Link Bowline - a very simple modification of the common bowline.

[X1]

  There is a great advantage of the "Eskimo" /(-) bowlines, that has not attracted the attention it deserves, I believe : the continuation of the eye-leg-of-the-bight, just at the point it enters into the nipping loop, makes a sharp 90 degrees turn before it collars the eye-leg-of-the-standing part - while, on the contrary, at the common bowline it proceeds straight towards the standing end, without such/much deflexion, So, at the (-) bowlines, this L-shaped segment of the eye-leg-of-the-bight stands as an "obstacle" to the flow of the tensile forces that come from below, and, at the same time, as a "handle" to the flow of the tensile forces that come from above. Almost right-angle crossings mean that the segments of the rope bite each other harder and deeper, so there is more friction, less slippage, more efficient nipping action. This L-shaped deflexion in the collar structure makes the life of the nipping structure much easier !
  The bowlines shown at the attached pictures are meant to get the best of both worlds : the beneficial deflexion of the collar structure, achieved at the "Eskino"/(-) bowlines, and the enhanced stability of the nipping structure, achieved at the common/(+) bowlines. - with a most simple trick : A round turn around the crossing point of the nipping loop, that changes the angles, and inserts some deflexion to the otherwise almost straight eye-leg-of-the-bight. I am sure that this bowline has been tied again and again, if only by mistake  - but I have not seen it accompanied with the specific reasoning it is presented here.
   While the eye leg encircles the crossing point of the nipping loop, it can go "over" or "under" itself - so there are two variations of this bowline. Also. this eyeknot can be tied in a 'left" or "right" handed form - but I believe that the two bowlines presented here are better/nicer than their other-handed twins. The provisional given name describes the way the collar structure and the nipping structure are embracing each other - however, any suggestion for a better name is welcomed. 

[X1]

   A second variation of the same knot. It is at the "back view" where the differences are more easy to distinguish.

[X1]

: A round turn around the crossing point of the nipping loop...

  If we relax this condition, and allow for a round turn linked to the rim of the nipping loop at whatever point, we get a broader class of bowlines. When the working end completes its turn around a segment of the rim of the nipping loo, it can pass at the "left" or the "right" of itself ( 2 variations), then collar the standing end following a "clockwise" or a "counter-clockwise"  direction (2 x 2 = 4 variations), and, finally, penetrate the round turn through the "left" of the "right" side of it ( 4 x 2 = 8 variations). ( The absolute meaning of the terms in quotation marks is of no importance - each time the number of possible variations is multiplied by two ). I have decided to ignore / do not include other variations, where :
1. The tail penetrates the nipping loop, but not the round turn ( because of the enhanced security of a tail being nipped by two loops - the nipping loop and the round turn -, and because of the wider round turn, turning around two rope diameters - the rim of the nipping loop and the tail ).
2. The tail penetrates the round turn, but not the nipping loop - or it penetrates the nipping loop as well, but entering through it by the "other" side.
   From those 8 variations I have chosen to show one, which I believe is the tightest and the more secure, because of the relative location of the first segment of the standing part and the last segment of the working end - the tail. See the attached pictures.

[Dan_Lehman]

"eye-leg-of-the-bight" ::  Please quit giving this unwanted
term currency --it's not general enough (i.e., to serve all
eye knots), and is conceptually confusing (being a sort of
qualification of "bight" when the focus should rightly be
on the eye!).  Prefer "tail-side eye leg" & complementing
"SPart-side eye leg" (unless we canonize "distal / proximal",
resp., in terms of a flow into the knot from the SPart, say).

  There is a great advantage of the "Eskimo" /(-) bowlines, ...

But shown here are regular bowlines.
(Just to be clear to those quickly reading ... .)

... the continuation of the [tali-side eye leg], just at the point it enters into the nipping loop,
makes a sharp 90 degrees turn before it collars the [SPart-side eye leg] - while, on the contrary,
at the common bowline it proceeds straight towards the [SPart], without such/much [deflection],
...

Hmmm, one might be able to test this theory with HMPE
line.  Frankly, though, I think it makes no practical
difference, as users would be foolish to use either knot
in such line.

I am sure that this bowline has been tied again and again, if only by mistake 

It has been tied by design --being akin to the EBDB,
in which my design goal was to bind the turNip with the
tail wrap (loops reciprocally binding).  I gave it the comical
moniker "bowl-in-a-bowl" in recognition of two turNips.
And, IIRC, some parasail company recommended a similar
knot in which there were several tail wraps, not just one;
they claimed high strength for this, but I couldn't get from
them any good evidence of that (w/limited correspondence).

I've looked at some versions in which the tail is tucked out
through both loops; but these don't look all so good.  I never
got the assurance of tightness that the EBDB gives with
the single turNip versions.  (Agent_Smith, of course,
considers no knot finished until a "Yosemite" finish is put in!    )

Now, though, I'm chary of these reciprocally nipping loops,
as I've seen them reciprocally loose nip and loosen (!!).
(And, most recently, saw that I couldn't set the EBDB
tight enough to stat as set, in ornery old stiff BW II rope.)


--dl*
====

[X1]

"eye-leg-of-the-bight" ::  Please quit giving this unwanted term currency --it's not general enough (i.e., to serve all eye knots), and is conceptually confusing (being a sort of qualification of "bight" when the focus should rightly be on the eye!).  Prefer "tail-side eye leg" & complementing "SPart-side eye leg" (unless we canonize "distal / proximal",, in terms of a flow into the knot from the SPart, say).\

   Do not try to convince me, convince agent Smith !  I will be happy to follow whichever terminology is established in the new version of the "Analysis of Bowlines".

[X1]

But shown here are regular bowlines.

 "Regular", so to speak... The round turn around the rim of the nipping loop is not included in the image people have in their minds when they think about "bowlines"... I have added a means to replicate the deflexion of the eye leg we meet at the "Eskimo" (-)bowlines, in the case of common bowlines - so those eyeknots can be considered as hybrids.

Frankly, though, I think it makes no practical difference, as users would be foolish to use either knot in [HMPE] line.

  Clever users can try those eyeknots with a somewhat loose collar, and compare them to common bowlines with a somewhat loose collar...If they will find that the common bowlines need their collars much more than those not-so-regular bowlines, they will conclude that the round turns around the rim of the nipping loops, which, in fact, can be considered as "collars around the rim of the nipping loop ", make the security of the tails a much easier job.

has been tied by design --being akin to the EBDB, in which my design goal was to bind the turNip with the tail wrap (loops reciprocally binding). 

   So, it has be tied by a mistaken design purpose !  There is no reason to bind the nipping loop any more than it is already bound ( although, if one can do it without a cost, it is better to do it - so I made the round turn bind the nipping loop at the first two variations, but not at the third).
   The main reason is to try to replicate the efficient deflexion of the continuation of the eye in the case of the "Eskimo"/(-)bowlines ! My purpose is to improve the collar structure, because I believe that the integrity of the nipping structure is already secured in the case of the common bowlines. The collar structure is suffering by this leg going straight on the standing end, which prevents the nipping structure bite the two segments of the collar structure in the most efficient angle : the right angle.

I'm chary of these reciprocally nipping loops, as I've seen them reciprocally loose nip and loosen (!!).

 What one should avoid, is round turns (around the rim of the nipping loop, or any other segment perpendicular to the axis of their ends ) that can "unwind", and so become useless. The variations I show are those where the round turn is at a certain small angle with its ends, so it can not be "unwound" so easily.

I've looked at some versions in which the tail is tucked out through both loops; but these don't look all so good.

  Well, look again at the third variation : the tail is tucked out through both loops - and it does look good ! 
  I have not tucked the tail through (inside) the round turn in the first and second variation, because, doing this, it has to pass through the "soft" point of the nipping loop as well ( the point in between its legs, in the proximity of its crossing point - where I feel it would not be nipped very efficiently ). On the contrary, by going around (outside) the round turn, the tail is subject to the direct contact and squeezing action of the continuation of the standing end - so this last line of defence against slippage, the blockage of the motion of the tail, becomes the strongest possible.

[X1]

akin to the EBDB,

   Those eyeknots do not have any relation to the "EBDB" bowline whatsoever ! The round turn around the rim of the nipping loop is made before the "proper collar", not after ! The idea was to change the angle of the returning eye leg, in the way of the "Eskimo"/(-)bowline, to insert some L-shaped segment on the previously almost straight path to the collar, which could offer a "step" and a "handle" to the rim of the nipping loop.
   As far as I can understand, the "EBDB" bowline s main idea was to encircle the crossing point of the nipping loop, in order to ensure the integrity of its closed form even further - while, at the same time, widen the nipping loop itself and smoothen the standing part s first curve. That was only a secondary by-product of the "Link" bowlines idea, and I felt that it was almost redundant - so I have not hesitated to abandon it altogether, in the third variation. So, one may argue that the name " Link" bowline is sending the wrong signal. It was just the first that came in my mind just after I had tied the first variations - before I saw that we may get an even better nipping-loop-to-eye-leg angle, if we relax the restricting condition that the round turn should encircle the crossing point.

[Dan_Lehman]

"eye-leg-of-the-bight" ::  Please quit giving this unwanted term currency --it's not general enough (i.e., to serve all eye knots), and is conceptually confusing (being a sort of qualification of "bight" when the focus should rightly be on the eye!).  Prefer "tail-side eye leg" & complementing "SPart-side eye leg" (unless we canonize "distal / proximal",, in terms of a flow into the knot from the SPart, say).\

   Do not try to convince me, convince agent Smith !  I will be happy to follow whichever terminology is established in the new version of the "Analysis of Bowlines".

Does Agent_Smith pull your (knotted) strings?
Does A. of B. set the standard for discourse?

I think that the rationale given by me in the first
instance (i.e., non-generality) is sufficient grounds
for rejecting the awkward and IMO confusing terms
(i.e., the misdirection of "... of the bight / SPart" when
the focus is "of the eye").

("through" & "terminal" legs might be a shorter way
to express this : one side leads *through* the nub
into the SPart, the other not; "through-loading" was
a term I mused about in describing what others might
regard as "abnormal" loading of an eye knot --but then
my complementing term was "bend-loading", which I
now don't favor for I've canceled my subscription to
Ashley's revised sense of "bend".)
((Yes, talking about mid-line eye knots begs some
questions to the above!   ))


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Frankly, though, I think it makes no practical difference, as users would
be foolish to use either knot in [HMPE] line.

  Clever users can try those eyeknots with a somewhat loose collar,
and compare them to common bowlines with a somewhat loose collar...
If they will find that the common bowlines need their collars much more
than those not-so-regular bowlines, they will conclude that the round turns
around the rim of the nipping loops, which, in fact, can be considered as "collars
around the rim of the nipping loop ", make the security of the tails a much easier job.

Hmmm, trying this with just the Eskimo & common bowlines
I see just the opposite --the former is quicker to capsize.
But my point remains.

has been tied by design --being akin to the EBDB, in which my design goal
was to bind the turNip with the tail wrap (loops reciprocally binding). 

   So, it has be tied by a mistaken design purpose ! 
There is no reason to bind the nipping loop any more than
it is already bound ...

In the (common) bowline the turNip isn't bound,
and can loosen, ergo the notion to bind it thus.

I've looked at some versions in which the tail is tucked out through both loops; but these don't look all so good.

  Well, look again at the third variation : the tail is tucked out through both loops - and it does look good ! 

--a  L K  only a blind mother could luv!          


--dl*
====

[X1]

...trying this with just the Eskimo & common bowlines I see just the opposite --the former is quicker to capsize.

True - but my comparison was between the "linked" bowline and the common bowline - and it was not about capsizing, but slippage of the eye leg, due to the absence of an intermediate "step", between the eye leg and the proper collar.

In the (common) bowline the turNip isn't bound, and can loosen, ergo the notion to bind it thus.

I used the word "bound" in a broad sense. What I was trying to say, is that the common bowline does not need the collar so much, to remain in a closed form, and not open up into an helix, as the "Eskimo"/(-)bowline. I have said the same thing in my first post :

  The bowlines shown at the attached pictures are meant to get the best of both worlds : the beneficial deflexion of the collar structure, achieved at the "Eskino"/(-) bowlines, and the enhanced stability of the nipping structure, achieved at the common/(+) bowlines.

  So, there is no point to enhance this stability any more, as it is attempted in the "EBDB" bowline. What is needed, is to change the angle by which the returning eye leg  :
1. meets the rim of the nipping loop for the first time (the "step"), and,
2. meets the continuation of the standing end, which grasps it ( the "handle").
  I believe you understood the idea, and you can not deny it, but you are trying to discover something for the sake of arguing - and you are lucky, because I had offered something to you, indeed :

--a  L K  only a blind mother could luv!          

 

[X1]

Does Agent_Smith pull your (knotted) strings?
Does A. of B. set the standard for discourse ?

   As you should have known by now, I am not moving by above, whatever this means...
   ( Try to untie your internal strings with this " relation between the bowline and Sheet bend " that was planted inside your brain by Ashley, and do not worry about my external strings !  )
   Yes, A of B is the best current lexicon of bowlines we have, free to anybody, with clear, nice pictures and a broad range of knots - so I follow it. I wish to speak the common language ( κοινος Λογος  (1)) that is spoken by other people in the knot tyers community, too - and not use acronyms, baby-talk or self-talk... . Perhaps because I am trying to communicate, and learn, and do not just express myself, and teach. If there were any other better work that could serve as a standard, I would have been happy to follow it. However, people that could well write, only talk, and people that should only talk, write... so we do not have many contemporary works where we can refer, do we ?

1. " it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the Logos [ language, word, account, reason ]  is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding.

P.S. There was a thread about proper knotting terminology in this Forum, at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1616.0

[agent_smith]

I was thinking about X1 and Dan Lehman again.

You guys have really made some incredible breakthroughs over the past year or so - and this forum has certainly seen a lot more activity.
Note: So has Roo and ss369 etc - all great work!

I agree that we need to sort the knotting terminology out once-and-for-all. I mean, its the year 2013 and we are some 68 years advanced since Ashleys masterpiece was published. Honestly, we have got to sort this out!

This business re the 'eye leg of the bight' was really an idea that I gleaned from Mr. Lehman quite some time ago. Maybe I misunderstood him? I agree that it is not the best definition out there - so I'll try again.

I read this great book about quantum physics and the great debate between some famous intellectuals. It evokes imagery of...
[ ] Dan Lehman: Albert Einstein
[ ] X1 (Constant?): Neils Bohr

Bohr was a visionary and stuck to his beliefs - his 'spooky action at a distance' (ie quantum entanglement) infuriated Einstein.
Einstein preferred facts and hard data to support arguments. He constantly challenged Bohr - making it hard to almost impossible to prove Einstein wrong.
Bohr kept at it - and pushed the boundaries of our understanding of the Quantum world.
In the end, they were both right - and both wrong.
Both of them advanced world knowledge leaps and bounds - making history along the way (both wining Nobel prizes).

Mark

[X1]

   At last, I have found my relation to Bohr, and a place in History !  See the attached picture - at the Lower Left side of it...

[James Petersen]

   At last, I have found my relation to Bohr, and a place in History !  See the attached picture - at the Lower Left side of it...

And here I thought it had to do with pronunciation.

[X1]

   Actually, it has to do with rotation - "Me" is a spinning toy top.