In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons

[Luca]

Hi,

   The first two pictures show the Luca s Nice Jamming Loop

If Dan Lehman takes the matter with humour , I'd say that "Oracle loop" continues to go well as the name for this loop ...

A bowline similar to the OP's, which can be seen as but
a re-dressing of the double bowline into a helical geometry,

    "under" / "over", regarding the way the first diagonal element of the "8" shape nipping structure crosses the second

that's hardly my #97 --which is, after all,
a significant re-dressing of the double bowline
(so, one can see that dressing is critical to getting it right).

    The third picture shows Luca s Non-Lamming loop

Same thing for this other loop: "Dan Lehman # 97" or "Over Tresse Bowline" should be more appropriate names(I had also written: "improperly" dressed Doubled Bowline),since I personally have only reproposed the above scheme of this loop as an attempt to get the setting shown by Dan, through the construction of the nipping turns shown in this diagram,in imitation/aping of alpineer,as he did in his first post: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4321.msg26983#msg26983

  I hope Luca is going to actually test those two variations, and report his results to us.

The tests that I am able to make myself, are worth very little, I believe, and then these loops actually are not "mine" ...I guess that  the onus of proof is competence of others in this case!(for what it's worth (nylon (I think), about 9mm braided rope):
-So called"Luca s 8 loop(poor fellow)":quite easy to untie (in one way or another, I swear!)
-So called"Oracle loop":very hard to untie even with tools (Dan, see above for the reliability of  my tests, but .. I swear!)
- # 97/Over Tresse:easy to untie
- Original 8 loop: quite easy to untie(but I also had feelings similar to those of SS369: I saw the tail "come alive" during the loading .. I swear!)(EDIT: Again, I'm not a good experimenter knots: After making further observations I concluded that in fact the tail of this loop does not behave in a manner substantially different from the  tail of a normal Inuit / Eskimo or other similar loops in tend to "move" or to "curl"during the loading.I apologize to X1.) )

                                                                                                              Bye!                                       

[Luca]

Hi,

An attempt of "variation on the theme" of the Tresse Bowline (but I do not know if it really adds something) + relative Inuit / Eskimo version (a bulky loop, but not jamming with respect to the Eskimo-like loops shown on the previous page of this thread).

                                                                                                              Bye!

[X1]

   You take a two-turn double nipping loop, and you "twist" the "higher" turn, and/or the "lower" turn, and/or both, 180 degrees. Then, you tie a common or an "Eskimo" bowline s collar. One of those variations is the ABoK#1013 - two others are the bowlines you show here. (*)
   A first problem is that those "twists" force the standing part to follow sharp curves, which absorb a large portion of the nipping loop s constricting power. Notice that the standing part s curves at the Tresse bowline, or at the 8-loop and the 8-8 loop, are much smoother.
   A second problem is that the nipping structure becomes much more complex, but the collar structure remains as simple as it is in the standard bowline. There is no theoretical reason or experimental proof that a complex double nipping structure would nip the tail harder than a simple single one. So, if this complex nipping structure is just wrapped around itself, but, at the same time, does not induce some severe deflexion on the path of the tail that penetrates it, its contribution to the bowline s security would be negligible, or even nil.  ( A tail that follows sharp curves inside a complex nipping structure slips less easily than a straight one - we can say that, in a way, it is "hooked" inside the knot s nub...),
   Sharp standing part s curves, smooth tail s curves, that is the problem !       

(*) P.S.  In just the same way, the 8 - loop is not but a "twisted" Eskimo bowline - so, before we measure its behaviour, we can not say if it is more secure ( regarding a slippage of the tail ) than a simple "Eskimo" bowline, or not...

[Luca]

Hi X1,

Rather than the use in Common Bowline sauce of this nipping structure(The twisting of the turn(s) of a double nipping turn is a perfectly legitimate way of looking at it, although I personally have started from a 8 form, and thus giving it an elongated shape, so to soften the sharp curves, and so encourage greater bending of legs of the collar), which I too thought that did not add any advantage with respect of the Tresse Bowline, I was actually more interested in the Inuit/Eskimo version,which in each case  takes advantage of the curve that is formed when the second leg of the eye returns through the nipping structure.
I am aware of the fact that here I too modify ,making them more complex,the nipping  structures continuing to leave for these eye-knots simple collar structures,but this is because, at least here, I'm interested in maintaining for these loops, the same number of sequences that are necessary to untie a standard Bowline.
Also I was focused on avoiding that an Eskimo-like loop can jam , because sometimes I happened to have some little difficulty to untie even standard Inuit / Eskimo bowlines (of which tails move during a normal load, but without retreat ,as it seems to me, and so it seems to happen even with the 8 loop:so, nothing serious!),but in the above case of the so-called doubled crossing Inuit maybe this is equivalent to a lack of significant increase of security against the risk of slipping compared to normal Inuit / Eskimo bowlines.

                                                                                                                     Bye!

[X1]

   I ... have started from an 8 form

  Follow the tail-side eye leg, or the tail itself, in any of your two loops : it enters into the "first" eye of this 8 from the one side of the loop, say, the "front" side, it exits from the other, the "back" side - and then it enters into the "second" eye of this 8 also from the "front" side, and it exits also from the "back" side. Doing this, it passes by the "side" of the 8 s crossing point, it bypasses it, it does not go "over" or "under" it. That is the difference of your loops with the Tresse bowline and the 8-8 loop - which are not only "8" shaped, but "$" shaped as well !