Bends derived from enhanced Bowlines that work for different-sized ropes

[Dennis Pence]

Mark,

I want to continue to argue that the Easy Locked V2 Cowboy Bowline mentioned above does meet your criteria to be called a bowline.  Below I show how it is tied, starting with a loose Cowboy Bowline which we turn over.  I have shaded the part you did yellow above as it is loosely completed with a bight in this yellow-labeled cord.  Now it is technically possible to pull the yellow-labeled part out of the nipping loop as I show in the last diagram, putting a severe bight in the red-labeled cord.  I think this is what you are complaining about where it would not meet your criteria.  But this is not how the knot is usually tightened.  You are much more likely to pull on the free end to keep the red-labeled part straight and on this side of the nipping loop.  The bight in the yellow-labeled part stays inside the nipping loop.

With the related bend (with different-sized ropes), that I pictured in reply 6, the worst that might happen is that the crossing of the yellow and red parts gets pulled into the nipping loop.  The problem with all of these bends related to enhanced bowlines where the larger rope is the nipping loop is that the nipping loop does not have pull on both ends to tighten the loop under tension.

[agent_smith]

Hello again Dennis.

I want to continue to argue that the Easy Locked V2 Cowboy Bowline mentioned above does meet your criteria to be called a bowline.

Sure, continue your argument!

I think this is what you are complaining about where it would not meet your criteria.

I am not "complaining".
I am simply pointing out that your original drawing at reply #6 were not 'Bowlines'.
I shaded a segment yellow (in a previous post) to show that that segment did not pass through the nipping loop.
It was simply a statement of fact.
Facts don't care about feelings - they're simply facts.

The bight in the yellow-labeled part stays inside the nipping loop.

I can only assess your image as they are drawn and supplied.
As they currently appear, the yellow segment in 'D' does not pass through the nipping loop.
Admittedly, your drawings are loosely indicated.
However, strictly by the drawing, the yellow segment does not pass through the nipping loop.
This is a statement of fact.
You would need to redraw the image and re-submit it in its final properly dressed form.
As it currently stands, image "D" is not a 'Bowline'.

SUMMARY:
[ ] Image 'A' is a 'Bowline'
[ ] Image 'B' is a 'Bowline'
[ ] Image 'C' is still a 'Bowline'
[ ] Smoking gun: Image 'D' is de-activated - it is not a 'Bowline'

I can only assess what is before me as evidence.
The yellow segment in 'D' does not pass through the nipping loop.
You would need to redraw and re-submit a new image showing final dressing state.
Hopefully your final dressed state will ensure that the yellow segment passes through the nipping loop?

EDIT NOTE:
If image 'C' is your intended final geometric form (it only needs to be tightened),
then it is a 'Bowline'.
If image 'D' is your final intended geometric form, then it is no longer
a 'Bowline'. It has been de-activated because the yellow segment has been pulled
out of the nipping loop.
Due to the vagaries of the English language, it is hard to know what is your final intended
geometric form. Also, all images are presented in a loose dressing state - and there is
no final set and dressed geometric form to examine.
If you presented an image that had the words; "This is the final intended set and dressed form",
it would provide additional clarity to what you are attempting to argue.

[Dennis Pence]

Mark,

I agree that Image C above meets your definition of a bowline.  Image D does not.  What I am claiming is that when we tighten any of the Easy Locked or Super Locked Bowlines described in that earlier forum, we are very unlikely to pull the yellow-labeled cord out of the nipping loop as indicated in Image D.  Instead, when we pull on the standing part, the two legs of the eye part and the free end, we tend to keep the red-labeled cord straight.

[agent_smith]

I agree that Image C above meets your definition of a bowline.  Image D does not.

Yep, and all of your images at reply #6 are not 'Bowlines'.

Its not just 'my' definition.
Xarax did a lot of work to pick apart and understand 'Bowlines'.
This prompted me to also examine the subject in detail.
With all the 'eye knots' that were identified as being 'Bowlines',
there had to be commonality.
We asked the obvious question:
What were the elements that were common to all of the 'Bowlines'?

Obviously, not every 'eye knot' could make the claim of being
a 'Bowline'. There had to be criteria to make judgements.
And the criteria had to be applied in a consistent and reliable way.

A 'Bowline' is not on the identity spectrum.

[Dennis Pence]

If the enhancements to the Bowline are all in the nipping structure, then the associated bend can have the smaller rope for this nipping structure and the larger rope for the collar.  I was motivated by Ashley's page 15 where he shows in the second column hitches which consist of a known hitch (normally round a rail) which is now tied around the standing part to get a different hitch.  ABoK #54 Two Half Hitches is a Clove Hitch #53 tied around the standing part.  The Water Bowline #1012 has the same Clove Hitch around the legs of the collar, and we could call the bend a Water Sheet Bend (or a Clove Hitch Sheet Bend).  Tying the Clove Hitch in the other direction gives the Buntline Hitch #55, and the related might be called a Buntline Bowline and a Buntline Sheet Bend.  The Girth Hitch (or Cow Hitch) #56 gives Reversed Half Hitches #57.  The related bowline is usually called a Girth Hitch Bowline, and the bend could be called a Girth Hitch Sheet Bend.  Tying the Girth Hitch in the other direction gives the Lobster Buoy Hitch #58, a Lobster Buoy Bowline and a Lobster Buoy Sheet Bend.  Next is the Rolling Hitch (1) #61, 1734 giving the Taut-Line Hitch #62, a Rolling Hitch Bowline, and a Rolling Hitch Sheet Bend.  Particularly for the related bends, you can easily tie the other variations of the Rolling Hitch #1735, 1736 or enhancements to the Rolling Hitch such as the Camel Hitch #215.  It probably does not make sense to use so many wraps for a bowline, but the related Camel Hitch Sheet Bend seems reasonable when the two ropes differ greatly in size.

[Dan_Lehman]

The Girth Hitch (or Cow Hitch) #56 gives Reversed Half Hitches #57.
The related bowline is usually called a Girth Hitch Bowline,
and the bend could be called a Girth Hitch Sheet Bend.
Tying the Grtih Hitch in the other direction gives the
Lobster Buoy Hitch #58, a Lobster Buoy Bowline
...

Except that the change of direction here has lost the
nipping loop of the Larkshead.


--dl*
====

[Dennis Pence]

Dan,

All of the nipping structures in reply 19 involve multiple loops (as does the Round Turn Bowline #1013).  When you pull hard on both the standing part and the legs of the eye, the two loops in the Water Bowline and the Girth Hitch Bowline tend to pull apart a little.  When the directions of the two loops are reversed, the two loops tend to pull together (and this also happens in the Round Turn Bowline).  This might cause jamming in these bowlines, and so I am not very fond of the Buntline Bowline and the Lobster Buoy Bowline (and they are not easy to tie).  But I do like the fact that this may be more secure in the Sheet Bend version (and they are easier to tie since you have access to the free end).

Remember the intent of this discussion was to find bends that work well with two ropes of different sizes.  It is OK is they are merely inspired by bowline-like knots that might not fully meet the strict criteria of the bowline family.

[Dan_Lehman]

Dan,
All of the nipping structures in reply 19 involve multiple loops (as does the Round Turn Bowline #1013).
When you pull hard on both the standing part and the legs of the eye,
the two loops in the Water Bowline and the Girth Hitch Bowline tend to pull apart a little.
When the directions of the two loops are reversed,
the two loops tend to pull together

But they cease to be *loops*, was my point --to something pear-shaped.

--dl*
====

[Dennis Pence]

Dan,

I still see two loops around the legs of the collar in both the Buntline Bowline and the Lobster Buoy Bowline.  It helps to tighten the Clove Hitch and the Girth Hitch first to still see these.  Then the loops get quite distorted when you tighten the whole knot.  Again, I am not very fond of these creations, and I doubt it they become popular.  Still, I do believe that they both technically satisfy Mark's criteria for a nipping structure. I do like the Sheet Bend versions.

[Dan_Lehman]

Dan,  I still see two loops ...

You can draw them --in a quite unloaded state--
to be loopish, but as noted they don't load qua *loop*
(you note : "distorted") --no rounded/surrounding nipping.
No, the loading pulls on the would-be "loop"
in the opposite direction to that of #1010 & BWLs.

Now, hmmm, the *2nd*/outgoing Eye Leg nipping
IS rather more loopish, in the version with S.Part
pulling over-top the OELeg, not under it!?


--dl*
====