Author Topic: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons  (Read 27121 times)

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 507
   Some months ago I became intrigued by a special Bowline variant comprising a "double-loop" nipping structure which forms a single tresse - or braid - around the knot's Bight. The structure could also be described as an open i.e. torsionless Elbow, referring to it's two-dimensional likeness to the proper Elbow, and where open means "containing no overall line torsion" (proper Elbow = 720 deg.). The tressed Nip is the key to this Bowline's working attributes and is why I prefer to call it the Tresse Bowline. If prior documentation exists (under another name?) for the Tresse Bowline I've not been able to locate it.

   Tying the Tresse Bowline is easy. One method involves making an Underhand loop and laying an Overhand loop on top of it. Treat the paired loops as a single loop and continue tying as you would for ABoK #1010. The knot's nipping structure should be dressed in it's signature elbow-like tressed form for easy identification. This last step is not critical to the function of the knot, but serves to confirm that it has been tied correctly.

   The Tresse Bowline was tied in a variety of materials and natures thereof.* Informal tests - some involving forces of up to 350 lbs. - were conducted and in all cases the knot performed admirably while demonstrating an ability to maintain a good balance of the most desirable knot attributes. The tests (which included shaking, whipping, flipping, flopping, and dropping) indicated that the Tresse Bowline is:
Stable
Secure
Not prone to jamming
Not prone to ring-loaded failure
Easy to untie after heavy loading

   With respect to some simple static load testing, the Tresse Bowline was indicated to be weaker than Bowline #1010. By how much? I can't say. Knot efficiency tends to be the least important of desirable knot attributes due to the high unknotted breaking strength of modern lines.

   IMO more [rigorous] testing is warranted for the Tresse Bowline. Of particular interest to me is how the knot would perform in HMPE Spectra/Dyneema. Any takers?

   It's doubtful that a particular Bowline will ever be discovered that would achieve "Holy Grail" status, but I would argue that the Tresse Bowline can come closest to the ideal "Bowline for all Reasons", more than any other.

   

*Tests were conducted using 3mm(?) nylon cord, 6-7mm accessory cord, 10.5mm dynamic kernmantle rope, slick braided PP, stiff laid PP, 4mm shock cord, and other unspecified cordage of small diameter.



WARNING!  It should go without saying, but nevertheless it cannot be overstated, that any knot which might be considered for applications where life is on the line must undergo rigorous testing procedures in a safe, secure and controlled environment by experts or professionals qualified individuals in order to prove it's worthiness for such applications. I accept no responsibility for any injury, or death, caused to any person(s) resulting either directly or indirectly from the use of (in any situation) the Tresse Bowline. USE THIS KNOT AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Brett McConochie
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 06:41:43 AM by alpineer »

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2013, 01:25:42 AM »
Hi Alpineer.

I gave your construct a whirl using some Titan (BlueWater) 5.5mm Dyneema and as well I used 1/4 inch solid braid nylon.

I like the compactness of this bowline and it lives up to your claims, almost.

The knot was dressed as tightly as my hands could do, using all the parts individually till I had the affair as snug as possible.

What I find is that the during the ring loading, the parts migrate to the point of the collar almost being drawn into the the upper nip using hand strength and body weight, so I can only imagine what serious loading (both slow or sudden) would do.

The biggest drawback, to me, is that after loading it to 300 lbs and then bouncing using body weight, I had to use round nose pliers and a spike to untie it.

I believe that the double nipping coils act very much like double overhand or perhaps a constrictor. No doubt very secure!

Based on my quick unscientific tests I would say it would be a satisfactory tie in loop, except for the untie-ability factor. In my opinion.

Thank you for sharing this.

SS

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 507
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2013, 10:02:48 AM »
Hello SS369,

Thanks for giving the knot a test and I hope you will continue to experiment with it further. Were your findings the same for both the Dyneema and the nylon?

In the context of knot testing, ring-loading* refers to the end result of such an event causing the capsizing or catastrophic failure of a knot, and generally not expected or intended to be part of a normal working scenario, but rather serving as a means for assessing a knot's ability to maintain it's effective working form in the event that it does suffer a ring-loading event. Still, were you not able to pull the Standing Part and the Tail simultaneously and thereby gain some of the collar back? Flipping the collar back is the key to breaking the knot's grip, as you know. If you can roll the outer part of the upper nip down and away from the collar you will gain more range for flipping the collar back. Still again, it's not necessary nor advisable to draw the collar up so close to the nip. The collar will not draw up when loaded and will remain easy to untie. Did you intentionally push the nip towards the collar before testing? Your photo shows a perfectly tied Tresse Bowline. Or is there something peculiar to Dyneema's nature that causes the collar to move towards the nip as load is applied in the usually intended manner? Sorry for the questions.

alpineer     


*Ring-loading as an event refers to a knot's Eye being loaded from within it's boundaries as if it were a sling. 
     
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 06:21:16 AM by alpineer »

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2013, 12:42:34 PM »
HI Alpineer

Yesterday I tied a mirrored bowline (using a girth hitch as a base) in some 1.1 mm monofilament nylon (strimmer line in the UK). This stuff is very stiff and springy and a real PTA to tie a knot in - most just spring apart so this was to see how well a mirrored bowline held together.

Anyway the mirrored bowline seemed unchanged today so I tied your Tresse Bowline in the other end of the same piece of mono and pulled until the line broke. The break came at the Tresse Bowline, the mirrored bowline was unchanged visually but importantly neither showed any sign of slippage. As this material is prone to slip fairly easily it does point to the Tresse Bowline being very secure and as you say in modern rope breaking strength is rarely an issue.

This was hardly a scientific test but it was interesting that once set both of  the bowlines showed admirable resistance to springing loose as well as having high security - life's too short to start undoing knots in this material  though.

Barry

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2013, 01:35:53 PM »
Hello SS369,

Thanks for giving the knot a test and I hope you will continue to experiment with it further. Were your findings the same for both the Dyneema and the nylon?

In the context of knot testing, ring-loading* refers to the end result of such an event causing the capsizing or catastrophic failure of a knot, and generally not expected or intended to be part of a normal working scenario, but rather serving as a means for assessing a knot's ability to maintain it's effective working form in the event that it does suffer a ring-loading event. Still, were you not able to pull the Standing Part and the Tail simultaneously and thereby gain some of the collar back? Flipping the collar back is the key to breaking the knot's grip, as you know. If you can roll the outer part of the upper nip down and away from the collar you will gain more range for flipping back the collar. Still again, it's not necessary nor advisable to draw the collar up so close to the nip. The collar will not draw up when loaded and will remain easy to untie. Did you intentionally push the nip towards the collar before testing? Your photo shows a perfectly tied Tresse Bowline. Or is there something peculiar to Dyneema's nature that causes the collar to move towards the nip as load is applied in the usually intended manner? Sorry for the questions.

alpineer     


*Ring-loading as an event refers to a knot's Eye being loaded from within it's boundaries as if it were a sling. 
   

Hi Alpineer.

I try to tie all the member's offerings and wanted to give yours a good effort too. It looked deserving!

I did find the same effects in both the Nylon and Dyneema, the Dyneema being the more difficult. It is a truly stout cordage. If you get it tight it stays tight like an anaconda snake!

As I wrote I dressed the knot as snugly as I do all knots at "test" time. It's my standard.
Yes, I could have left the collar part as you say (loose), but then that would be outside my norm.
I will try it using both to verify what you've said. I suspect it will be easier to untie, but then it won't be loaded nearly as much or even near the working limits of the material.
I tentatively suspect that it would deform and the tail would feed into it till it was consumed (Dyneema).

Ring loading is a concern for climbers, though not necessarily for the climber himself (actually yes ultimately), but for the belayer who is supposed to be anchored. And if the loop was to be used in some other form of anchoring scenario as well. Things do have a drift towards Murphy-ism unfortunately.

If my photo had been of better quality you would see that my snugging had indeed bent the standing part fairly hard by the collar. This is where I suspect a break to occur if the load was hard and sudden.

Barry: Is this where your break occurred?

I am certainly not writing it off. I'm hoping to help find its limitations, pros/cons with you.

I've recently acquired some 10.5mm ProTac static (now used once!) that I'll drag out and give it a go with and see what happens.

SS

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2013, 04:08:31 PM »

If my photo had been of better quality you would see that my snugging had indeed bent the standing part fairly hard by the collar. This is where I suspect a break to occur if the load was hard and sudden.

Barry: Is this where your break occurred?


Scott

As far as I can tell from the pieces left it probably did, the break happened too quickly to be able to see it coming. This might have been a contender as a fishing knot but for the reduction in breaking strength which would not be acceptable. Could be useful as a permanent mooring loop though rather than a splice especially in kernmantel. It would not be so likely to loosen under repeated loading/slackening as the standard bowline (ABOK 1010) and is small and neat once dressed.

Barry

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 507
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2013, 05:13:33 PM »
As I wrote I dressed the knot as snugly as I do all knots at "test" time. It's my standard.
Yes, I could have left the collar part as you say (loose), but then that would be outside my norm.
I will try it using both to verify what you've said. I suspect it will be easier to untie, but then it won't be loaded nearly as much or even near the working limits of the material.
I tentatively suspect that it would deform and the tail would feed into it till it was consumed (Dyneema).

I've recently acquired some 10.5mm ProTac static (now used once!) that I'll drag out and give it a go with and see what happens.

SS

I'm looking forward to the results of your testing. So far, your tests (as well as mine) have indicated that ring-loading the T. Bowline does not cause catastrophic knot failure. 

HI Alpineer

Yesterday I tied a mirrored bowline (using a girth hitch as a base) in some 1.1 mm monofilament nylon (strimmer line in the UK). This stuff is very stiff and springy and a real PTA to tie a knot in - most just spring apart so this was to see how well a mirrored bowline held together.

Anyway the mirrored bowline seemed unchanged today so I tied your Tresse Bowline in the other end of the same piece of mono and pulled until the line broke. The break came at the Tresse Bowline, the mirrored bowline was unchanged visually but importantly neither showed any sign of slippage. As this material is prone to slip fairly easily it does point to the Tresse Bowline being very secure and as you say in modern rope breaking strength is rarely an issue.

This was hardly a scientific test but it was interesting that once set both of  the bowlines showed admirable resistance to springing loose as well as having high security - life's too short to start undoing knots in this material  though.

Barry

Hi Barry. Thanks for giving the Tresse Bowline a go. 

   

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2013, 07:01:24 PM »
The structure could also be described as an open i.e. torsionless Elbow,
referring to it's two-dimensional likeness to the proper Elbow, ...
/ /
The knot's nipping structure should be dressed in it's signature elbow-like
tressed form for easy identification.  This last step is not critical to the function
of the knot
, but serves to confirm that it has been tied correctly.
I'm having trouble with this "Elbow" [capitalized!] structure :
should it be familiar to us?  --else, any references to cite?

As for "not critical ...", there should be something definite
said here about dressing --not an either/or/anything-goes
indication, as this seems to be.  (E.g., one could ask for one
form --for checking correct crossings--, and then specify that
this more open form be set into something more compact.
And, yes, it might be that the entanglement tolerates open
or compact dressings --which could be helpful if working with
such stiff rope that compactness was not easily achievable
(thinking of some ornery BW II old rope I have beside me!).)


Quote
The Tresse Bowline was tied in a variety of materials and natures thereof.*
Informal tests --some involving forces of up to 350 lbs.-- were conducted
and in all cases the knot performed admirably while demonstrating an ability
to maintain a good balance of the most desirable knot attributes.  The tests
(which included shaking, whipping, flipping, flopping, and dropping) ...
/ /
With respect to some simple static load testing,
the Tresse Bowline was indicated to be weaker than Bowline #1010.
And among these tests was one (or more) that entailed breaking
the knot, such that your assertion of strength compared with the
(common / #1010) bowline has a basis?  --surprising my guess.
What material was used, and how many tests (for strength)?
(And did you set the knot so (overly) snug as SS369 shows?!)


Quote
indicated that the Tresse Bowline is:
Stable
Secure
Not prone to jamming
Not prone to ring-loaded failure
Easy to untie after heavy loading

But missing from this set of qualities is the one most important
to rockclimbers (& other life-critical uses) : slack security
(unless "security" is to mean this --but then it should be noted,
as security-under-strain is the usual sense (and has become
more relevant with some modern fibres!)).

Quote
Knot efficiency tends to be the least important of desirable knot attributes
due to the high unknotted breaking strength of modern lines.

It's unfortunate that "efficiency" has been introduced into
the knotting literature as a synonym for "strength" : it should
serve more generally, not only indicating how much of tensile
strength is *consumed* in the knot, but how much material
is used, and maybe how much time --as for some applications,
this might be critical.

As for "strength of modern lines", I don't buy this : one hopes
to preserve whatever strength one has, usually --you don't
replace 3/8" double-braid polyester with 3/8" HMPE and take
consolation that the lines have roughly equal knotted strength;
no, you hope to replace the thicker & much heavier (and stretchier)
line with much lighter & thinner (sometimes thinness is a problem,
though!) but possibly more costly line which suffers no greater
loss of termination (knotting or, as we know, splicing) strength
efficiency.

Quote
Of particular interest to me is how the knot would perform in HMPE Spectra/Dyneema.
Any takers?
For starters, there is the doubt that knotting such material
is at all worthwhile in terms of strength --all testing of it
so far has cast doubt as to knots being anywhere reasonably
strong as we would expect, from historical materials.
Of particular interest should be this video of Brion Toss's test
of not-quite-my-recommended "mirrored bowline" --he omitted
the reflected collar, alas--:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy6Y2Xoo4Ak  [ in 5/32" HMPE 12-strand ]
.:. the eye knot holds, but breaks at what Toss guesses
is not-so-high load --the device wasn't calibrated(?!).

Quote
It's doubtful that a particular Bowline will ever be discovered
that would achieve "Holy Grail" status, but I would argue that
the Tresse Bowline can come closest to the ideal
"Bowline for all Reasons", more than any other.
Firstly, one could ask why one puts "bowline" into this
quest for a Holy Grail --why not simply leave it open to
whatever meets the presumed requirments.  Then, one
can question that any set of requirements can be agreed
upon as constituting Holy Grail!  --more likely, it will be
shown that different applications simply don't need
some such included qualities, but they might not be in
conflict with ones that they do need.

But I'll question how you see this variant as superior to the
mirrored bowline, which to my mind has demonstrably
better security when slack (and is easier to tie in that BW II !)?

Somewhat similar to what the OP shows was discussed
some years ago as a follow-on version to the OP's knots
presented here
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1080.0#msg7298
&
http://hilarynelson.com/Hobbies/Knots
--the "improved" knot, i.e..

I'd tend to give this (as is noted) an additional binding
wrap; there might be some tweaking in the dressing
stage to enhance strength, but that's pointing towards
a dubious quality if indeed such care is needed; it otherwise
seems to have blood-knot features, and maybe the tight
turn of the SPart doesn't play so important a role in strength
as one might fear --that the tightening coil of wraps around
this will help.  (untested, to my awareness)


Quote
WARNING!  It should go without saying, but nevertheless it cannot be overstated,
--from none to all !!   ::)

Quote
... that any knot which might be considered for applications where life
is on the line must undergo rigorous testing procedures in a safe, secure,
and controlled environment by experts or professionals in order to prove
it's worthiness for such applications.

"professionals or experts" : I might prefer just the latter,
however they might fit the former.   ;)
But can you truly say that this is the case for state-of-the-practice
knots?  E.g., we heard not so long ago from a British caver about
the use of the bowline on a bight with regard to some French testing
that showed it to have a vulnerability to spill, in a special case.

.:.  It would behoove some group of experts to build a check list
of testing that could be regarded as rigorous.  I think that in most
cases one will find that testing amounts to some form of strength
testing --be it static or dynamic loading--; and that says not much
regarding slack-security, and other qualities; and even regarding
strength, the testing might be less than rigorous.  (E.g., the slow-pull
loading of a test device doesn't well model the holding-a-mass loading
one would have, say, in abseiling --where, if the offset water knot
"rolls", it gets a sort of "shock" loading, not a delay while the device
regains tension !)


--dl*
====
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 05:44:36 PM by Dan_Lehman »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2013, 07:34:21 PM »
The knot was dressed as tightly as my hands could do,
using all the parts individually till I had the affair as snug as possible.
/ /
The biggest drawback, to me, is that after loading it to 300 lbs and then bouncing
using body weight, I had to use round nose pliers and a spike to untie it.

Which begs the question Why set the knot so tightly, of the collar?!
IMO, if you cannot untie any "X"-bowline --i.e., one with a "proper"
collar--, you've gone wrong in its setting --the collar being the
key to easy untying.  (Now, in some cases of heavy loading,
there could be some slippage in material whose diameter
has been reduced in tension such that upon the removal
of force the knot's strands *swelled* and left the collar
unusually tight around the returned-diameter SPart!)

"300 pounds" suggests a 2:1 pulley and body weight
--is that so?  --and a good pulley (I count my 5:1 as
rather poor, so need the bouncing to convince me that
I've at least surged towards its theoretical force (and
then realize that the crummy friction should hold it at
that extension/tension))?
It's certainly a force able to show effects that might
surprise one vs. manual loading, and make one take
care before testing some knot --if untying is desired,
without tedious use of tools (and even then)!

Quote
I believe that the double nipping coils
... aren't so well described as that, given the actual
geometry of the knot : that it's a helical part more
than some definitely circular turn, doubled.

Alpineer asks:
Quote
Were your findings the same for both the Dyneema and the nylon?

This surprises me : there was no "Dyneema" here, in any effective
presence for this sort of testing --i.e., it was core material, not
contributing the slickness of fibre to points of contact that
would show effect in mere stress testing.  (The stiffness of
the cord is another matter.)  Conceivably, the core can slip
within the mantle so that there is effect --and effect not
often suspected / recognized-- in full break testing, or maybe
in some repeated usage where the slippage accumulates,
but that requires such testing to reveal it.  (There have been
reports of a polyester/nylon sheath breaking and the hi-mod
core pulling out, e.g. ; or images where the core remains
intact at a broken sheath.)

The Brion Toss video I URLinked to previously (above) shows
bare HMPE 12-strand cord being tested.  He has one also
showing a dbl. bowline just slipping out through the nub,
collapsing the eye --a marvel to behold!


--dl*
====

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2013, 07:42:50 PM »
A bowline similar to the OP's, which can be seen as but
a re-dressing of the double bowline into a helical geometry,
is presented here.  I had it tested some ages ago, and it seemed
to perform okay, though sub-sensational (to my hopes :P ).

The design goal was to have the SPart make a gradual curve
into the knot before making its U-turn.  Insofar as I can deduce
where the break came (nb: no unreasonably tight collar),
it was somewhere along this turn, and in the strand (1 of
3 of the 1/4" nylon rope, i.e.) on the inside of the curve.

[OO  :o OOPS, as one could SEE --if one were paying attention!--,
the break in this knot was in two of the three strands,
whose best-guessed positions were more inside than
outside of the curve, vis-a-vis the unbroken one.
It is interesting to note that the very similarly curved SPart
of the knot (my "#56" shown in my next msg.) broke only
1 strand but had the same strength; one might have thought
that if the forces could be so evenly apportioned to break two,
it would almost necessarily be at a greater force!  (Perhaps
there are other factors at work to explain these results.)]

Here are 3 views, including a sketch.  Figured break strength
was 71% or 68%, depending upon whether the eye splice's
strength was used as 100% or the commonly given 95%
as the basis of tensile.  (Note that I tied the eye knots on
either end of the specimen in opposite handedness --I don't
think that was my intention, alas.)


--dl*
====

postscript : The rope in the photos is held by either a
railroad spike --handy to hammer, pry (maybe screw),
and sometimes tear (this one having a sharp point)--
and some old big link of a chain or other device, well
worn/grooved and *aged* (and appropriately sized
to be a frame to the knotted rope here).
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 06:04:10 PM by Dan_Lehman »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2013, 08:08:34 PM »
   I am glad you have discovered this very tight, efficient double "nipping structure", that I have called " double, crossed coils nipping loop ". Its great advantage is that it is very table, almost self-stabilizing, even without the presence of any "collar structure" ! However, I believe that this advantage manifests itself mainly in the case of the "Eskimo" variation, where the whole nub lies perpendicular to the axis of loading, not parallel to it. ( See the first attached picture ). I have tied the most simple bowline-like (post-eye-tiable) "Eskimo" (-)bowline that uses this structure, and I have seen that, indeed, it is a very stable and secure knot ( See the third and fourth attached pictures). When the knot s nub lie parallel to the axis of loading, as in the knot you show, the two legs of the collar do not have any "handle" or "step"  that can provide additional support for the standing end s and returning eye leg s grip on them. So, in contrast to the "Eskimo" variation, I feel that a large portion of the constricting power of this nipping structure is "wasted" in constricting itself, and it is not exploited by those straight legs of the collar.
   Moreover, when one decides to tie such a double nipping structure, it is almost irresistible to proceed just half a step further, and tie the most well-balanced, self-stabilizing, tight and secure Constrictor bowline ( shown at the fourth attached picture). At the end of the day, a more balanced knot is, most of the time, a more symmetric knot, and a more good-looking knot, too. That is my main objection to this bowline : It is something less, functionally and aesthetically,  than the Constrictor bowline - without any reason  ;).
   Another objection I have with this kind of bowlines, is that, although their double nipping loop structure is fine, their collar structure remains simple - which is fine in the case if the simple nipping loop of the common bowline, but not when one has decided to go to a next level. Also, one can not just "add" a second collar structure to get a double nipping loop / double collar eyeknot, a condition that I believe is sine qua non for something that could replace the retraced fig.8 knot. The "Pretzel" nipping structures, for example, the simple and the twisted forms of it, are even more balanced and self-stabilizing than the shape "8" nipping structure of the knot you show - but my attempts to add a second collar on the corresponding eyeknots have not produced any good-looking knot.
   Having said that, I believe that this is a fine, secure crossing knot bowline, easy to remember and to tie, that is worth of a further study.   

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2013, 08:12:05 PM »
With the same design goal as above,
I also discovered a knot in which the SPart
simply *helixes* its way through the nub,
as does e.g. the Bimini twist --but this
lacks the reassuring feature of the above-shown
"my#97" bowline of a U-turn : i.e., one can
fear that the tail's knotting around the helix
might slip, under high loading (and that one
must in any case somehow anticipate the
material's transformation under load to get
just the right degree of curvature ...
(to *win* the knot-strength prize!)).

At least I was consistent in handedness, here.

The 2nd photo tries to give a close-up of the presumed
break point --the best guess point where one can run
back the fibres to where they must've been at rupture
(those on the SPart side got sprung way out into the
rope!).

NB: in the several knots tested in this quarter-inch,
moderately soft-laid nylon (hardware-store variety) rope,
most broke one strand and the testing was arrested upon
this felt loss of tension; a few broke two strands, and
these were strong.  #97 & "Hunter's X" & an end-2-end
knot with a blood-knot-like sharp u-turn (the break
being in the so-tightly nipped SPart by this turn, not in
the turn itself!); the like-#97's-helical knot here broke
just one strand (with equal force), and the eye splice
did so, as well; SmitHunter's broke just 1 but was only
3 %-pt.s weaker than the "X" version (given but ONE
test of each!).


--dl*
====
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 05:59:48 PM by Dan_Lehman »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2013, 08:31:19 PM »
It's doubtful that a particular Bowline will ever be discovered that would achieve
"Holy Grail" status, but I would argue that the Tresse Bowline can come closest
to the ideal "Bowline for all Reasons", more than any other.


 :)   I'm remiss in not asking : do "all Reasons" go beyond practical ?!!

--for this thread to be in (mere) Chit Chat and not Practical forum!
(--or Explorations..., New...)


 ;)


X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2013, 08:34:35 PM »
I also discovered a knot in which the SPart simply *helixes* its way through the nub,

  I wonder how you have not discovered the many helical knots that I have shown in this Forum ( shown, with pictures, not just talked about, with words...) -, in threads that you had participated, but had not said a word about them. Anyway, I am glad/happy we see some pictures, at last. Go on !

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: In Search Of The Holy Grail Bowline: A Bowline For All Reasons
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2013, 08:57:47 PM »
   One can tie those "Helical loops" using a simple S-shaped, a fig.8 knot, a double overhand knot / Strangle knot shaped, or even a fig.9 knot shaped "collar structure". In fact, any stopper can serve as a double-end core, within and around which the helical "open" nipping coil would be wrapped. Even if this collar structure is not a tightly woven knot by itself, the nipping structure, as a belt around it, can force it function as such - and keep its two openings at a close distance to each other.  See the attached pictures for some of the knots that have been shown in this Forum - without been "discovered" by anybody... :)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 10:05:33 PM by X1 »