[S-] I am interested in developing a secure bowline [that] is TIB
...
[M-] is also able to be used (practically) as a secure mid line loop.
Another point : what do you want as a "mid-line" eye knot?
--just something that is
TIB ?!
--or something that can take all possible loadings
(i.p., loading through (end-2-end), and loading the eye
vs. either end?
I don't think that X. has anything bowlinesque that will well
serve the latter need. (But we can be certain that he can fill
many lines with keystrokes about "understanding" and blah!)
For all practical purposes, I do not see a mountaineer even considering a bowline
as a fixed mid line loop unless it is very easy to tie reliably, is able to be ring loaded,
and has been tested as offering security in suitable climbing type ropes.
While it's a nice quality, what vulnerability do you foresee of
eyeknots NOT stable in ring-loading for mid-line eyes?
I had read (Mark Gommers, 'An Analysis of Bowlines' is one such place)
that the basic R-hand bowline is susceptible to ring loading while a [so-called]
"Cowboy bowline" is resistant to ring loading. This left me with the impression
that ring loading was something a bowline should aim for in some applications.
I do not see a particular vulnerability, and perhaps because TIB bowlines are more
complex than a R-hand bowline, there is nothing to worry about. However, ...
And Mark I think got that news re vulnerability from me, who recalls
reading some hearsay/rumor that some injured-in-fall rockclimber
was attempted to be airlifted out via an attachment to his still
tied tie-in eyeknot, clipping into the eye and
ring-loading it,
and ... that turned out tragically. Perhaps this never occurred,
but one can test the problem and see that it exists --to some degree.
And it's an interesting counterpoint to the labeling of the tail-on-outside
version as being "wrong". Otherwise, I observed this version in use
on a commercial-fishing trawler's mooring lines, and wondered if
perhaps that was a deliberate variation to the norm on account
of what I also observed (in the Cape May, New Jersey, USA area):
capsized
bowlines !! (I don't know why they get capsized,
but I have seen too many so oriented to dismiss it as insignificant!)
"Testing" by usage is the ultimate test, however
Well, it is something also to be not dismissed; but one can question
the thoroughness, even so --might some odd danger exist in what
seems an insignificant variation (such as just discussed re
bowlines)?!
So, a methodical laying out of possibilities and then some intelligent
testing of them remains part of "ultimate", IMO. --just building a
good checklist of considerations to note being considered and how
(since exhaustive testing is often difficult, one might "consider"
the condition in light of usage, things known otherwise, all the
while noting that it was not specifically tested). E.g., consider
a mid-line eye knot being tested : this has been done, I think,
in two ways --through loading (sometimes; so the knot is loaded
qua end-2-end joint), and eve-vs-ONEnd (and in a separate test
specimen, new and *clean*/untainted) !! Now, in actual-practical
usage, there might be loading that comes one way AND THEN
the other : will first loading reshape the knot such that the 2nd
loading ... at least gets a well different result (weaker, say, or
more disruptive of knot structure) than pure, clinical, testing
had indicated? (You can see how test cases multiply so much,
even w/o the desired repetition!)
--dl*
====
