TIB tying method for a TIB bowline - wanted

[knotsaver]

    I l o v e to notice...
  "It is different !"" It is different !", is not my cup of tea - but when I have to do it, I do it.

I think you like this cup of tea too
thanks for your comment.

   
P.S. Perhaps we could say that the Med.II bowline is the "Eskimo" version of the Med.I ? ? ? I am not sure that this is not a far-fetched "similarity", nor that it is useful...
   

Maybe we have to consider the knot (it is one knot) in the attached pictures as the "Eskimo" version of the Med.

[xarax]

  Maybe we have to consider the knot ... in the attached pictures as the "Eskimo" version of the Med.

  Indeed. However, one advantage of the original Med. bowline is that it is not more complex ( and it can even be considered as more simple ) than the Double bowline on-the-bight. The knot you show is more complex than the Eskimo bowline-on-the-bight :   

  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4168.0

[knotsaver]

Yes, you're right: Med. II and Med. Eskimo are more complex, but the side #1 (as you noted) is beautiful. Furthermore it's interesting to explore this way of doubling a "bowline" forming "the" bight. Now I'm trying with the myrtle...
ciao,
s.

[xarax]

   Their disadvantage is not that they are more complex, but that they are more complex than their "parent" on-the-bight knots : Med Eskimo is more complex than the Double Eskimo on-the-bight, and Med II is more complex than the original Med - although, the original Med is not more complex ( and, perhaps, it may seen as more "simple" ), than the Double bowline-on-the-bight.
   Our judgement should be comparative, not "absolute". 

[knotsaver]

Using the "Med. method" of doubling bowline, here it is:
the Med. pseudoMyrtle (!?)
(the pseudo-myrtle (I don't know if there is a name for this knot) is illustrated in the second picture).
ciao,
s.
p.s. the Med. pseudoMyrtle is more complex than...? I don't know! but whilst I was trying to "unTIB" the Med. pseudoMyrtle I obtained the standard double bowline on the bight, so it is more complex than the standard double bowline

[xarax]

   THAT is aslo a Med. "Eskimo" bowline - the returning eyelegs enter-into and exit-from the nipping loop(s) following the "Eskimo", "anti-bowline" path. As I have mentioned a hundred times, there are FOUR distinct "Eskimo" bowlines - so there is no wonder there are two Med. Eskimo ones - for the time being...

[knotsaver]

   THAT is aslo a Med. "Eskimo" bowline - the returning eyelegs enter-into and exit-from the nipping loop(s) following the "Eskimo", "anti-bowline" path.

Yes! furthermore the "Med. Eskimo I " (a mirror version) was proposed by Alan Lee (aka eric22) in
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4168.msg25423#msg25423

As I have mentioned a hundred times,

"repetita iuvant", (maybe!?)
Thanks, xarax!
bye,
s.

[knotsaver]

Just for curiosity's sake, a "double-strand 'ambidextrous' bowline"  (it starts "left" and ends "right").

[xarax]

   Here you see that the terms "left-handed" and "right-handed" bowlines are not so clear, and that they can not be used/applied in the cases of the Double bowline on-the-bight or the Med bowlines. What do they mean ? In general, a knot is equivalent with its mirror-symmetric one ( I say "in general", meaning that it is equivalent formally and structurally, unless it is tied on laid rope, which is not symmetric by itself ). However, in a mirror transformation ( when you see the knot through a mirror ), each right-hand helix is transformed in its left-handed one, and vice versa, so we lose the only / last(?) thing that has some "objective" meaning, not related with the "view" = the side from which we see the knot.
   " Handedness ( or chirality ) is a property of the helix, not of the perspective : a right-handed helix cannot be turned to look like a left-handed one unless it is viewed in a mirror, and vice versa."
   You can change the path of continuations of the returning eyeleg follow, so the bowline starts from the "right" and ends "left, and still get an ambidextrous knot ! WHICH is the ambidextrous, and WHAT is the other one ?

[knotsaver]

   You can change the path of continuations of the returning eyeleg follow, so the bowline starts from the "right" and ends "left, and still get an ambidextrous knot ! WHICH is the ambidextrous, and WHAT is the other one ?

NOOOOOOPE!
you didn't try this path! I see...
you obtain the Med II...
About my use of "left" and "right" in this thread I'm reffering to ABoK #1010 and ABoK #10341/2, as I said in replay #7. (I'd like to call these two knots respectively right-right and left-right bowline).
ciao,
s.

[xarax]

   So, this is the Med III - and both, Med II and Med III, are "ambidextrous" (?).
   I see the relation you mean, but I can not describe it in an "objective" way, for both mirror-symmetric loops in each case - and that is why I think that the labels " left-handed" and "right-handed" are somewhat unclear, confusing or even misleading.
   I use to "follow" the Standing path of a bowline, because it is ( most of the times ) defined by the nipping loop(s) which is(are) tied on it. ( I say "most of the times", having in mind the bowlines derived from symmetric bends, as the Tweedledee bowline, for example ). When I can not, as in the bowline on-the-bight and in the Med bowlines, where there are two "Standing Parts",  I find it difficult to see the correspondence to the left- and the right handed bowlines. To my mind, they are defined when the line is oriented, from the part which bears the 100% of the load, the Standing End, to the part where the load has been diminished to 0%, the Tail End. When there are two two-way lines, I do not know from which I will enter into the nub, and I lose my way out !

[xarax]

  you didn't try this path! I see...

  I did - but not for the reason you may think. I tied and untied this knot ( and all the others you have presented ) a number of times because I could not "see" what may have been obvious to other people, and to you : if it was TIB, and why... Sometimes I manage to see it, but, most of the times, I can not, and then I would need to actually tie and untie the real, rope-made knot some times, to be persuaded that it is TIB, and how complex / concealed this TIB-ness is. Only afterwards my mind accepts what it could not predict or explain in advance... That had happened with the TIB "Eskimo" bowline on-the-bight, too - it seems that some knots require a special way of "manipulating" them mentally, which my mind is incapable to follow, or, even if it does, it does it with some difficulty. Perhaps that is one reason I do not like "magic" tying methods ( like the tying method of the Farmer s loop, for example ), and I always prefer methods where one can watch the gradual transformation of the initial configuration into the final, compact knot, without mental "jumps", like the one required by the clever "twist" you had applied.

[knotsaver]

  ... I think that the labels " left-handed" and "right-handed" are somewhat unclear, confusing or even misleading.

I agree with you.
About the bowlines I consider a bowline "right-handed" if the nipping loop is an "e" (you form with the rope an "e" as when you write an "e" in italic)
(the mnemonic trick for me is "e" like in the Italian word "destra" (dexter" in Latin), in English ... "e" like "not left").
For me, ABoK #1010 is a correct right-handed" bowline (or if you want a right-right-handed bowline),
ABoK #10341/2 is an incorrect right-handed bowline (or if you want, a left-right-handed bowline).
To my mind, the original Med (the whole knot)  in this thread is left-handed, because the nipping loop is not an "e", furthermore, as I said, you can obtain the knot by tying a left-left-handed bowline and by doubling it creating the bight (I called it the "Med method of doubling a bowline")
But in this thread I used "right" and "left" as in ABoK but for the single-strand, not doubled bowline (not for the whole knot).
(in ABoK,  in a left bowline the tail end is external).

  you didn't try this path! I see...

  I did - but not for the reason you may think.

I said that you didn't try the path: it starts "right" and ends "left", that is to say, we start to tie a right (as in ABoK) single-strand bowline and end with an external tail end, after that we double the bowline.
I didn't present this knot because I knew (I had previously tied it) it turned into the Med II.

I tied and untied this knot ( and all the others you have presented ) a number of times because I could not "see" what may have been obvious to other people, and to you

I tie and untie too : it's not so easy to "see".
I'm just learning to explore knot-land thanks to you too
ciao,
s.

[xarax]

   I consider a bowline "right-handed" if the nipping loop is an "e"

   And I had pointed out that this "e" does not remain an "e" any more, if seen through a mirror - its "handedness" is not conserved in a mirror-symmetric knot / a mirror transformation - but the knot itself, regarding its structure/name, remains the same ! How do you escape from that ?

   you can obtain the knot by tying a left-left-handed bowline and by doubling it creating the bight

   Yes, but in the "original" Double bowline on-the-bight, you can obtain the knot in both ways : tying a left-handed OR a right-handed bowline, and doubling it. So, is the Double bowline on-the-bight left-handed or right-handed ?
   In other words, when you "cut" the line at the tip of the bight which serves as "collar", you may get two bowlines which will be both left-handed or both right-handed, and then you can follow your method, and define the "whole" bowline as left- or right-handed. But what happens if the one bowline you get happens to be a left-handed one, and the other a right-handed one ?
   THAT is my problem... I try to somehow correlate the "handedness" of the Med bowlines with their "original" Double bowline on-the-bight, from which they were derived, and I can not.
   

[knotsaver]

   And I had pointed out that this "e" does not remain an "e" any more, if seen through a mirror - its "handedness" is not conserved in a mirror-symmetric knot / a mirror transformation - but the knot itself, regarding its structure/name, remains the same ! How do you escape from that ?

Through the Looking-Glass...
I should ask Alice
...
From "Symmetry" by Hermann Weyl
"To the scientific mind there is no inner difference, no polarity between left and right, as there is for instance in the contrast of male and female, or of the anterior and posterior ends of an animal.
It requires an arbitrary act of choice to determine what is left and what is right. But after it is made for one body it is determined for every body. I must try to make this a little clearer. In space the distinction of left and right concerns the orientation of a screw. If you speak of turning left you mean that the sense in which you turn combined with the upward direction from foot to head of your body forms a left screw. The daily rotation of the earth together with the direction of its axis from South to North Pole is a left screw, it is a right screw if you give the axis the opposite direction. ...
Hence when we said above and now repeat in a terminology due to Leibniz, that left and right are indiscernible, we want to express that the inner structure of space does not permit us, except by arbitrary choice, to distinguish a left from a right screw. "