And I'd like to see some clear photos of these alleged 'Bowlines'!
The
Myrtle is just such a knot,
and coming in from the opposite side of the
nipping loop with the returning eye leg one
should re-insert (closing this eye-leg loop)
on the eye-side (vs. SPart-side as done w/Myrtle)
for surer holding. (Make a double turn, and it matters
less!)
Bowlines are also jam resistant and 'PET' (although 'PET' may be conditional).
NOTE: With regard to 'PET' - not all Bowlines are PET when attached to objects such as a climbing harness.
Worse misspelling than 'prussic' even, this 'PET' vice 'TIB' !!
Not all of my *bowlines* are PET or TIB (some are),
but the PET ones
by definition are thus when attached
--to ANYthing!
For example, #1080 (Bowline on a bight) cannot be attached to a climbers harness via the TIB method (although in theory, a gigantic bight of rope could be passed over ones head and body to step through...but that would not be practicable and in fact would be silly to attempt).
Ha, somewhere I just saw this very process promoted,
for a middle-man tie-in! (In the case of some accident,
fall, tension ..., it makes getting free of the rope a real
challenge, alas.)
Mind you, a work-around would be to avoid the TIB method altogether and re-thread the entire knot to recreate it via single strand - but this is cumbersome.
It is also recommended, by DAV (German climbing) and
maybe some others. In general, tie-in knots that entail
making a 2nd pass for a 2nd eye will prove to be more
overall-secure vs. complete loosening than others.
As for the assertion
"a
<whatever eye knot or end-2-end knot or hitch> UNloaded
is still that knot,
I beg to differ. Certainly, my direction points to awkward
*speaking*, but at least for the purpose of some
formalknotting discussion, it could well be that one would consider
things. And there is some practical side in cases where the
particular loaded_*knot* just falls apart absent tension
(and so would be hard to posit as "STILL being..." --just *being*!).
My e.g. of "bowline" (and other eye knots) considered at the
"cookie cutter" view (all *ends* exit the cutter perimeter w/o
specific connection)
is of a barge pulled with a tow line tied to starboard cleat
and the barge's shorter like line tied to port cleat and then
joined to the tow line in a --well, what do you call it(?),
"bowline" :: any knotter given the cookie-cutter view
of just the entangled/knotted part and its ends' tensions
or not would immediately recognize it as such,
irrespective of the barge *interrupting --or completing?--*
the "eye" bight.
(Take this example but change angles to 120deg all 'round,
and then what? --bit more change to put >120deg on both
sides of the short line (barge port cleat) and you then see
a
"becket hitch"/"sheet bend", per loading!)
.:. It comes down to how you want to speak, how you
want to regard entities, what purpose you address. In
common parlance, yes, you don't want to have knots
coming & going per tension; though
ring-loading might
acceptably be openly spoken of as transforming an eye knot
into an end-2-end knot (wrong bowline into right Lapp bend).
--dl*
====