Author Topic: Yet Another Bowline  (Read 9355 times)

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Yet Another Bowline
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2012, 08:01:39 PM »
Should we return to an earlier age, or use the modern drawing tools that every engineer and designer uses nowadays,
Don't forget that one of the tools that are used is making a real life models of the structure in question.  It just so happens that this is easy to do with a cheap, short piece of rope or cord.  Then, let the detailed inspection begin.  You can even test physical properties as an added benefit.

I'm curious as to which practical knot you think is difficult to communicate, in proper dressing(s), with a diagram or image.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Yet Another Bowline
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2012, 08:59:52 PM »
It just so happens that this is easy to do with a cheap, short piece of rope or cord. 

  Knots are not made by materials, they are made by people ! If ones does not understand what to do, he will not do it either with an expensive or a cheap material, and he will not do it even if he is paid for it !
  The problem, with knot tyers, is not only that they often do not understand each other... It is that they do not even try to understand, or they they do not even wish to understand, and they will never ever admit that they did not understand - and, of course, they will never ever admit that this is often their fault !  :)
  Any means that can help to avoid misunderstandings, ( and reduce type writing...), is a good thing, and should be utilized - even if it is not - strictly speaking, absolutely necessary. When we try to communicate something to a person, we do not test his intelligence, we test ours ! We should provide every means to facilitate this communication, otherwise we would never be sure that we tried as much as we could. This forum would be in a much better shape if people used less blah blah, and more and better clear, pictorial means of representation.
   
   
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 09:00:26 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Mike in MD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Re: Yet Another Bowline
« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2012, 09:26:30 PM »
At the suggestion of SS369 I tried the bowlines with my AmSteel Blue 5/16 coated dyneema.

SS369 bowline
my "overkill" bowline described above
the End Bound Double bowline, Fig 22 (EBDB)
Janus bowline, Fig 28

I loaded them with my body weight, about 150 lbs.  No surprises.  Everything held.  They are all bowlines, after all. 
So I will teach my climber friend as much as she can learn.  I think the Janus bowline has the fewest extra tucks, so I will start there.

Thanks for the info,
Mike

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Yet Another Bowline
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2012, 10:01:43 PM »
the Janus bowline has the fewest extra tucks

  You would nt be surprized if you will find out that, in fact, there are more than one Janus bowlines, would you ?   :)
  See also the Janus-like "Fontus" bowline, at (1).

1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1202.msg19317#msg19317
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Yet Another Bowline
« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2012, 10:54:39 PM »
NB:  see how NEAT the knot-face of fig.27 looks,
and how MUCH "mess" that viewpoint hides, thus
--which is laid bare in the correct face to show in fig.26!!

.:.  The bowline should be presented with the SPart entering
the knot by crossing under the collar --it is THIS side that has
all the *action* !!
  The bowline is broadly misunderstood, IMO,
from the all-too-common presentations of the opposite face
(which brings forward the bight-legs which are easily understood,
but hides the SPart crossing of itself and other interesting extensions).
Both figures 26 & 27 are obscure.

But that "obscurity" is more obvious in fig.26's view
--where "the action is."  That is my point.

Quote
I prefer the standard view of the bowline primarily because that's how it looks as it is commonly executed.  I also think it keeps the "U"-shaped component more easily recognizable.  The path of the "U" is critical on the whether the knot is finished correctly or not, and that includes many variations of the bowline. 
 

"commonly executed" ?  That verges on tautology;
were the knot presented better, it would be better
executed --i.p., in the usual quick-tie method, where
the common way leaves the line dropping unless one
takes extra care to handle it, but the "better"way would
see the SPart supported by its crossing part quickly formed.

As for the U-part, that is most easily visualized, taking
straight passages on either side of its turn.


--dl*
====

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Yet Another Bowline
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2012, 10:59:03 PM »
At the suggestion of SS369 I tried the bowlines with my AmSteel Blue 5/16 coated dyneema.

I loaded them with my body weight, about 150 lbs.  No surprises.  Everything held.
They are all bowlines, after all.

1) This was no real test for that material.  There is (or was) video
of 5/32" like cord just pulling through a Dbl.Bwl !!!  --amazing
to see.

2) The climber's concern is security-when-slack, loosening as one
climbs --not in the fall (unless it's 2-step : loosened & capsized).

--dl*
====

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Yet Another Bowline
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2012, 12:24:29 AM »

"commonly executed" ?  That verges on tautology;
were the knot presented better, it would be better
executed --i.p., in the usual quick-tie method, where
the common way leaves the line dropping unless one
takes extra care to handle it, but the "better"way would
see the SPart supported by its crossing part quickly formed.
The common quick-tie method is common because it's noticeably easier to pinch the standing part and twist your wrist outward, than to pinch the standing part and twist your wrist inward.  It's an ergonomics issue.  An outward wrist twist allows you to twist past the plane of the "page" view to force the half-hitch structure into being.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 12:30:29 AM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Yet Another Bowline
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2012, 07:03:59 AM »
Perhaps we're thinking of different "common quick-tie" methods?

What I have in mind is esp. suited for a climber tying in:
having reeved the line through the tie-in point,
and holding the SPart with the left (non-dominant) hand,
and with some tension on the SPart to draw it away/down,
the dominant hand --holding the tail-- reaches out under
the SPart and quickly turns back over & down into the
just-formed loop (of end crossing SPart),
and then continues outwards --which casts the central
nipping loop into the SPart,
AND has the SPart now resting upon its crossing part
rather than dropping away from it uncontrolled.

The common method I see has the reach being done
going OVER the SPart  and down-around-up-&-out,
and the SPart just falls out of place w/o further precaution.
(If the line is much in tension *away*, either works, as
that tension will keep the SPart in place.)


--dl*
====

Mike in MD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Re: Yet Another Bowline
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2012, 08:11:16 PM »
In the standard EBDB, the wrap goes outside the collar.  See Fig. 23. 

If the wrap is inside the collar, then the rope flows naturally into the SS369 finish.  I know it is overkill and a puzzle, but this is the kind of loop knot I would want if I were ever to dangle at the end of a rope.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Yet Another Bowline
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2012, 04:22:41 AM »
I know it is overkill and a puzzle, but this is the kind of loop
knot I would want if I were ever to dangle at the end of a rope.

If the premise were true,
then I can't come to the conclusion
--why should anyone want such trouble
and inefficiency, beyond need?!   ;)

For knots that I'm tying, I hope that they don't
look like what you showed (for the sake of clarity),
where so much stands in need of tightening,
but which in that case of excessive tucking
will require much care, to the point of tedium!   ::)


--dl*
====