words cost so little...
"Oddball" comes pretty objectively: just look around and see what
is out there for comparison -- or take a vote, the democratic way:
All those who've seen such a knot please raise you hand! ::)
And I think I can judge well enough the "lousy"ness of it from the
play I've made with it in a few ropes. -- especially the kernmantle ones
of this thread.
About what one can find on the literature, I think that most of the instruments and practices
of professional jobs are not adequately described in books, and that is true for all jobs, useful on not so useful.
Hmmm, perhaps. I noted previously that I've not seen what I call
the "Reverse Groundline Hitch" in literature. But then I've not found
literature for commercial fishing. Where application areas have their
own "knots" books, things I think can be better (mind you, publishers
can so characterize books that really don't live up to the promise),
as, e.g., one will often have anglers or climbers writing about, respectively,
angling or climbing knots. (One can however loose a good broad
view of knotting, in this case.)
An experienced professional climber would lough to tears if one that has learned climbing from books was to teach him climbing lessons. The same is true for fishermen, for sailors, and many other activities that their instruments and practices are not exsustively, or even adequately, documented in books.
And yet there are books written by those w/skill & knowledge, and there are
practitioners who have voids in the same. Some combination is best. But
I'm always annoyed when I see climbers on the Net advising questioners
to seek personal guidance vs. Net advice, as one can find so many personal
guides not all so good (as is often enough reported on the Net), and some
of those making Net advice are exactly such guides! With the Net, one at
least can get a batch of advice, sometimes with critique & commentary on
each other.
It would be interesting if, trying to discover "knots in the Wild " we could do a systematic search into the wildness of old books and illustrated dictionaries of the past. May be there we can find techniques and tools that are now forgotten. The study of History of Knots has a bright future !
Here I think you've lost the trail: as we can know at least that there
are some terrible mistakes in old books (copied from other books and
still copied to this day) -- a bad mark on the authorship, so what can
be trusted? So, how to search history for the old uses? -- some combination
of cataloguing what is in texts, being amply skeptical and critical of it, and
examination as much as possible of what historical items w/knotting have
been preserved, and matching them against literature.
But, at least, nevermind history, get out TODAY and document,
not making the mistakes of omission of the past. Again, my lament at
IGKTers gathered at supposed knot-using sites but looking inside and
in museums but not at the knotting on-going at the docks.
(E.g.: Even Ashley goes awry, with his supposed shown-by-Ohrvall
heaving-line bend #1463; but O. didn't say this, though what he DID
write was in Swedish, not Ashley's language (though it was Svennson's,
yet he too claimed it as a messenger-line bend!?); and Ohrvall himself,
trying to present a musical-string hitch to an eye, had a botched image
(one bad crossing). -- a lot of history in literature to be ignored, alas.)
And thanks in advance for the knot-tying video; that should be much help.
--dl*
====
-
Those photos win for artistry, but lose on clarity -- as to what strands
are loaded, which the end. As in the eye-knot case it is just one strand
that is unloaded, it's easiest to point out that one (well, for the dropper
case it is one strand that is assuredly unloaded, no matter).
What is the cordage we're seeing here -- looks like a kernmantle but I'll
guess it's marine double braid, then, and supple/flexible. The sharp turns
around one diameter are where the typical kernmantle ropes will have
problems (some of the Janus bowlines have such but not with much
need for tightness/closeness in the turn).
I have found the setting of these Xarax bowlines to be awkward -- that
it takes some deliberate manipulation to form the bowlinesque knot
vs. something where the would-be nipping central loop is shaped quite
wide & narrow --oval-- with the end wraps within.
--dl*
====
ps: My conception of "bowline" is somewhat three-layered:
most generally, it is all eye knots that have a central nipping "loop"
that feeds into the eye (as one leg); then it is the half of this big
set that has the end entering the loop from the same side that
the S.Part's flow into it lies on (as in the commong bowline),
and the subset with entry from the other side (other direction)
is of "anti-bowlines"; and then in particular it's what we commonly
call "a bowline" (either of two main ones). I figured if folks are
going to go about counting "bowlines" then we should define
what that is and do so better than simply saying "whatever knot
has 'bowline' in its name".
But at times the central, essential loop will deform into
something else --a spiral, or as we can see here, a crossing
knot-- , and I see that as changing the game, but as pointing
to a really fuzzy boundary, though I think a reasonable boundary.
-
What is the cordage we're seeing here -- looks like a kernmantle but I'll guess it's marine double braid, then, and supple/flexible.
Wrong guess. Read my words :),
Oh, actually read the answer !! ::) Well, looks like my looks-like
guessing is better than my reading.
It looks like esp. the white-ish rope shows the stiffness resistance
to snugness. And I think that the more roundish turning of this
version will see more opening than 1-diameter turns: in that if
the rounded turns surround just 2 diameters --which make a poor
approximation of a round object to bind-- they will not so
well lock; but in some orientations the 1-diameter turns make for
a like-scissors-legs working where the rope wants to spring apart
rather than expand a circle, and just the presence of some wrap's
restraint of this then serves to keep the knot as tightly set as
it was. -- at least, this seems to be a difference exposed when I
tried the End-Bound Dbl. Bowline (EBDB) in some slick soft-laid
3mm? polypropylene: even set firmly (in anger that it had dared
to loosen initially, ah, the nerve of it!) , after a brief holding the
end's wrap and the double-turn of the loop just relaxed all at
once. In contrast, a Janus was not so snug-tight on setting,
but this springy material with the sharper 1-dia. turns wanted
to open like scissor legs and simply couldn't, so pretty much
stayed in loose-but-workable state, not further loosening.
-- all of this pretty informal & limited in scope, but still IMO
worth considering.
Here's another variation, described in reference to your orange
rope's version: after the end enters the loop and then turns
around the opposite eye leg, and re-enters the loop, have it
cross OVER itself, and then go up to make a Bowline-like
collar turn around the S.Part, and exit through the center
of the nipping loop (and between its two passes there --the
exit is center of everything, thus). This looks pretty good,
and the revised crossing of itself I think gives better S.Part
curvature on loading, and a bit of give/spring, the re-entry
& final exit parts padding the S.Part from the end-side eye
leg (which will be firmer, having half the tension in it).
My conception of "bowline" is somewhat three-layered:
...
then it is the half of this big set that has the end entering the loop from the same side [ Xarax's emphasis ]
The end entering into the loop from the same side as in the common bowline,
is simply and plainly too restrictive a requirement ! As a bowline I think we have to
count any end-of-line loop, where we have one or more nipping loops, that encircle the rope strands, bight(s) or single strands, that go through it(them). What we must not characterize as bowlines, are end-of-line-loops that have overhand or double eight knots tied on them before the bights and the single rope strands pass through the nipping loop(s).
As of what exactly shape the nipping loop can have, I think that its function, and not its actual shape, ( more two dimensional, circular, or more three dimensional, spiral ) that offers to the bowline its "king of knots" status. If we have ore or more loops that, as they are more and more tensioned by the loading of the knot itself, are obstacles in the natural effort of the tail to escape from the knot, then we have bowline nipping loops.
Hmmm, I think that you've missed my point of "3-layered": that I use
"bowline" in different ways (for want of better terms, at the moment).
I.p., I do use "b." less restrictively --that is the first layer-- , by which
"anti-bowline" in a sense is implying the 2nd-layer "b.", but could be
paired with a "pro-bowline" term (say) as the subsets to "bowline"
set.
But consider what I see as essential: the nipping loop that feeds
into the eye -- that thus nips by active force in both directions
(unlike e.g. a Sheet bend where this corresponding loop is held at
one end, loaded from the other). When the bowline variants such
as the Eskimo (and one Ashley calls "Carrick") pull the S.Part-side
eye leg back around the loop and transform the essential "loop"
into a Crossing-knot form, you have significantly (IMO) now at
turn over the S.Part intervening to the path to the eye leg,
and enough of a changed mechanics to warrant it being considered
NOT in the "bowline" set. Mind, though, that between the paradigms
in this conception are the half-way situations, which beg to mess
up the distinction -- a sort of thing I try to avoid in some other
conceptions (i.e., where I choose to regard pure apparent
structure over observed behavior).
--dl*
====
-
Here's another variation...
Thank you very much. I myself have already tried many similar versions,
but I have too say that I find the main advantage, I dare to say the only advantage,
of those oddbowlines is their quick tying method. Without it, I would simply
prefer a Janus bowline, or a double eight loop [ prefer: "Fig.8 eye knot" ] !
Except that I find the supposed quick-tying method to be anything
but quick: I will post two photos of one of the above knots tied in
11mm dynamic rope, which will show a form that comes from capsizing
the with-end-just-poked-through-bight state, and then a 2nd form got
only by some manual dressing and significant manipulation of the
capsized state -- not very quickly. And even with this much work,
the result, in this rope, is unsatisfying. Moreover, I don't find this
Xarax capsized-complex-SlipKnot method to be so good in figuring
out placement of the knot and consumption of the end; perhaps
that comes with much practice, but it seems to me that one must
have a fairly substantial length of end poked through in order to
ensure that end remains after the capsizing (I had one capsizing
that went *pooph* and the end was out -- must load only the
other eye leg vs. S.Part!).
For the most part, quick tying is not a critical aspect in the
intended applications -- not super quick, as though having just
grounded a resisting half-tonnage of livestock keen to get upright,
say. The tying will often come with deliberate, attentive effort,
even to be checked by a partner (though one can debate the
efficacy/need of this safety step -- sure would've helped Lynn
Hill when she neglected to tie anything (intended to tie
a bowline, she wrote). In some SAR group use, I could see
that the tyer might work with ample end and put on a Strangle
back-up, 2 B sure -- all done pretty quickly, and expected to
endure who-knows-what sort of knock-about abuse in use.
And, for the "sport climber", who might be "working a problem"
and so tying in anticipation of taking repeated short falls, which
will jam a Fig.8 eye knot somewhat, the Mirrored Bowlines might
add to the security some resilience for keeping the knot unjammed,
un-hard-set into a position (or easily relaxed by hand); to this,
though, we will want to check effects of chafing where the unjammed
parts move against others!
--dl*
====
-
Except that I find the supposed quick-tying method to be anything
but quick: I will post two photos of one of the above knots tied in
11mm dynamic rope, which will show a form that comes from capsizing
the with-end-just-poked-through-bight state, and then a 2nd form got
only by some manual dressing and significant manipulation of the
capsized state -- not very quickly. And even with this much work,
the result, in this rope, is unsatisfying.
...
--dl*
====
Here are the promised photos.
In the first, I show the result I get when attempting Xarax's quick-tie,
poke-in-tail-and-capsize method -- the capsizing results in an incomplete
(i.e., not transformed enough) result.
Then, the second photo shows the knot after manual dressing into the
desired form -- it shows how resistant the firm rope is to holding closed
the 2-diameter turns.
--dl*
====
-
Now, from your nice pictures I understand that you are a competent photographer too,
that your famous "worn" 11mm rope is a fine rope, ...
Sometimes competent: had I considered it, for this 24mm(equivalent) macro
shot I'd have set f-stop at at least 4.0; it is wide open, 2.0! -- where usually
at macro distance one can see limited Depth-of-Field focus from this small-lens!?
-- yet this is so sharp throughout!? funny ...
but also that you tied the two wrong knots, the knots I only mentioned once in passing,
and not the knots I am talking about and I have shown in my posts.
And this is plain as day ('cept to you?!) wrong; take some care in reply! The tied
knot is EXACTLY one of your poke-end-through-Xarax'd-double-slipped structure
results, as I stated. It is from (orange rope) post #154, 2nd image, Eskimo
not "Myrtle". AND, geeesh, you can see this plainly in my 2nd, dressed
knot-image in regard to what you then post in reply (esp. in close-up, 2nd pic)!!
Your wife is quite right about your "losing it", but maybe "it" can be merely glasses?!
Please, no more photos: L :o K at the extant ones again (& again, if need be)!
--dl*
====
ps: I was hoping to stay a while with 888 posts but nOnElse had corrected this
error, so, alas, ... .
-
Thank you very much, Inkanyezi, DerekSmith, roo, Dan Lehman,
I am a firm believer in the "less is more" and the KISS principles, and... so I took the liberty to delete all the confusing-rather-than-clarifying material, except from the bare essential and relevant to the original question.
Wow, I look and there are two fewer pages all of a sudden! -- and my reference
to post #154 suddenly looks prescient rather than descriptive. Not to mention
the change to redness.
None of which though changes the fact that the knot I posted above (and will
not delete) is exactly as stated (barring now absent referent), and at this point
matches the knot just posted as being the desirable one of the four versions.
I do hope that others see this. In my old 11mm, the knot did not capsize
into form, and manually dressed still resists turns around 2 diameters; Xarax's
rope behaves better, but doesn't sway my opinion that the knot is much less
desirable than others.
(And Alpineer is still missing from all this recent discussion!)
--dl*
====
-
[/quote]
(And Alpineer is still missing from all this recent discussion!)
--dl*
====
[/quote]
Hey Dan,
Computer problems(again), and car poblems(again), at the same time(AGAIN), have caused me some STILL ongoing distraction. I've been quietly "watching and listening" though and do hope to post very soon. And I've prepared myself by re-reading this thread from it's inception more or less entirely, eyes/brain having suffered an occasional glazing over in the process. Till then :)
-
And I've prepared myself by re-reading this thread from it's inception more or less entirely
More-or-less entirety is all we have, now.
Read quickly & take notes -- now you see it, now you don't !
:D
-
However, if you want a Bwl. that is secure and STRONG, then I am working on a structure that will make your eyes water. Now, I am not saying it will be through laughter or crying in horror, but the brute should definitely get a response from you.
Derek
Hey Derek,
Any updates, please and thank you. :)
So Derek, where is this brute. I think we've been waiting long enough. Or have I missed it. My apologies if so, and could you point me to it.
Thanx,
alpineer
-
Such a long(and exiting) thread! Two specific interests brought me to the IGKT; new "user friendly" methods( I have 8 or more) for tying the Alpine Butterfly Eyeknot in all it's torqued variations, and, apropos to this thread, a safe and secure alternative (to the Rethreaded Figure Eight) tie-in knot that does not involve pre-tying the rope before reeving it through a harness.
Exiting as this thread has been, it's showing signs of stagnation waiting for agent smith to publish any testing results re security.
I would like to offer up one more candidate for inclusion in agent smith's Bowlines article. But first, I must voice my appreciation for the determined and protracted effort agent smith has made in the creation of his article. I can only imagine the distractions which conspired to keep him from this task.
For the EBSB variant in Frames 28 & 29, it should be the EBCB(End Bound Cowboy Bowline), which combines the Half Hitch(nipping loop) with a Figure 8 (AFTER the rope is reeved through the harness). I've also called it the "Cowboy 8".
The EBCB's end binding AND nipping loop contain 3 rope diameters.
-
In my preceding post, photos #1 & #2 show the knot drawn up and opposing views. Photos #3 & #4 show the knot opened up for easier viewing of overs/unders.
alpineer
-
Eskimo Bowline simply is a name for a knot; we can leave the discussion of anthropology somewhere else. No matter who ties it, it is an eskimo bowline, which evidently may be tied in four different ways, The Tugboat Bowline, Flying Bowline or Angler's Loop ABoK #1017, also is just a name for a knot, which tells those that knows it by such a name which knot we're talking about. Whether it was ever used on a tugboat or by an angler is irrelevant. In verbal communication, it helps to have common ground in nomenclature.
I'm sorry to say that from there, I lost you completely, I don't have the slightest idea of what constitutes a dropper loop, and I cannot decipher the meaning of "form a loop and twist it around the overlap" once or twice or in what sense.
That's why pictures often are so helpful. Ashley designed his great book around pictures, as they indeed sometimes say more than a thousand words. Words without pictures often cannot be reliably interpreted. So much verbosity, so little information conveyed.
It should also (firsthand) be considered, that all these variations violate an important prerequisite; namely ease of remembering and tying correctly without risk of erroneously introducing a fatal error. It's the KISS principle that we must adhere to. If we are to teach a knot to which we will trust lives, our own and other's, then it is important not only that the intended knot is secure, but also that we indeed tie the correct one and do not mistie it, forming some other contraption that may not be secure.
What we are looking for is not a smorgosbord of knots that may be formed out of a simple start, but one simple knot that may be securely tied every time, and that will serve the purpose under demanding conditions, including flogging, ring loading and extreme load. The Janus Bowline http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg (http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg) may be an answer to this, and my preferred knot would be the Wave Loop, which is built upon the Carrick Bend pattern http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=434.msg3568#msg3568 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=434.msg3568#msg3568). Testing should be undertaken with both of those. It should also be considered that mistying the Wave Loop is possible, making the first turn in the standing part (as in the bowline) instead of in the leg of the eye, making another form of the Carrick, a different knot, which also has to be tested. Possibly both will be secure and strong. If so, one may consider teaching this second way, as its resemblance with the start of the bowline will make it easier to memorize. This latter variation might also be drawn up by ring-loading, making another different knot which will also have to be tested in the same way. This last one is probably the easiest to tie in a consistent way.
Did nobody notice the obvious differences in Dan's version of the Janus bowline, which Inkanyezi then repeated and the versions out there in the web?
See the pictures below.
DL's version does not match the one in the PDF file and the picture posted in the caving forum that was copied from a magazine. The one from the PDF and the one from the magazin are identical and therefore I think this is the correct version as intended by Heinz Prohaska.
http://postimage.org/image/7fe1q48g4/
-
As if that wasn't enough, the wild and crazy guy Dan also has a Cowboy Janus Bowline. It's for when you're herding cattle in the great wide open.
http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/02_Bowlines.pdf
See Figures 32 and 33.
-
Did nobody notice the obvious differences in Dan's version of the Janus bowline, which Inkanyezi then repeated and the versions out there in the web?
See the pictures below.
DL's version does not match the one in the PDF file and the picture posted in the caving forum that was copied from a magazine. The one from the PDF and the one from the magazin are identical and therefore I think this is the correct version as intended by Heinz Prohaska.
http://postimage.org/image/7fe1q48g4/
"obvious differences" to my mind stands in contrast to, e.g.,
"simple difference" --in each of quantity & quality. Perhaps
you can explain?
DL's version does not match the one in the PDF file and the picture posted in the caving forum that was copied from a magazine. The one from the PDF and the one from the magazine are identical and therefore I think this is the correct version as intended by Heinz Prohaska.
http://postimage.org/image/7fe1q48g4/
Why do you need a match of Heinz's image to judge his intent
--isn't his own article (in Nylon Highway, ca. 1990) sufficient?!
As for "correct", we can note that "Janus" was my coinage,
which points to the knot being able to be seen as having
two identical faces ("identical" goes beyond "Janus", though)
--"same coming as going"--; it suits many versions.
Heinz's knot does not match that suggested decades earlier
by Wright & Magowan (as recently presented in post#22 of
the "Mid-Span Bends" thread); does that have any effect on "correct"?
And re "quantity", I see only a difference in the orientation of
the tail bight legs --one simple difference.
- - - - - - - -
... also has a Cowboy Janus Bowline ...
Which finish might be done in reverse --is an extension
to the Eskimo Bowline, which also looks good.
Which means that one can *succeed* in making an eyeknot
by bringing the tail through the nipping loop from either
side, and then collaring both an eye-leg & SPart, appropriately!
--dl*
====
-
@Dan: "I see only a difference in the orientation of the tail bight legs --one simple difference."
You are correct. My wording was imprecise.
A simple difference might make a big difference though or none at all.
I just wanted to point out that there is a difference and a simple tuck can change one knot to a different one (clove to constrictor, bowline to yosemite bowline) etc.
which have different properties. Whether that applies to this double-bight bowline, I don't know.
"Why do you need a match of Heinz's image to judge his intent --isn't his own article (in Nylon Highway, ca. 1990) sufficient?!
I don't have a copy of that.
"Heinz's knot does not match that suggested decades earlier by Wright & Magowan (as recently presented in post#22 of
the "Mid-Span Bends" thread); does that have any effect on "correct"?
Sorry, I lost you here.
Heinz presented a knot (double bight bowline, which you call janus bowline). If both are not identical, you can either say: the Janus is a variation of the double bight bowline of Heinz Prohaska OR you can call it a different knot. But if they are both presented as the same (double bight bowline = janus bowline), one is correct, the other isn't. I assume the difference is intentional and therefore a slight variation of the double-bight bowline (with one simple difference). Wether better, worse or equal, I don't know and is a different matter.
If that variation is your idea, what is the reason behind it? Do you think it is an improvement? Have you done any tests for both versions?
Greetings
-
An old thread...
alpineer requested that I consider his Bowline variant ('cowboy 8' ) for inclusion in my Bowlines paper.
I haven't tested his 'cowboy 8' variant (by tested, I mean use it while actually climbing a route). I'm just posting improved photos as a contribution to this site. On first impression, it does not appear to be as secure and stable as my EBSB variant which has the tail absolutely held firm. Has anyone given alpineers 'cowboy8' bowline variant some deserved critique/analysis?
I thought I'd also throw in a few images of the 'Karash double loop' (apparently discovered by Mike Karash) - which to me looks more like a Bowline variation (reminds me of the 'Bowline on a bight' ABoK #1080 ). I will have to defer to others to re-iterate what exactly defines a Bowline - and maybe the Karash might be a useful example to work with...
An old quote from Dan Lehman may be of assistance (from the following thread: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1234.0;wap2 )... here Dan Refers to this structure as an "anti-bowline".
It was submitted to the IGKT quite some time ago, and was found to be a decent-looking
option to the Bowline on a Bight; it is essentially the corresponding twin-eye knot to
what Hansel & Gretel's EKFR call the "Twist Bowline" as it the BoaB to the Bowline.
To my classification, it's not a bowline (and certainly not a Fig.8 variant--never mind it that
knot appears amidst one tying method) but an anti-bowline or a Crossing-knot-based eyeknot
It has received some discussion on-line on a the NSS's (cavers) forum OnRopo--to wit:
forums.caves.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6852&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=karash&start=0
What I do find interesting about the 'Karash double loop' - is that is doesn't jam and can be easily untied after loading. It is also 'relatively' simple to tie (there's that word relative again).
I might also add..that Derek Smith (who I haven't from much around this forum lately...) got very excited about a 'G spot'...as in the Karash knot missing its G spot! Not sure where that discussion ended up... comments Dan?
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
-
The "Karash" bowline is
1 : A double bowline.
2 : A worsened bowline, because its not-retraced-yet form is but a "twisted nipping loop" bowline.(See attached picture) The nipping loop, being twisted and inverted like this, is only a worse nipping loop, as much of its nipping / constricting power is lost around the U turn of the eye leg of the standing part. Do not even think of including this poor knot in your fine collection, please ! :)
-
"Karash Bowline" is a new name to me! The inventor of that knot calls it a "Karash Double Loop". Come on, guys. Do we have to attach the term "Bowline" onto every loop out there?
-
Well, I've had a play with the Karash Loop and I find it to be a really rather splendid little loop - the twist in the neck turns out to be important for the overall stability and resistance against morphing into another structure.
@Xarax, I do not think that it matters that the "twisted nipping loop" you found to be inferior is of any issue, because it does not have any 'end holding function' to perform, this being a double loop in the bight with a refolded end giving closed security...
However, I must accord with Knot4u - what is there about this loop that makes you call it a bowline? There appears to me to be nothing bowlinesque about its structure or functional parts at all (the loop is the 'use' of the knot, not a functional part of the knot)
But ;
Easy to tie,
Easy to remember,
Secure (closed refold),
Non translating loops,
Probably stronger than the bwl (2 dia load turn),
Easy to untie after loading,
Usable midline...
This is definately going in my 'Toolbag'.
Derek
-
I do not think that it matters that the "twisted nipping loop" you found to be inferior is of any issue, because it does not have any 'end holding function' to perform, this being a double loop in the bight with a refolded end giving closed security...
You are right... but, if it does not offer anything, why it has to be there ? I mean, the Karash bowline is nothing but a re-traced twisted nipping loop bowline. If the twisted nipping loop bowline is an inferior type of a bowline, why to retrace this inferior type and not another, better one ? Start from a better bowline, re-trace it, and tie a double loop that would be better, simply because it would have been made of two better single loops
There was a discussion about what should be named as a bowline, in (1),(2). As the first, not-yet-retraced loop of the Karash loop is a bowline, the finished double loop remains a bowline. Re-tracing can not erase the original, parent knot.
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2897.0
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2897.msg17389#msg17389
-
I would hesitate to call the Single Karash EyeLoop inferior to either L. or R. Handed Bowlines. I you pull enough slack on the tail into the knot of the Bowlines you end up with a Running knot when the EyeLoop is loaded. Doing so with the Karash you still have a stable, fixed EyeLoop.
alpineer
-
I would hesitate to call the Single Karash EyeLoop inferior to either L. or R. Handed Bowlines. I you pull enough slack on the tail of the Bowlines you end up with a Running knot when the EyeLoop is loaded. Doing so with the Karash you still have a stable, fixed EyeLoop.
I was talking only about the characteristics of the nipping loop, as a nipping loop, i.e, how strongly and securely nips/ constricts the tail that passes through it. If it is twisted/inverted, as it is in the Karash bowline, it is inferior, in that aspect.
The nipping loop, being twisted and inverted like this, is only a worse nipping loop, as much of its nipping / power is lost around the U turn of the eye leg of the standing part.
-
I you pull enough slack on the tail of the Bowlines you end up with a Running knot when the EyeLoop is loaded. Doing so with the Karash you still have a stable, fixed EyeLoop.
Edit quote in previous post.
-
Am trying to determine the essential features which allow a structure to be defined as a Bowline.
Found this from Jedi master Dan:
The study of how the essential bowline structure can be employed/realized
in knots is helpful in finding "new" knots and understanding old. To my
thinking, the sine qua non / essence of a bowline is the nipping loop;
I don't hold the bight collar to be key, just one way of forming a knot
using that loop. And from a structural assessment, I find the
"double butterfly" (two eyes) to be a bowline variant (indeed, a good
candidate for the moniker "double bowline" !).
.:. An easy-sounding question has more to it than one might suspect.
--dl*
and this from Sith master xarax:
There are three, and only three elements that characterize a bowline, in relation to any other end of line loop:
1. The knot tied on the standing part s leg, should be a slip knot. Any sailor will laugh with an end of line loop that is not completely untied like the bowline. Smiley
2. This slip knot should include one, at least, nipping loop, which secures the tail.
3. The tail should form one, at least, collar.
Note: The references to 'Jedi' and 'Sith' are tongue in cheek...when I read through the myriad of posts on the IGKT forum, there seems to be some epic clashes of intellect - and I find it entertaining :) No individual offense is intended...
With regard to the Karash double loop - when it was first shown to me a few years ago, the method of tying was to begin from ABoK #1047 as a base. Then, a 'backflip' similar in concept #1085 was performed to arrive at the Karash structure. In this regard, it was demonstrated to us as a figure 8 variant. In fact, it is not necessary to begin from #1047...you can tie it as for #1010 by simply adding a twist to the nipping loop before performing the rest of the tying procedure.
The point of the Karash double loop (as was demonstrated to me), was to create a form that was easy to untie - even after very high loading.
My point is; what defines a Bowline? Is it master Jedi's or master Sith's theorem? There are probably other posts I have missed...all I am trying to do is collate the defining elements all in one concise theory. If the Karash double loop is NOT a Bowline variant, then precisely why not?
Webmaster: Is it possible to create a 'sticky' of agreed definitions - eg an agreed definition/theory of a Bowline?
Mark
-
I propose we change the name of the "Double Dragon Loop" to "Double Dragon Bowline". But let's not stop there. Let's go ahead and rename the "Span Loop" to "Span Bowline". After all, these loops kinda sorta have Bowline characteristics in them also. Of course, we can't leave out the Inline Figure 8; we must now call that the Inline Figure 8 Bowline.
:D
Seriously, the overuse of the term "Bowline" is starting to make it meaningless.
-
Not so fast knot4u!
I personally am simply trying to extract a workable definition of what a Bowline is. Am for one certainly am not jumping on any renaming bandwagon.
I am merely asking the question - and I'm hoping for some clever replies to sort this out.
This thread is about Bowlines and their security...I already have been using my EBSB variant for a few years now with great success. I refer to my EBSB as a 'Bowline variant'. I posted images of the 'Karash double loop' to initiate intelligent discussion as to what defines a Bowline. I have to admit that that it does remind me of ABoK #1080! To say that it reminds me and to say that it is a Bowline are two different propositions.
As for the Janus Bowline (DL's term), it is an interesting structure - but I have found no practical use for it in climbing and rope rescue. The same with so called 'mirrored' bowlines - I haven't found a practical use for them either. But it is interesting to study their structures...
Are all of the structures below properly categorised as 'Bowline variants'?
Mark
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
-
The Dunny Man wades in with this offering -
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2897.msg19314#msg19314 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2897.msg19314#msg19314)
I would argue for the KISS principle where the Bowline is a small number of loop knots based on the SBCore, and that we might consider calling a knot a Bowline variant only if it clearly contains the SBCore + embellishments.
As for the Janus, it does contain the simple hitch (AKA nipping loop) snugly holding and held by a bight loop, so it can rightly claim to be a Bowline variant, although so far removed from the basic Bowline as for that claim to be almost irrelevant - and what is wrong with simply calling it 'The Janus Loop'? Containing the SBCore is no great claim to fame or function...
Derek
-
Another variation (variation C) of the Janus bowline, is shown in the first attached picture. I have tried to make the curve followed by the working end as it goes from the first to the second collar, a little smoother/straighter.
If we do this, there is a only small step to a sibling of the Janus bowline, the "Fontus bowline" :). ( See the second attached picture). Notice that, in this bowline, the tail of the second/Eskimo type collar is squeezed, and so secured, by the nipping loop, although it does not pass through it for a second time !.
-
I propose we change the name of the "Double Dragon Loop" to "Double Dragon Bowline". But let's not stop there. Let's go ahead and rename the "Span loop" to "Span Bowline". After all, these loops kinda sorta have Bowline characteristics in them also.
They may not be "bowlines", because they lack a "proper" bowline s collar, that is true, but they are bowline-like = post-eye-tiable loops nevertheless ! So, if you call them "bowline-like" loops, I would agree ! :)
-
Another variation (variation C) of the Janus bowline, is shown in the first attached picture. I have tried to make the curve followed by the working end as it goes from the first to the second collar, a little smoother/straighter.
If we do this, there is a only small step to a sibling of the Janus bowline, the "Fontus bowline" :). ( See the second attached picture). Notice that, in this bowline, the tail of the second/Eskimo type collar is squeezed, and so secured, by the nipping loop, although it does not pass through it for a second time !.
Hi xarax,
I wonder what is the latest news on this "Janus variation C" bowline? what are pros/cons put forward by the community?
Since the first time I saw the Prohaska's (Janus) knot, I asked myself why that turn? why not going smoothly down the nipping turn (i.e. why not make your C variation) :)
-
There are many possible "Janus" bowlines ( = two collars, one "higher" around the Standing End, and one "lower" around one eye-leg, sharing one common leg, which goes through the nipping loop ). For some first comments about their number, see (1) and (2).
Many knot tyers ( misled, perhaps, by Ashley ...) still believe that all the standard/common bowline needs, in order to be turned into a "secure" bowline, is a second nipping loop - hence the attention to the overestimated Double and Water bowlines. However, a second collar can offer much more to the security of the common bowline, than a second nipping loop... After each 180 degrees U-turn, the magnitude of the friction forces required to completely and securely immobilize the Tail End, is greatly reduced.
Ceteris paribus, a TIB bowline is always a more versatile practical knot than a non-TIB one. So, I have focused my knot-tying efforts on TIB bowlines, which are able to offer anything the most sophisticated of the less versatile, non-TIB ones, do. Alpineer has tied one interesting and good-looking particular Janus bowline, which happened to be a TIB one (3). However, Alan Lee had expressed doubts about the ability of this knot to "close" evenly, and at the same instance, without leaving a loose collar - i.e., without limiting the functioning part of the loaded nub to the half of the whole (4). So, since then, I had shifted my attention to a TIB variation of the Fontus bowline, shown at (5), which I call "Ampersand bowline" ( its collar structure looks like the figure of the ampersand )(6).
However, I have not tied all the possible TIB Janus bowlines - nor I had tested the ones I did tie in the required detailed way I would had wished. There may well be other secure TIB Janus bowlines out there, standard or "Eskimo" ones, which can be tied easily and quickly in-the-bight, and serve for climbing/rescue purposes. ( An example of an "Eskimo" Janus TIB bowline is shown at (7)). So, hic Rhodus, hic saltus ! In KnotLand, there are no paths other than the ones we make, by walking... The "knot tying community" is more of a euhemerism : knot tying is a lonely sport, and the (few) spectators are often more willing to throw something against you, than applaud your efforts ! :)
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3150.msg19418#msg19418
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4329.msg27171#msg27171
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4697
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4851
5. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1202.msg19317#msg19317
6. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4877
7. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4703
-
Thanks for this!
-
Many knot tyers ( misled, perhaps, by Ashley ...) still believe that all the standard/common bowline needs, in order to be turned into a "secure" bowline, is a second nipping loop - hence the attention to the overestimated Double and Water bowlines.
Interesting, is that the opinion of other IGKT readers? In my limited tying experience, a 2 nip structure seems to dress better and 'look' more secure than a single nip one. i.e. At the very least, the nub of a 2 nip bowline tends to snug better and the 'how' of best dressing the knot seems more obvious to me. My opinion does not matter perhaps, but others may wish to state theirs.
However, a second collar can offer much more to the security of the common bowline, than a second nipping loop... After each 180 degrees U-turn, the magnitude of the friction forces required to completely and securely immobilize the Tail End, is greatly reduced.
Ceteris paribus, a TIB bowline is always a more versatile practical knot than a non-TIB one. So, I have focused my knot-tying efforts on TIB bowlines, which are able to offer anything the most sophisticated of the less versatile, non-TIB ones, do.
I believe in the 'second collar', though I wonder about the TIB part. I have tied (created new knots perhaps) several double/triple collar bowline variants, some of which are TIB and many (with only a tiny modification) are easily not TIB! The versatility of tying a TIB bowline, or not TIB bowline, (in-the-palm-of-my-hand) is the same for me in the sense that there is often only a one tuck difference between the two. From what I have seen, a TIB bowline (and I have tried several) are NOT practical knots when tied in the bight. Surely, if tying a TIB bowline requires twisting the rope a half dozen times (and more) followed by several difficult to describe contortions into loops etc, it simply is not a practical tying method. If the average someone has no hope of reliably tying it in the bight, who cares if it is technically TIB or not?
Having said that, TIB bowlines seem to be easy to dress and easy to tie/untie in general, when considered in the normal end of rope setting and way of tying that is. Maybe this alone is enough to justify the quest for secure TIB bowlines, regardless of someone wanting/needing to tie one that way.
Cheers,
mobius
-
Any practical TIB knot should be easy to tie and untie, of course, in-the-end and in-the-bight. Few TIB bowlines can offer this, that is true, and perhaps this is what makes them more interesting to the knot-tyer.
Try ALL the existing ones, study them, tie each of them at least a dozens of times - and if, in the end, you are not satisfied with anything of what you have seen, invent a better mousetrap ! :)
Thanks for the response.
I will play with 'mousetraps' and see if I can find a sensible approach to tying TIB bowlines in the bight that works for me ;)
I still think that the 'look' of the nub of a snugged knot gives the knot tyer at least a hint on the knot's likely security. Isn't that a similar justification to why many knots are proposed on this forum showing their 'symmetric' form. The symmetry shown supposedly just 'looks' right for a secure knot. I think how a knot snugs after dressing is a better guide personally.
-
Before I learned some TIB bowlines, I had to search for an end of the line, sometimes buried under a pile of ready-to-be-tangled long line :), in order to tie a bowline. Now I can tie one ore more bowlines in the middle of the line - very convenient ! However, this is not the main reason I prefer to tie a TIB bowline. The main reason is that, if a particular knot can be TIB, and can be easily and quickly tied in-the-bight and in-the-end, why one should select one else that is not ? In practical knotting, it is not always possible ( and many times it does not make much sense ) to kill two birds with one stone, because conditions vary a lot - however, when one can do it, it offers him a mental satisfaction to be able to do it - and, when it comes to men s games, mental satisfaction can not be underestimated ! Anyway, nowadays personally I am only interested in TIB end-of-line PET loops ( as well as in TIB "tight" hitches / binders ), perhaps because they are few and not-so-easy to find.
JP s method of tying the Scott s TIB bowline in-the-bight :
First 4 steps :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4517.msg29687#msg29687
Last 4 steps :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4517.msg29648#msg29648
A method of tying the ( topologically equivalent. yet veeery different ) Ampersand bowline in-the-bight :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4877.msg31923#msg31923
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4877.msg31929#msg31929
There are also a few TIB bowlines which we do not know a satisfactory way to tie in-the-bight, or the only method we know is not very easy and/or quick, so there is a lot of work to be done...
I keep advising everybody, including myself, to tie a knot at least a dozen times before he judges if it suits him or not. Also, to try to figure out different tying methods for the same knot - because there are always maaany tying methods, and we can not know in advance which is more akin to the way the brain of each individual finds easier to visualize and memorize it, the level of his hands-eye coordination, his dexterity, his experience, etc.
I believe one tuck is a small burden we have to pay in order to tie a TIB knot. That is how I had arrived at the Ampersand bowline : I had already tied a "new" variation of one of the many Janus bowlines ( the Fontus bowline (1), as I used to call it at that time ), which, if its Tail End is tucked through its collar, is been transformed into the Ampersand TIB bowline.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1202.msg19317#msg19317
-
Many knot tyers ( misled, perhaps, by Ashley ...) still believe that all the standard/common bowline needs,
in order to be turned into a "secure" bowline, is a second nipping loop - hence the attention
to the overestimated Double and Water bowlines.
Interesting, is that the opinion of other IGKT readers?
In my limited tying experience, a 2 nip structure seems to dress better
and 'look' more secure than a single nip one.
Fortunately, Xarax's opinion does not determine that of others,
in every case! In some tests (for which there were YouTube videos)
on small-diameter (5/32") HMPE cord by Brion Toss, the double
bowline w/stoppered tail showed (an amazing) slippage of rope from the
eye out through the (rotating) doubled turNip (!!!), whereas that
same material tied in a larkshead version of the water bowline
--UNstoppered (I had recommended the Mirrored Bowline, in which
the tail makes a 2nd collar, hence "mirror"ing)-- held to rupture (with
only some initial/setting slippage & compression, w/o collapsing the eye).
To my mind, while the dbl.bwl bolstered by my so-called "end bound"
tail-wrapping extension offers adequate security in many circumstances,
the mirrored bowline is probably overall more secure --something that
might loosen a bit, but no further, in contrast to the EBDB and its
potential too-much loosening in some materials. The central knot
(whether the larkshead/cow of the "mirrored" or a clove of a similarly made
knot) might loosen (and isn't really intended to be set tight, unlike EBDB),
it will have trouble loosening much, given the way the material is bent,
given the back'n'forth running through U-turns of those two collars.
--dl*
====
-
Fortunately, Xarax's opinion does not determine that of others, in every case!
The same applies for your opinion, of course :) - so be cautious about the quality of the arguments you use to enforce it, because if they are as strong as the laughable would-like-to-be "tests" ( which are only just ONE TRIAL, "published" in the YouTube, for KnotGod s sake ! ), your opinion is lost 'in the Wild". :)
My initial post was about the value of the double nipping loop structure, in comparison to the double collar structure ! In particular, I had argued that it is much "safer" ( regarding slippage and/or strength ) to use a double collar ( as in the Janus bowlines ), rather than a double nipping loop. Of course, doing both is better still, because what the one adds the other does not subtract - and I have no doubt that your Mirrored bowline is a most safe secure bowline, indeed. ( The only reason why I do not include it in my list of my favourite knots, is that it is not TIB - and I had decided that, if a secure bowline can also be TIB, and can also be used as a middle line loop, without any compromise in its tying and untying easiness, it should always be preferred, even if it will seldom be tied or untied in-the-bight).
-
Another variation (variation C) of the Janus bowline, is shown in the first attached picture. I have tried to make the curve followed by the working end as it goes from the first to the second collar, a little smoother/straighter.
If we do this, there is a only small step to a sibling of the Janus bowline, the "Fontus bowline" :). ( See the second attached picture). Notice that, in this bowline, the tail of the second/Eskimo type collar is squeezed, and so secured, by the nipping loop, although it does not pass through it for a second time !.
A really old post, however I'm sure someone (xarax :) ) will not mind responding to it.
I decided to try to digest the rather voluminousness discussion (elsewhere) about what is a bowline and what is not a bowline. I might have missed something, however working off the above quote it appears to me that the Fontus is not a bowline since: "... the tail of the [Fontus] does not pass through it (the nipping loop] for a second time". Yet, despite that, the Fontus gets called a bowline in the next sentence :)
If a Fontus is a bowline because the collar is "squeezed" by the nipping loop (and that is enough) then I think there are going to be a lot of eye-knots that potentially turn into bowlines. For example: I don't think a Double Dragoon Loop is a bowline yet I can see a nipping turn 'squeezing' a collar structure in that knot.
Cheers,
mobius
-
However, you may now forget the Fontus bowline, which is useful only for historical reasons... :) By re-tucking the Tail End through the collar, we get the TIB Ampersand bowline, which is a much more versatile eyeknot, since it is TIB.
Let's suppose that I need an end loop, and I don't know anything about TIB-ness.
And I want to choose between Fontus and Ampersand. I really can not see any advantage of Ampersand. And personaly Fontus to me seems nicer. The diference is only one: over/under.
So: let Fontus live!
Regards, ZZ
-
TIB-ness is a marvellous, a great thing, for any knot !
From the first time we tie our very first knot, we tend to think that, to tie a knot, you need to entangle the end(s) and tuck it/them through the forming nub - and that a "knot", as an object, is but such a tangle. When we later discover that you can form a rope-made lump, a stable congregation of curved rope segments without using the ends at all, which lump can disappear at any time and at an instance, you are impressed, literally, and is the reminiscence of this vivid feeling which makes you enjoy each and every TIB knot, each and every time you tie it in-the-bight.
I would nt cease to tie TIB knots, even when I can not tie them in-the-bight, even if I do not gain anything more, regarding every other property, from their TIB-ness, and even if it will be prohibited to tie them ( by some practical knot fundamentalists, who will conquer the Holy KnotLand... :)).
Long live the joy of tying and untying TIB knots, of "knotting" the beautiful straight line, and then unknotting it at an instance, without leaving any traces / wounds, without committing the barbarian act of penetrating the nub with the end(s), or uprooting the end(s) from the nub ! Ends, stay where you should be, at the end of the line ! :)
It is the straight line which is the "origin" of all knots - knots are transient, only things on a straight line. When you have a non-TIB knot, it looks like a "relic", a parasite on the straight line, an almost permanent open wound which can not be healed instantly.
( "Knotting litterature", after a day I had discovered how blind, and stupid, one can be - again ! :) )
-
Hi there,
I hope you don't mind my linking to my thread in the "new knot investigations" part of the forums. I have been using (i.e falling on) a knot that looks a bit like those discussed here - but isn't specifically identified, as far as I can see.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5479.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5479.0)
cheers
Dom
-
... but isn't specifically identified, as far as I can see.
One can see at various stages in these extended
bowlines choices of structures to form, and that
these can often be combined each to the others,
such that the combinations possible rise to a number
beyond a normal person's strength to "identify" in
some memorable way!
:P
-
Hi Dan - Fair enough!.
Although, I will say in my defence that this is a knot that I have been putting to practical, regular use for some time. I might also add that I arrived at the combination for specific reasons and with a bit of trial and error.
I was keen to get some erudite opinions on it, but I am perfectly prepared for the possible risk that I might come off as a slightly eccentric 'lone voice'!
That said, I am not sure that I can think of a better context to discover the various pro's and cons. Although I also see from the discussions in the forum, those pertaining to the humble bowline are somewhat over-represented.
I think that xarax's line of questioning in the thread on the "new knot" section regarding water bowlines and how they react to lead falls in climbing is the point for me, and is the reason for my adopting this as a my way of tying into my lead ropes. The tactility of the tying of it is the other aspect (I could probably do this in my sleep!)
Dan, am I right in saying that you feel that these variations cease to be bowlines altogether, which is a fair point to consider of course.
-
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/630/20914243129_91489100ca_b.jpg)
I was playing around and made this bowline type loop, TIB. Is it familiar?
-
Even if you use a very stiff rope, under even moderate loading this knot is not stable : it would degenerate into a "Helical loop".
However, let us, for the moment, suppose that your rope is super-duper stiff, and the segment shown by the green arrow, in the first picture, would not be "swallowed" by the nub. This loop is not a bowline, for two mainly, reasons :
1. The nipping structure / turn/ loop is not a bowline s nipping structure / turn / loop : As shown in the second picture, by the two red arrows, the rim of this nipping loop approaches the continuation of the Standing End two times - it is almost as it has two crossing points. This form characterizes the "crossing-knot-based loops", which are a distinct class of loops. Many of them are very stable loops, which do not need much help from the collar to retain this stability - but this one is not.
2. The returning / second eyeleg enters into the nipping loop like it enters in the "Eskimo" bowlines - but then it collars the wrong limb, the Standing End ( like it happens in the common bowlines ), and not the ongoing / first eyeleg ( like it should, of it was an Eskimo bowline ). As a consequence, the "collar" can not prevent the nipping loop from degenerating into an open helix.
Now, as a "helical loop" it is not so remarkable either. The "similar" simple Helical loops shown in (1) and (2) are more secure, in the sense that the knots tied on the Standing End after the eye grips the helical segment more effectively. However, none of those loops can withstand a really strong pull : the knot tied on the Standing Part after the eye will slide towards the tip of the eye. The way to improve this, is to add a second helical turn (3), so the helical segment of Standing Part will be longer, and will encircle and grip the "collar" more - but then your knot loses the simplicity which was its greatest advantage.
For other "Helical loops", read the other posts of the relevant thread (4).
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4965.msg33791#msg33791
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4965.msg33814#msg33814
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4949.msg35580#msg35580
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4949.15