Author Topic: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology  (Read 144116 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #150 on: August 10, 2011, 08:25:37 PM »
"end-of-line [eyeknots]" isn't [the'] limit; I will (or might, pending further ruminations) include mid-line eyeknots --well, what of the basic/common bowline serving so (and, yes, there are those that can be tied w/o ends)?

  I have called the mid-line knots shown in (1) as "midline bowlines", probably for the same reason. ( In fact, they were nothing but mid-line Janus common bowlines - as the beautiful knot presented in the same thread by Dfred was nothing but a mid-line Janus Myrtle loop ...)

  This all touches issues regarding how *knot* is defined, vis-a-vis loading (or not)

   There are many knots where some small - or even some larger - parts of them are not loaded at all, but those unloaded parts are necessary and functional elements of those knots nevertheless. Their mere presence, in the particular position, into the knot s nub, their mere volume, the fact that the segments of the rope they are made of are incompressible, all those things- that have nothing to do with flexibility and resistance to longitudinal loading - allow those knot to be knots. So, yes, been loaded or not does not make an element of a knot  more or less necessary to the knot...and a "knot" should better be defined without reference to the loading or not of some of its parts.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3020.0
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 08:27:36 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #151 on: August 10, 2011, 09:17:15 PM »
AYE from me Glenys.

Barry

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #152 on: August 10, 2011, 09:58:31 PM »
snip...

  1. Do you think that the other leg of the loop can go into the nipping turn once more, following the same route as when it departed from it, or not ? Should it come into he nipping loop pointing towards the opposite direction it had when it was exiting from it, or not ? In other words, is the Myrtle collar a "proper" bowline collar, or not ?
 
snip...


The Myrtle does not have a collar, it has two enmeshed nipping loops.

And what is this "'proper' bowline collar"?  Just because the bowline has a collar, or a nipping loop, does not make these components exclusively 'bowline' components with the inference that any knot that contains either one of them is perforce a bowline.

They are components that comprise the bowline and can be part of any other knot without needing to call that other knot part of the bowline family.  If we start to say that any knot that has a half hitch component is a bowline, then where is the logic that prevents us from defining the bowline to be a Gleipner or a Myrtle etc. etc.

How can it be rational to claim that the presence of a single component defines that knot as a bowline?

Derek

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 147
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #153 on: August 10, 2011, 10:49:25 PM »
Aye from me as well Glenys as I could imagine that one might ask "What defines a Zeppelin?" or "What defines a Clove Hitch?"  These could easily lead to the same type of discussion we see here.  These discussions are primarily nomenclature from my perspective and belong in the theory section.

Btw, the joining of two ropes defines a Zeppelin, so, instead of calling the family bends, we will now be calling them Zeppelins in accordance with a possible prime example / archetype for the family.  So, we will have the Hunter's Zeppelin, the Ashley's Zeppelin, the Alpine Butterfly Zeppelin, the Figure 8 Zeppelin, etc.

DDK
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 10:50:41 PM by DDK »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #154 on: August 10, 2011, 11:21:31 PM »
The Myrtle does not have a collar, it has two enmeshed nipping loops.

   No, the thing you think it is a nipping loop, it is not !  :) It does not have both its legs loaded, as any nipping loop worth its salt :  it is a collar, in the generalized sense, or a hitch.
 
  Just because the bowline has a collar, or a nipping loop, does not make these components exclusively 'bowline' components with the inference that any knot that contains either one of them is perforce a bowline.They are components that comprise the bowline and can be part of any other knot without needing to call that other knot part of the bowline family.

   The bowline has a ("proper") collar ( a structure of the tail, tied around the standing part ) AND a nipping loop ( a structure of the standing part, tied on the standing part). If an end-of-line loop has both those things/components, and can be completely untied when those things are untangled from each other, then yes, it is a bowline !

  If we start to say that any knot that has a half hitch component is a bowline, then where is the logic that prevents us from defining the bowline to be a Gleipner, or a Myrtle etc. etc.

   The bowline is a Gleipnir WITH a collar.  The Myrtle loop is not a bowlne, because the Myrtle collar is not a "proper" collar. If ANYTHING from the "etc, etc" has a nipping loop on the standing part, and a "proper" collar on the tail, and can be completely untied when those two structure are untangled, then it is a bowline. Those three characteristics do not prevent us from defining something as a bowline, they oblige us to define it as a bowline !

How can it be rational to claim that the presence of a single component defines that knot as a bowline?

   It is the ONLY rational thing !  :) The presence of those three (3) characteristics, the two components ( nipping loop and "proper"collar) and the condition that the nipping loop structure is topologically equivalent to the unknot, define a knot to be a bowline, indeed. Nothing more, nothing less is needed.

This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #155 on: August 10, 2011, 11:37:40 PM »
  Btw, the joining of two ropes defines a Zeppelin, so, instead of calling the family bends, we will now be calling them Zeppelins in accordance with a possible prime example / archetype for the family.

   Unfortunately perhaps, the "joining of two ropes" is not a sufficient condition to define a Zeppelin bend. (The Zeppelin bend is a rope-made hinge, the first bights are not interlinked, etc etc ) But every knot that is similar to the Overhand knot, instead of calling it with another name, we are calling it as an overhand knot, double overhand knot, etc, aren t we ? The same happens for fig 8. knots, because the archetypal figure 8 knot helps us define any knot that is similar to it, as a fig. 8 knot...The same happens to the "Crossing knot", to the "Gleipnir", etc etc.
    If that ""argument"" was the reason you "voted' as you did,  I can understand it... :) :)
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 11:38:33 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 147
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #156 on: August 10, 2011, 11:48:15 PM »
  Btw, the joining of two ropes defines a Zeppelin, so, instead of calling the family bends, we will now be calling them Zeppelins in accordance with a possible prime example / archetype for the family.
  Unfortunately perhaps, the "joining of two ropes" is not a sufficient condition to define a Zeppelin bend.  . .

The Zeppelin is a prime example of a bend, is it not?.  So, in accordance with the proposals I have seen for bowlines, we should use the name Zeppelin in the naming of the family for which it is a prime example.  I'm not saying that I think this is a good idea.  I'm just extrapolating (yes, and exaggerating for the purposes of making the point) what I have seen suggested for the "Bowlines".

DDK

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #157 on: August 11, 2011, 12:33:31 AM »
The Zeppelin is a prime example of a bend, is it not?.

   It is not ! The Zeppelin bend is a rather isolated interlocked-overhand-knots bend, I would even say a unique example of this family. None of the 7 well known interlocked-overhand-knot bends are really similar to the Zeppelin bend, and that is due to the fact that all these bends are retucked Reef-like bends, UNLIKE the Zeppelin bend...( See (1)),(2)) You have chosen as an example the only bend you shouldn't  !  :)

   As you know, people nowadays are making words, even verbs, from companies that offer a specific product ! You can "google" some words, "xerox" the results, and then read them to see what I mean...:) Is the "bowline" your biggest problem ?
   Your argument is completely wrong, for yet another reason. It is reasonable AND useful for a generic knot to be used as an example of some basic function, and vice versa. The archetypal form of the nipping loop is nowhere so clearly seen, without any additional structure, as in the Gleipnir binder knot. If we call a certain knot structure as a "Gleipnir loop", we all know what we mean, and, moreover, this name helps us understand that we are not talking about something else... Knots with such a long history, and of such an importance, as the bowline, are expected to serve as benchmarks for families of knots that bear some resemblance to them. I really do not understand this name fundamentalism...Is the "bowline" a sacred thing we should leave "unspoiled", away from any other knot that can taint it ? I am a great admirer and user of THE bowline, yet I do not have any problem if, by this name, we call a number of similar end-of-line loops...On the contrary, if the name of a particular knot is used for a family of similar knots, this is a honour, so to speak, to the parent knot, isn't it ?
   Anyway, the subject of this thread was not the name, but the "structure. characteristics, topology" of the bowline, and the various other similar bends were used only to test the proposed definitions of the bowline. 

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3196.0
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3251.0

This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 147
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #158 on: August 11, 2011, 03:28:28 AM »
The Zeppelin is a prime example of a bend, is it not?.
It is not !  . . . You have chosen as an example the only bend you shouldn't  !  :) . . .

Oh, my mistake.  I kind of like the sounds of the Hunter's Alpine Butterfly better anyways.  :D

DDK

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3959
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #159 on: August 11, 2011, 04:56:09 AM »
As the vote-notice and two votes on moving this thread
to Theoretical have intruded here,

I here vote YES : i.p., I think it important that the "Theoretical..."
forum have such activity, and not be thought of as so removed
from things practical (aspects & considerations of ...).

Currently, Practical is highly active, of our well-divided lot;
Theoretical too much ignored.  Our considerations here go
to how we conceive & treat & think about practical knots,
and not to the practicality/use of them, per se.
.:. It is fine that this active, engaged discussion vitalize
the Theoretical chambers --we do have such thoughts,
about our knots!  (And we have some currently quiet but
of continuing interest threads there re nomenclature,
which this can see informing.)


 :)

(And, having moved (or knot), the Vote msg.s might best be
deleted.)

PS:  Some time ago a thread was deemed to practical for
the Theoretical forum and thus moved ...
INTO CHIT-CHAT ???  ?!  HUh, I voiced dismay at this before,
and will do so more visibly now; that thread, launched by the
right rationale, belongs HERE.
(We might regard the two moves, now, as a sort of trade.)

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #160 on: August 11, 2011, 07:56:12 AM »
My vote also is Yes, as I all the way thought this was a theory discussion.

Then on the continuation, about "proper", I used it only to denote a particular part of the very knot we all know as a Bowline, the "right-hand" one, somewhat distinct from the Dutch Navy, Cowboy, Bowline. Of course other designations might be preferred, but we are on a nomenclature discussion, and it could help to be clear. So it is only a matter of definitions, not a semantic one denoting qualities.
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 507
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #161 on: August 11, 2011, 09:27:52 AM »
Theoretically, I think it should be put into" Knot Theory", but, in the end it makes no difference to me. The discussion will continue. 
 
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 09:46:54 AM by alpineer »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #162 on: August 11, 2011, 09:36:00 AM »
"end-of-line [eyeknots]" isn't [the'] limit; I will (or might, pending further ruminations) include mid-line eyeknots --well, what of the basic/common bowline serving so (and, yes, there are those that can be tied w/o ends)?

  I have called the mid-line knots shown in (1) as "midline bowlines", probably for the same reason. ( In fact, they were nothing but mid-line Janus common bowlines - as the beautiful knot presented in the same thread by Dfred was nothing but a mid-line Janus Myrtle loop ...)

I thought that we had established early on that a fundamental part of the definition of the bowline is that it is a loopknot.  Indeed, this is such a fundamental, we hardly have a need to reiterate it.

Now you are offering us your newly coined term "midline bowlines", and an image to go with it - vis.



The orange cord shows an end, so that can't be the 'midline' part, leaving the white cord as the aspect the 'midline' must be referring to.

But the white cord only has a Half Hitch Component, and this is stabilised by a Bight Component and a Janus tuck (i.e. opposing Bight Components) from the end of the orange cord.

There cannot be a loop in this construction, so how on earth can you call this a bowline, ignoring the simplest and most fundamental part of the definition of a bowline?

It is a lovely knot and we might call it the Janus Hitch - but there is no way, after all the discussion thus far, that you can expect to attach the name bowline to it...

In fact, this is an opportunity to propose to nail one tiny aspect of the definition of a bowline - vis

1.  A Bowline is an end of line [note 1] fixed loopknot {.EyeKnot}
[note 1 - a Bowline may be tied inline on a bight, in which case the bight is considered as an inline device to create a doubled 'end of line' element]

and carry on a little with :-

2.  A Bowline is defined and described in ABoK as 1010

3.  A Bowline construction comprises a load line, a knot, a fixed loop and an end

4.  A Bowline knot has two components, a Half Hitch Component connected to the load line and a loop leg and a Bight Component connected to a loop leg and the end [note 2]
[note 2 - the Half Hitch component transfers load into both loop legs through the turn element and the high nip force generated causes frictional entrapment of the end.  The Bight component acts as the core for the Half Hitch component and stabilises it via its bight collar made around the loaded line]

5.  A Bowline's Operational characteristics are :- ...

6.  A Bowline's Usage characteristics are :- ...

7.  A Bowline's Historical characteristics are :- ...

8.  A Bowline's Aesthetic characteristics are :- ...

9.  ...

Derek
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 11:10:12 AM by DerekSmith »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #163 on: August 11, 2011, 09:52:29 AM »
... on the continuation, about "proper", I used it only to denote a particular part of the very knot we all know as a Bowline, the "right-hand" one, somewhat distinct from the Dutch Navy, Cowboy, Bowline.

   I use the term "common right hand" bowline, for what you call "proper". Of course, the use of the term "proper" here is wrong, because there is nothing essentially different, or improper, in the left handed bowline. Moreover, I do not really know if most people that actually use the bowline, the amateur and/or the professional sailors, do tie the left- or the right- hand bowline most of the times. ( Of course, the vast majority of them do not know anything about ring loading...and the same can be said for the cowboys, or the marines of the Duch navy :))
  The use of the term "proper" for the collar of the (left and right hand) common bowline ( i.e the collar where the working end, after its U turn around a segment of the standing part, returns to the nipping loop by the same route, and it enters into it pointing to the opposite direction from the one it was pointing to when it exits from it ) is more justifiable. The "proper"collar, and the Myrtle collar, for example, are indeed very distinctive, as the former manages to stabilize the nipping loop better than the later -without any additional structure-, the former makes a tight loop in and around the nipping loop ( to the degree one can confuse it with a nipping loop...), while the later does not. So I believe that the use of the term "proper" for the common bowline collar is reasonable, but not for the right hand bowline.
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #164 on: August 11, 2011, 10:18:28 AM »
...The orange cord shows an end, so that can't be the 'midline' part, leaving the white cord as the aspect the 'midline' must be referring to.

   My dear Drek, do not waste your reasoning abilities for such self-evident things... :) Better read the f... thread !

  But the white cord only has a Half Hitch Component,

   There is no "Half Hitch component" there, or any hitch component whatsoever, I can assure you !  :) What your eyes see is only a nipping loop, a bare, naked nipping loop, with both its legs equally loaded. Your mind can see other things, of course... :)

...There cannot be a loop in this construction, so how on earth can you call this a bowline, ignoring the simplest and most fundamental part of the definition of a bowline?
...there is no way, after all the discussion thus far, that you can expect to attach the name bowline to it...

   Of course, it is not a end-of-line loop ! Even "I" can see that  :) ! But the structure is identical to the structure of the (Janus) bowline, as both of them have one of the four ends unloaded. The name was pointing to this fact, as this knot CAN NOT be confused with an end-of-line loop ! I though that this name was helpful for one to see how this knot works, rather what this knot look like - it obviously does not look like a end-of-line loop, so there is no danger of any confusion there.
    When there was a long discussion about the so-called "Zeppelin loop", that is a loop that BRUTALLY destroys the essence and beauty of the Zeppelin bend, its remarkable symmetry and its rope-made hinge character, I have not seen anybody here say a word...
    Anyway, if the name "mid-line bowline" is such a disaster, we can forget it. On the title of this thread, I used the term "midspan bends", and I have introduced the name "midline bowline" very cautiously. Please, suggest something more "proper", but in the "proper" place, the above mentioned thread...  :)
   (  I brought the issue here only as a reply to Dan Lehman comments, on Reply#148.)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 10:22:48 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.