Author Topic: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes  (Read 122453 times)

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Hello IGKT members (and Dan Lehman in particular),

I need some assistance in tracking down some clear images of the janus bowline.

In fact, I would appreciate any technical info on the bowline - its use in vertical rescue and industrial rope access is set to make a comeback here in Australia...the knot has had a lot of bad press over here but in the USA it appears to be preferred.

I found an old post (below), but perhaps there has been more advances on this subject material?

As soon as I saw Janus Bowline and Dan Lehman in the same post, I thought Eureka! But then, the links are dead and its old info...so maybe not Eureka.

The standard bowline ABoK #1010 is generally agreed to be insecure for rescue/climbing applications. ABoK #1013 is an improvement, but the Janus variant intrigues me Mr DL!

I welcome any technical and other useful info that IGKT members can provide.

I found this link; http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_SingleLoops.htm#DoubleKnottedBowline  but I need some more direction please...


agent smith


...

Dan Lehman - Old post (2004)


Re: Simple lock for the bowline
? Reply #10 on: December 19, 2004, 11:56:07 PM ?
   
Rob, don't give up!  Where do my words fail?
This is really quite simple--we're talking about CONTINUING from
a given image, and only a VERY simple bit of making one turn and tuck!
This shouldn't take xxxMbytes of pictures.

Your description is adequate.  What you describe has been shown in
KM (Knotting Matters--IGKT newsletter).  A similar bowline, which also
can be tied in the bight(!) is shown on the same site:

www.iland.net/~jbritton/KnotPhotoContributions.htm
--scroll down a few images.

Updated Link > www.pssurvival.com/PS/Knots/Knot_Knowledge_Photo_Illustrations_2004.pdf
This version simply crosses the end to the outer side of the knot's
loop (not eye) before tucking it back through the collar.  The
version you describe has a risk of the tucked end working to the
wrong side of the SPart (mostly during the tying process, and likely
most vulnerable in stiffer material).

The lock I described as binding the gooseneck is simply described
re that "rear view" bowline image (which seem front to me! :-)
as follows:  bring the end down over the parts (towards the
viewer, i.e.) and just to the left of the collar  (which your
version goes through), and then follow the end's original tuck
back up through the gooseneck.  The end thus makes a full
turn around the part of the gooseneck where parts cross in
its forming a circle/loop.  Done with the Dble.Bowline, this is a quite
secure binding (which gets no tighter on loading, and indeed
as rope stretches & thins, there will develop some space in the
turn).

Now, for the Janus Bwl.:  the end is going to make a collar around
the left side of the eye just as it has already made a collar around
the SPart (Standing Part).  Thus, the end goes left OVER &
back under this left side, then it is tucked through the gooseneck
rightwards & downwards (NW to SE); it will cross under itself
(to the extent one might see that even as a crossing)
and over the rightside end of eye, under right side of knot's loop
(i.e., tucked between those parts).

Pulling on the end when finished thus will pull in the left side
of the eye; in many materials, this suffices to keep the gooseneck
tight enough to prevent loosening of the knot.  YMMV.

--dl*
« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 08:28:07 PM by SS369 »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2008, 01:01:49 AM »
I need some assistance in tracking down some clear images of the janus bowline.

In fact, I would appreciate any technical info on the bowline - its use in vertical rescue and industrial rope access is set to make a comeback here in Australia...the knot has had a lot of bad press over here but in the USA it appears to be preferred.

Now if you cannot find any images of it, just how "preferred" can it be? 
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2008, 03:46:21 AM »
Thats funny Mr Roo... you know, I used to look at roos through the sights of my rifle many years ago (one shot one kill)! These days, I prefer to admire the bouncy fellas...

Clarification in order:

[ ] Cant find images and detailed technical data on the 'janus' variant of the bowline
[ ] I can find plenty of images and info on the 'yosemite' variant of the bowline

In the USA, the yosemite variation is popular - particular with Reed Thorne and his loyal followers..plenty of Australian tech rescue people have made a pilgrimage over to the USA and signed up for Reed Thornes courses and then come back to the the land down under (Australia) with lots of new ideas and techniques. The Bowline is one of the knots featured and it is the 'yosemite' variant that seems to be favoured.

As I stated, I am interested in Dan Lehmans take on the 'janus' variant... and any other opinions he might have.

And Roo, do you have an opinion, or are you just making a quip about bowlines?

If you can throw some light on this subject I would be interested in what you have to say...


agent smith
« Last Edit: December 09, 2008, 03:48:56 AM by agent_smith »

Znex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2008, 03:11:11 PM »
I found this web site ( http://www.thepirateking.com/knots/knot_bowline.htm ) that had the same pictures as were on the "jbritton" site that Dan had referenced in the original post... if that helps. I believe the pictures are exactly the same, but I'm not sure which site was the original owner. I'm guessing it wasn't the pirate king.  ;)

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2008, 04:17:58 PM »
Thats funny Mr Roo... you know, I used to look at roos through the sights of my rifle many years ago (one shot one kill)! These days, I prefer to admire the bouncy fellas...

Clarification in order:

[ ] Cant find images and detailed technical data on the 'janus' variant of the bowline
[ ] I can find plenty of images and info on the 'yosemite' variant of the bowline

In the USA, the yosemite variation is popular - particular with Reed Thorne and his loyal followers..plenty of Australian tech rescue people have made a pilgrimage over to the USA and signed up for Reed Thornes courses and then come back to the the land down under (Australia) with lots of new ideas and techniques. The Bowline is one of the knots featured and it is the 'yosemite' variant that seems to be favoured.

As I stated, I am interested in Dan Lehmans take on the 'janus' variant... and any other opinions he might have.

And Roo, do you have an opinion, or are you just making a quip about bowlines?

If you can throw some light on this subject I would be interested in what you have to say...


agent smith

Ah, I think I understand.  You're interested in more than just the Janus variation.  Well, I know the standard Double Bowline is used in climbing without reports of problems, to  my knowledge.   The Water Bowline is more secure, and can be tied in a similiar method to a standard bowline.  I cannot find any Janus variation images either.

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/waterbowline.html
Update: also see:  http://notableknotindex.webs.com/monsoonbowline.html &
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/gnathitch.html

Although it's not a bowline variant, you might be interested in the Zeppelin Loop if you don't find it too difficult to tie.  I find it fast to tie, adjust and easy to inspect:

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html

By the way, what kind of "technical info" are you after?

P.S. Ironically, I kinda wonder what kangaroo meat tastes like.  :D
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 09:21:10 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2008, 05:53:26 PM »
Errm, thanks Znex...but that site sheds absolutely zero light on the janus variant of the bowline that DL was referring to. It was like receiving a microsoft answer (its perfectly correct for a standard #1010, but utterly useless at the same time).

Hmmm Roo, I'm aware of the Rosendahl bend and loop method you refer to. The loop variation of the Rosendahl is interesting but I doubt whther it will be taken up by the rescue community due to complexity of tying issues. Do you have any technical data on this variation of the Rosendahl? See below for a description of what I mean by technical data!

I'm not sure if the 'water bowline' is the 'janus' variant that DL was specifically describing.

And as for technical data, I did say any data would be helpful. But if I really need to be that damn specific, try this:
[ ] Original developer of the janus variant
[ ] Details about its security - particularly if it might be suitable for rescue applications...evidence to support a theory.
[ ] Any test data on breaking strength in comparison to ABoK #1010, the water bowline (ABoK number?), and say comparison strength to #1047, etc, etc
[ ] Stability - any experience, evidence, any info whatsoever to support claims that the janus variant might be more stable than the original #1010
[ ] Evidence of the knots performance in kernmantel rope (ie EN 1891 certified rope, and EN 892 certified rope)
[ ] Any other data, information, history or even just personal notes...?

Does this make sense to you Roo...?

PS If I've ever seen you through my telescopic gun sight Roo, I obviously missed the shot. I ate parts of a Roo a long time ago out in outback West Australia during a survival training course. Killed the bouncy fella with a single blow to the head with a fence 'star picket'.

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2008, 06:44:00 PM »
The Janus variant and the Water Bowline are two different animals.  I can at least say that much.

Most of your technical info can best be obtained by doing tests yourself, specifically on the type of rope you plan on using.  Published tests done by others may or may not use the type of rope you are using and may or may not have been conducted in a proper or objective manner.  See end of the following page for some tips:

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/knotfaq.html

Anyway, use what you feel comfortable with.  I doubt you'll have much sway with influencing "the rescue community" as they likely have a varied host of criteria that changes from person to person.  Some might find the Zeppelin Loop easy while others might have significant trouble even remembering how to tie a Figure 8 stopper knot.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2009, 04:50:45 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2008, 09:01:38 PM »


THIS is so clearly a Practical knotting topic:  why ChitChat about it???

Errm, thanks Znex...but that site sheds absolutely zero light on the janus variant of the bowline that DL was referring to.

Yes, thanks much Znex for finding a ghost of the now-missing Dan Britton images!?
(Hmmm, I've been meaning to give him a ping re what's doing, and here's an obvious question to ask.)
Now, A_S, if you're keen to know, then Znex has put the Key in the words of mine you quoted
for you to get there (though I think the ghost images are upside-down to my reference).
--considerably more than M$ has done (they, under pressure, would seek to buy out the
innovative small firm with the answer).

And while we have THIS image available, let me again assert that a GREAT deal of trouble in learning
the Bowline can be attributed to its backwards presentation of perspecitve--i.e., the "front" side that
is used in most of the instances I've seen is wrongheaded, and the opposite facing should be given.
In the images at the cited URLink ( www.thepirateking.com/knots/knot_bowline.htm ), it is the lowest one,
labeled (wrongly, I say) "rear view".
Similarly, the quick-tying method presented immediately following this image is going to again give
one the wrong facing (the "front view").  Moreover, this way of tying it--i.e., the initial maneuvre of taking
the end OVER the SPart vs. UNDER it, is problematic in that upon completion it leaves a SPart
unsupported; whereas going the the opposite direction (take the end under, up-around-&-then-down)
will render both a better facing of the knot AND a self-supported SPart (i.e., it rests upon the closure
of the knot's loop component rather than falling away from it).  BUT, dumb is dumb and knotters love
copycat repetition, it seems--errors and all!!

With the proper (so-called "rear view") facing, one can well see all of the interesting variations that
can be done with the bowline; it is very easy to understand where the hidden bight parts lie, in
contrast to the "front view" where the bight parts are atop the less obvious crossing(s) of the SPart.

Quote
Hmmm Roo, I'm aware of the Rosendahl bend and loop method you refer to.
The loop variation of the Rosendahl is interesting

As was presented to this forum a little while ago (this summer), that is but one way
of equating bend & eyeknot.  The Butterfly is asserted to be another, and one can see
readily that it's a different relation (eye chopped off to reveal Bend ends).  There is
another, wherein the SPart of one rope of the bend is converted into the eye, with
the re-entry tracing itself until necessary to *fuse* into the other rope's end and become
thus a single rope's eyeknot.  In the case of Rosendahl's Zeppelin bend, the obvious
resultant knot is TIB (Tyable Inthe Bight), even!  (There are some other variants that
center the SPart between the eye legs.)  It is necessarily bulkier than the eyeknot
formed by simply directly fusing the one rope's end into the other's; but it better maintains
that particular P & Q loading profile.

Quote
Now if you cannot find any  images of it, just how "preferred" can it be?

Sharp remarks like this can cut through the bs admirably!
But I must point out that I've not seen any real hint of what I call a seizing hitch  used in
commercial fishing, a (my term again) "Reverse Groundline Hitch", and yet I have found a good
many of them in use, in various capacities (e.g., being the hinges of some sort of holding cage
of wire mesh).  --among other seizing hitches, some of which appear to be best-guesses.

But for rockclimbing/SAR/caving/canyoneering, yeah, the point is valid.  And shows the
assertion/guess of "preferred" to be presumptive.

In any case, though, there is a good deal of knotting outside of mainstream knowledge
that merits much better attention and even use-in-place-of.  I have long grumbled about
the too-popular "Yosemite Bowline" being a less than wonderful solution to the problem
of bowline security; but it has a considerable following.  (Indeed, I'm surprised that in this
day that an Australian--or anywhere not deep in the outback or Amazon ...--would need
to refer to some exploratory party's physical traveling to have knowledge of it:  it seems
de rigueur, to me, in rockclimbing circles.  (And Spydey likes it climbing upright woody things.)

1) "Janus" is MY name for it:  because it is the same form "coming or going" (from eye/SPart).
But there are other knots that could lay similar claim to the two-faced aspect (and, I guess, Janus
implies two but not two identical faces:  the Angler's Loop is like this, then, and in spades!!
Angler's Loop (#1017) can take ANY of its four ends qua SPart, and yields a better YoBowl
in one case, a tenuous (dress/set carefully) quick-Bwl in opposite on that through strand,
and the two Overhand-based eyeknots with the other through strand qua SPart.)
Again, there are other identical-faced Bwls to be had, too; and I now favor a couple of these.

2) The knot was introduced (as has been presented here previously) in 1928 in the Alpine Journal,
same article that presented the better-known Butterfly mid-line eyeknot.  It was later presented in
1990 (or thereabouts) by Heinz Prohaska in the Nat.Speliological Soc.'s newsletter Nylon Highway
(w/o awareness of the 1928 presentation).  In fact, the two presentations differ (I think) in the exact
crossing of ends--left or right of each, a trivial matter.  You can Search this forum for

http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Alpine_journal/   [Wright &Magowan in 300dpi format in pdf, courtesy of Bob Thrun]

Call it a lack of foresight, but the 1928 authors did not use synthetic or kernmantle rope.   :D

You can also find it here (devoid of recognition of W&M's presentation, alas):
http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg  which might be manifest in image in-forum via ... (?)



Okay, now, with the rightmost, "Janus" image in mind, here's another version:
instead of the finishing tuck shown (end going turning around eye-leg and then exiting
Over_loop-Over_eyeleg-Under_loop), take the end around under the 2nd eyeleg and
then exit through the loop (turn Under-Over other eyeleg, Over loop Under loop in the exit).
--the end sort of makes a shoelace tying Overhand with the right eyeleg.
All of these knots put THREE diameters of rope through the nipping loop component,
which is a better approximation of a circle (than just 2 dia.), and can be oriented in
favor of better strength, kinder bending of SPart, IMHO.  The turn around the eyeleg
on the left is what gives security:  by keeping this handle-end of the nipping loop from
springing open, the inevitable feed of material through the main collar (corresponding turn)
around the SPart should not result in a loosening of the nipping loop, which holds the
ends etc. tight.  This is to some degree a matter of degree, but I think you'll find it practically
effective in many common materials.

Quote
I'm not sure if the 'water bowline' is the 'janus' variant that DL was specifically describing.
We are:  it is NOT.
However, later exploration revealed that the Clove Hitch & --mayBEtter-- Cow Hitch
("LarksHEAD" (not "...foot", which Brits on the rocks can't free themselves from)
make for some interesting & satisfying "Mirrored Bowlines" (guess-who's names?).
And, no, geesh, I don't have color pics to post, but the simple tying advice:
form the said structures (around fingers/air), and take them as the loop/"rabbit hole"
of a bowline through which the end is reeved in a bight form, but make a bight
"coming AND going"--both directions (going around the corresponding/through leg of the eye
.
The result is a complex-looking knot that can be pretty loose w/o fear of failure;
in a LEAD (not 2nd, not TR) climber's orientation--i.e., eye-up, SPart-down--, the end will hang
down, gravity-assisted to staying in place.  IF it were to come out of both knot-loops (loops of
the two so-called "mirrored" knots), you would have in the Clove case THEN a Water Bwl,
and it would be nipped still by those loops (and long & dangly obvious).

There is yet another trick that can be played with either of these two (Clove/Cow) starts:
having inserted the end INTO  the two loops (but not back through opp. way),
pull-straighten the eye-side loop, capsizing its turn into the inserted end (!!);
now finish the knot w/the 2nd pass of the end back through.  Esp. with the Cow/LarksHEAD
version, the eye-side loop can be brought pretty snug up into the SPart-side loop.
(And, yes, one can stop here, or make the "... & going" further turn & through-tucking
of the end, gaining that 3rd diameter and pointing the end towards SPart.)

ANNNND, although this by my terms removes the classification of "bowline",
one can use the Clove/Cow  basis but reverse the orientation of its ends--i.e.,
the SPart will be seen to come in OVER the "2nd loop" into the first (in the same
sense as both Two Half Hitches & Buntline Hitch use a Clove Hitch form--it is
the direction that the Clove's ends go that determines the knot).  I think that
the Cow works better, here.  There is a matter further of how the two ends
cross, as they must, each en route to the other's side of the world.

ANNNND-2, all above versions/variants can add the difference between the
Cowboy & Common Bwl.s--the direction of the turns in the collar(s).  Please
don't ask for some large matrix of variants & testing, in added dimensions of
materials & setting & loading & ... .  For some of these in practical terms, it
will not matter.  For the simple variation I verbally presented above to the
Janus Bwl (which knots have equally "Janus" faces), both the given one
and its Cowboy cousin look good.

What all of these Lehman-suggested secured Bwls HERE do (not the EBDB, or not in same way)
as a means to improved security is to hold the eye-side of the central nipping loop more snug
to itself, to inhibit it from opening/loosening.
  (The EBDB more directly binds the (dbl) loop.)
In some cases, this even seem more effective than the EBDB's direct binding:  I've some quite
resilient, slick, soft-laid PP cord in which the EBDB just ... loosens--all the turns of the knot just
opening in unison; but in the Janus Bwl, the cord is bent more sharply in its two collars,
and the cord there tries to open like scissors, and the central loop's enclosure prevents this;
the knot is (like many Bwls) loose in a way, but doesn't seem to quickly get too  loose.
In contrast, for a stiff--nearly intractable re knotting(!)--kernmantle rope such as PMI's Max-Wear
(aka "no-bend"), the EBDB can be tied and the knot holds, and I'd feel better about it than any
of the Janus variants, for long-term (fixed ropes?) security; the EBDB takes a bit more effort
and a proper method to untie (1st draw some SPart through the collar; 2nd pull the bight
ends (end & end-side eye leg) apart to lever some SPart through the End-Binding; 3rd,
now push & pull and work looser).


Quote
And as for technical data, I did say any data would be helpful. But if I really need to be that damn specific, try this:
[ ] Original developer of the janus variant
[ ] Details about its security - particularly if it might be suitable for rescue applications...evidence to support a theory.
[ ] Any test data on breaking strength in comparison to ABoK #1010, the water bowline (ABoK number?), and say comparison strength to #1047, etc, etc
[ ] Stability - any experience, evidence, any info whatsoever to support claims that the janus variant might be more stable than the original #1010
[ ] Evidence of the knots performance in kernmantel rope (ie EN 1891 certified rope, and EN 892 certified rope)
[ ] Any other data, information, history or even just personal notes...?

Citations above show two innovators (at decades remove), and me, for further variations.
Breaking strength is (1) a dubious attribute to a knot (your safety margin should well accommodate any),
and (2) not an obvious thing to determine (what material(s), how loaded to rupture, how conditioned
prior to loading, and (3) the exact geometry of the knot taking the load--differen tyers, different settings).
In some testing of nylon-to-HMPE slings, Kolin Powick found the nylon to be what broke in most/all
cases of slow-pull loading; and the reverse in drop-loading (suggesting that the HMPE's low-temp
threshold played a role); that is ONE case.
www.bdel.com/scene/beta/qc_kp.php#current  [Kolin's 2006-11-09 test of nylon & HMPE slings]

--dl*
====

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2008, 03:49:14 AM »
Thank you Dan Lehman...this is exactly the kind of in-depth reply I was looking for!

I will now have to digest your post and go from there.

Dan, I wish I could actually meet with you one day and undertake a knotting skills workshop...!

As for your comment that this is the wrong thread for this subject matter - I apologise.

I took a guess where to post this topic and perhaps I guessed wrong. Then again, chit chat is allegedly where "you can talk about anything' - so I guess I decided to just to have a bit of a 'chit chat'.

Perhaps we could ask the moderator to shift this whole post to 'practical knots'?...




...........................................................
DL quote:

I have long grumbled about
the too-popular "Yosemite Bowline" being a less than wonderful solution to the problem
of bowline security; but it has a considerable following.  (Indeed, I'm surprised that in this
day that an Australian--or anywhere not deep in the outback or Amazon ...--would need
to refer to some exploratory party's physical traveling to have knowledge of it:  it seems
de rigueur, to me, in rockclimbing circles.
..........................................................

All I can tell you Dan is that the Bowline HAS received bad press here in Australia. 'Bad' to the point that many technical roping instructors actively outlaw its use in climbing, rescue & industrial roping applications.

A lot of this bad press is no doubt chinese wispers, past by word of mouth from one alleged 'guru' to the next. I was actually at a high-level meeting of industrial rope access 'experts' last weekend in Sydney Australia where the notion of re-introducing the bowline was put to the committee. I took careful note of the shocked look on most peoples faces and resistance to the idea of introducing the the bowline (#1010) at all levels of training. The guy that floated the idea had been over in the USA with Reed Thorne...its Reed that uses Bowlines for quote "everything" unquote. Reed Thorne of course is seen by many players as a world expert on technical roping.

What I really want is to hear from you Dan as to what your professional/expert opinion is so I have ammunition to put the wives tails / chinese wispers to bed once and for all. Dan, you are seen as an 'expert' and people take note of what you have to say. Indeed, your opinion matters to me...I need to know where you stand.

In terms of vertical rescue, industrial rope access and rock climbing/mountaineering applications, I believe the bowline (a secured version of the standard #1010) has merit.

To put the fears of my peer group to rest, I could not merely make a push for #1010 in its basic form - I would need to put a case together for something that is SECURE and STABLE. I agree that strength alone is not a decisive factor - but security and stability have greater weighting.

As for Znex's link that he posted, I'm sorry but I could not see anything in the images other than a standard #1010 - I was looking for technical drawings and a degree of substance about the 'janus' variant of the bowline. I'll have another look at his post but for the life of me I couldn't see any specific info on the janus...

Anyhow, thats my say for now... If you have anything further to add on bowlines that specifically could provide me with guidance on a secure and stable variant of #1010 that in your opinion would 'revolutionise the rescue and mountaineering world as we know it', I'd love to hear from you!!

I'll post again when I have more questions.


agent smith
« Last Edit: December 10, 2008, 03:56:25 AM by agent_smith »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2008, 02:49:05 PM »
Still chit chatting...oh dear, I can feel the wrath aiming at me.

The moderator hasn't moved this post to practical knots so I'll tread carefully.

Am still plugging away at the bowline and playing with variations of ABoK #1013.

I have had a good look at the 'janus' variant but my view is that it seems unwieldy and perhaps not offering as much scope for security and stability (and strength) as the double round turn variants - I'm sure DL will disagree with my thoughts on this. Derivatives of ABoK #1013 (using the double round turns) in my humble view, hold some promise for a strong case to re-introduce the bowline into mainstream thinking here in Australia.

I have experimented with using the clove hitch as the beginning point (instead of the 2 superimposed loops as in #1013) and then continued as per #1013. This is a similar concept to the water bowline shown by Roo at http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/waterbowline.html , but I've then taken the tail on a further U turn and passed it back up through the bight so it lies parallel to the Spart.

Have also taken on board DL's comment about having 3 strands of rope which are encircled and crushed by the hitches (coils). Most other so-called variations only have 2 strands of rope being encircled and crushed by the hitches.

Indeed, I've used #1013 as the starting point and then taken the tail and performed a 360 degree loop around the cross-over of the hitch so that the tail ends up pointing the opposite direction to the Spart and lies parallel to the loop (right side). This also creates 3 strands of rope which are encircled and crushed by the hitches (coils).

Will take some photos tomorrow and post to clarify my description.


agent smith
« Last Edit: December 10, 2008, 02:52:25 PM by agent_smith »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2008, 09:02:00 PM »
...........................................................
DL quote:

I have long grumbled about
the too-popular "Yosemite Bowline" being a less than wonderful solution to the problem
of bowline security; but it has a considerable following.  (Indeed, I'm surprised that in this
day that an Australian--or anywhere not deep in the outback or Amazon ...--would need
to refer to some exploratory party's physical traveling to have knowledge of it:  it seems
de rigueur, to me, in rockclimbing circles.
..........................................................

All I can tell you Dan is that the Bowline HAS received bad press here in Australia.

Your reply makes no sense vis-a-vis my comment:  I know that the Bwl has--deservedly--
a bad reputation; I remarked only that (a) I don't like how popular the not-so-great-IMO
YoBowl is, and pertinent to your report (b) how odd it seems that such popularity (IN
KNOWLEDGE) hadn't penetrated Down Under.  I didn't mean to suggest that it should
be much used, only well known as a structure.  Or do you mean that the YoBowl has bad press?

Quote
A lot of this bad press is no doubt Chinese whispers, passed by word of mouth from one alleged 'guru' to the next.
It is appalling how lame some of the rumor-mongering can be.  The Bwl deserves its warnings of caution;
but there are ways to deal with that.  I've seen the HMPE-slings-cut-themselves rumor fly off the Net waves
w/o any stopping to think, and so have fought hard to stomp that myth; Kolin's testing should put it to rest,
but that presumes that people consider the testing vs. parroting the myth--most do the latter.

Quote
I was actually at a high-level meeting of industrial rope access 'experts' last weekend in Sydney
 Australia where the notion of re-introducing the bowline was put to the committee. I took careful note of
the shocked look on most people's faces and resistance to the idea of introducing the the bowline
One tactic could be to suggest using the, um, Partial Fig.8  eyeknot--where the end is not further
"traced"/"re-woven" at the point that it points towards the eye (argh, there are of course TWO main paths
it could take--interior/exterior--, and this is seen in Ashley as #1043, -57, -58).  Witness the reactions to
THIS suggestion; THEN present **a** "Janus" Bwl as the corresponding sort of *completion* for the Bwl
(i.e., of making a further, u-turn & re-tuck).  That might help shed some insight & sense.

Quote
The guy that floated the idea had been over in the USA with Reed Thorne...its Reed that uses Bowlines for quote "everything" unquote.
Reed Thorne of course is seen by many players as a world expert on technical roping.
Okay, put a Thorne in their butts to think better of the Bwl.

Quote
What I really want is to hear from you Dan as to what your professional/expert opinion is so
...I need to know where you stand.
What, my prior tome on this above was not clear?

What you might endeavor to do is get a good sample of relevant materials (this would include
new & not-so-new cordage (maybe SAR folks more often replace and so have newer stuff?)
of a variety (as noted above, PMI MaxWear is damn intractable; so, too, old BlueWater II) of
natures--likely to be of concern to your constituency--,
and set up some kind of " j i g g l i n g " test:  i.e., some way to give a set of knots a duration
of vibration, in order to assess their slack-security.  (Security under load isn't an issue, here
(it IS, for HMPE 12-strand, e.g.!).)  Maybe somebody's ancient klunker of a truck, firing on
all 4 & a half of 6 cyclinders could provide the impetus.  Carefully *calibrated* results aren't
important, just end-of-sufficiently-long-duration survival, yes-or-no, binary pass/fail, matters.

Quote
I believe the bowline (a secured version of the standard #1010) has merit.
Yes, I've said as much.  The Bwl (unlike most eyeknots) can be tied after the rope has been
brought around something (forming/sizing the eye); it is easy to untie after loading.

Quote
I agree that strength alone is not a decisive factor - but security and stability have greater weighting.
Mostly what "strength" is is a misleading but simply obtainable/citable number.
--no matter if it was correctly figured or applies to the materials & exact knot at hand, et cetera!!
As I above pointed out.

Quote
As for Znex's link that he posted, I'm sorry but I could not see anything in the images other than a standard #1010
... .   I'll have another look at his post but for the life of me I couldn't see any specific info on the janus...
You aren't reading closely:  it has, yes, only the common Bwl.  Which images--well, the important "Rear View"--
then can be referred to with my verbal (prior) imagery.  Subsequently, you have a graphic of ONE so-called
"Janus" Bwl, which should suffice to figure out a great many others.

Quote
Indeed, I've used #1013 as the starting point and then taken the tail and performed a 360 degree loop around the cross-over of the hitch
Which to me sounds exactly like the EBDB, pictured & described above.
(There's a similar sort of thing that can be done with a Fig.8 start, btw.)

Quote
I have had a good look at the 'janus' variant but my view is that it seems unwieldy and perhaps
not offering as much scope for security and stability (and strength) as the double round turn variants.

Then maybe your look  ::)  hasn't been all so good.  "unwieldy"  ???
Esp. the "the" part:  "the many !"  --which itself is a potential problem, if there needs to be careful
discernment & selection (i.e. what happens if the knot's tied with a wrong move here or there).  In
light of the general reinforcement to behavior of any re-tucking, I think that such variance is tolerable.
The "Janus" pictured graphically above might fare more poorly w/stiff cordage than one of the ones
I verbally sketched, which don't entail the harder u-turn (around the one leg).

One might e.g. wrap the end a full round turn around the legs of the eye before re-tucking.

A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT IS TO STOP TYING THE BOWLINE IN THE ORIENTATION GIVEN
BY ASHLEY AT #1010 etc.--reverse that orientation to show the opposite face.  (That quick-tying
hand should be coming around from BENEATH the SPart, not over top of it (where it somehow is
magically going straight out from the tyer!).
You go a LONG way in improving the understanding of the knot by doing this, and in showing
this quick-tie maneuvre (which avoids the into-which-side-of-rabbit-hole selection (going through
the "wrong" way leads to "Anti-bowlines", of where there are some rather nice-looking knots,
but that's another battle).

--dl*
====

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2008, 02:06:53 AM »
Dan, my comments/response is this:

I like your feedback and technical input - thats what I seek in these forums. I am a person who likes technical data and evidence. I make evidence-based decisions. Perhaps it reflects my way of thinking and approach to solving problems...I also study law (I like the precise use of language).

Which brings me to this point - I find reading your posts is rather like reading a judgment from a high court justice. You need to read through reams of technical jargon and pages rich in content. Its hard to find the actual 'reason for judgment' (known in law as the ratio decidendi) which is in contrast to obiter (comments in passing).

So I spend a fair amount of time reading your post and then sorting the obiter from actual ratio decidendi!!

I say all this with the greatest degree of respect.

In relation to the bowline, it is definitely #1010 which scares roping technicians. All other variants also scare the majority of these roping technicians simply because of the root fear of #1010 and that a novice could inadvertently die or cause a death. I am merely the messenger boy here Dan, I fully realise that the inherent risks of #1010 can be mitigated - and this is what you might call judgment (ie the possession of knowledge and wisdom).

The technical committee here in Australia seemed less resistant to the notion of #1013 and its derivatives such as the YoBowline..but only to the extent of teaching and applying it at advanced levels of training (certainly not at entry level training).

As for the Janus variant, its just my reaction - my gut instincts that tell me it wont be suitable. I'm sorry if you don't like me stating this...the tying method and shape do not inspire confidence that a novice could accurately reproduce a janus Bowline 100% of the time. I think the way forward is via derivatives of #1013.

I'll post some photos of my handy work and which will clarify the direction I'm going... and then I'm sure you'll comment!


agent smith


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2008, 05:59:25 AM »
As for the Janus variant, its just my reaction - my gut instincts that tell me it wont be suitable.   ..the tying method and shape
do not inspire confidence that a novice could accurately reproduce a janus Bowline 100% of the time.
I think the way forward is via derivatives of #1013.

Again with "the":  there are many bowlines (described above) that have the aspect of being the same
"coming & going"--from end/SPart perspective or eyelegs perspective (i.e., fuse the end to the SPart
and cut open the eye and, voila, same knot, oriented the opposite direction).  And the tying is plenty
simple!  --simpler/quicker than making the round/double turn of #1013 (though the same re-tucking
can be done, of course, to that base; and then there's the EBDB on it).  After all, what else are we
expecting those of your constituency to be doing along with the rope work, which might be done
w/such slight understanding as is being feared for the knotting?

--dl*
====

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2008, 06:32:57 AM »
The technical committee here in Australia seemed less resistant to the notion of #1013 and its derivatives such as the YoBowline..but only to the extent of teaching and applying it at advanced levels of training (certainly not at entry level training).

One of the advantages of advocating a widely-used alternative knot, such as a Double Bowline, is that you can go to your committee, and present statistics based on a large sample size of real-world users.  For example, you might be able to estimate that the Double Bowline is used in rescue scenarios by an estimated XXXX number of personnel in the U.S., and there have been Y (hopefully zero) number of accidents or near-misses reported because of it.

This goes a long way to ease gut-feeling fears and rumor-driven paranoia.  The hard part would be actually tracking down numbers.

Of course, you could also present numbers based on controlled testing, but controlled testing can only go so far in simulating all the real-world scenarios encountered, not the least of which is the incidence of user mis-tying.

Now, once you establish the safety of the Double Bowline, it might serve as a starting point to argue for other knots that can be demonstrated to be better than the Double Bowline in various ways.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2008, 07:59:34 AM »
As promised, here is a link to a pdf file which illustrates some bowlines... www.paci.com.au/IGKT/BOWLINES.pdf

Its about 336 KB in size.

I have included a terminology page to ensure that we are all cooking from the same recipe book...any errors/omissions please advise.

I'll only keep this link alive for a few days..enough time for interested parties to download and comment.

I would particularly appreciate comments/analysis of the #1013 (3 core variant) on page 3.

I have tried to incorporate Dan Lehman's notion of creating 3 strands of rope which are held and crushed by the encircling loops (the 'hitches').

Just to recap my objectives/performance criteria with introducing the Bowline back into mainstream thinking and actual learning curricula here in Australia:
1. Easy to untie - particularly after high loadings
2. Can be tied around an object (eg tree or structural member) without first having to pre-tie a knot (eg re-threaded figure 8 loop)
3. Offers security
4. Is stable in all loading profiles
5. Relatively easy to learn and remember (with correspondingly low error rates with learners)
6. Offers reasonable level of strength relative to same design/model of unknotted rope

Edit: I'm going to add photos of the water bowline, Janus & EBDB tomorrow... I'll end up having a smorgasbord of photos illustrating high quality photos of all the secured bowlines and its derivatives!

agent smith
« Last Edit: December 11, 2008, 01:02:36 PM by agent_smith »