New Bends and loop ?

[X1]

   I suggest that the base-knot be reversed : i.e., have the SPart make the full turn, and exit with the follow-up single turn;
   the SPart's continuation from this suggested turn doesn't feed (directly) into an eye leg (with its tension), butgoes into the "follow-up single turn.")
   In the above suggested variation, the tail's turn will need to collar the SPart in order to stabilize the knot.

   I can only guess that this suggested variation can not be anything else than the " Lee Zep bowline C " knot, shown at Reply#11 (1)... However, who can be sure about it ? We have seen time and again that, in knots, one picture is worth of many words, AND many words are corresponding to more than one picture !   
 
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.msg23850#msg23850

[Dan_Lehman]

   I suggest that the base-knot be reversed : i.e., have the SPart make the full turn, and exit with the follow-up single turn;
   the SPart's continuation from this suggested turn doesn't feed (directly) into an eye leg (with its tension), butgoes into the "follow-up single turn.")
   In the above suggested variation, the tail's turn will need to collar the SPart in order to stabilize the knot.

   I can only guess that this suggested variation can not be anything else than the " Lee Zep bowline C " knot, shown at Reply#11 (1)... However, who can be sure about it ? We have seen time and again that, in knots, one picture is worth of many words, AND many words are corresponding to more than one picture !   

Yes, quite ; although I think I'd reverse the over/under
relation of tail & its prior part on the finish --so that
the loaded part lies adjacent to the SPart, which will then
draw the tail around a little, making a nice curvature!?

(And we have seen words work, if writers are willing.)


--dl*
====

[X1]

I think I'd reverse the over/under relation of tail & its prior part on the finish --so that the loaded part lies adjacent to the SPart, which will then draw the tail around a little, making a nice curvature!?

 At the loaded knot, the tail and its prior part have a certain orientation / inclination in relation to the standing end s axis. At the knot tied as shown at the pictures, the former passes under the later ( well, not much, but enough, I think). I always prefer this relation, because it gives a sense of added security : The tail is squeezed under its prior part - in fact, it is hitched  by its prior part - the thing that does not happen in the two standard common  bowlines ( contrary to the Derek Smith s theory ), but happens in the two of the four standard "Eskimo" bowlines. When I see those funny-looking coil-like not-proper bowline collars, I try to make them work as hitches - so I try to anticipate their final orientation, and pass the tail under its prior part.
   Of course, the question of the curvature of the first s standing part s curve is (always) also there, and it should be addressed as well. 

[Benboncan]

And we have seen words work, if writers are willing.

And the readers are fluent in English ( in this forum ). A decent image obviates willingness and fluency.

[X1]

   Every time I am caught in a better mousetrap ( another bowline...), I tie all the previously experienced ones, to compare their mechanisms.
   I realized that I had not tied this beautiful Lee Zep C bowline ( Reply#11, http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.0 ) in the best possible way. If, after we form the two and a half round turns of the double nipping loop, we pass the working end of the returning eye leg through those turns the other way we did in Reply#11, we get a more "balanced" knot - where the nipping structure, in order to remain in a closed form, is not depending upon the collar structure so much. We can see this by trying the two variations, the one shown at Reply#11 and the one shown here, without their collars, and see which is more stable. The difference between the two variations is hard to distinguish at the pictures, but it may become significant under heavy loading, in the case the collar gets loose and is less able to keep the nipping loop in a stable, closed form.
     

[James Petersen]

X1, Is there a reason you are using color inversions in some of your pictures? Your photos are, at least for me, generally the clearest, sharpest and easiest to look at and follow in the forum.. The color inversion, however, is a distraction which I have to undo before I can get the value out of the photos. I'm just uncomfortable looking at the color inverted ones for long.  This might be something to consider, but perhaps I am the only one with this problem. 

[X1]

X1, Is there a reason you are using color inversions in some of your pictures?

   There is reason, indeed : there may be people that wish to print them - and, with a black background, you get a wet print and an empty ex-expensive black cartridge in your printer ! Also, in an inverted colour picture one can possibly distinguish the outlines of the rope segments easier, because the shadows are now white - in between two dark coloured areas ( blue or orange), a white line is perhaps easier to distinguish than a black line. I try to post both pictures, the normal AND the inverted, so one can use anyone he/she wishes. Recently, there was a member that expressed his preference for classic, simple and clear black & white sketches instead of colour photos, and I sympathise this view - so I have tried to convert some pictures to "Pencil Sketch" images, using the so-called tool from the freely available Picasa program. The hard problem is to convert the pixel/raster images to lines/vector images, but I have not yet found an easy way to do this, using only the freely available programs. The best tool I know for such a conversion is at :
http://vectormagic.com/home
   With the progress in the technology of 3D scanning and 3D printing, in the near future we will be able to scan our knots using a hand held device, make a 3D model of them, then be able to use this model to make plastic 3D models of them - with a very small cost ! I wonder what will people accustomed to lengthy verbal descriptions of knots do... Perhaps they will just decide to ignore it, as they did with the mid-nineteen century s invention of photography ! 

[X1]

  There are four different eyeknots named "Lee Zep bowlines", so I think we should attempt some housekeeping here...
  We have to distinguish the bowline-like loops that are based on the common bowline s nipping structure, the single nipping loop, from those that are based on the more complex double nipping structure of the Girth hitch.
   In the first class, we have :
  1.  The initial "Lee Zep bowline", shown at the first attached picture, and its X = crossed tail variation, shown at the second attached picture. For the time being, let us call them "Lee Zep A1 bowline", and "Lee Zep A1 X bowline", respectably. As the tail-side eye leg makes a turn around the nipping loop s crossing point, the A1 bowline can be considered as a "link bowline"(1). Notice that, in the case of the "A1 X", the last segment of the tail goes through both loops, the nipping loop tied on the Standing part and the loop tied on the continuation of the tail-side eye leg.
  2.  The simpler "Lee Zep" bowline, where the tail-side eye leg turns around the rim of the bowline s nipping loop, but not around its crossing point - and its X = crossed tail variation. Let us call them "Lee Zep A2 bowline" ( shown at the third picture), and "Lee Zep A2 X bowline" ( shown at the fourth picture ), respectably.
     
 1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4314.0

[X1]

   In the second class we have two "twin" eyeknots that use the Girth hitch double nipping structure.
   1. The "Lee Zep B bowline ", where the continuation of the tail-side eye leg, after it goes through the two coils of the nipping "tube" of the Girth hitch, turns around the Standing part s eye leg ( shown in the first picture ).
   2. The "Lee Zep C bowline", where the continuation of the tail-side eye leg turns around the Standing end ( shown in the third and fourth pictures). Obviously, those two eyeknots are "similar" - the Standing end of the one is the Standing part s eye leg of the other, and vice versa.
   Those two eyeknots are also related to the beautiful pair of "Lee s "Eskimo" 8 loops", shown at :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg27223#msg27223

[Luca]

Hi Alan and X1,

Among the Lee-Zep bowlines A1 and A2, I prefer the firsts (in fact, I love them!): It is a pity, because the A2 they look really neat and nice, but in this case, what goes out through the door ( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.msg23805#msg23805 ) is likely to return through the window!

[Ruby]

wow , so many good bowline 

I can understand it and remember it better if it's like the common bowline's common direction showed like ABoK #1010

so, I rotated it 180 degrees.
and then I can figure out how to tie at with just one look,
by comaring it to the common bowline #1010.
same begin step, and then some different step to form zep form. that's it

hope it's still same knot after rotating 





besides similar to zepline, I think it's also similar to the Perfect Angler's Loop

[X1]

besides being similar to Zeppelin, I think it's also similar to the Perfect Angler's Loop

Right. Perhaps just because the Angler s loop itself is similar to the Zeppelin - the tail plays the role of a pivot in both of those knots.

[X1]

Among the Lee-Zep bowlines A1 and A2, I prefer the

   The A2 is not a "link" bowline, that is true, but it is such a neat knot ! It is looks like the Zeppelin knot more than the A1 - although neither the A2 nor the A1 are "Zeppelin - like" knots, of course. In a "proper" Zeppelin-like knot, the moment you remove the tail, the two bights of the two links are detached from each other, and the knot falls apart. That is the main characteristic that distinguishes the Zeppelin knot from all the other knots : it is a rope-made hinge, where the tail(s) play the role of the pivot. ( See the attached pictures for some other such knots. )