Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes

[Transminator]

@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

[agent_smith]

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?

[xarax]

    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 ! 

[knot4u]

"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?

[DerekSmith]

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

[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...

   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

[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 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

[xarax]

  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.

[alpineer]

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.

 

 

[agent_smith]

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

[knot4u]

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.



Seriously, the overuse of the term "Bowline" is starting to make it meaningless.

[agent_smith]

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

[DerekSmith]

The Dunny Man wades in with this offering -

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

[xarax]

   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 !.

[X1]

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 !