Author Topic: Constrictor bowline(s)  (Read 9807 times)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
Re: Constrictor bowline(s)
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2011, 06:27:13 AM »
I have updated my article on Bowlines (go here to download http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/02_Bowlines.pdf )

Thank you, it came without problems we encountered previously
(something about nuances with PDF).

Quote
Since Jan 2009, i have extensively used the EBSB variant of the Bowline in both climbing and rescue applications.

The knot is both secure and stable.  ...
 I remember that Dan Lehman was not a fan of my EBSB variant :) - but never fully understood why?

Not sure that I fully understood this unillustrated (then) version,
but of the non-Yosemite'd knot, I don't like the EBSB because
the end-binding turns around just 2 diameters and thus has
less security; for the EBDB, it turns around three diameters and
holds well (except in some firm & slick PP laid cord someone sent
to me on account of how intractable it was ("Devil's material!",
he cursed at it!)).  Now, in the Yo'd version of the EBSB, yes,
there is a 3rd diameter; but the working of the knot is a PITA
--one cannot simply pull on the tail to tighten its binding,
for that bloody tail is further turned and tucked beneath
the very "end-binding" in need of tightening to bind!
(Rather, one much fiddle with the collar, and thereby
either have a bigger, too-loose collar or feed material
back into the eye.)

You are clearly in luv with the bloody "Yosemite" finish,
which I have never liked, for its hard turn around an eyeleg,
and less than seemingly decent security after all that.  (And
some vulnerability to the wrap going into unwanted position
within the nipping loop.)

Quote
I also wanted the tail to exit along the same trajectory as the standing part
-- which would allow some user groups to add a 'stopper knot' if they wish - eg double overhand.

Holy Overload, Bat Man!!!
The "end-binding" is supposed to be an alternative to back-up
knotting, not another nail in the coffin!  (Btw, prefer "strangle" to "d.o.".)

Btw, newly realized (at some point re your writing) information is that
the "Janus bowline" was first (so-far known) presented by the
Wright & Magowan 1928 Alpine Journal article in which they also
presented the Butterfly, Sennit, & Reever .   Their version differs
only slightly, in the crossing of the tail with itself --reversed over/under.
So, you might note that as a bit of history to append to Prohaska's
separate later discovery.

--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Constrictor bowline(s)
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2011, 09:47:11 AM »
...the "Janus bowline" was first (so-far known) presented by theWright & Magowan 1928 Alpine Journal article...
 Their version differs only slightly, in the crossing of the tail with itself --reversed over/under.

   A Janus bowline version can, in fact, differ a lot !  :) We can have a left- or a right-handed bowline (=2), the tail can pass - when it goes through the nipping loop for the second time - over or under itself (=4), the second collar can be a left- or a right-handed one (=8),  and, finally, the tail can pass - when it goes through the nipping loop for the third time - in between 4 different openings, left there from its two previous passages (=32)... to my latest counting. :) ( And I am not considering here the very similar knots, where the tail, when it goes through the nipping loop for the second time, can transverse it through the opposite direction...) So, 32 slightly different, but different nevertheless Janus bowline versions, are patiently waiting for the brave knot tester, to tell which is more stable, secure and strong !

« Last Edit: July 16, 2011, 09:55:27 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.