Here are the pictures ordered by alpineer, and delivered by me...
The heavy gun of Dan Lehman does not seem like a bowline at all, I am afraid,
but not because it does not have a nipping loop ! Its nipping loop is there, in every dressing of this knot.
What is missing though is the collar.
Your ability to force square pegs into round holes is impressive
Just slacken the white rope's completion of #1033 and you'll
see not one but TWO collars appear; that should satisfy even
the most hungry bowline-
(They might even appear as set, with greater forces and elastic
We have four distinct strategies : The first is to have a broader concept of the collar, like you do,
Rather, I don't stipulate "collar" in my definition of "bowline",
which you do. Maybe I see a *collar* where you don't, also;
but my What is a *bowline*?
concern is centered on the turNip
--which somehow must be pretty well stabilized (though there
are issues with deformation under load, poor/loose setting,
and so on).
Now, to Derek's
There has been considerable talk of defining a Bwl by its nipping loop.
OK, if anyone is more than half serious about this, try to make a Bwl without its other key component - its bight loop... then show us it in action. Only then will I concede that a Bwl has one component, not two - a simple hitch (turnip) holding and being held by a bight loop - i.e. the SBcore.
My quick answer to this is "Myrtle eyeknot"
otherwise secured. One can also consider the so-named Eskimo bowline
--which collars an eye leg and ... <does what to?> the SPart.
The finished knot is a function of its structural components and NOTHING to do with its tying method.
The knot bears no witness or memory of its method of construction
so we should not think of the finished knot in terms of how it was made,
but in terms of what it 'is' and what it 'does'.
For the purposes of knot classification
, I'm happy with this statement;
but for the purposes of understanding the knot's behavior, I disagree:
a knot might well "have memory" of its tying method --in torsion of parts,
e.g.. (I have been amazed to find not only one but TWO kernmantle
rope testers[f] who tested the fig.8 eyeknot
as both "re-threaded/-woven"
and "on a bight" !! --as though the knot cared, as you say. BUT, IFFFF
one were to sample actual tyers of said knot --as an in-the-field research
study, hands-on data collection, one MIGHT find e.g. that different
forms of the knot (which is after all never precisely specified) obtained,
that (suppose...) when tied in-the-bight it was usually so-dressed andthis
end loaded, but was otherwise when "re-woven". Of course,
one's test data then, if showing some difference, would be evidence
of the different forms of the knot.
Well, I'm not so happy with "what it does", as in the case of some
(what I call) "noose hitches" what is done might depend upon the
material & force --the midshipman's hitch
not fixing an eye,
and two half-hitches
being adequately called a "noose" by
structure, *hitching* to itself, a compound *structure*, not a knot
(the clove hitch
finish being the *knot*).
[f](CMC Rope Rescue Manual and Dave Richards are the two testers
who did this, of whom I'm aware --published reports.)