Author Topic: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)  (Read 5018 times)

RGB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« on: September 23, 2018, 06:05:06 AM »
In another post (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6207.0) I discussed a way of tucking the tails to increase sheet bend security. Mark Gommers' contributions to that thread got me thinking about similar tucks for the bowline.

The common or sailors bowline (ABOK 1010) does not readily permit simple-simon-like tucks of the nipping loop (because the working end from the nipping loop is used to create the eye of the bowline), but it does permit many different ways of tucking the working end from the bight (as assembled in Mark's excellent treatise An Analysis of the Structure of 'Bowlines'). Indeed, some applications of the bowline absolutely require such tucks or other means to secure the knot against slippage of the tail, or various forms of capsize.

I was at first surprised to find the equivalent structure to the bight-tail tuck I discussed for sheet bends, in a bight-tucked bowline described by John Smith in 1987 (Knotting Matters 19, 2). Not the John Smith of 1627 (A Sea Grammar) or 1919 (Rope Knots and Hitches). I have copied Smith's diagram below, because I think this is in fact a very good bowline for many uses. It is a puzzle to me that this knot is seemingly dismissed in Mark's analysis. The reasons I think it deserves wider use are:
(1)   It is very easy to tie. I find myself making mistakes, or struggling with loose added bights, in more complicated multi-stage tucking manoeuvres.
(2)   It does not suffer the structural flaw of the Yosemite finish to the common bowline (but see below).
(3)   It is very effective against sustained ring loading.
(4)   It is effective against tail slippage and bight (collar) straightening.
(5)   It is said by Smith to be effective in springy lines like shock cord. I have not tested it in very slippery lines, which should preferably be spliced.
(6)   Perhaps controversially, I think it is either-end loadable. The thumb knot formed by the bight tuck seems to secure the nub during loading of the tail, as effectively as does the nipping loop during loading of the standing part. All curves within the knot seem no more severe than in the common bowline, but I have not tested breaking strength.
(7)   It is easily untied after moderate loading, perhaps enhanced because there are two rope thicknesses through the collar.
(8)   To be effective against severe cyclic loading it needs a further lock (such as a half hitch or overhand knot of the tail made around the standing part). In some applications it is an advantage that this lock is made around the standing part, rather than taking up space in the eye. This also makes the knot resistant to tail loading at any angle to the standing part (a half hitch is ideal from 90 to 180 degrees). Smith shows that without an added lock, tail loading at 180 degrees can cause the collar to roll over, yielding a different (but still non-slip) loop knot. The tuck also reduces the potential for jamming of the lock after a heavy load on the standing part and the eye of the bowline.
(9)   It is PET and (not simultaneously) TIB (if that is needed).
(10)   It has a form that I think is quite easily inspected to verify the knot (photos below with added double overhand lock).

The disadvantages include corollaries of point 8 above. Very importantly, this overhand tuck must not be tied in a bowline formed with the tail on the outside of the eye (the so-called cowboy or cowboys or Dutch or left-handed bowline, ABOK 1034 1/2 ). A bowline with the tail on the outside of the eye has a nub structure like an oblique (sometimes confusingly called left-handed) sheet bend, with the tails from the bight and nipping loop on opposite sides of the knot. In this structure, an overhand tuck can easily be manipulated such that the nipping loop encloses only one arm of the bight (collar); and that flaw could be fatal.

To avoid this flaw, if starting with a cowboys bowline, a figure 8 tuck is required: as in the Yosemite finish! But if starting with a common bowline it is the figure 8 (Yosemite) finish that is at risk of a fatal failure through a simple rearrangement that leaves the nipping loop enclosing only one arm of the bight. This issue has already been discussed in the thread about tucking the tails to increase sheet bend security.

That thread also emphasises that tucks which simply fold the tail (without forming a thumb knot or figure 8 lock, typically by passing the tail around the entry arm of the bight) do not secure against bight straightening. This is as true of bowlines as it is of sheet bends. For example, Alfred Alston's lock (ABOK 1015) and Scott Safier's lock do not secure against bight (collar) straightening. Even the ampersand bowline is not immune from bight straightening, although it has considerable resistance because the tucks add a loop in the working end, around the nipping loop and the proximal part (ongoing leg) of the eye.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 06:14:09 AM by RGB »

RGB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2018, 06:09:50 AM »
I appreciate that the Yosemite finish to the bowline has been 'discussed to death' but it is still widely taught. So as an aside, the Yosemite flaw is shown in an amazingly deft performance at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dj5Y3h1AEI. Those of you who, like me, are more daft than deft can get to the problem form, from the 'correctly-tied' but loose Yosemite bowline, placed with the conventional side up, in two steps. The correctly formed but loose version is shown in the first photo below. For ease of communication, let us first name as the 'Yosemite loop' that extra loop made around the distal part (returning leg) of the eye before tucking the tail up through the bight (collar) to complete the figure 8 (Yosemite) 'lock'.
(1) Draw the nipping loop up and over the 'Yosemite loop', and let it lie on the distal part (returning leg) of the eye.
(2) Draw the 'Yosemite loop' up over (and entirely around) the nipping loop, and let it lie on the distal part (returning leg) of the eye.
Now the nipping loop will encircle only one arm of the bight (collar), as in the second photo below. This same form can arise by tightening the Yosemite loop followed by the nipping loop. While the extra tucks of the tail may provide enough friction to save the day, it is very easy for this knot to convert under strain into a noose. Do not risk a life on a knot in this conformation.

The common (sailors) bowline was developed (and remains very effective) as a quickly-tied (even one-handed, but not in a rope under tension), non-jamming, fixed eye knot, in cordage that is not too stiff (like some climbing and rescue kernmantle ropes) or too slippery (like some synthetic fibre ropes), and for applications that provide a more-or-less continuous straight pull between the standing part and the eye. It can fail through:
(i)   tail slippage in unsuitable cordage or under conditions including cyclic loading and/or ring loading (pulling apart the arms of the eye where they enter the nub of the knot);
(ii)   straightening of the bight if a (cyclic) pull comes onto the tail and the arm of the eye that enters the bight (collar), especially if there is no pull on the standing part;
(iii)   straightening of the nipping loop (to yield a noose knot) if a (cyclic) pull comes on to the standing part and the arm of the eye that emerges from the nipping loop, especially if there is no pull on the arm of the eye that enters the bight.

All of these situations are outside of the 'design brief' for the bowline, but they can arise in practical use, in which case they become security flaws. A long tail, used to decrease the risk of (i), may increase the risk of (ii). The consequences depend on the application of the bowline. For example: Capsizing into a noose (iii) may be acceptable for a hawser secured by a bowline around a docking post, but not for a climber with a bowline around their body. For a tarp held at the corners by bowlines in an emergency roof repair, capsizing into a noose (iii) will not lose the tarp, but may loosen it to the stage that flapping in the wind is more severe and waterproofing is compromised. Continued tail slippage (i) will eventually cause failure of the knot and loss of any load supported by the eye. Bight straightening (ii) greatly increases the likelihood of tail slippage.

When one or more of these situations might arise, some sailors, climbers and others use another knot; or add some form of 'lock' such as a seizing or tuck or half-hitch or overhand knot involving the tail, to increase the security of the bowline. The preferred 'lock' might depend on how complex it is to make (and to open after a load), and how long it is required to resist the same conditions that threaten to loosen the underlying bowline.

Without added locks the cowboys bowline is more resistant than the sailors bowline to ring loading, but it is more prone to bight straightening. To avoid all of the above-mentioned security flaws, a well-designed lock is needed on either bowline. It has seemingly been a fascination in IGKT to design added tucks to the core bowline structure, and sometimes to test these for effectiveness against one or more of the above-mentioned security flaws. These tucking manoeuvres can become quite complicated, and a fascinating intellectual exercise. But in practical use, especially by people less skilled in the art than the average IGKT member, simpler is better. Many people find it less error-prone to add a half-hitch or overhand lock (with which they are familiar from other simple knots) than a complicated multi-stage tuck. John Smith has provided a simple (overhand bight tuck) finish to the common bowline. His method is simpler and safer than the Yosemite finish. Just be sure to tie the initial bowline with the tail inside the eye!

In mission-critical applications (a life on the line, or a boat subject to the interminable cyclic action of waves) it is worth the time to make an additional lock such as a double overhand knot around the standing part. When the knot is snugged before use, this form overcomes for a long period all of the above-mentioned security flaws.

When longer security is called for, one might consider jamming a knot such as an anglers loop (ABOK 1017) or figure 8 loop (ABOK 1047). These jamming eye knots are easily made in hand, or a little more slowly around a post by starting with a thumb knot or figure 8 knot in the standing part. For slippery rope, a well-made eye splice is preferred. These long-term solutions may only be removable by cutting the line.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 06:19:42 AM by RGB »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2018, 05:51:27 AM »
per RGB:
Quote
I have copied Smith's diagram below, because I think this is in fact a very good bowline for many uses. It is a puzzle to me that this knot is seemingly dismissed in Mark's analysis.

Indeed...This variant of the common/ordinary #1010 Bowline is not secure and should not be trusted in life critical applications (eg rock climbing).
In EN 892 and EN 1891 certified ropes, it falls apart with slack shaking and cyclic loading events.

I would also remark that with any alleged 'secure' Bowlines, the tail can be left free and does not need to be 'strangled' around the SPart (eg via double overhand knot).
By definition, if an eye knot needs to have its tail tied (ie 'strangled') around another rope segment - it isn't inherently 'secure'!

As an example, Scotts locked Bowline is inherently secure - and does not need to have its tail tied (ie strangled) around any rope segments.

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2018, 03:38:39 PM »
per RGB:
Quote
Now the nipping loop will encircle only one arm of the bight (collar), as in the second photo below. This same form can arise by tightening the Yosemite loop followed by the nipping loop.
Your explanation is not precise and is ambiguous.
The real failure mode is caused by yanking on the tail before the nipping loop and knot core has had time to properly cinch and take form.
In other words, an inexperienced person could inadvertently yank/pull on the tail in an attempt to cinch and dress the knot. This act will displace the tail segment to a position inside of the nipping loop.

per RGB:
Quote
it is very easy for this knot to convert under strain into a noose. Do not risk a life on a knot in this conformation.
I disagree with this proposition.
A #1010 common/ordinary Bowline with 'Yosemite finish' that is properly tied in the first instance - under strain - the tail will not displace.
The failure mode can only occur while the knot is under zero load - and is a dressing error (ie via yanking on the tail before the knot has been properly dressed and cinched).

per RGB:
Quote
(ii) straightening of the bight if a (cyclic) pull comes onto the tail and the arm of the eye that enters the bight (collar), especially if there is no pull on the standing part;
This explanation (of a failure mode of #1010 common/ordinary Bowline) makes no sense.

per RGB:
Quote
John Smith has provided a simple (overhand bight tuck) finish to the common bowline. His method is simpler and safer than the Yosemite finish. Just be sure to tie the initial bowline with the tail inside the eye!
aka 'Lehman lock' Bowline...  In fact, this is not an inherently secure Bowline.
In EN892 and EN1891 ropes, it is vulnerable to cyclic loading and slack shaking.

per RGB:
Quote
These tucking manoeuvres can become quite complicated, and a fascinating intellectual exercise. But in practical use, especially by people less skilled in the art than the average IGKT member, simpler is better.
Scotts locked Bowline is an inherently secure Bowline - infinitely superior to the form presented by John Smith in Knotting Matters #19 (1987).
It is also 'simple' to tie.
However, the concept of 'simple' can be debated to the end of the universe. What is 'simple' to one person may be complex to another. Practice is key.

per RGB:
Quote
Without added locks the cowboys bowline is more resistant than the sailors bowline to ring loading, but it is more prone to bight straightening
I'd like to see solid evidence for this proposition (words in bold type).
I think the term 'bight straightening' may be inaccurate. It would take an extraordinary set of circumstance to 'straighten' out a bight component. Perhaps you meant 'collar fold-over' - which is a natural consequence of load. Under load, the collar tends to fold down (it doesn't 'straighten').

RGB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2018, 12:20:02 AM »
I will not prolong this as the OP seems clear enough on all points except the last one.

The cowboy form is more susceptible to bight straightening because it has the tail outside the eye, where it is more readily snagged, which is a risk for bight straightening. As discussed, this is a risk when the eye is not loaded - outside the preferred usage for any bowline, but occuring under some conditions in practice.

To see if any structure is susceptible to bight straightening, just loosen the nub and pull on the tail and the region where the bight joins the eye. Another way for those so inclined is to look at the path of the line (rope) from the eye to the tail to see if it can make a straight  line (without unmaking any thumb knot, fig 8 etc along the way).
Smith's lock can not be bight straightened, but we seem to agree that it should be further locked (and an example was shown) to resist cyclic loading and for all mission-critical uses.

PS Mark, 2.7a is the current public version of the analysis on the PACI website.

I hope that helps.

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2018, 01:07:33 AM »
per RGB:
Quote
I will not prolong this as the OP seems clear enough on all points except the last one.
With respect - No - a good deal of what you have typed is inaccurate or ambiguous.

per RGB:
Quote
The cowboy form is more susceptible to bight straightening because it has the tail outside the eye, where it is more readily snagged, which is a risk for bight straightening.

I will take this as a personal comment - and not a statement of fact.

This so-called 'bight straightening' is a phenomena that is not properly defined by yourself.
I think what you are trying to describe is a situation where the U turn of collar somehow attempts to become linear (and no longer a U turn around the SPart).
In order for this to happen - there can't be any load on the 'eye' (which some prefer to conceptualize as a 'loop').
If there is load on the 'eye' (and of course, simultaneous opposing load on the SPart) it is difficult to see how this alleged 'bight straightening' could occur).
In any case, who/why/what would be trying to yank upwards on the tail to destabilize the collar? This would be a deliberate act.

I note that this alleged phenomena could also occur if someone deliberately yanked on the tail of an ordinary unsecured #1010 Bowline.
But, again, while the knot is under load - it is difficult to see how even yanking on the tail in a malicious attempt to destabilize the collar could result in catastrophic failure.

I'd like to see some evidence tendered to support your propositions (which doesn't involve a deliberate or willful malicious act of yanking upwards on the tail)

per RGB:
Quote
PS Mark, 2.7a is the current public version of the analysis on the PACI website.
???
You must know something I dont!
Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 01:12:29 AM by agent_smith »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: John Smith's bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2018, 09:12:54 PM »
The [tail-outside bowline form is more susceptible to bight straightening
because it has the tail outside the eye,
where it is more readily snagged,
which is a risk for bight straightening.
As discussed, this is a risk when the eye is not loaded
--outside the preferred usage for any bowline,
but occurring under some conditions in practice.

I'll join Mark in challenging the assertions about this
supposed vulnerability.  To my awareness, it has
appeared to date only in some knot tyers' warnings
about the knot, not in practice (though when a knot
comes untied, it might be impossible to know why).

And I'll note that Brion Toss has promoted a tying
method that is roughly this straightening in reverse
(and which I think is too much a "YMMV" situation
to be all so practical as he suggests for an on-the-fly
method (where soon things are out of your hands
and they better work or ... !)).

As for the insecurity of the (shall we call it?) "quicker
Yosemite finish", that again is YMMV and something
to consider per circumstance.  It should be as secure
as the original, and it avoids needing that tight, 1dia.
turn of the tail.  (I've now trained myself to tie this
reliably --there are four like knots-- by casting loop
as though to make a clove hitch ; the spanning
part will be the eye, and the 2nd-cast loop is inserted
into the first and then "backflipped" around it all into
the collaring position.)

And while knots that need a tail tie-off (strangle knot,
e.g.) can be decried as "not secure" they are "secureD"
--and sometimes the simple added knot beats trying
something more convoluted in the original (call it
RISC vs. CISC architecture), in tying/untying time
and checking visually (and comprehending).


--dl*
====
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 09:16:08 PM by Dan_Lehman »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2018, 10:40:03 PM »
per Dan Lehman:
Quote
And while knots that need a tail tie-off (strangle knot,
e.g.) can be decried as "not secure"

In my upcoming revision of the Analysis of Bowlines paper, I will be introducing
the concept 'inherently secure'.
These are knots that do not require any further strangling of the tail around
another rope segment (eg the SPart) to achieve 'security'.

By definition, if it is imperative to do further tail maneuvering to lock-down
a knot, then it isn't secure!

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2018, 04:19:44 PM »
By definition, if it is imperative to do further tail maneuvering to lock-down
a knot, then it isn't secure!

But this statement makes it seem that security is some
kind of black-&-white, yes/no condition, which it is not,
versus a variable state influenced by various factors,
such as loading, material, "jostling/rubbing" and user
attention to setting.  (E.g., I recall reading on a forum
one rockclimber gal's assertion that sometimes her
strangle knot back-up has loosened --if not come
fully untied. (!!))

And I distinctly recall the EBDB which I designed expressly
to be slack-secure** in typical kernmantle ropes to mock my
good efforts in some small, laid, hard-to-hand (though
flexible, & I'd say moderately soft-laid) polypropylene
cord by holding only for a minute or so --on my 2nd and
forceful setting-- and then all at once just loosening,
turns-around-turns sympathetically relaxing !!!  WTH?! !  :o  >:(

**Ah, and we're talking about this sort of security,
but in the HMPE universe we face challenges of
security-when-loaded (vs. slippage)!

One might have some term/expression to distinguish
between knots that are secure but not really *tight*
--not snugged up on setting into a jammed knot--
and those that are to be set tight.  E.g., the whole
point of the mirrored bowline --and here I'll remark
that the similar structure with the clove h. bwl./water bwl
might be more visually appealing, and as effective--
is that the knot while obviously NOT set snug-tight
is yet resistant to further loosening, by virtue of all
the parts therein bearing against one another sufficiently
frictively enough to stay tied.

((And I wonder :: so far as I'm attentively aware (sigh),
the UIAA drop test specifications only require a fig.8 eyeknot
termination of a test specimen, yes?

[edit : NO, they now at least require clamping, not knotting.]

 (and where's the spec.
for THAT knot, in exact form, and for length of its eye?).
What do you think would be the effect of having a drop-test
series run on fig.8-tied line vs mirrored bwl.-tied line?
That maybe the latter would never cinch tight, and thus
repeatedly offer some knot-compression to mitigate
peak impact force, which in turn might lead to a greater
number of sustained falls?!  --or could there be the odd
coincidence that while indeed the above difference in
forces obtained, that all that load mitigation, which
comes through some kind of rope(on rope) movement,
accumulated such abrasion & heat damage/weakening
that the same # of drops were held,
though with the one specimen never obtaining so high
a peak impact force as the other (and at least in that
case, not so much stressing other components).  !?!

  ???      ::)       :-\
))

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 10:14:18 PM by Dan_Lehman »

RGB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2018, 08:17:22 AM »
No knot ever fails within the conditions where it will not fail. When knots fail accidentally, it is because the user either (1) did not know the potential causes of failure and/or (2) did not imagine that those conditions could arise. To users who can not imagine conditions that cause bight-straightening, I wish that their bowlines will always be tight (until they want to loosen them). Users who can imagine the causes and consequences of bight-straightening will hopefully employ a lock that eliminates that risk. Personally, I do not discriminate between methods that involve tucks through the nub versus outside the nub. Whatever the user finds easiest is probably best for them.

Mark, thanks for the link. Anyone who uses a google search will only find v 2.7a. Probably you can correct this if you think it worthwhile.

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2018, 09:02:32 AM »
per RGB:
Quote
Users who can imagine the causes and consequences of bight-straightening will hopefully employ a lock that eliminates that risk.

I see you have used advanced this alleged phenomena of bight straightening again.
I'd like to see specific examples of where and how this could occur without deliberate/intentional acts of interference from humans.

I'd also like to see a proper explanation of how you define the phenomena of bight straightening.

per Dan Lehman:
Quote
the UIAA drop test specifications only require a fig.8 eyeknot
termination of a test specimen, yes?

[edit : NO, they now at least require clamping, not knotting.]

Refer to extract from EN892
You will see one end is clamped, while the other end is attached to the test dummy as a #1047 F8 eye knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2018, 09:02:32 PM »
per Dan Lehman:
Quote
the UIAA drop test specifications only require a fig.8 eyeknot
termination of a test specimen, yes?

[edit : NO, they now at least require clamping, not knotting.]

Refer to extract from EN892
You will see one end is clamped, while the other end is attached to the test dummy as a #1047 F8 eye knot.

I thought that I >>READ<< that the attachments
at BOTH points were to be the same --indeed, that
the one was specified in reference to the other.
(Sorry to be short of citation-research --just spent time
combing over 1891/2 Work mag. articles in pursuit of
the Busbh / HaslUCK / HaslOPE, Lancelot L. / HaslOPE P. L.
confusions & mystery.
((short summation :: Father LLH wrote Work aritcles,
which unrleated but editor HaslUCK *borrowed* nearly
exactly for his 1904ff book,
and sone PLH must've borrowed much but added some
things for his book? "Knots and Knotting" of which one
on-line other book of his credits him with on its on-line
viewable cover page --but nOne I know has this work.))

Again, do WORDS state otherwise?
Are you referencing the CURRENT standard (I do see your
presented nice diagram in one viewable but OLDER standard
on-line).
(I forget now what it was I DID SEE --so much is behind
costly entry fees of e.g. 175 pounds Eng.Sterling!-- that
gave me the notion of clamping both ends!?)
(noting that such clamping is more surely matched across
testing than perhaps a knot would be, with variable tying
and length of eye ... .)

--dl*
====

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2018, 09:08:20 PM »
No knot ever fails within the conditions where it will not fail.
//
 To users who can not imagine conditions that cause bight-straightening,
To the extent that your first statement is a tautology,
well, <zero gained>;
and to the 2nd I might reply "No bight-straightening was
ever caused by users imagining it!"  (Though some such
users do employ it via demonstrations, to strike fear in
the masses of muddled minds.   ;D  )

Note that "tail inside / outside" is not fully a function
of the topology, but also of dressing :: that tail-outside
knot can be dressed & set with the tail NOT outside but
pulled around elsewhere, and held by the SPart's draw
--just as one might do with #1010 to anticipate the
draw and so set the knot with the tail more around
under & outside, expecting it to be moved to about
the position it is SHOWN in in common illustrations.


--dl*
====

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: John Smith?s bight-tucked bowline (vs Yosemite finish)
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2018, 10:41:42 AM »
Quote
Are you referencing the CURRENT standard (I do see your
presented nice diagram in one viewable but OLDER standard
on-line).
Extract from EN892 2012 version is attached.
I'm not sure how much I am allowed to provide without violating copyright laws?
The moderators on this forum will no doubt check and delete the image if it violates copyright laws...

However, as this is posted for academic reasons and for fair use, hopefully it will be okay?

Also, I think we are drifting off the topic from the original poster... (#1010 Bowline variant described by John Smith and presumably independently discover by Dan Lehman?).

 

anything