The somewhat naive definition of the bowline, based upon the elements of a simpler or a more complex TIB nipping loop and a "proper" collar, has its problems as well. The first one was pointed out since the very beginning of this thread, and has to do with the "crossing knot"-based loops. We can not dispense with the exclusion of those loops from the bowline family, without been forced to do the same to the Eskimo bowline -- and I believe that this is a unacceptable high price to pay.
[Exclude "exclusion" and it reads correctly; or replace "dispense with" with "admit".]
I say we are bound to face difficulties on account of the
varying geometry of knots per load, per material, per setting;
things are not per-fect! And we face the issue of what to make
of *knot* --a challenging definition or set of definitions yet to be made.
Now, how should we see the knots presented by photographs here?
We have two stages --set tightly, set loosely & "capsized", or at
least in a different geometry. (I do not show a regular
bowlinehere, for surely that is known well enough.)
To those who would insist on seeing both of the
eskimo bowlinesas, well, both being *A* (named) *knot*,
do you think the same thing in the case of the (capsized)
bowline ?
--for it is arguably a similar change to the commonly seen knot
as is the "Ec" version (to the "E" --in my filename) to the
eskimo b. .
(I confess to needing to turn this knot around and scrutinize it
in order to identify it --such a hard turn the tail-side eye-leg makes!)
.:. So, I see the
eskimo bowline as one, like the also cited
carrick loop (#1033),
that straddles the boundary I'd like to keep as a *bowline's* essential
quality --a
turNip . And, yet, even
this structure is problematic, as the
helix (it's never a perfect circle (well, nearly never : one could do so w/some
loosely-braided cordage by tucking through the lay, I suppose!)) widens
--when must one call "enough!!" That is a per-degree differentiating that
eschews some bright line of demarcation.
Now, the second, more difficult problem has to do with the shape "8" bowline,
also presented previously in this thread, under the telling title "to be or not to be a bowline".
(1) I think that if there might be a plausible argument in favour of Dan Lehman's view of the bowline
--that the collar should not be considered as an independent element, but only in relation
to its entanglement / stabilizing function with/on the nipping loop --this shaped "8" bowline-like loop
is the best I can think of.
What can be said about the nipping loop(s) here ? Is there one nipping loop or two ?
How about zero! Again, looking to the
turNip as the base, where
the eye delivers force into the loop, one doesn't have that here,
with the would-be "loop" more a "turn", not *encircling* the nipped parts
so much.
--dl*
====