I am afraid, Derek, that you are confused, indeed, and firing the one bullet right after the other will not save you ...
So, I will take your bullets, one by one :
1. .
"I am confused that anyone can suggest that the Bowline's only significant component is the ShC"1.
Yes ! NOBODY can suggest that the Bowline's only significant component is the ShC (except you, of course !
). There is no hitch component in the bowline, neither the so-called "Shc", the hitch component of the Sheet bend, nor any other. The Bowline has two components : The main is the nipping loop, and the secondary is the collar. You try to explain the bowline in terms of the Sheet bend, in vein.
The bowline is a Gleipnir with a collar, plain and simple .
2.
"I am confused that you would define the half hitch in Fig 39 as 'highly asymmetrical'"2.
Yes ! The half hitch of Fig 39,
and any other half hitch in the universe, is highly asymmetrical, because :
a. The second end is not loaded as the first
b. The one leg is over, or under, the other, the one leg squeezes the other on some rigid surface, or a tensioned line.
3.
"I am confused that you see in Fig 39 one leg "crossing and passing over the other", yet you don't see that this is true for both legs."3.
Yes ! The "first" leg is over the second, but the "second" leg is under the "first", by definition...
So, the two legs are not symmetrical, neither in looks, nor in function. The "first" squeezes the "second", but the "second" is squeezed by the "first", by definition. Asymmetry. The one is loaded, while the other is not. Asymmetry. The difference with the situation of two legs of the collar are so big, you can
hide beneath it !
4.
"I am confused that you are calling "the riding turn" an elementary mechanism when its Force Vector Analysis is hugely complex."4. Force Vector analysis in flexible materials ? Ok, publish your scientific essay, and I promise I will read it... Leaving this in the field of serious science, where it does belong, let us go to the "riding turn". I am afraid "I" am NOT obliged to publish a Nobel-prize winning essay on this, ( like you are, for the "Force Vector Anaysis" of the "xStC", "ShC", etc....), because, fortunately, everybody already knows and understands what a
riding turn is.
The one segment of rope makesaturn around the line/pole, and passes over the other, remember ? Now, if it is the most elementary knot mechanism, or can further be reduced in an even more basic concept, this is debatable, of course, but do not try to mix the weaknesses of my theory with those of yours !
We are talking about
your theory now, that considers the half hitch as "symmetrical" relatively to its two legs !
5.
"I am confused that you question the loading of the end in the 'second and third pictures', when Fig 39 is clearly loaded and is defined as a half hitch - someone else's definition, not mine."5.
Yes ! I was not supposed to know what the author of a sketch was meant to show. I have asked you to define it, and I have answered what happens in BOTH cases, the case where only the one free end of the knot was supposed to be loaded, and the case where both free ends were supposed to be loaded. Is
that such a strong argument, that you feel you have to fire it towards me ? If it is, what can one say for the weak ones...
6.
"I am confused that in ABoK#160 and #161 you claim them not to be hitches when Ashley states " the hitches are in the standing part.""6.
Yes ! The second structures of the ABoK#160 and ABoK#161, when and when only the one free end is loaded, they are hitches. When and where both ends are loaded, they are nipping loops. I have repeated this simple distinction a hundred times now, so you can not fail to listen it ! What is happening, Derek ? You are feeling so weak, that you are asking for help from your big brother ? You start citing the scripts ?
7.
"But most of all, I am confused that you seem to be closing your mind to the fact that while a single turn (xStC) is a nipping loop and may not be a hitch, a Hitch by contrast is also (and I believe likely to always be) a nipping loop"7.
Yes! I am not going to split hairs to save face, as you do. A hitch is a hitch, and a nipping loop is a nipping loop. The fact that the hitch squeezes the pole or the rope around which is tied, does not make it a nipping loop, because it is highly asymmetric in its legs, the one leg being loaded, while the other is not. On the contrary, the nipping loop is symmetric in its legs, and both legs are equally loaded. Use any Sanskrit script you wish, like this "ShC" proto-indo-European one...
Something should not be defined as a hitch and a nipping lop at the same time, otherwise our theories will serve less than astrology...We make a useful distinction and definition, even if there are similar mechanical functions in both our entities. I do not think that there is
anybody that will fail to see those simple distinctions I have repeated again and again ( to use your style of the #1 argument...
)
What are we arguing about? The ShC functions as both a hitch and a nipping loop... If that is so, why do you use this "ShC" entity ? If it is a Chimera, a Janus, a double-edged sword, forget t ! I will not help us explore, explain and define what is a bowline, because it can do anything !
On the contrary, the simple thing I have said is sufficient to classify the loops into bowlines and not-bowlines, whithout any such ambiguity.
1. The "collar" is a collar, it is not a hitch, neither a nipping loop. The bowline has one, at least collar, made by a bight of the eye leg of the bight end.
2. The "nipping loop" is a nipping loop, it is not a hitch, neither a collar. The bowline has one, at least, nipping loop on the standing part.
3. The (half) hitch is a hitch, is not a nipping loop, neither a collar. The fact that it does constricts the pole or the line around which is tied, does not make it a nipping loop. The fact that it does make a U-turn around a pole or a line, does not make it a collar.