Author Topic: Another strangle collar bowline  (Read 3777 times)

jimmyh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Another strangle collar bowline
« on: July 22, 2014, 09:47:18 AM »
I couldn't find any reference to this variant of strangle collar bowline, only these

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4300.0
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg21088#msg21088
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg21089#msg21089

This one is tied similarly to an end bound bowline, only with the "end binding" loop through the nipping turn passing over the eye leg (working end side) and finishing the strangle knot and bringing the end up through the collar.

If you're already familiar with the strangle knot, this one is pretty easy to remember, tie, and dress. This orientation of the nipping turn through the strangle loop does not interfere with dressing the strangle in one step and separately from snugging up the nipping turn.

As is expected from the largely undisturbed strangle knot, it seems to be slack shaking secure in everything I've tried it in, including some fairly slick/springy polypropylene cord (though the EBDB worked for me there too). If its performance in thin twine and paracord generalize, it doesn't jam (tested to breaking and "enough to completely weld the non-water version of a clove nipping bowline", respectively)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2014, 12:07:19 PM »
   I think that those are all the references anybody could had found - including Luca and me !  :)
   The difference I see from the "B" variation, shown at (1), is that, in your loop, the "lower" collar encircles both eye legs - so the knot will perhaps be deformed more during ring-loading : as the eye legs will spread, this collar will be forced to expand. I am not saying that they will drag the Tail out of the "upper" collar, just that the shape of the knot will be change drastically.
   Now, if we get into all that trouble, why remain there, and not try to make this bowline TIB ? This way we will tie the Scott s TIB bowline(s) ( the "left"- or the "right" handed variations, shown in (2), or the corresponding Ampersand bowline(s), shown in (3). A small step, worth all the difference in memorizing and tying difficulty - which, actually, is nil !  :)

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg21088#msg21088
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4517.msg30269#msg30269
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4877   
This is not a knot.

jimmyh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2014, 09:02:52 PM »
I don't see any reason to want to use the same knot for PET and TIB uses. The method of tying is completely different so you have to commit two things to memory anyway (if you don't want to spend the time rederiving the tying method each time, at least). Might as well pick one that is optimized for PET and one which is optimized for TIB.

If it's just for the knot geek points for having a knot that can do it all, I have one that is PET, TIB, and is stable and jam-resistant in all 4 basic load conditions (loaded from either of the two ends, ring loaded, and having the two ends pulled away from eachother (e.g. the butterfly loop loaded as in the butterfly bend)), and presumably any combination thereof. It's just that the TIB method is way way more complicated than a very similar non-PET loop knot that has the same nice properties  :P

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2014, 09:48:31 PM »
  I don't see any reason to want to use the same knot for PET and TIB uses.

  One knot that does the job of two knots, without been much more complex, is always better.

   The method of tying is completely different, so you have to commit two things to memory anyway

  It is better to "have to commit two things to memory" for the one knot, than two things for two knots  :).

...one that is optimized for PET and one which is optimized for TIB.

   I have seen that there are knots that are optimized for both uses - meaning that they have no shortcomings in comparison to any knot optimized for the one OR for the other use. When you search and happen to find such a knot, you see immediately that its great versatility was worth your effort. 

  I have one that is PET, TIB, and is stable and jam-resistant in all 4 basic load conditions (loaded from either of the two ends, ring loaded, and having the two ends pulled away from eachother (e.g. the butterfly loop loaded as in the butterfly bend)), and presumably any combination thereof. It's just that the TIB method is way more complicated

  Where is it ? Present it, and we will try to probe into it, and decide if all those claimed advantages are worth a complicated TIB method.
  Mind you that there is never ONE tying method, neither in-the-end nor in-the-bight. So, the method you find "way more complicated" may perhaps be simplified a lot. Also, a method that seems complicated to one person, may seem simple to another... I do not believe we should ever dismiss beforehand such a versatile PET and TIB knot, as the one you describe, only because the tying method we happen to know seems to us "way more complicated" than the two tying methods of two other knots it replaces.
 
This is not a knot.

jimmyh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2014, 11:41:11 PM »
Quote
One knot that does the job of two knots, without been much more complex, is always better.  It is better to "have to commit two things to memory" for the one knot, than two things for two knots  :).

What advantage do you see? The only advantage I see is that the common structure allows you to rederive tying methods if you forget - but if you're already a bit of a knot geek, then it's not like you've only got one loop knot structure in your brain :)

Quote
I have seen that there are knots that are optimized for both uses - meaning that they have no shortcomings in comparison to any knot optimized for the one OR for the other use. When you search and happen to find such a knot, you see immediately that its great versatility was worth your effort. 

Example(s)?

Quote
Where is it ? Present it, and we will try to probe into it, and decide if all those claimed advantages are worth a complicated TIB method.
  Mind you that there is never ONE tying method, neither in-the-end nor in-the-bight. So, the method you find "way more complicated" may perhaps be simplified a lot. Also, a method that seems complicated to one person, may seem simple to another... I do not believe we should ever dismiss beforehand such a versatile PET and TIB knot, as the one you describe, only because the tying method we happen to know seems to us "way more complicated" than the two tying methods of two other knots it replaces.
 

I'll present them soon - I still have some fiddling with them to do. For example, the "do everything" loop knot I had in mind does jam a bit under ring loading conditions (maybe I had it dressed differently earlier?), but I seem to have found another variant which meets all those specifications while still being theoretically TIB.

The point though, was that the nonPET version that this mess is a bastardization of meets all those specs and is easily TIB (2 pass-throughs). The PET variant just turns a simple and elegant knot into a complicated mess - if I am not actually tying it post-eye, no way I'm doing the ugly mess instead of the simpler, symmetric (and I think better performing) nonPET one.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2014, 02:17:31 AM »
Quote
One knot that does the job of two knots, without been much more complex, is always better.  It is better to "have to commit two things to memory" for the one knot, than two things for two knots  :).

  What advantage do you see ?

  Many advantages ( plural ) !  :) For example, when you keep tying one knot, instead of two, your knowledge and experience of it is doubled.

    it's not like you've only got one loop knot structure in your brain :)

  You may have many, or, indeed, ALL the existing loop knot structures in your brain, and yet to prefer and use a limited number of them. In fact, the more structures you know, the less you prefer to use - because, after some time, accumulated knowledge and acquired experience help you discover and appreciate more subtle differences between those structures that you had not noticed at the beginning, and so you become able to choose the best solution, taking into account a more wide spectrum of advantages and disadvantages.
   One may argue that a more knowledgeable and experienced knot tyer is also more able to pinpoint the subtle differences between the particular situations demanding a knotting solution, and, because he will have, at any time, a greater variety of knots in his knotting arsenal, he will tend to use a different knot each time !  :) I believe that this is an illness of all novice knot tyers, which is passing. Due to the fact that, most of the times, things do not differ as much as they seem to do / as we believe them to do, and, mainly, due to the fact that life is short, we tend to use fewer knots than we could/should...

Quote
I have seen that there are knots that are optimized for both uses - meaning that they have no shortcomings in comparison to any knot optimized for the one OR for the other use. When you search and happen to find such a knot, you see immediately that its great versatility was worth your effort. 

  Example(s)?

   :)
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 02:20:04 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2014, 02:16:57 PM »
Quote
One knot that does the job of two knots, without been much more complex, is always better.  It is better to "have to commit two things to memory" for the one knot, than two things for two knots  :).

  What advantage do you see ?

  Many advantages ( plural ) !  :) For example, when you keep tying one knot, instead of two, your knowledge and experience of it is doubled.
???
In one perspective, a *knot* is defined as a
tying algorithm, and so by definition one knows
two such knots in the debated situation --there is no
efficiency gained should the resulting structures
prove identical!  (Conceivably, a not-so-knot-concerned
knot tyer might not realize this --just as, I surmise,
most rockclimber "Yosemite bowline" enthusiasts don't
realize that that knot is TIB (for in their application,
it cannot be).

(Btw, I recently discovered a zeppelin eyeknot that is
both TIB & PET (=>PEtIB) !)

Quote
    it's not like you've only got one loop knot structure in your brain :)
... In fact, the more structures you know, the less you prefer to use --because, after some time, accumulated knowledge and acquired experience help you discover and appreciate more subtle differences between those structures that you had not noticed at the beginning, and so you become able to choose the best solution, taking into account a more wide spectrum of advantages and disadvantages.
...  we tend to use fewer knots than we could/should...
--most peculiar reasoning.  And quite some
presumption about knotting knowledge!

--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2014, 04:11:26 PM »
   In one perspective, a *knot* is defined as a tying algorithm, and so by definition one knows two such knots in the debated situation --there is no efficiency gained should the resulting structures prove identical ! 

   I hope that this is not your perspective ! ! Our knots, the physical knots we use, are determined by their geometry, not by their topology. Two identical, topologically, knots, can be very different geometrically. Now, geometry requires dressing, which, in its turn, requires inspecting of what has been set up, and careful manipulation of the segments of the knot, before and perhaps even after the initial tensioning. When you keep doing this for one knot, each and every time you do this, you gain knowledge and experience, which, for each and every knot you tie, even for two identical, topologically, knots, is different. I said that it is better to keep tying one knot, than two, because, each and every time you tie it, your knowledge and experience becomes a little broader and a little deeper. I have been tying bowlines all my long life, but I keep noticing little subtle details I had not noticed before, and my tying "style" still changes ( among other things, that change on me !  :) ) ! You may know the "tying algorithm" of two knots, ( if, by this "knowledge", you mean anything more than just parroting the tying procedures...), but this is not equal to the knowledge of two tying algorithms plus all the other things about the structures and the mechanisms of the knots you keep learning each and every time you tie them ! We can extrapolate quantitatively this syllogism, to check its validity : If you knew how to tie, say, one million different knots, and each and every time you had to tie a knot you had chosen a different one, at the end of your life, how much would you really "know" of any of them ?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2014, 02:26:11 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2014, 04:18:02 PM »
I recently discovered a zeppelin eyeknot that is both TIB & PET (=>PEtIB) !)

  I, too, had thought of the PETIB label, but I was not sure if we have to use such a peculiar word...
  Where is this PETIB Zeppelin eyeknot ? Do we have to wait a generation or two until it is decided to be revealed to us by the Oracle ?
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2014, 01:59:46 AM »
   In one perspective, a *knot* is defined as a tying algorithm, and so by definition one knows two such knots in the debated situation --there is no efficiency gained should the resulting structures prove identical ! 

   I hope that this is not your perspective ! ! Our knots, the physical knots we use, are determined by their geometry, not by their topology.
???  Where did I even mention "topology"?

Quote
Two identical, geometrically, knots,
can be very different geometrically.
Oh, this is a gem --and certainly not a tautology!   ;D


 
Quote
I said that it is better to keep tying one knot, than two, because, each and every time you tie it, your knowledge and experience becomes a little broader and a little deeper.
Think how broadly deep the knowledge is
of those who say "ommmmmm" over & over!?

Quote
I have been tying bowlines all my long life, but I keep noticing little subtle details I had not noticed before, and my tying "style" still changes ( among other things, that change on me !  :) ) ! You may know the "tying algorithm" of two knots, ( if, by this "knowledge", you mean anything more than just parroting the tying procedures...), but this is not equal to the knowledge of two tying algorithms plus all the other things about the structures and the mechanisms of the knots you keep learning each and every time you tie them !
Wow, and somewhere you were saying how
one will decide on which knot to use --out of some
mind-boggling number-- based on comparison of
small details --which now we see you don't even
know until, well, at least as long in multiple (re-)tyings
while you wait for my presentation of a PEtIB zeppelin
eyeknot
!!!  (I'm waiting for you to tie the bowline
enough to understand how it's related to the sheet bend
like the zeppelin loop & end-2-ender are related!

 :D

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2014, 02:44:17 AM »
( I'm waiting for you to tie the bowline enough to understand how it's related to the sheet bend

   On the contrary, I can not wait for you to do the same, and understand why it is NOT related to the sheet bend !  :) Evidently, we, both, are too old for that !  :)

   To the interested young reader, I will show, again, to which eyeknot the sheetbend is related to : See the attached pictures, and read :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg23702#msg23702

This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another strangle collar bowline
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2014, 03:14:34 AM »
   In one perspective, a *knot* is defined as a tying algorithm...

   I hope that this is not your perspective ! ! Our knots, the physical knots we use, are determined by their geometry, not by their topology.

???  Where did I even mention "topology"?

  To me, a "tying algorithm" determines the topology only, not the geometry. The geometry requires another, more subtle manipulation of the formed, by this tying algorithm, knot, the "dressing". So, I guessed that, by this expression, you meant "topology". When you throw a new term, you have to clarify what you mean, if you do not wish to be misunderstood - which, judging from past experience, I can tell that it does NOT belong to your priorities !

  " ...a tying algorithm, the result of which can vary w/tyer, material, and maybe phases of the moon."

  I can not describe as an "algorithm" something that should involve all the details of the knot tyer s fingers, the material s stiffness, and maybe the phases of the moon !
This is not a knot.