Simple lock for the bowline

[SS369]

Yes, a fine mess and interesting enough to keep the mavens coming back,,,, or heading west. 

SS

[xarax]

   In an effort to improve the results of the tests reported at Reply#43 with the Titan 5.5mm cord, I have tied three variations of the loop shown at Reply#38: one similar but tied with the opposite handness knot, with its corresponding "Eskimo" version (shown in the attached pictures), as well as the "Eskimo" version of the original knot (not shown). I can see that all those "locked" bowline-like loops, when loaded, tend to settle in different forms, but, with the 10mm soft kernmantle static ropes I use,  I am not able to notice any  differences regarding their slippage or jamming characteristics.

[Sweeney]

With the exception of just tying an overhand around the SP in the place of the collar and tucking the working end down through the nip as usual. Which is pretty secure, btw.
Check this out please.

Things have moved on but I did try this and it works well (and is less complicated than hitches). I agree though that using the collar in any way does move away from the classic bowline structure - and I have to admit I only use it for non-critical things so I often wonder just how much effort is required to cause the end to slip out. Depends on the rope characteristics no doubt. I did notice a friend had used a bowline in 5mm braided nylon as part of the weight on a rope making machine and all that was securing the end was the fact that it was melted into a rough blob - but that was tied too loosely in the first place and not set properly.

Barry

[xarax]

   I have tried the same Colombus thing after the formation of a "proper" bowline collar, that is, I have tied the overhand knot around the eye leg of the bight, and retucked the tail of this overhand knot up, through the nipping loop, as usual. I feel that, doing this, we remain within the bowline family, ring loading is not aeffected, and our "lock" is not loaded too much, to a point it can be hard to untie. The problem now, of course, is that our lock is not even loaded enough, to a point it can remain tied  ,  but I think that, by retucking the tail through the nipping loop, this problem is somehow addressed.

[DDK]

Here is a simple lock I came across when considering the Bowline-On-A-Bight (BOAB).  The easiest (One) way to explain tying it may be to start with the BOAB.  This also helps to illustrate its relationship to the BOAB.  Once one sees the knot, tying it is essentially the addition of a half hitch to the common bowline.
 
From the BOAB:

(1) Untuck what would be the last tuck (through the collar) if one had tied the BOAB using the rethreading (follow-back-through) method.  It is important to not untuck the working end through the doube loops until done with step 2.

(2) Pull the working end until the large (follow-back-through) loop has collapsed onto the working end.  You should now have a single loop bowline in which a half-hitch has been added above the nipping loop of the common bowline.

Optional: One can then again retuck the working end back through the collar.  With this retuck, this loop would be exactly the BOAB with the large (follow-back-through) loop collapsed.

edit:  Another option would be to continue wrapping the working end and retuck under that part of the standing part which is between the collar and the nipping loop.

Main advantages to the BOAB would be its simplicity and conservation of rope.

DDK

editing to clarify method added in italics

[xarax]

   I have tried the DDK s solution, and some other variants of it - where the overhand knot "lock" is not tied around the standing end (as at the SS369 s second solution) or the eye leg of the bight, but around the rim of the nipping loop and the two legs of the collar ( above the rim of the nipping loop, and below the rim of the collar).
   The good thing is that the tail makes 2 more U-turns, after the initial U-turn around the standing end :  first, around the rim of the nipping loop, and then around the two legs of the collar. The bad thing is that it goes through the opening in between the two rims, the rim of the nipping loop and the rim of the collar, where it can not be squeezed by the standing end of the bowline as much as we would have wished it to be. So, I believe that this solution presents two disadvantages: First, this overhand knot "lock" can not be self-tightened, and remain tightened, by the loading and the tightening of the bowline, or it can not be tightened at all - because the "first" end of this knot, that has already being nipped sufficiently well by the nipping loop, can not be tensioned at the first place, and can not remain under some minimum tension afterwards. Second, the "second" end of this overhand knot, its tail, passes through this loose opening in between the two rims, where it can not be squeezed sufficiently hard, and from where it can slip off rather easily.
   I believe that, if we use an overhand knot as a "lock", its "first" end should better remain under some minimum tension, and its "second" end should better pass through the nipping loop of the bowline. 

[DDK]

I have tried the DDK s solution, and some other variants of it - where the overhand knot "lock" is not tied around the standing end (as at the SS369 s second solution) or the eye leg of the bight, but around the rim of the nipping loop and the two legs of the collar ( above the rim of the nipping loop, and below the rim of the collar).

Its important to note here that there is no Overhand Knot in the simple lock I mentioned.  The lock is a half-hitch.

The good thing is that the tail makes 2 more U-turns, after the initial U-turn around the standing end :  first, around the rim of the nipping loop, and then around the two legs of the collar.

Well, I would say it makes 1 U-turn after the initial U-turn around the standing end and is then followed by a half-hitch around the two legs of the collar.

The bad thing is that it goes through the opening in between the two rims, the rim of the nipping loop and the rim of the collar, where it can not be squeezed by the standing end of the bowline as much as we would have wished it to be.

The "squeezing" and retention of a half-hitch is by its own wrap.  The fact that this wrap is not in addition "squeezed by the standing end of the bowline" says little about whether this half-hitch (and U-turn) will add security.

So, I believe that this solution presents two disadvantages: First, this overhand knot "lock" can not be self-tightened, and remain tightened, by the loading and the tightening of the bowline, or it can not be tightened at all - because the "first" end of this knot, that has already being nipped sufficiently well by the nipping loop,

I would think this would be true for most if not all locks.

can not be tensioned at the first place, and can not remain under some minimum tension afterwards.

I have had no difficulty in tightening this half-hitch lock. YMMV

Second, the "second" end of this overhand knot, its tail, passes through this loose opening in between the two rims, where it can not be squeezed sufficiently hard, and from where it can slip off rather easily.

Again, additional "squeezing" of its tail is not required for this half-hitch (and U-turn) to add security.

  I believe that, if we use an overhand knot as a "lock", its "first" end should better remain under some minimum tension, and its "second" end should better pass through the nipping loop of the bowline.

Most if not all of the "first" ends of a lock for the bowline will be under the same tension.

DDK

[SS369]

Hi DDK and good day to you,
 
I am having a bit of a challenge following your verbal directions. What I end up with is interesting, but certainly not what you have photographed.
My end result is not the configuration of a standard bowline. Meaning that the security lock comes after the original tie leaving the basic knot path there.

Am I missing it?
Have you a better picture?

BTW, I'm not too sure I would find tying a BOAB easier to tie first to get a more secure standard bowline in the end, nor faster.

SS

[xarax]

Its important to note here that there is no Overhand Knot in the simple lock I mentioned.  The lock is a half-hitch.

   Following your picture ( "short" standing end towards left, eye legs towards right), I see an overhand knot there, around the rim of the nipping loop and the two legs of the collar...Or you had submitted the wrong picture ? Anyway, I was speaking only about the particular lock I had had described, and the things I have said were about this lock.

   The fact that this wrap is not in addition "squeezed by the standing end of the bowline" says little about whether this half-hitch (and U-turn) will add security.

   Hmmm. Not directly, but eventually...If there is not any self-tightening of the last knot, be it a half hitch or even an overhand knot, it will remain loose, and will be untied, sooner or later. The "lock" has to retain its own integrity, otherwise it might not be there when we will need it.

I have had no difficulty in tightening this half-hitch lock.

   Neither do I !    But I suppose that you can not be permanently attached to your "locked" bowline, pulling its tail all the time, can you ? Neither can I ...
   The final knot should be self-tightened, otherwise it will get loose and eventually be untied. A half hitch, or even an overhand knot used as a final lock, that has its "first" end un-tensioned, will get loose, sooner or later.  The "first" end of your half hitch or overhand knot, the moment you stop pulling the tail / the "second" end, would be left un-tensioned - because it has already passed through the nipping loop for a second time, so there can be no pull transferred to this end by the loading and tightening of the bowline. Only if and when the gripping action of the nipping loop fails, in case of a sudden, extreme loading, will this end be pulled again. But the final half hitch or overhand knot could well have been very loose at that time, or even completely untied - if there is not a minimum permanent tension, pulling one, at least, of its ends.

...[any] additional "squeezing" of its tail is not required for this half-hitch (and U-turn) to add security.

...provided the half hitch - or the overhand knot - will still be there at the time it will be needed ! If there is not any permanent pulling of one, at least. end, and if there is not any permanent squeezing of its nub, I am afraid there will be no knot left in place to secure the slippage of the collar s tail...

   I repeat my last statement, hoping that I will be understood this time    :

   I believe that, if we use [a half hitch or] an overhand knot as a "lock", its "first" end should better remain under some minimum tension, and its "second" end should better pass through the nipping loop of the bowline. 

[DDK]

. . . What I end up with is interesting, but certainly not what you have photographed . . .

One of my Chinese coworkers once mentioned that the character(s) that are used for the word "fortuitous" might also be translated as "happy accident".  Perhaps you had one of these.   

My end result is not the configuration of a standard bowline. Meaning that the security lock comes after the original tie leaving the basic knot path there.

I'm not sure what you ended up with, so, I will try to describe it starting with a standard bowline and not the BOAB.  I have included a picture of the same locked bowline below, but, with the half-hitch lock marked.  Everything else not marked is a standard bowline.  The working end of the standard bowline is turned "up" (U-turn) and used to make the half-hitch lock.

BTW, I'm not too sure I would find tying a BOAB easier to tie first to get a more secure standard bowline in the end, nor faster.

Agreed.  I was hoping that the BOAB would have made it easier to initially see the knot as well as to see its relation to the BOAB.

DDK

[DDK]

Its important to note here that there is no Overhand Knot in the simple lock I mentioned.  The lock is a half-hitch.

. . . Following your picture ( "short" standing end towards left, eye legs towards right), I see an overhand knot there, around the rim of the nipping loop and the two legs of the collar... . . .

Yes, I now see it as well.  Thank you for that.  In addition, if one includes the collar and both its legs, I see a Slip Knot.

DDK

[SS369]

Thanks for the modified picture DDK. Cleared the mud completely!

That said, I found that the angle of the SP at the collar to increase, so I wonder if this will aggravate the potential that area has for breakage?

SS

[xarax]

   This is what I was able to figure out of your picture, DDK, and what I was speaking of. I believe one can try a similar solution, with the tail of the overhand knot "lock" going through the bowline s nipping loop.   

[DDK]

. . . I found that the angle of the SP at the collar to increase, so I wonder if this will aggravate the potential that area has for breakage? . . .

Yes, I could see the increased material (from the HH) around the legs of the collar misdirecting the SP farther from the eye of the collar and effectively increasing the SP-to-collar angle.  On the other hand, the HH seems to provide a wider back for the collar reducing its ability to open up/distort/capsize.  This might allow for the collar to be extended reducing the SP-to-collar angle.  So, yes, I have no idea and would only be guessing. 
 
DDK

[xarax]

   If we let the tail of the half hitch, or of the overhand knot, pass underneath the standing end of the bowline, we have the knot shown in the attached picture. To my eyes, it looks a little more compact and neat than the original DDK s knot, but I do not know if its security is jeopardised, or improved in that way.