Bowline, is then a SheetBend to self to form fixed eye.
TheeSpyder, it shows that you have gone to school, together with Derek Smith !
As I have already argued at Replies #2 and #6, this theory is falsified by the simple fact that a Bowline can hold even when the collar is very loose, while the Sheet bend can not
Have a look at ABoK#160 and ABoK#161. Do you see any
elements of the Sheet bend there ? Do you see any
elements of any
hitch whatsoever ? Do you see segments of lines perpendicular to each other, as in the Sheet bend ? No ! But you see elements of the Bowline, of course ! And you see elements of the Bowline in the Gleipnir, too, which is nothing but a bowline-type of knot, where the capstan advantage of the collar has been replaced by the mchanical advantage of the second line.
The false theory of the close relation of the Bowline with the Sheet bend was, in fact, initiated by Ashley, who had not paid much attention to ABoK160 and ABoK#161 as structures that could evolved even further : that is why he missed the Gleipnir ! Had he met the Gleipnir, I am sure that he would have seen its close relation with the Bowline, at once.
The Gleipnir proved that the primary element of the Bowline is the nipping loop, and the secondary element the collar. If we did not know the Gleipnir, ( and the ABoK#160 and ABoK#161 ), we would be justified to see the relation of the Bowline with the Sheet bend, indeed, a relation that is more remote and less important that the relation between the Bowline and the Gleipnir.