International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => New Knot Investigations => Topic started by: Mobius on July 10, 2018, 03:16:34 PM

Title: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: Mobius on July 10, 2018, 03:16:34 PM
I was playing with creating simple-to-do TIB loop knots and this one popped out.  It is a locked bowline, a very simple one. Would someone point me to the thread where it has been discussed before, please? I searched, however not well enough.

For what its worth, it has performed on my rig up to 500kg in 3mm Dyneema well recently. I.e. it does not slip and can still be untied after heavy loading in that material. However, what is it?
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: SS369 on July 10, 2018, 04:36:57 PM
Good day mobius.

Here is the thread pertaining to the simple lock(s) for the bowline. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.0)

SS
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on July 11, 2018, 12:18:02 AM
Xarax created a much improved version of Mobius depicted Bowline.
I'll dig up a photo and post it for reference.

If the subject is methods to lock down 'a' Bowline (eg the #1010 common Bowline) - I would have to say that Scott's locked Bowline is remarkable and in my opinion, ingeniously simple.

I am jealous that I did not discover it myself  :-\

I have introduced many climbers to Scott's locked Bowline and it is gaining traction...
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: Mobius on July 11, 2018, 01:50:05 AM
Thank you for the responses, Scott and Mark.

The knot Rob Thorne describes in the lead thread of the link Scott provided might be the loop shown above. Rob refers to pictures and "steps" for his knot, though the pictures appear to have gone.

I was aware of these 'simple' locked tib bowlines before: Scott's Locked Bowline, Dan Lehman's Locked Bowline and Xarax's Ampersand Locked Bowline. The one I show above has some strong points to it for everyday use(s) in comparison to those I mention above, I believe. To be clear, I am not saying it is better (better for what purpose comes to mind), only that it has been an easy knot for me to tie and use securely so far.

I am pretty sure that whatever "much improved version" Xarax came up with, he will have lost the simplicity of the knot I show above (particularly its easy TIBness). However, let's see. Please have a look for it Mark (agent_smith).


Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on July 11, 2018, 02:59:55 AM
Special delivery from Xarax :)

I guess 'simple' is in the eye-of-the-beholder.

I am sure Xarax will weigh in and discuss the merits of his creation
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: Mobius on July 11, 2018, 08:45:04 AM
Special delivery from Xarax :)

I guess 'simple' is in the eye-of-the-beholder.

I am sure Xarax will weigh in and discuss the merits of his creation

Thank you, Mark, and lol at Xarax's depiction ;D 8)

I actually thought Mark was fooling me and that this was the Ampersand Bowline until I studied it more closely. It is actually one small tuck different, so maybe not so 'simple' a knot to tie after all if one can be confused by it :) Also, the knot shown by Mark is not TIB and when tied in 11mm static climbing rope it does not snug as well as an Ampersand does (nor as well as the knot in the lead post) and therefore possibly does not 'lock' as well either (subjective).




Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on July 11, 2018, 01:07:10 PM
Xarax claims that the image isn't a reasonable likeness of himself   :o
He wrote to me declaring that he only weighs 62kg and is 1.78m in height.

The Xarax Ampersand Bowline is attached for reference. The Ampersand Bowline is TIB.
NOTE: The Bowline in the previous post was (I think) an early investigation by Xarax to find a TIB Bowline with a simple lock. The Ampersand Bowline was born from that effort.

Xarax has indicated that he had discovered the Bowline shown by Mobius in his opening post but he summarily dismissed it as inferior.

Xarax has made the following comments:

Quote
It is not only a matter of simply re-tucking the Tail End of the #1010, in through no-matter-what opening of the nipping structure, in order to gain security - it is the specific structural way, the pressure and so the security provided by the "lock" itself that matters, too.

and;

Quote
The "hottest" spot in a bowline is the crossing point of its nipping loop, anything that happens to pass through there, is squeezed by the two stronger curves of the bowline, the first curve of the continuation of the Standing End ( bearing 100% of the tension ) , and the first curve of the ongoing eye-leg ( bearing 50% of the tension ). The collar is a such a "soft" spot compared to that !  So, I decided to make the re-tucked end of the #1010 pass though there, in between the two strongest curves, through the crossing spot area, and the result was the Ampersand bowline.


And here is a link provided by Xarax (looking back to August 2013):
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4603.msg29705#msg29705
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: alanleeknots on July 14, 2018, 07:47:16 AM
Hi All,
        I  have two Simple Locked ABOK #1034 1/2 Bowline, they both well secure, compact, three rope diameters in the
        nipping loop and second collar, the line tuck in nice and smooth, the tail was fully nip by the nipping loop,
        ( THE LAST DEFENCE IS ON, MEET XARAX REQUIREMENT ) easy to tie, just need one tuck,  easy to untie after
        heavy load.
         These two knots work better than it look, also see the link below.
         http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.135     謝謝 alan lee.
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: Mobius on July 14, 2018, 08:09:18 AM
Thank you to both Mark and Xarax for input on this loop.

Assuming there is some more to discuss, I will call it the M-Bowline for now rather than 'the knot in the lead post'. I think, in hindsight, using the word 'lock' for this bowline with such a simple 'Yosemite' tuck was an error. The knot discussed here was never intended to be considered for 'mission critical' applications, which the word lock might suggest.

The M-Bowline might be theoretically inferior in some applications, however, it has some strengths too I think. At the very least, it has been a good TIB loop knot to use on my rig testing knots in Dyneema recently 8)

I will show the TIB method for it after taking some pictures.
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on July 14, 2018, 02:26:48 PM
Hi Mobius,

Xarax asks if you could please take a close look at the knot images in this link: (dated August 2013)
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4603.msg29705#msg29705

With thanks from Xarax.
...

I believe there was a time when Xarax was exploring methods of making various Bowlines TIB (eg via tucking the tail through the collar).
Theses are my words, and not Xarax.
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: Mobius on July 20, 2018, 12:54:21 AM
Alan Lee asked me to post some images of the TIB tying method. The written instructions I first provided in another thread are below:

- With the WE in your right hand, make an overhand loop with your left hand

- Make an overhand loop with your right hand and reeve the RH loop through the LH loop

- Take the bight formed on the left and forward flype it over the loop on the right through 360o, hence forming a
   collar

- Dress the knot


The first few steps are shown below in picture form.

Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: Mobius on July 20, 2018, 01:31:49 AM
The last two steps are simply dressing the knot.

The same knot I show images for was later trialled at 300kg+ in dynamic rope, looking for any heavy loading issues.
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on July 20, 2018, 04:53:38 AM
per Mobius original post:
Quote
It is a locked bowline, a very simple one

I would refute such a claim...and the title 'locked Bowline' is dubious.
I have tried this structure in Edelrid 'Corbie' 8.5mm diameter EN892 certified dynamic rope and it isn't secure with vigorous cyclic loading.
I also tried it in Stirling HTP 11mm low stretch abseil rope - and it worked loose after vigorous cyclic loading.

I think your mileage will vary according to the type of cord/rope you are using. Due to the fact that these 2 quick and dirt 'backyard' style tests showed the Mobius structure to be vulnerable to vigorous cyclic loading, I think any claim to it being a 'locked' Bowline should be withdrawn.

Given that Scotts locked Bowline status as a secure 'locked' structure isn't cord/rope dependent, and that Alan Lee's (Xarax co-creator) Ampersand Bowline is superior, why bother with this (Mobius) knot?
NOTE: An exception might be 'dyneema' type slippery cordage...Xarax recently pointed out that we should start to look at this area more closely - to see which structures are secure and stable in dyneema - or what level of vulnerability normally secure Bowlines might have when tied in dyneema.

To achieve the Ampersand Bowline, it only needs one additional step; by feeding the tail through the nipping loop.
Also, Xarax had tied this structure years ago while on the path to re-discover Alan Lee's Ampersand Bowline!

Sorry Mobius! This criticism is intended in good faith.
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: Mobius on July 20, 2018, 10:31:46 AM
....
I think, in hindsight, using the word 'lock' for this bowline with such a simple 'Yosemite' tuck was an error. The knot discussed here was never intended to be considered for 'mission critical' applications, which the word lock might suggest.
....

Thank you for the feedback agent_smith (Mark), your criticism is welcome.

Note that I implied as much about the claim 'lock' before, I have no qualms in retracting that word. My proposed bowline is a KISS knot that I should have posted in the Practical Knots section.

The Mobius Bowline has issues with cyclic loading, I have no doubt Mark's informal trials are relevant. That is simply not the way I would use this knot though, I would make a different choice of knot if I thought cyclic loading was an issue.

This is a very simple bowline that probably has a little extra security (compared to an RH Bowline) because of the extra tuck. This helps to snug the knub on dressing it and suggests a little extra slack security is available. Most important to me is that I now have a quick, dirty, KISS Bowline that I can tie in a flash in TIB fashion. It is quicker to tie TIB than in the end, if you can use it that way. I can and do use it that way.

A knot needs to be assessed on its usage and be 'fit for purpose', I currently use this Mobius Bowline loop every day. I stand at my workbench, tie it TIB and place it over my rig hook(s). Voila!, and it works for me in a variety of rope types and diameters (more about Dyneema later). It is proving to be a great end loop for me so far. Also, I have no issues using it for everyday things like tying a load down on a trailer or securing the kid's bikes on the bike rack.

...
Given that Scotts locked Bowline status as a secure 'locked' structure isn't cord/rope dependent, and that Alan Lee's (Xarax co-creator) Ampersand Bowline is superior, why bother with this (Mobius) knot?
...

An easy-to-tie KISS knot still has a place in this world one hopes.

This thread has made much mention of the Ampersand Bowline. That knot does not suit my purposes for a number of reasons. Nor does Scotts Locked Bowline, for that matter. However, Dan Lehman's Locked Bowline has a lot going for it from my perspective.

Mark, I appreciate the time you have taken, and I take your comments in good faith. I hope my written views here are received in the same way 8)

(Scott, please move this thread to Practical Knots if you see fit)

Cheers, Ian.
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: Mobius on July 21, 2018, 02:49:29 AM
  1 and 2

P.S. 2014-6-09 : There is another slightly different variation of the 1 loop, where the second leg of the collar passes from the other side of the returning eye leg - and which is also TIB. The corresponding PET TIB loop is also slightly different, but it is not as interesting as the best of the family, the "pet loop" (A).

This is Xarax's previous input into the bowline I am promoting, along with an image titled "2a.JPG". The link was provided above. A very limited contribution has now been acknowledged. Thank you, Xarax.

I have been chastised (in another thread) for daring to give a decent name to a knot that I found on my own and I alone am promoting. When someone points me to a published description/discussion where someone did not refer to the Mobius Bowline as lacking interest and called it's image "2a" and made more than a spurious passing comment like "variation of the 1 loop", I will stand corrected. There is way too much intellectual snobbery exercised by the old guard on this site sometimes.

As I am probably the only one who will ever use the Mobius Bowline regularly, I will call it what I like. Why should anyone really care what I choose to call a knot I alone use?
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: alanleeknots on July 21, 2018, 04:47:52 AM
Hi All,
        Mobius, Thanks for sharing your TIB tying method, you do come up a good TIB tying method for this Simple bowline
        variation. This variation is good enough for general use, it do offer little more secure, and also when you handle and
        shacking this knot it does not come apart as easy as the Standard bowline, except as Mark have mention for
        vigorous cyclic loading or critical use.  謝謝 alan lee.
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: Mobius on July 21, 2018, 05:14:14 AM
Hi All,
        Mobius, Thanks for sharing your TIB tying method, you do come up a good TIB tying method for this Simple bowline
        variation. This variation is good enough for general use, it do offer little more secure, and also when you handle and
        shacking this knot it does not come apart as easy as the Standard bowline, except as Mark have mention for
        vigorous cyclic loading or critical use.  謝謝 alan lee.

Thank you, Alan. I do appreciate this positive comment, it brightened my day :)
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on July 21, 2018, 12:16:05 PM
per Mobius:
Quote
I have been chastised (in another thread) for daring to give a decent name to a knot that I found on my own

! To chastise is to severely reprimand someone.
Nobody had done that. I think you are imagining something that doesn't exist.
I merely posted Xarax's comments. I am not sure how the dots were joined to lead to a conclusion of being chastised.

per Mobius:
Quote
There is way too much intellectual snobbery exercised by the old guard on this site sometimes.
Wow, I think Xarax is simply pointing you toward some knot structures from several years ago.
I personally haven't had time to compare in detail those that Xarax presented versus your creation.
I dont think anyone is intending to be a snob or to convey snobbery.
I think you are creating a situation which doesn't actually exist.

I'll check if Xarax intended to cause emotional harm or to convey intellectual snobbery (but I can imagine the answer already).

If I may provide a suggestion please?
Xarax is passionate about knots and likes to advance our collective knowledge - and he likes to share and collaborate, not destroy others in the process.

I like accuracy - and that includes the historical record (look t my paper on the Zeppelin bend where we try to unlock who actually first 'published' that bend). No people were harmed in the process :)
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on July 22, 2018, 01:29:14 AM
I have received some further comment from Xarax per the simple TIB Bowline presented by Mobius.

Per Xarax...
Quote
Mobius, thank you for your good work - and it is good to see others on this IGKT forum who are willing to make new discoveries and advance our understanding of knots and knotting :)
I only ask that you please re-examine the links I had previously provided and, in addition, could you please examine the knots presented in this link: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4603.msg29705#msg29705 (Fourth picture). I am providing these links in good faith.

Additional comment by Per Xarax...
Quote
I do not believe the structure you had presented is deserving of the title 'locked'. I had been investigating and searching for simple locked Bowlines myself that were also TIB - and the act of feeding the tail through the collar was a known technique for transforming a previously non TIB Bowline into one that is TIB. More is required to lock down a structure than a simple upwards tail maneuver - for example, please look at the Ampersand Bowline where the tail is firmly clamped. This clamping force is provided by multiple elements within the structure - and is certainly deserving of the title 'locked Bowline'.

I also found these very wise words from Sweeney (originally posted 15 November 2015) which I hold in high esteem:
quoted from Sweeney: Link: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5564.msg37785#msg37785
Quote
You should be proud - you discovered this bend by yourself and the fact that someone else got there first should not diminish your achievement. There is an argument that no knot can ever be really described as "new" since knots have been around for so long who is to say that someone else isn't actually using a "new" knot somewhere in the world?
Title: Re: A Simple Locked Bowline
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 22, 2018, 08:47:23 PM
I also found these very wise words from Sweeney (originally posted 15 November 2015) which I hold in high esteem:
quoted from Sweeney: Link: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5564.msg37785#msg37785
Quote
You should be proud - you discovered this bend by yourself and the fact that someone else got there first should not diminish your achievement. There is an argument that no knot can ever be really described as "new" since knots have been around for so long who is to say that someone else isn't actually using a "new" knot somewhere in the world?

As I just stated in some other thread, musing over some
child's --undeniably unknowing-- playing leading to their
*new* knots.
We can however see *invention* as a double-edged,
Janus-faced (w/good & bad sides) thing :: i.e., that
all this invention comes at the expense of researching!
On the Net, it has long been that sometimes a questioner
is chided for not doing prior searching for extant answers
to her question ; and yet one can argue that the faster
way is to (re-)ask and get an immediate, search-time-free
response (and admittedly one can waste much time weeding
through all the returns that come from a search).  Sometimes
the response is a bit of compromise :: that a wise responder
then points to the best prior research to be perused (and so
doesn't have to re-state it anew).

(-;