Dan Lehman sent me a bunch of knot descriptions for a new type of 'anti Bowline'.
The descriptions were tendered in ascii code (hence the assigned name).
After pulling my hair out in frustration trying to interpret ascii code
--I finally managed to tie the geometric forms so depicted in the attached images below.
...
I believe that this might constitute a claim of originality
- but with Dan, it's sometimes ambiguous as to what he is claiming
The knot leading to this set of BWLs was found in that
massive tome of nobody-looks-at-closely make-believe
world of Hensel & Gretel's --Encyclopedia of Knots & Fancy
(ha : "fancied"!) Ropework, not in 4th edition (1952).
(For which I alas do not have the page-plate-item#
with me.)
WHAT IS SHOWN IN THESE IMAGES IS >>*wrong*<<
re how the knot should be dressed & set :: pull snug
that U-fold capturing the returning eye leg. The collar
around the S.Part will be quite mild compared to one
made for the basic BWL (#1010), so more resembling
the Eskimo BWL's containment of the S.Part.
In the leftmost image, the Returning Eye Leg goes as
is shown --around behind the S.Part and out leftwards
OVER itself and around behind and ...
now it should exit up "through itself" (making an OH
overall in itself), passing thus through the nipping loop
and through the turn initially made going through the
nipping loop.
And, again, you've got to set this RELeg-binding U-fold
tight-snug to the nipping loop/body.
The collaring of the S.Part is thus via loop not U-fold,
and has a geometry akin to that of Thrun's Joint (Zep.)
--softish on one side with a hard/right turn at the other
(which resists *rolling* material out, given the hardness
of the bend).
In a stiff rope not liking bending,
it's likely that this knot will NOT be a wise choice!
As for "claims", I claim that to my awareness nOnElse
has noted this one-of-a-gazillion items in H&G world,
and that I have, and have introduced a dressing & setting
for it and some versions. Who knows what H&G themselves
saw --if they'd some source of a like-made-knot-per-THEIR
image and happened to go wrong in a good way, or ... ??!
--dl*
====