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
) 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*
====
