lost in bowline

[Ruby]

I heard that the bowline is king of knots , the  most strong one

[roo]

If you're going for an improved security bowline, I would also think it'd be beneficial if it were easy to check.  A Water Bowline is a natural extension of a simple bowline that is fairly easy to recognize at a glance:

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/waterbowline.html

Some other options:

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/monsoonbowline.html
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/gnathitch.html

[Luca]

Hi Ruby,

The last loop you show is "lost among Bowlines": it is not a Bowline, and not even a Bowline-like loop, and not even a post-eye-tiable loop: it is more like if one cuts the eye of a Figure 8 loop, and then "melts" one of the two legs of the eye to the appropriate end of the original 8 loop.

                                                                                                               Bye!

[Dan_Lehman]

I heard that the bowline is king of knots , the  most strong one

Note that these don't necessarily imply each other.

but after looking posts in this forum, just find that bowline is said to be weak,
and there're lots of ways to make it more secure more complicated

just wondering whether you've got a conclusion on which is best or recommended bowline

I don't recall "weak" being part of its resume, but YMMV
over various factors.  Look further at the forum posts and
you should understand that "best" is a dubious claim, at
best  .  Different circumstances will often call for different
solutions; clearly, one cannot tie any of the elaborately
extended-for-security variations quickly as one can the
original --which one might need to do, and then one might
seek some further security with an add-on knot.

And one should understand that "strong" is an attribute in need
of careful consideration --it might be that a steady, slow-pull
break test gives a different ranking of "strengths" than would
a dynamic loading, than would a long series of cyclical loadings,
than would actual use & abuse.


--dl*
====

[Ruby]

I don't recall "weak" being part of its resume...

see some posts like this:


Hrungnir

    Exp. Member
    ****
    Posts: 142
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Bowline transformations
? Reply #3 on: 2010-12-25, 11:48:00 ?

    Quote

... in articles on the web, books and comments on TV, I often hear the bowline called "the king of knots". Anyone new to the knot might think "the king of knots" must be the perfect knot. Safe and usable for almost any task. In fact, it seems like the knot can be quite dangerous...

[Dan_Lehman]

I don't recall "weak" being part of its resume...

see some posts like this:

...  In fact, it seems like the knot can be quite dangerous...

And you saw "weak" where?

 

[Dan_Lehman]

Had another look through previous posts and thought that the (unidentified Nipped-Tail Bowline) might be a "Janus Bowline" variation. With the tail down through the loop/nipping turn, unlike the Janus which goes up.

I then had another look at "An analysis of Bowlines" and found it used with the Double Bowline (ABoK # 1013)
under the designation " End Bound Double Bowline (EBDB)" by Dan Lehman
 ...
There is no data in "An analysis of Bowlines" for this knot, though it certainly has to be that much more secure. Any info anyone?

With "Janus", I was trying to connote the aspect of the
knot having two *faces* --looking the same coming as
going (though this isn't essential to "Janus", I think)--;
one might also see it as having a mirror bisecting one
dimension.

And for that simple tail-wrap-&-re-tuck around the crossing
point of the central nipping loop, I used "end-bound".  This
seemed to work not all so well in the single, but well in the
double bowline --esp. if the rope is firm.  I found that this
seems secure in many ropes but can be not so secure in
some firm, slick polypropylene!!  There, a Janus bowline
although loose, looked better than the end-bound one,
in which all of the turns just widened (!).  So, YMMV.


--dl*
====

[X1]

   For the record, this is the modification dan Lehman suggested in relation to the DDK 3 bowline .
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg20960#msg20960
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg20961#msg20961

... what I've called "end-bound..." is just this knot but with the extension wrap of the tail doing something more useful : nipping and locking (as best it is able, which isn't always so great/enough) the main nipping loop (which is reciprocating).  Turn that tail over the crossing point of the main turNip !   I prefer this in the double bowline body, where this extra wrap will have 3 diameters within it (best approximating a circle).
But I have seen even that knot, tied in some recalcitrant, firm, soft-laid, slick, thin (4mm?) polypropylene hold only briefly, than all the round turns just simultaneously loosened/expanded !!

   The Lee s locked bowline, presented recently, is a much better knot.
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg27508#msg27508

[X1]

I was unable to tie it with an overhand loop.
 I find the underhand loop counter intuitive.
 Test details?

   I do not understand why the "overhand" is "intuitive" and the "underhand" is not (?!). If you keep in mind this nice final picture, with the pair of lines running parallel to each other, you will tie it with ease.
   I have tied and tested it with a number of different materials, and I have not encountered any major problem. One would possibly argue that it needs a somehow careful dressing and a minimum of pre-tightening, so the lower collar around the returning eye leg would become and remain taut - but this happens in most post-eye-tiable secure eyeknots, where the continuation of the returning eye leg needs to follows a more convoluted path than the path it follows in the case of the less secure common bowline.
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg27496#msg27496
   Having said that, I should mention that I would nt chose this bowline as my second or third choice. I have seen that the "crossing knot" based (-)bowlines are not well known, and this is probably the main reason they have not yet received the attention they deserve. I believe that the second or third choice should be the ( best of the four variations of the ) "Eskimo" bowline. ( See the attached picture). A superb knot, safe, simple, easy to remember how to tie and to tie, easy to untie - I can not see any reason it should not be included in any set/collection of bowlines with more than 1  elements/members  .

[Dan_Lehman]

   For the record, this is the modification dan Lehman suggested in relation to the DDK 3 bowline .
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg20960#msg20960
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg20961#msg20961

... what I've called "end-bound..." is just this knot but with the extension wrap of the tail doing something more useful : nipping and locking (as best it is able, which isn't always so great/enough) the main nipping loop (which is reciprocating).  Turn that tail over the crossing point of the main turNip !   I prefer this in the double bowline body, where this extra wrap will have 3 diameters within it (best approximating a circle).
But I have seen even that knot, tied in some recalcitrant, firm, soft-laid, slick, thin (4mm?) polypropylene hold only briefly, than all the round turns just simultaneously loosened/expanded !!

   The Lee s locked bowline, presented recently, is a much better knot.
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg27508#msg27508

I'm not sure what is said, above.  My quoted words make sense
to me, but contrast with the images presented at the two URLs
given below the assertion "this is the modification ..." !?  What
I've tried and like somewhat is where the "end-bound" tail wraps
over the crossing point of the central nipping loop, and thereby
binds it (sometimes well, sometimes less than well).

As for Lee's Locked Bwl being better, maybe that too is one more
YMMV case.  I've tried similar such locking, with some success,
sometimes throwing in some turns to better nip the end's exit
--but that makes for an increasingly ungainly knot!


--dl*
====

[X1]

I'm not sure what is said, above.  My quoted words make sense to me, but contrast with the images presented at the two URLs given below the assertion "this is the modification ..." !?

  What is the difference between the two bowlines, the first one presented by DDK (3), shown at the images at the two URLs, and the second one presented by 75RR ?
  I thought that, if, in the bowlines presented by DDK, both the ( almost...) two round turns of the second leg of the collar around the rim of the nipping loop encircle the nipping loop s crossing point, we get the 75RR bowline. And I thought that this is what the quoted words were saying...
 

[X1]

  Please post pic of the overhand version !

  The mirror image of an "overhand" is an "underhand" - so, if a compound knot uses an underhand knot, its "mirrored" / mirror symmetric knot will use an overhand knot...
  Am I missing something here ? Why do you prefer the one form from the other ? This under/over-hand knot does not stand alone, in mid air : it is interweaved with the nipping loop and the returning eye leg - so its "over" or "under" form does not make any difference. All the knot tyer has to do, after the collar, is to follow, with his working end, almost blindly, first the line of the rim of the nipping loop and then the line of the returning eye leg... So, forget the "overhand" or "underhand" knot form of the bowline s "lock", just follow the lines of the nipping loop and the returning eye leg.

[X1]

  Please post pic of the overhand version !

  The mirror image of an "overhand" is an "underhand" - so, if a compound knot uses an underhand knot, its "mirrored" / mirror symmetric knot will use an overhand knot...

  See the attached pictures. If the bowline at the left side of the picture uses the (+)hand knot as a "lock", the bowline at the right side uses the (-)hand, and vice versa.
   

[X1]

this Lee s locked bowline looks like Dan Lehman s figure 8 , almost same structure

? ? ? No relation whatsoever ! It is a bowline-like / post-eye-tiable eyeknot, while Lehmans s fig.8 is not.

[X1]

.. locktight bowline ... it seems locked by strangle knot:

   No, its nipping structure ( if tied with two wraps instead of three, as it is in the picture you show ) is strangle-knot like, its collar structure is not. When we are talking about a bowline s "lock", we mean that the  common bowline s simple collar has been replaced by a more complex structure, able to enhance the security of the knot against a possible slippage of the tail. A more complex nipping structure can also serve this purpose, that is true, but only if it alters the straight paths of the two legs of the collar- we do not know if a double, or even a triple nipping loop is able to prevent the slippage of a penetrating segment of rope more than a single one...The contact area is double or triple, but the nipping force per coil/wrap is the half or the one third, so we can not say if the total friction force applied on the penetrating tail is greater or not.
   ( In the "locktight bowline" the second leg of the collar goes through two coils/wraps, so we can argue that the path of the tail is not as straight as it was in the case of the common bowline - buy I think that this small deflexion is not very significant. )
   See the attached pictures for a "proper" strangle-knot lock. The knot tied on the white rope is the nipping structure, and on the orange rope the collar structure.