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

[knoeud]

   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)

[xarax]

   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

[Hairywookie]

Thanks for this!

[Mobius]

      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

 

[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.

[xarax]

   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

[Dan_Lehman]

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*
====

[xarax]

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). 

[Mobius]

   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

[zoranz]

  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

[xarax]

   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 !  ) 
   

[DubDom]

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

cheers

Dom

[Dan_Lehman]

...  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!

 

[DubDom]

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.
   

[Mike]

I was playing around and made this bowline type loop, TIB. Is it familiar?