Author Topic: Have you met those bowlines?  (Read 6926 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Have you met those bowlines?
« on: July 06, 2010, 12:18:34 PM »
0
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 03:01:14 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2010, 03:42:54 AM »
Yes, I like "Loop-1" the most, also.

It looks like "something that a person who knows how to make knots would make," has a type of Bowstring Loop type of security (which I admire), dresses easily, has a quickly adjustable loop, has an easy means of decompression, and--my favorite--offers the option of putting the tail outside the loop without detracting from security.

There's just one problem: When it's loose, it can convert into something that slips faster than you can say, "Ooops. It's a slip knot."

Evidently, this is why one does need the body that an Overhand structure provides: The Overhand prevents conversion.

Sorry about that. I knew I shouldn't have loosened it and played with it.

JCS

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2010, 07:57:33 PM »
xarax, you should explain your overall motives and/or objectives.

From your previous thread, one or your motivations was having a loop that uses less rope then the Zeppelin Loop.  When I tied your Loop 4, it did not appear to use less rope than the Zeppelin loop. Also, I'm sorry to say that Loop 4 jammed rather easily.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2010, 09:08:50 PM »
I couldn't jam Loop 5 (the way I dressed it anyway).

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2010, 11:38:28 PM »
OK, "Loop 5" is my favorite. Can I call it the "Xarax Bowline"?

JCS

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2010, 12:12:51 AM »
So far, none of these random knots look much like a bowline, and none of them look very memorable. 

If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2010, 02:03:29 AM »
Quote from: xarax
"Do you like Loop 4, regardless of its jamming properties? It may well be used as a fishing loop, I guess, like the perfection loop, for example."

Yes, I like Loop 4, too. It's my choice for second place. Can I call THAT one the "Xarax Bowline"? Perhaps I should call it the "Xarax Fourth." It has a nice ring to it and doesn't preclude the "Xarax Fifth," the "Xarax Fifty-Third," etc. With all that combinatorial thinking of yours, I suspect that many more knots are on the way. . . .  8)

JCS

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2010, 02:35:49 AM »
From your previous thread, one or your motivations was having a loop that uses less rope then the Zeppelin Loop.  

   No, it was not ! :) Read again those posts, please..My motivation was having a loop that uses less rope than the relative bend, because loops should be simpler knots than bends, because they have a simpler task to accomplish as they have one less tail to secure. I do not like the use of Zeppeln Loop because it does not use less rope than the Zeppelin bend (among other things, that I will not repeat here).
   Do you like Loop 4, regardless of its jamming properties? It may well be used as a fishing loop, I guess, like the perfection loop, for example.
 

How is it even possible for a loop to use less rope than the relative bend?  Can you give me an example?

You say, "I do not like the use of Zeppeln Loop because it does not use less rope than the Zeppelin bend (among other things, that I will not repeat here)".

Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me, but I think my point is still valid.  Since you don't like to use the Zeppelin Loop because of the amount of rope it uses, then it would follow that you don't like to use loops that use more rope than the Zeppelin Loop.  Your Loop 4 (and some of your other loops) appear to use more rope than the Zeppelin Loop.  Thus, it follows that you should NOT prefer your Loop 4 (and some of your other loops) over the Zeppelin Loop.

If my logic is faulty, then why did you even compare the Zeppelin Loop at all in this journey of yours?  It would have made more sense to compare all the variations to the bowline loop that are floating around, for example, the Yosemite Bowline, the Water Bowline, etc.  When you mention the Zeppelin Loop, it's natural to make a direct comparison between your loops and the Zeppelin Loop.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 02:50:30 AM by knot4u »

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2010, 04:05:52 AM »
Quote from: xarax
"Are you sure that those knots are not well known to some people, and do not have established names?"

Owing to the nature of the knot world, no one can truly be certain about whether a knot that is not popular was previously discovered, considered, shared, promoted, etc. Based on the properties that the presented knots exhibit, and based on other important observations and considerations, I have reason to believe that the presented knots are "original."

Quote
"The tail {of those knots} can be secured even further by more turns, of course, as in the case of common bowline, but is it really necessary here?"

I agree that the further securing of the presented knots is unnecessary.

Quote
"The beauty of Loop 4 has won over the simpler relative Loop 5."

I agree that Loop 4 shows a better-looking knot than Loop 5, and that a knot's visual appeal is very important, for a number of reasons. I chose Loop 5 as the best loop because it features the best combination of useful properties, but Loop 4 runs a close second.

The only thing that I slightly dislike about Loop 4 is that its means of decompression is . . . somewhat tricky.

Let me take a closer look at Loop 4 to see whether I can discover a more enjoyable way to decompress its knot.

JCS

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2010, 04:53:10 AM »
I call these loops your loops for identification purposes.  I'm not sure if you're the first to discover these loops, and I don't really care frankly.

I see your point about untying the loop and having an extra overhand loop to untie afterward.  That's a valid issue if a load is still on the line.

By the way, last night, I had to form a Cow Hitch on a rope that was already around an object, and then I wanted to attach the remaining end from the Cow Hitch to the standing line.  In other words, it's like forming a Cow Hitch at the end of a large loop.  This combination has become my favorite hitch when the slipped buntline doesn't quite work as well.

Anyway, as you know, it's possible to form a Cow Hitch without completely releasing the Cow Hitch from the object.  However, it's not possible (as far as I know) to form a Zeppelin Loop without first tying an Overhand before the rope is wrapped around the object.  I love the Zeppelin Loop, but guess what loop I naturally used in this Cow Hitch/end loop combination...

That's right: I used a Double Bowline instead of a Zeppelin Loop.  Because the Double Bowline doesn't need an initial overhand and because the Double Bowline has never jammed on me (and for other reasons), the Double Bowline is currently my favorite end loop.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 04:59:16 AM by knot4u »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2010, 04:32:46 PM »
If you want to tie a boat that will have to get itseld untied in one move, and one move only, without the danger of having the left-over-overhand knot come upon a snag somewhere
You should have used some sort of slipped hitch.

Quote
They are so natural and simple ....
??? Compared to what? 
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2010, 04:40:55 PM »
  Roo, boats are tied to docks with bowlines.
Loops aren't typically designed for quick release via untying.  The closest they come to quick release is via lifting the whole loop off a protrusion without untying it.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 04:47:57 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Have you met those bowlines?
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2010, 05:44:49 PM »
  If the protrusion is a street lamp pole
  Now we're going in circles.  A loop knot is not the right choice for a quick release knot on a street lamp pole.

Quote
Take my word in this, roo. Boats are tied with bowlines.
I did not make this a point of contention.  Re-read my previous post.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".