Author Topic: Simple lock for the bowline  (Read 99050 times)

alanleeknots

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #135 on: April 21, 2013, 07:47:00 AM »
Hi All,  I have two good looking Simple lock bowline, hope you like it.
Thanks   alan lee.

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #136 on: April 21, 2013, 10:55:01 AM »
   The first is a variation of the Eskimo Janus bowline(s)(1) very similar to the one you had presented at another post (See the attached picture) - the difference is that now the "bridge" ( the segment of the rope that connects the two collars ) goes "over" the returning eye leg and the tail ( as shown in the picture ). However, in general, it would be better if this "bridge" penetrates the nipping loop - because a nipping loop that encircles three rope diameters is rounder and wider.
  The second is a "locked" bowline, with the lock being an overhand knot around the rim of the nipping loop. However, if one is going to spend more material and tie an additional overhand knot, I think that he should better use the opportunity and enhance the stability/security of the nipping loop itself - by making this overhand knot turn around its crossing point, for example, not only around its rim.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4329.0
   
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 11:04:17 AM by X1 »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #137 on: April 21, 2013, 12:57:54 PM »
   We do not have such a great number of "Double-Double" bowlines ( Double nipping loop + Double collar ), so that the rejection of one of them would have made no difference... I had hoped that the Constrictor x2 bowline shown at Reply#133 (1) would have been a viable alternative to the Double Collar bowlines based on the Clove hitch or the Girth hitch nipping structures ( = Double Collar Water bowline and Mirrored bowline ), but, after some more careful tests on various materials, I was disappointed by its performance.
   I have seen that, under heavy loading, the nipping structure s Constrictor becomes much more compact than the collar structure s Constrictor - and the result is a deformed, non symmetrical nub, that bears no relation whatsoever with the nice form of the unloaded knot shown at Reply#133. And this ugly appearance, as it often happens, reveals a real structural problem : The nipping structure s stronger Constrictor shrinks and "closes" more around itself, than around its twin, the weaker collar structure s Constrictor - which is now forced to "open" up, and to remain somewhat lose ! So, the tail is not squeezed onto the returning eye leg as much as I had hoped it would. However, the initial purpose was the exact opposite : the stronger nipping structure was supposed to "close" around the weaker collar structure, and so enhance the friction forces within it. I think that, in the Constrictor x2 Double bowline, the constricting power of the complex double nipping structure is "wasted" within itself, so it is not utilized by the double collar structure as much as it should.
   There can be no evil without good - and the good thing is that the collar structure s Constrictor can not / does not jam, and can be untied rather easily - and when this weaker Constrictor is released, the nipping structure s stronger Constrictor is  released and can be untied easily as well.
   I think that we should demand a more "balanced" behaviour by the two structures of such a complex "Double-Double" bowline, so I return to the Golden Standard, the Tweedledee bowline, which satisfies this " equivalence" condition to a much greater degree.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg26753#msg26753

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3754
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #138 on: April 21, 2013, 05:49:41 PM »
Hi All,  I have two good looking Simple lock bowline, hope you like it.
Thanks   alan lee.

The first is a version of "end-bound" bowlines where
this binding occurs as the tail makes its initial pass
through the turNip.  I think you get a better
binding if you reverse the handedness of the wrap
--it more centers the wrap over the crossing point
of the turNip.  (Alas, it's not so secure a binding
in springy or firm, slick rope.)

Quote
The first is a variation of the Eskimo Janus bowline(s)(1) very similar
to the one you had presented at another post (See the attached picture)
- the difference is that now the "bridge" ( the segment of the rope that
connects the two collars ) goes "over" the returning eye leg and the tail
( as shown in the picture ).

No, the Eskimo bwl. is an *anti*-bowline and collars
the eye leg --this is/does neither.  (Which shows that in
working through the turNip one has either a loop or
a bight --a binding or a collaring--, and the former really
doesn't take *sides* (leg vs. SPart) but the latter does.
Combining one with the other can seem to nudge the
loop towards taking an leg or SPart *flavor*, so to speak.)


--dl*
====

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #139 on: April 21, 2013, 06:05:56 PM »
Quote
The first is a variation of the Eskimo Janus bowline(s

  No, the Eskimo bwl. is an *anti*-bowline and collars the eye leg --this is/does neither.

  It ( first) collars the eye leg + the rim of the nipping loop - so it is more an "Eskimo" bowline than a "common" bowline. I had not said that it is an "Eskimo" (-) bowline = "anti-bowline", had I ? The characteristic that makes it a variation of the "Eskimo" bowline is the L-shaped returning eye leg. In the "common" bowlines, the returning eye leg goes straight to the U-turn around the standing end.
   


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3754
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #140 on: April 21, 2013, 08:09:25 PM »
Quote
The first is a variation of the Eskimo Janus bowline(s

  No, the Eskimo bwl. is an *anti*-bowline and collars the eye leg --this is/does neither.

  It ( first) collars the eye leg + the rim of the nipping loop

No, it wraps the turNip --and is no more "collar"
to the eye leg than to the SPart, as noted (despite the bias
in layout in the image).

Quote
I had not said that it is an "Eskimo" (-) bowline = "anti-bowline", had I ?

I did; it is : that is why the eye leg is collared
--because of the opposite-side ("anti-bwl" side) entry.

Quote
The characteristic that makes it a variation of the "Eskimo" bowline is the L-shaped returning eye leg.
In the "common" bowlines, the returning eye leg goes straight to the U-turn around the standing end.

That's not a good discrimination/definition.  The Eskimo bwl starts
(i.e., the name originates with ...) a collaring of the "wrong" side
courtesy of tail entry similarly "wrong".  Variations spring from
this, and interruptions to this fundamental path fit among
these --so, binding the turNip is just such an "interruption"
en route to defining structure.

Were I to accept that the tail's initial wrap is a defining
attribute, I'd see "straight" as logical --i.e., w/o any other
structure/shape--, and the Eskimo bwl having the tail
go "straight" to the collar.  Then, it might be that one
speaks of "collared" (as an extension/addition) Myrtle /
bollard loop
knots per side of entry --giving the definitional
prominence to the tail's initial (wrapping) vs. subsequent
(collaring) path (to which a finishing wrap would fit in
with my label "end-bound", as in "EBDB").


--dl*
====

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #141 on: April 21, 2013, 10:10:58 PM »
 
 
Quote
It ( first ) collars the eye leg + the rim of the nipping loop 

  No, it wraps the turNip --and is no more "collar" to the eye leg than to the SPart, as noted

  OK. However, I still do not see this "turn" as a collar around the Standing END - which is what the "common" bowline s collar does.

 
 
Quote
I had not said that it is an "Eskimo" (-) bowline = "anti-bowline", had I ?

  I did; it is : that is why the eye leg is collared--because of the opposite-side ("anti-bwl" side) entry.

  I do not deny that the side by which the returning eye leg enters into the nipping loop is important, and you have good reasons to distinguish the (+) from the (-) bowlines.  However, when the continuation of this leg is L-shaped, when it forms this "step" or "handle" I was talking about the other day, I think that this loop is more "Eskimo"-like than "common"-bowline-like.

   
   
   The characteristic that makes it a variation of the "Eskimo" bowline is the L-shaped returning eye leg.
   In the "common" bowlines, the returning eye leg goes straight to the U-turn around the standing end.

   That's not a good discrimination/definition.  The Eskimo bwl starts (i.e., the name originates with ...) a collaring of the "wrong" side courtesy of tail entry similarly "wrong".  Variations spring from this...

  I'd see "straight" as logical --i.e., w/o any other structure/shape--, and the Eskimo bwl having the tail go "straight" to the collar.


  I prefer to focus on the main purpose of the collar structure, which is to remain attached to the ( non-"opening" and non-"walking" ) nipping loop. So, I tend to pay attention ( too much ? ) to the form/shape of the continuation of the returning eye leg itself. When it is "physically" L-shaped - regardless if this is the only "logical" option/form/shape it has/it can have - I tend to see the loop it belongs as a variation of the "Eskimo" rather than of the "common" bowline.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 12:12:02 AM by X1 »

alanleeknots

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #142 on: May 14, 2013, 01:19:12 AM »
Hi All, As it was suggested, I am submitting this loop to the "simple lock for the bowline" thread as well, this particular loop is the better one then the rest of loops from the same class that I had presented. I think it is not that hard to tie this loop, even though there is an over hand knot tie on it, it seems to have no detrimental interference to the bowlin nipping loop to do the work.
Well come to all comments.
Thanks   alan lee

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #143 on: May 17, 2013, 08:01:17 AM »
   On second thought, the Luca s TIB bowline can be considered as a "locked" bowline, too - where the "lock" is the fig.8 knot tied around the standing end and the rim of the nipping loop. The comparison of the Lee s locked bowline to the Luca s TIB bowline is very interesting !
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 09:13:17 AM by X1 »

Luca

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #144 on: May 17, 2013, 11:05:30 PM »
Hi X1,

The Luca s TIB  bowline can be considered as a re-dressing of the so-called Yosemite bowline, the Lee's locked bowline  is more similar as a further re-tucking of the latter,where the second leg of the collar enters the nipping turn before "turning back"to form the Figure 8;I can not really say the pros and cons of Yosemite vs. Luca s, and even the pros and cons of Lee s (Yosemite) re-tucking (I like!) vs. a similar re-tucking of the Luca s(I think I have seen it somewhere in the thread "Look alikes loops" by Alan Lee (Alan, sometimes you are too prolific for the time I have! :D)).

                                                                                                                    Bye!