Author Topic: Simple lock for the bowline  (Read 117093 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #75 on: October 03, 2011, 04:25:42 PM »
this extra wrap will have 3 diameters within it (best approximating a circle).

   A closed loop encircling three rope diameters / segments is always a good thing, no question about it. However, in the case of the bowline s nipping loop, it is the particular way the third of them - the tail- is nipped by the loop and the other two segments, that matters most. In Janus-like DDK s 1 and 2 bowlines, (Reply# 61, pictures at Reply#62 ), the tail passes in between the two other segments, and it is almost perpendicular to them, which is the best arrangement we could have wished for maximum anti-slippage security, I believe. Those two segments "bite" the tail from two sides, and form local concave and convex deformations of the surface of the ropes, "dents", that multiply friction forces between them.
    Having said that, I mention the very effective security mechanism of "Fontus" bowline (1), where the tail does not pass through the nipping loop at all ! ( similar with the "hitch" mechanism of the Anglers / Perfection loop ). I am not sure that SS369 will accept this solution as a legitimate "simple lock" for the bowline, though... :)

1)  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1202.msg19317#msg19317

« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 05:00:04 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1970
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #76 on: October 04, 2011, 12:43:27 AM »
Hi xarax,

it is not so much if I will except this, do you? Does this tangle satisfy you as the simplest solution to increase the common bowline's security.
Does it answer the "ring" loading factor? Or if one leg of the loop happens to load a bit more than the other leg?

The Fontus does start to "feel" a bit Dragonesque. ;-)

Will you be using this mod for your maritime pursuits?

IMHO, the sharper the turn of the tail into its locked position will give the greatest bite, arresting the working end, as long as it doesn't cause any sacrifices along the way.

Do we really think that three diameters within the nip is that much a better bowline? Some ropes/knots balk at that much stuffing and you end up having to secure the tail anyway because it is necessarily long and can get in the way during some  usage.


SS

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #77 on: October 04, 2011, 02:54:09 AM »
Pictures of Bowline Lock WE RT 1 are shown below.
. . . Now, let me point out that what I've called "end-bound..."
is just this knot but with the extension wrap of the tail
doing something more useful : nipping and locking (as best
it is able, which isn't always so great/enough) the main
nipping loop (which is reciprocating) . . .

Yesterday, I ran into the End Bound Single and Double Bowlines in the discussion on the Janus Bowine http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1202.msg8221#msg8221 and appreciate your comments above.  I had come to some similar thoughts in my reply #61 of this thread where I first presented Bowline Lock WE RT 1 & 2 (WE RT, working end round turn).  I believe my WE RT #2 is the same as the EBSB and the knot you are describing and thought it to be more interesting than WE RT 1.  After another look at the mutual nipping loops in EBSB, I do see that I was mistaken in saying it is an OH knot structure and possibly "shake-proof" - youch. :o
 
DDK

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #78 on: October 04, 2011, 05:16:02 AM »
I have found a very nice tuck for the modified collapsed Bowline on a Bight Locked Bowline (MCB).  I call it modified because I have eliminated the final tuck through the bowline collar.  In addition, I have included another tuck through the nipping loop.  My truth in advertising disclaimer: This knot looks prone to being mistied as the half-hitch can slip through the nipping loop prior to the HH being tightened.

The knot before the final nip tuck is shown in the first two pictures.  As mentioned previously (reply# 49), starting with the standard bowline, the working end is turned upward on the backside of the knot (okay, I have now adopted dl's convention for front vs. back), reeved between the standing part and the collar (goes under the WE collar leg first), turns around the collar, and then tucked under itself producing a half-hitch above the nipping loop.  The HH can be tightened independently of the collar/nipping loop by pulling on the working end and the collar (and forms an overhand/slip knot with the collar legs).  Tightening the HH prior to the nip tuck will improve your chances of not mistying.  :P

The final two pictures show the knot with the nip tuck included.  The knot can be tightened quite firm and compact in the somewhat flexible materials that I am using (in 2 COLORS! - THX to xarax for showing us such use in loops!).

After a few successful completions of this knot, it is fairly easy to tie, tightens firm ("shake-proof"?) and compact, and seems like it would be secure.  It is very easy to untie.    (yes, I know there are Yosemite finishes possible, I have not yet found a way to eliminate them  ::))

DDK

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #79 on: October 04, 2011, 06:19:28 AM »
MCB Nip Tucked Dressed - DDK            edit:  Sry, my labels were misleading.  They have been corrected.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 10:36:22 PM by DDK »

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #80 on: October 04, 2011, 09:02:12 AM »
I am beginning to think that simplicity has gone out of the window in an effort to devise a completely different knot which is overcomplicated for everyday use. If the bowline is going to be placed under so much pressure that the end will slip out I think I'll simply use something else. For most purposes the round turn bowline is more than secure enough (and if I want to secure the end I'll just tie an overhand around one leg of the loop). I would draw the line at swinging from a rope terminated with a bowline, halfway up a mountain but I am never going to do that anyway (at least not willingly!).

Barry

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1970
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #81 on: October 04, 2011, 04:06:23 PM »
Hi Barry and good day to you.

I "think" we've probably ventured into this topic a wee bit further than "simple" but the OP did ask for it in a way. And as you probably know from a few years of being here, things rarely stay simple.
We're just that kind of knotheads.

You say that for most purposes the round turn bowline is more than secure enough, but I would think that if there was a simpler method of "locking" the common bowline, you'd be in favor of it. Perhaps maybe even use it once learned.
If the simple lock actually improves various attributes of the "standard" bowline, eliminates the shortcomings along the way, I say explore away here.

I personally do not mind venturing a bit afield here to see if anyone gives a light bulb moment. And should it become necessary we can always take it elsewhere.

You may never be,  but if you are on that mountainside, you could possibly remember this thread.  ;-)

SS

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #82 on: October 04, 2011, 07:26:00 PM »
   Does this tangle satisfy you as the simplest solution to increase the common bowline's security.

   It is just as simple as the Janus bowline. If you think that the Janus bowline is not a simple solution, then neither is Fontus bowline. I could not characterize it as a "simple lock", but it is a simple solution nevertheless.

Does it answer the "ring" loading factor?

   I do not know how to test this ring loading factor, either in the Janus bowline or in this one. However, there are many instances, ( I would dare to say : most of the times ) that the bowline loop is not used as a tensioned ring, i.e. the two legs of the bight are long enough - relatively to its radius - to be almost parallel to each other. When the bight is approaching a circular shape, I would rather tie a more secure variation of the Eskimo bowline. 

if one leg of the loop happens to load a bit more than the other leg?

   I do not see any additional problem here either : This bowline is behaving just like a Janus bowline, in this matter

Will you be using this mod for your maritime pursuits?

   Absolutely ! Just for the show of, of course, because the common bowline is 100% secure when tied with marine ropes.
   I have used it today in another strange application : I tried to clean a high chimney from above, using a heavy iron ball hang from a rope. I did not want to even think of letting the ball fall into the chimney while I was weaving it up and down, in contact with the chimney s walls, so I tied a Fontus bowline on the end of the quite slippery nylon line. At the end of the dirty job, I was !@#$%^&*(), but very pleased to see how well dressed and rightly tightened was this knot at the end of the line.

   the sharper the turn of the tail into its locked position will give the greatest bite, arresting the working end

  It is not only the final turn that matters, but the way the tail is nipped by itself inside the encircling loop ( by the two segments of the tail that had passed through the nipping loop previously ). See the DDK s 1 and 2 tail, how effectively it is nipped in between the two segments of itself, and inside the nipping loop.
 
   Do we really think that three diameters within the nip is that much a better bowline?

   Yes, it is better for any nipping loop, and so for the bowline s nipping loop, too. Having said that, I repeat that he relative position of those three diameters, in general, and of the third, the tail s diameter, in particular, is also a very important factor we have to consider.

   Some ropes/knots ball at that much stuffing and you end up having to secure the tail anyway because it is necessarily long and can get in the way during some  usage.

   Much stuffing is always a problem, but why do we have to leave a long tail ? It might need some more time and careful dressing, but we can always tighten the nub and leave as much tail as we feel it will be needed.( 6 rope diameters, I suppose ?)
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 07:27:06 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #83 on: October 04, 2011, 09:44:15 PM »
   (The "back" of) this MCB lady is a beauty !  :)
   See two variations of DDK s new invention. I do not know if there is any noticeable security difference between the left- and the right- hand versions.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 10:34:53 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #84 on: October 07, 2011, 06:56:05 AM »
I am beginning to think that simplicity has gone out of the window in an effort to devise a completely different knot which is overcomplicated for everyday use. If the bowline is going to be placed under so much pressure that the end will slip out I think I'll simply use something else. For most purposes the round turn bowline is more than secure enough (and if I want to secure the end I'll just tie an overhand around one leg of the loop).

"Everyday use" depends on the user(s) --a rockclimber must
consider such safeguards for the bowline, and not because
of the activity so much as the nature of the line.  There is
more intractable line for bowline security, too.

Now, some of the shenanigans above do go overboard into
a sea of complexity & tedium in tying (I'm abashed to look
at an old page of my initial ideas!) --one hopes for a simple
tying method, where the security is added in an easy step.
The common Yosemite bowline is fairly easily tied (and all
the more so, if taking the tail the opposite-to-common way
around that eye leg, creating an overhand vice fig.8 ) as
are the "Janus" variations; the "end-bound" wrap and tuck
come relatively easily, too.

Tying off the tail with an overhand hitch begs the question as
to how that knot can be secure, itself; so, many recommend
a strangle (though not by its proper name  :P  ).  I've played
around with incorporating an overhand in the collar as a way
to nip that adequately to arrest loosening, and this o.'s tail then
is tucked through the central turNip --nothing terribly quick to do,
but for climbing, quickness is seated while surety has the floor!
(This variation looks much like Xarax's "Columbus", but the overhand
is (at) the collar, with the goal getting an overall knot locking
similar to a harness bend --half-hitch vs. overhand. )

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: October 07, 2011, 07:14:29 AM by Dan_Lehman »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #85 on: October 07, 2011, 07:28:34 AM »
Does it answer the "ring" loading factor?

   I do not know how to test this ring loading factor, ...

Which sounds, rather, like you don't understand what is meant:
simply, load the eye as though it is a (round) sling (or "loop")
--the knot becomes effectively an end-2-end joint.
(E.g., ring-loading  the bowline  loads the knot as an
inferior Lapp bend ("inferior" as the tail/Spart of the bight
part are on wrong sides of each other, and can slip).)

DDK, you write (post #61 (at this time))
Quote
(edit: call it Bowline Lock WE RT 2, for working end, round turn #2)
If the WE is not threaded through the collar but instead, the round turn
in the WE is around the crossing point of the nipping loop, an OH knot is produced
... and suggest above that this is the end-bound (single) bowline : no,
that knot doesn't have (nor actually do I understand how you see ...)
an overhand in the tail, but just a (round) turn.
(which seems much more effective with the dbl.bowline )
But, yes, the tail-wrap does go over that crossing point.


--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #86 on: October 07, 2011, 08:22:25 AM »
some of the shenanigans above do go overboard into a sea of complexity & tedium in tying

 Nothing  went overboard into the sea of complexity, I can asuure you !  :) ( With one - and one only - more tuck further than the common bowline, everything remained onboard).  I am not so sure about the tedium in tying, though...

   I do not know how to test this ring loading factor, ...

   Which sounds, rather, like you don't understand what is meant:
simply, load the eye as though it is a (round) sling (or "loop")--the knot becomes effectively an end-2-end joint.

   I have not said that I do not understand  what is meant by "ring loading", have I ?  :)
   To test this midline bend/joint, you have to control carefuly the loadings on each  of the three limbs, because, in a real situation, they vary according to the angles they meet each other at the central nub, and  the friction foces they encounter around the - round or not - object...If I were curious to test my own abilities in knot testing, I would rather start from a much simpler situation than this !  :)
« Last Edit: October 07, 2011, 08:25:58 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #87 on: October 07, 2011, 09:01:20 PM »
DDK, you write (post #61 (at this time))
Quote
(edit: call it Bowline Lock WE RT 2, for working end, round turn #2)  If the WE is not threaded through the collar but instead, the round turn in the WE is around the crossing point of the nipping loop, an OH knot is produced
... and suggest above that this is the end-bound (single) bowline : no, that knot doesn't have (nor actually do I understand how you see ...) an overhand in the tail, but just a (round) turn. (which seems much more effective with the dbl.bowline ) But, yes, the tail-wrap does go over that crossing point . . .

Yes, you are right that I had at first thought that the tightening in the mutual nipping round turns of the Bowline Lock WE RT 2 (which I still believe is an EBSB) was due to an OH.  Your comments,

. . . But I have seen even that knot, tied in some recalcitrant, firm, soft-laid, slick, thin (4mm?) polypropylene hold only briefly, than all the round turns just simultaneously loosened/expanded !!   :o  . . .

referring to the EBSB made me curious, thinking it odd that an OH could behave so.  Upon checking I did see that I had been mistaken regarding the OH in EBSB (what I had called Bowline Lock WE RT 2 prior to learning about end-bound..) and noted my error in reply #77 .

. . .  I believe my WE RT #2 is the same as the EBSB and the knot you are describing and thought it to be more interesting than WE RT 1.  After another look at the mutual nipping loops in EBSB, I do see that I was mistaken in saying it is an OH knot structure and possibly "shake-proof" - youch. :o . . .

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #88 on: October 07, 2011, 09:28:59 PM »
. . . I am beginning to think that simplicity has gone out of the window in an effort to devise a completely different knot which is overcomplicated for everyday use. If the bowline is going to be placed under so much pressure that the end will slip out I think I'll simply use something else. For most purposes the round turn bowline is more than secure enough (and if I want to secure the end I'll just tie an overhand around one leg of the loop). I would draw the line at swinging from a rope terminated with a bowline, halfway up a mountain but I am never going to do that anyway (at least not willingly!) . . .

The addition of a half-hitch to a Bowline does not seem like a significant increase in complexity to me (see the MCB Nipped Tucked knot I have suggested).  Especially given that the starting point, the Bowline, is fairly low "cost" in time and effort.  I could see myself using such an addition if I was to have substantial load, valuable item at risk or was suspicious of the slickness of the material I was forced to use.  Yes, I use Reef Knots, but, will switch to a (complicated?) Carrick Bend for a higher load.

DDK
« Last Edit: October 07, 2011, 09:52:53 PM by DDK »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
Re: Simple lock for the bowline
« Reply #89 on: October 08, 2011, 04:24:10 AM »
   I do not know how to test this ring loading factor, ...

   Which sounds, rather, like you don't understand what is meant:
simply, load the eye as though it is a (round) sling (or "loop")--the knot becomes effectively an end-2-end joint.

   I have not said that I do not understand  what is meant by "ring loading", have I ?  :)
   To test this midline bend/joint, you have to control carefuly the loadings on each  of the three limbs,
...

You have said --and here re-say--, not with direct words,
that you misunderstand, even in reply here to the simple
statement "the knot becomes effectively and end-2-end joint"
(emphasis added : 2 /= 3).

Consider a situation I recently found advocated for rockclimbing
belaying : belay off of not the harness's belay loop (wonder what
that is for, eh?) but off of one's tie-in loop.  Or were some
suspended load of an eye knot lowered and the eye became
hung up on some protrusion, the former SPart slackening now
without load.

--dl*
====