Author Topic: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes  (Read 153944 times)

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1572
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #90 on: January 23, 2009, 09:27:53 AM »
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

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #91 on: January 23, 2009, 08:51:56 PM »
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.

Quote
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?!)

Quote
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_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #92 on: January 24, 2009, 07:07:55 PM »
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*
====

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #93 on: January 27, 2009, 07:19:25 AM »
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.     

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #94 on: January 28, 2009, 02:13:00 AM »
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*
====

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #95 on: January 28, 2009, 07:02:47 AM »
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 
 
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 09:04:03 AM by alpineer »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1572
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #96 on: January 28, 2009, 11:16:56 AM »
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.



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 -



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 )

Derek

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #97 on: January 28, 2009, 07:49:52 PM »
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.)

Quote
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).

Quote
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

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #98 on: January 29, 2009, 10:37:23 AM »
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.



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 -



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 )

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.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 10:50:43 AM by alpineer »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1572
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #99 on: January 29, 2009, 02:36:38 PM »
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.



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
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 08:27:19 AM by DerekSmith »

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #100 on: February 01, 2009, 12:59:44 AM »
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.



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.   
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 06:21:14 PM by alpineer »

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #101 on: February 01, 2009, 02:26:08 AM »
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
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 02:44:16 AM by alpineer »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1572
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #102 on: February 01, 2009, 09:42:14 AM »
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

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 -



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.



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


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #103 on: February 01, 2009, 04:59:42 PM »
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! ))

 :)

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1572
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #104 on: February 01, 2009, 07:58:36 PM »
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.

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