Author Topic: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE  (Read 27831 times)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4010
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2013, 08:27:57 AM »
if you believe that you've so well assessed the venerable sailor's bowline when you tie in with modern kernmantle climbing rope,
I had never said that, of course... I will wait to see your pictures "in the wild", where sailors use modern kernmantle climbing ropes as mooring lines !  :)  I hope they will be pictures of this Universe, not a parallel one !
Do you ever read what you do say?  Or does your
cat occasionally run across your keyboard when
you're dreaming?!
You said --and I'll repeat it--
Quote
Even if we had learned the existence of the bowline only yesterday,
we would had been able to evaluate it as a fine knot
--no "(much) long-witnessed, historical experience " would had been nessesary !
...  I have no doubt of its excellency, because I, too, can examine it per se, as any other knot tyer can.
Meaning, we can examine it regarding its "pure" knotting qualities, to use a neologism.
Is it simple, stable, secure, non-jamming, strong ?
Then, it is a fine knot, per se.  We do not have to ...  "experience" this ! 

So, there you go, sailor boy come to the mountains,
and no need for those stupid landlubber fig.8 wastes
of tying time & material, hard to untie : you go slap on
a bowline and climb right on up to the AfterLife, proving
yourself above experience!!   ::)    :P
While others, earth-bound in their visions, are regarding
knots as "just some [still] knotted material" --something that
your rope, btw, no longer is!  (But you won't need it, now,
where you are (nylon melts at those temperatures, anyway).)
 ;D


--dl*
====

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #46 on: July 23, 2013, 11:17:16 AM »
Even if we had learned the existence of the bowline only yesterday, we would had been able to evaluate it as a fine knot --no "(much) long-witnessed, historical experience " would had been nessesary ! ...
I have no doubt of its excellency, because I, too, can examine it per se, as any other knot tyer can.
Meaning, we can examine it regarding its "pure" knotting qualities, to use a neologism.
Is it simple, stable, secure, non-jamming, strong ? Then, it is a fine knot, per se.  We do not have to ...  "experience" this ! 
Do you ever read what you do say?  Or does your cat occasionally run across your keyboard when you're dreaming?!
   
   I suppose that it should be, at least, a monkey ! Then, the possibility of a text that would resemble a text of mine would be MUCH greater !  :)  Roo has claimed I tie "random knots", you now claim that I write "random texts" ( and that I need a cat running across my keyboard while I am dreaming, to achieve this...) - Guys, guys, your situation does not improve !  :)   
   I do not read, I think what I say. It seems you prefer the opposite. :)

   I said ( I repeat what you said that I said... :) ).
   
Even if we had learned the existence of the bowline only yesterday, we would had been able to evaluate it as a fine knot
--no "(much) long-witnessed, historical experience " would had been nessesary !
...  I have no doubt of its excellency, because I, too, can examine it per se, as any other knot tyer can.
   Meaning, we can examine it regarding its "pure" knotting qualities, to use a neologism.
   Is it simple, stable, secure, non-jamming, strong ?
   Then, it is a fine knot, per se.  We do not have to ...  "experience" this !

   Do I say ANYTHING here, about ANY material ? Nooo
   Do I claim what you claimed I claim  :) :
   
   [ I ] so well assessed the venerable sailor's bowline when [ I ] tie it in with modern kernmantle climbing rope

   Nooo ! I say no-thing about materials ! I was talking about the bowline ! The bowline is a fine knot, period. We can speak of knots, if they are good or bad knots, without any reference to a specific material. ALL knots are bad, re. slippage, when they are tied on carbon nanotubes, and all are good, when they are tied on Velcro.
   For Knot God sake, you do not saying ANYTHING with saying that there are no knots, and there is only "knotted material" ! We are speaking about physical knots here, how, on your dreams, would your cat had written that there can be a physical knot without its material being knotted in the first place ? I know that  "heavy" cat s feet and paws can write sentences that seem "wise", but human brains are not impressed ! And I do not believe you have imagined that I am a cat, or even a monkey, did you ?  :) :) :)
   So, I will repeat it to you, just  in case you have not understood it yet, because you are still dreaming :
   We can speak about (physical, practical) knots without been forced to refer to the material they are tied on. We can speak about general knotting qualities off those knots, that are generally good or bad, when the particular knots are tied on most materials. If, each time I see a knot, I start saying - like you do - hmmm, hmmm, hmmm,( SS would edit the zillion of hmmm s, so I keep three, as examples....), this knot is not good , because when I tied it, back in the future, on carbon nanotubes, it was not secure ... or : hmmmm, hmmm, hmmmm, this knot is not good, because when I tied it in Titanic s ropes, it was bulky and not as compact as I needed... then I  will have to have a horde of monkeys - and keep dreaming for looong hours !  :)
  So you, keyboard boy, return to reality, and start talking in a simple language, which can be understood by most people - because what you say, hmmm, hmmm, hmmm, does nt make sense !
   I imagine you pounding the keyboard, each time somebody says that the bowline is "the king of knots", crying :
   Not in my kingdom, not in my kingdom, not in my kingdom.... :)   
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 10:15:20 PM by X1 »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4010
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2013, 06:07:35 PM »
   I suppose that it should be, at least, a monkey ! Then, the possibility of a text
that would resemble a text of mine would be MUCH greater !  :)
Then in a thousand posts we should expect Shakespeare!   ;D

Quote
Roo has claimed I tie "random knots", you now claim that I write "random texts"
Sounds like a consistent trait!  In some circles, randomness
can be valuable (and less often than it is supposed).


Quote
I [/i] do not read, I think what I say. It seems you prefer the opposite. :)

   I said ( I repeat what you said that I said... :) ).
   
Even if we had learned the existence of the bowline only yesterday, we would had been able to evaluate it as a fine knot
--no "(much) long-witnessed, historical experience " would had been nessesary !
...  I have no doubt of its excellency, because I, too, can examine it per se, as any other knot tyer can.
   Meaning, we can examine it regarding its "pure" knotting qualities, to use a neologism.
   Is it simple, stable, secure, non-jamming, strong ?
   Then, it is a fine knot, per se.  We do not have to ...  "experience" this !

   Do I say ANYTHING here, about ANY material ? Nooo
   Do I claim what you claimed I claim  :) :
   
   [ I ] so well assessed the venerable sailor's bowline when [ I ] tie it in with modern kernmantle climbing rope

   Nooo ! I say no-thing about materials !
I was talking about the bowline ! The bowline is a fine knot, period.
We can speak of knots, if they are good or bad knots, without any reference to a specific material.

This continues below, but you are clearly speaking of physical
qualities --to wit, again:
Quote
Meaning, we can examine it regarding its "pure" knotting qualities, to use a neologism.
Is it simple, stable, secure, non-jamming, strong ? Then, it is a fine knot, per se.
Strength, stability, security, ease of tying & untying are all
physical attributes.  And I challenge your apparent stance
that such things can be judged in some "per se" manner.
(E.g., I once found a knot I regarded as a candidate end-2-end
knot for joining abseil ropes --Ashley's #782--, which when it
capsized became the very secure #1452, could somehow
capsize such that it spilled --as though one end got the jump
on the other in some way, and with motion so lessened
friction, that is pulled out.  I can't imagine judging this by
some analysis; for that matter, though, I can't believe that
even some repeated testing would surely reveal this tragic
vulnerability --lucky me that I saw it occur, and could then
warn others (and quit thinking of promoting that knot).)

YOU HAVE A CHALLENGE (which is a good one for us all):
take some set of knots for which we don't have (or don't
know of) test results and see how some per se knowledge
of them can accurately foretell their strengths!!


Quote
We can speak about (physical, practical) knots without been forced to refer to the material they are tied on. We can speak about general knotting qualities off those knots, that are generally good or bad, when the particular knots are tied on most materials.
Really?  How do we do this?  How do we speak of the
bowline e.g. being a fine knot and yet NOT believe
this when confronted with tying in with seeming also
fine kernmantle rope?

 
Quote
If, each time I see a knot, I start saying - like you do - hmmm, hmmm, hmmm,
( SS would edit the zillion of hmmm s, so I keep three, as examples....),
Funny how you can speak of a knot, in general, without
knowing a variety of in-material instantiations, and yet
you feel the need for (vastly) more than 3 "hmmm"s ?!
Why can you not hmmmm just the once, and leave that
as a fine (or not so) utterance not needing multiplicity?


--dl*
====

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2013, 07:08:51 PM »
lucky me that I saw it occur, and could then
warn others (and quit thinking of promoting that knot).)
--dl*
====

Thank you Dan once again for bringing the matter to my attention way back when, as I was on the same track as you with that knot and could conceivably have missed it's hidden fatal flaw.

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #49 on: July 23, 2013, 09:25:22 PM »
Then in a thousand posts we should expect Shakespeare!   ;D

Not so fast !

A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulates a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters:

RUMOUR. Open your ears;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 09:27:37 PM by X1 »

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2013, 10:03:27 PM »
Alpineer, I do understand the implications for climbing and the particular type of rope used. That is one of the reasons why I did not choose that type of rope for tying in my harness when working in masts or tree-tops, but a rope that did not have a tendency to spring back when slack. - using the regular bowline without a single fail for a lifetime, i trust it well in the type of rope I tend to use.

No cure is necessary for the type of rope you have chosen to use and I sincerely hope that remains to be the case. And this bowline - do you use it without any security enhancement?

Quote
But I don't fully get the likeness of the new knot to the Bowline, as in my eyes it becomes a rather different knot with the extra turns.

? It's simply a bowline with a triple loop nipping structure. Whereas the common triple loop structure comprises same handed loops, the new knot combines two loops of certain handedness with one of opposite handedness. This critical feature increases the bowline's security and stability dramatically when tied in synthetic kernmantle rope, regardless of the rope's material nature, and does so without resorting to D.L.'s specific Locktight Loop #5 dressing.     

Quote
So the question that builds up in my mind, considering the more complex nature of the knot, whether there is a great need for introducing a new knot, and if there isn't another one already, which has the desired attributes. The first knot I come to think of is the Zeppelin loop. It does have several tucks, but is rather easily and reliably tied when you have it well trained into your hands, and it is very easy to check visually for correct tying. If we put these two knots up to each other, which one would be preferred? I cannot imagine that a Zeppelin would jam, and I believe that it does not easily open by itself when the rope is slack. Are there disadvantages, considering all disclaimers?
[/quote]

Excepting the "great" adjective, apparently yes. At the least, I think there's room for another or two. The Zep has been around long enough for the new generation of climbers - who are more willing to see the merits of doing something differently - to adopt it. Ditto for the Janus and others as I don't see their use among climbers.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 02:44:34 AM by alpineer »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2013, 10:05:49 PM »
Meaning, we can examine it regarding its "pure" knotting qualities, to use a neologism.
   Is it simple, stable, secure, non-jamming, strong ? Then, it is a fine knot, per se.
   
   Strength, stability, security, ease of tying & untying are all physical attributes.  And I challenge your apparent stance
that such things can be judged in some "per se" manner.
  WHO told you that they are not ? Was it the cat ? Because even a monkey can not say such a nonsense !
  There are no other qualities than the physical ones - at least in this life, because, in the other, I am not so sure... :)
   So, as knots are natural and not supernatural objects ( We all know that there may be some knot tyers who, apparently, believe that they themselves have some supernatural qualities - but let s keep it secret, for the moment...), and as natural objects have only physical qualities, knots have only physical qualities. ( Was this sequence of reasoning sooo complicated ?  :) )
   So, can we speak about an apple, or not ?  :)  Does a worm into the apple influences its behaviour, when the apple falls from the tree on the knot tyer s head ? ? Or an apple is not but the material around a worm ?
   If you feel the need to discover a new law of universal gravitation, in order to be able to make an apple pie and eat it, ( and then s**t it...), you have a deeeeeep proooblem, my dear Lehnewton... :)
   My theory is that you took refuse into this tranquilizing ideology, which claims the a knot is but "knotted material", and can not be examined per se without examining all the other zillion things in the Universe that influence its behaviour - because you found yourself into too many knots, and too few knot tyers  :) . This may be an indication about knot tyers, of course, but it proves nothing about knots.
   There is no knot . There is only an abstract physical blah blah. It is wrong to think that the task of knotting is to find out how a knot is. Knotting concerns only what we can say about what we can tie...
    Well, there is something fancy in the kingdom of Knottenhagen... Good luck ! 
   (Moreover, it is not even my cup of tea...).
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 10:11:42 PM by X1 »

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2013, 10:11:16 PM »
Then in a thousand posts we should expect Shakespeare!   ;D

Not so fast !

A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulates a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters:

RUMOUR. Open your ears;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

And as with your case X1, I think the findings correlate nicely. ;D ;D ;D ;D & ;D
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 10:19:48 PM by alpineer »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #53 on: July 23, 2013, 10:23:17 PM »
   As with your case X1, I think the experimental evidence correlates nicely. ;D ;D ;D ;D & ;D

   Is it something funny, fancy or fishy ? Because, we cats and monkeys do not understand the difference...
   
   However, the following description was very good, indeed ( what proves that you can say something alone, without the help of the general tune, orchestrated by other people...) :

   
    It's simply a bowline with a triple loop nipping structure. Whereas the common triple loop structure comprises same handed loops, the new knot combines two loops of certain handedness with one of opposite handedness. This critical feature increases the bowline's security and stability dramatically when tied in synthetic kernmantle rope, regardless of the rope's material nature,
   
   +1
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 10:25:10 PM by X1 »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2013, 12:17:20 AM »
   Trying to return to the topic of the thread somehow, I thought that it might be interesting to compare the Tresse bowline with the Reversed Girth hitch - based one ( which I had also called "Pretzel" bowline, for obvious reasons )(see the attached pictures).It can be tied very easily and quickly, by forming a Girth hitch and twisting it 180 degrees vertically- that is, "reversing" it. It is not so different from the Tresse bowline- but I can not predict which grips the bight component ( especially, the last line of defence against slippage, the tail ) more efficiently.
   

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2013, 10:27:42 PM »
Alpineer, I do understand the implications for climbing and the particular type of rope used. That is one of the reasons why I did not choose that type of rope for tying in my harness when working in masts or tree-tops, but a rope that did not have a tendency to spring back when slack. - using the regular bowline without a single fail for a lifetime, i trust it well in the type of rope I tend to use.

No cure is necessary for the type of rope you have chosen to use and I sincerely hope that remains to be the case. And this bowline - do you use it without any security enhancement?

Using two attachment lines when up there in the top is perhaps an enhancement, and when I go up or down, I don't hang freely, but I use my hands and feet too. Moreover, the line I'm attached with is not slack, so there is no fall. But the knot itself is not enhanced. I always have a prusik around the mast itself or on a stay or shroud, for security. The type of rope I use is a tubular nylon braid with very high friction. It bites even on an aluminium mast, and I haven't seen the bowline even have a tendency to fail in that type of cordage. Sometimes I inchworm up with two prusiks, when there is no halyard, and then most of the time while climbing, I rely on only the upper one tied to my harness. But I move it up at the same time as I push with my feet, and when passing cross-trees, I put another prusik above and change attachment - there's always two lines with carabiners at the harness. Carabiners are of approved type for workplace security.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 10:31:29 PM by Inkanyezi »
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: 511
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2013, 01:14:44 AM »
 High friction, no slack, + redundancy. I won't have to worry about you. :) Thank You Inkanyezi.