The Oval loop. Corresponding to the Oval bend, shown at (1) (See the attached pictures). I believe that it presents an interesting mechanism of securing the tail, which is not so common in loops or bends. In the original Oval bend, the fact that the first curves of the standing parts are going around the centrally located pair of adjacent opposing tails, as well as the overall two-sides symmetry, reminds of the Zeppelin bend. However, in the Oval bend the two links are topologically equivalent not to the overhand knot, but to the unknot - so this bend can be transformed into a bowline-like end-of-line loop.
I have tied
all the symmetric bends I know, where the two links are topologically equivalent to the unknot - and not to the overhand knot, to the fig.8 knot, the fig.9 knots, the double overhand knot, etc. I have tried
all the possible corresponding end-of-line loops of those bends, as well as of their "reversed" knots ( where the standing ends and the free ends are interchanged). Guess what interesting I have found, except the few loops I have presented till now : Nothing !
A round Zero ! It is evident that this is not the way to search for bowline-like, end-of-line loops...I have seen that the corresponding to those symmetric bends loops suffer from one or more of the following :
1. They are too complex, although they can be simplified a lot - but then they lose any resemblance to the original symmetric bend. A loop is a more "easy" knot than a bend, in the sense that, having three limbs loaded, it is now easier to secure the single tail into the knot s nub - which, in its turn, is squeezed by three tensioned ends, from three sides. So, rope segments, elements of the knot, that were nessesary to securely fix the bend s tangle, are now redundant . This makes most symmetric bends, when they are transformed into corresponding end-of-line loops, consume more rope length than nessesary.
2. The asymmetric loading distorts the loop knots too much, so they do not resemble the original symmetric base knots any more. In most of those loops, the distribution of tensile forces within the knot s nub is now greatly imbalanced, and the overall form is not inspected very easily any more, for the knot tyer to be sure, in a glance, that the knot is correctly tied.
3. The rope segments follow very tight curves, that could have been avoided in a not-symmetric knot. Alhtough these curves were nessesary in the original bend, now they look like they could have been avoided, if the rope segments were driven to follow different paths into the knot s nub.
3. The tying method of the corresponding end-of-line loops are different, and less easy to remember, than the tying method of base symmetric bends. A knot that was very easy to tie and inspect as a symmetric bend, now looks like a puzzle, and the knot tyer is not sure through which opening of the "nipping structure" he has pass his working end ...
In short, we can tie better and simpler bowline-like end-of-line loops, if we do not follow the complex patterns we were following in the case of the symmetric bends. With the notable exception of the symmetric sheet bend, all the other symmetric bends are more complex than the standard bowline...and this tells us much about how efficient is the nipping loop + collar mechanism.
1)
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3741
