per Derek:
So, how about this :-
A Bowline has the following key aspects:-
[ ] A Bowline has two defining internal components, these being a Bight Component and a Helical Nipping Component, plus two defining external components, these being a load bearing SP and a load bearing fixed loop.
[ ] A Bowline may contain other components, but these must not change the form or function of the two key internal components.
[ ] The Bight Component collar must encircle the SP in order to stabilise the Bight Component, although in use the collar may become distorted and lead to eventual failure of the bowline - this is a continuous progression through various degrees of Bowline viability.
[ ] The legs of the Bight Component must be secured by and within the Helical Nipping Component. This action provides the negative linear cogging function within the knot and is a critical aspect of knot functionality.
One of the Bight Component legs must be a loop leg.
the remaining Bight Component leg is normally the WE, but may be reworked to enhance security, but must not change the form or function of the defined key internal components.
[ ] The Helical Nipping Component must be loaded on both ends. One end must be loaded by the SP, the other must be a loop leg. The helical Nipping Component may range from an overlapped helix, through a spectrum of degrees of openness. In use, the helix may continue to open if the bight legs are drawn through the grip of the Helix, eventually leading to loss of viability as a fixed Loop Knot and conversion to a Noose.
[ ] This definition is based on ABOK #1010, but does not extend to incorporating the Eskimo 'Bowline', wherein the Bight collar does not encircle the SP.
It incorporates a considerable amount of flexibility, yet retains the core essence of the Bowline. The price is that the Eskimo will probably have to become known as the Sheetbend Loopknot ....
Derek
With a few modifications to your chosen terminology, this is largely what I and others have been advancing for some time (but maybe you did not see this?). Problem areas are highlighted in
red font.
The nipping structure (or nipping component) - in the common #1010 Bowline - takes the form of a jam resistant
helix that is
loaded at both ends and is
TIB (Tiable-In-the Bight). To Ashley's eye, all 'Bowlines' contained this type of nipping component.
Things get difficult when we see nipping components that take a different form to a
helix. For example, there is #206 Crossing hitch and #559 Marlinspike hitch. Both of these structures are TIB and can be loaded at both ends and remain jam resistant.
In my view, it is possible to construct a
virtual Bowline from a nipping component that takes the form of #206 and/or #559. The word 'virtual' meaning "in the likeness of" or, "a close representation of".
The use of 'TIB" as a qualifier for a
nipping component assists in
narrowing the potential for other eye knots to claim the title of 'Bowline'.
In my view the illustration at
#1016 (in 'ABoK') is a clue to Ashley's mindset - and shows a [previously functional] nipping loop that, due to a transformation, has become non-functional. I think Ashley recognised that the nipping component needed to be loaded at both ends and be free to encircle and clamp both legs of the collar. In #1016, due to the transformation, the nipping loop has lost functionality. And that (in my view) is why Ashley was hesitant to call it a 'Bowline'. Xarax has also advanced that a nipping component (or nipping 'loop') is most
effective when it begins at the continuation of the SPart (standing part).
A further qualifier for a nipping component is that it must
freely be able to encircle and clamp both legs of the collar (which you prefer to conceptualize as a 'bight'). When this condition is satisfied, it is said to be 'functional'.
The collar does not need to
encircle the SPart (standing part). It performs a
U turn around it (not a full circle). This U turn may be performed at the crossing point formed at the juncture of the SPart and the ongoing eye leg (ie so called 'Myrtle Bowline'). The SPart acts as a bracing post.
The 2 legs of the collar may enter the nipping component from opposite directions (in the common #1010 Bowline, both legs enter from the same side).
Xarax is working on a theory about 'PET' (Post Eye Tiable) qualifier - but I am unclear as to how far he has progressed with respect to its completion. In earlier theories, it was advanced that all 'Bowlines' are PET.
With respect to your phrase 'degrees of openness' (re a helix) - a more accurate descriptor is
degree of overlap. If the helix were to 'open up' (which I understand to mean
spread apart so that there is no longer any contact between the overlapping segments) - it would no longer be functional.
I disagree with your proposition re the so-called 'Eskimo Bowline' (which is an anti-Bowline).
All the necessary building blocks are present - just all in an 'anti' direction relative to the common #1010 Bowline.
And; your use of the term 'loop' may be fluid and diluted - because a loop is a geometry that is not well defined in knotting literature. Some may argue that what you conceptualise as a 'loop', is more apt to be described as a fixed 'eye' (analogy is an 'eye bolt'). The concept of 'loop knot' is likely heavily influenced from the days of Ashley - and has become entrenched. To challenge that paradigm is to invite risk - because the concept of 'change' can induce feelings of fear, and in some cases, outrage. It is a human condition to fear change. And so, to substitute the phrase 'eye knot' for 'loop knot' could ignite fear and outrage. I think that knotting terminology needs to be better defined.
I am currently working on a revision to my analysis of Bowlines paper. I have a rich source of material and ideas to inject into that paper.