Author Topic: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE  (Read 30530 times)

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2013, 01:05:33 PM »
I'll throw my own spanner into the works here, but I wouldn't quibble about different dressings.

The knot surely might be a lot more secure than a simple bowline knot, but it does indeed not "cure" for any other shortcoming than security.

Among the features of the bowline, ease of untying is one of its most wanted virtues, which by the added security is lost to a great degree. In fact, most additions to the bowline make it more complicated to tie and more difficult to undo. The most simple of all these measures is the Janus re-tuck through the nipping structure.

An eskimo bowline with a Janus re-tuck is among the most secure alterations we can make to the bowline, because it caters for two of the most important issues about its security. But the drawback of untying difficulty is severe.

The bowline has become a favourite among sailors because of its ease of tying and untying.

What is accomplished here is a knot that is more difficult to tie, as well as more difficult to dress and to untie. To me, that is not a "cure".
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/

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2013, 03:56:44 PM »
   I do not wish to add or to subtract even a single word to the previous post, so all what is left for me to do, is to refer to some variations of "Eskimo" Janus bowlines.
 
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4329.msg27086#msg27086
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg27149#msg27149
   
   When the angle between the legs of the bowline s eye is 120 degrees or so, there is not any significant formal and/or structural difference between an "Eskimo" and an "ordinary" Janus bowline. See the attached picture, where the standing end s position is (deliberately) not indicated.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 03:58:07 PM by X1 »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2013, 06:08:58 AM »
The knot surely might be a lot more secure than a simple bowline knot,
but it does indeed not "cure" for any other shortcoming than security.
But that is the ".:." / QED of the OP's problem,
to wit
Quote
With respect to life-critical applications
 [which presumes use of kernmantle cordage --often firm & smooth]
the central issue concerning the common Bowline (ABoK #1010)
lies with the "single loop" nipping structure's propensity to loosen under slack conditions,
thus giving opportunity for the tail to move out of the knot.

Quote
Among the features of the bowline, ease of untying is one of its most wanted virtues,
which by the added security is lost to a great degree. In fact, most additions to the
bowline make it more complicated to tie and more difficult to undo.
True, but "ease of untying" comes in perhaps less fine
gradations for the OP's use than for some others : i.e.,
if one can untie the knot w/o much effort, albeit though
perhaps with some extra time, the goal is met.  And
given the simplicity and quickness of some tying methods
for the #1010 bowline, it would be hard not to lengthen that
by significant degree --hard to come close to as quickly done!

And I will repeat that the OP's knots differ from the
locktight eyeknot I designed in 2000, by not having
the SPart-side eye leg exit with the sharp turn around
the SPart --a feature designed to greatly hinder that
part from loosening, from letting material flow in along
that path, the turn being too hard (in contrast to the
turNip of the bowline, which as a loop can just open
and widen/enlarge).

But there is a locktight version designed for those very
stiff, "cable-like" ropes in which the sharp turn isn't
attempted --that would be spitting into the wind!

Quote
An eskimo bowline with a Janus re-tuck is among the most secure alterations
we can make to the bowline, because it caters for two of the most important
issues about its security. But the drawback of untying difficulty is severe.
Are you denoting the knot first shown in the first thread
that X1 refers to in his reply?  --i.p., that the "Janus re-tuck"
is in the exact position of the bowine's collar?!  (Note,
from my comment in that thread that I favor a similar
version but with slightly different paths in the tucks,
the symmetric could-be tails running through the center.)
For some reason, I find this knot preferable to the identical
structure loaded bowline- vs. Janus-bowline-wise.
(I.e., one can *connect* the closure of the eye to either
a part that makes Janus'd bowline and then the
other end is tail; or connect to this other end and then
the first awaiting-connection-or-not part is tail.)

Quote
When the angle between the legs of the bowline's [or any "eye knot's"] eye is 120 degrees or so ...
Then it begs the question of whether this is any longer
and **eye** knot!  As far as the OP's issue is concerned,
even tying around obese Americans will not see such a
broad angle when loaded.   ;D


--dl*
====

ps : I have returned from Cape May with yet further photos
of capsized or nearly capsized bowlines, as well as one quite
untight Eskimo bowline (!).  I wonder about their trying
instead the #1033 carrick bowline to resist the capsizing?!

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2013, 09:11:51 AM »
As far as the OP's issue is concerned, even tying around obese Americans will not see such a broad angle when loaded.   ;D
It is easier to obtain such a wide angle when the "eye"knot is tied around a slim than around an obese climber ! (See the attached pictures. The distance between the nub of "eye"knot, on the one hand - which I call the eyeknot, because, to me, the legs and the tip of the eye do not belong to the knot  - and the surface of the object, on the other, gets smaller, as the curvature of the object gets rounder.)   

it begs the question of whether this is any longer an **eye** knot ! 
A bird s eye, or a fish-eye view of an eye... :)
 
 
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 09:14:37 AM by X1 »

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2013, 12:43:43 AM »
I'll throw my own spanner into the works here, but I wouldn't quibble about different dressings.

The knot surely might be a lot more secure than a simple bowline knot, but it does indeed not "cure" for any other shortcoming than security.

Among the features of the bowline, ease of untying is one of its most wanted virtues, which by the added security is lost to a great degree. In fact, most additions to the bowline make it more complicated to tie and more difficult to undo. The most simple of all these measures is the Janus re-tuck through the nipping structure.

An eskimo bowline with a Janus re-tuck is among the most secure alterations we can make to the bowline, because it caters for two of the most important issues about its security. But the drawback of untying difficulty is severe.

The bowline has become a favourite among sailors because of its ease of tying and untying.

What is accomplished here is a knot that is more difficult to tie, as well as more difficult to dress and to untie. To me, that is not a "cure".

Sailors should happily sail on, secure in the knowledge that their beloved #1010 is perfectly adequate for their tasks (the right knot for the job). But your argument is misplaced as climbers must necessarily place the greater priority on absolute knot security and are therefore willing to accept some additional degree of complexity/difficulty in tying/untying in order to achieve this. The degree to which this is acceptable is relative, not only within the Bowline family but including all other knots which may be considered for tying onto a harness. The most obvious other tie-in knot, the F8, is no less "difficult" (i.e. time consuming) to untie when not having been loaded, but the F8 is an order of magnitude more difficult to untie after being heavily loaded -  when compared with any security enhanced Bowline.

Do you find the concept of iteration difficult to understand (think Triple Bowline and it's series of overhand nipping loops)? Do you find the concept of "tied as one" difficult to understand (think of treating multiple nipping loops as a single nipping loop for tying purposes. All you need to know is how to make successive loops and how to make the single bowline. Beyond this, tressing of the common Bowline introduces the concept of opposite handed loops. The combination and the sequence of overhand+underhand loops determines the end result.

The Tressed Bowlines are not at all difficult to to tie or untie though you may have some difficulty if you cinch up the Collar tight against the nipping coils, but this is not necessary nor desirable to do so. So the simple solution to easy untying is...wait for it... don't do it. That being said, in climbing rope diameter materials I've had no problem untying the knot, even when I've cranked the nipping coils and the collar so tight that the knot felt like a rock. I've just pushed the "CoilSideEyeLeg" back between the SPart and the Collar, uncranked the nipping coils and pulled the Tail out from the Collar side. 
         
On another note, the Tresse feature makes a TIB Bowline which renders the two eyes virtually independent of each other - regardless of the materials I've tied it in, including slick PP.
I suggested this knot to potholer(caver) Pete Knight as an alternative to the Double Bowline on a Bight or the Fusion Knot aka Karash Double Loop.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 05:52:29 AM by alpineer »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #35 on: July 21, 2013, 04:40:14 PM »
The knot surely might be a lot more secure than a simple bowline knot,
but it does indeed not "cure" for any other shortcoming than security.

Among the features of the bowline, ease of untying is one of its most wanted virtues,
which by the added security is lost to a great degree.
...
The bowline has become a favourite among sailors because of its ease of tying and untying.
Sailors should happily sail on, secure in the knowledge that their beloved #1010
is perfectly adequate for their tasks (the right knot for the job). But your argument
is misplaced as climbers must necessarily place the greater priority on absolute knot security
...
But we can dispense with any sort of ad-hominem attributes
and ask simply about experience behavior : do the **knots**
solve the problem?  '**knots**' here is to denote actual,
physical entities-
(which by another "*knot*" are identical).
I.e., do you think that sailors suffer some failures but are
not terribly upset by these?  --or do their **knots** NOT fail,
whereas the rockclimbers' do ; in this case, we might look to
what differences there are --of loading, duration, materials, ... !?

I have occasionally remarked/noted some photos of yachting
bowlines quite loose collars, which should provide ample
material to facilitate capsizing; and yet I surmise that these
images came from  users who have sailed w/o failure!?
Then, again, I have seen many --and a quartet soon to share
("Knots In The Wild")-- trawler docklines with fully or nearly
capsized bowlines !?  (current theory : highly frictive rope
*grabs* and keeps parts from shifting into non-capsizing
position, or ... !?)

Quote
Do you find the concept of [...]s difficult to understand ?
I'm sure his understanding has the scope & strength
to follow these musings; maybe some problem-appropriate
cordage would go some way to enhance the process!
(As for me, seeing the 12-strand HMPE just slide/flow
through a double bowline, or longer ago having to wrestle
(!) with intractably stiff PMI "pit" rope (or just aged BWII)
opened my mind to unimagined problems with "*knot*"!)

I will say that I've seen Brion Toss --IIRC-- put in one
simple tail-tucking (laterally between collar & turNip)
with notes that some slicker modern cordage (and I'm
thinking it was more of polyester braids than hi-mod
stuff, which in any case is more often used with some
traditional sheath) might need this recourse.


--dl*
====

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #36 on: July 21, 2013, 05:13:43 PM »
But we can dispense with any sort of ad-hominem attributes
and ask simply about experience behavior : do the **knots**
solve the problem?


--dl*
====

To this a big +1 and is my hope to provide some evidence for this in time.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 05:21:24 PM by alpineer »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #37 on: July 21, 2013, 05:21:42 PM »
But we can dispense with any sort of ad-hominem attributes and ask simply about experience behavior : do the **knots** solve the problem?
   To this a big  -1    :) ... and my belief that no "evidence" whatsoever, coming from "outside" the knot itself, can turn a "good" knot into a "bad", and vice versa. A knot should be examined per se. It is an altogether different matter if this knot can, at a particular instance, solve a particular "problem", or not. Knots are rope-made physical mechanisms - they can serve as tools, and they can sometimes solve a problem, and sometimes they can not this problem, but they can solve another one. A  tool can always "solve" one, at least, "problem" !  :)  The block and tackle mechanism can be used to pull a particular rock out of a path, or not. No "evidence" from its success or failure in "solving" this "problem" can make it a "better" or a "worse" mechanism than it is already !
« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 05:38:20 PM by X1 »

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #38 on: July 21, 2013, 08:48:45 PM »
But we can dispense with any sort of ad-hominem attributes and ask simply about experience behavior : do the **knots** solve the problem?
   To this a big  -1    :) ... and my belief that no "evidence" whatsoever, coming from "outside" the knot itself, can turn a "good" knot into a "bad", and vice versa. A knot should be examined per se. It is an altogether different matter if this knot can, at a particular instance, solve a particular "problem", or not. Knots are rope-made physical mechanisms - they can serve as tools, and they can sometimes solve a problem, and sometimes they can not this problem, but they can solve another one. A  tool can always "solve" one, at least, "problem" !  :)  The block and tackle mechanism can be used to pull a particular rock out of a path, or not. No "evidence" from its success or failure in "solving" this "problem" can make it a "better" or a "worse" mechanism than it is already !

But hard evidence is what we need in order to confirm that a particular knot solves a particular problem for a particular application.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 09:06:32 PM by alpineer »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #39 on: July 21, 2013, 09:07:08 PM »
But hard evidence is what we need in order to confirm that a particular knot solves a particular problem for a particular application
Indeed. And I would add that even this is not enough ! We need proofs, that can be obtained only by the systematic study of the performance of this knot in the field, the collection of data, and the careful statistical comparison and evaluation of those data with the data collected by independent researchers. In short, a long way to go ! Good luck, Tresse bowline !  :)
« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 09:07:58 PM by X1 »

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #40 on: July 22, 2013, 02:18:58 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.

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.

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?
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 02:37:15 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/

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #41 on: July 22, 2013, 07:49:03 PM »
But we can dispense with any sort of ad-hominem attributes and ask simply about experience behavior : do the **knots** solve the problem?
   To this a big  -1    :)
Only because ooooooooooooooooooooooooo < edited SS
you have to run counter to anything coming from "the
other side" --even if it originated on yours!  (think
Cap & Trade, e.g., of a economical model for control)

Quote
... and my belief that no "evidence" whatsoever, coming from "outside" the knot itself,
can turn a "good" knot into a "bad", and vice versa.  A knot should be examined per se.
???
What a looney tune you sing!
From your elsewhere frequent boasts of the excellence
of the bowline, I wonder how your "per se" analysis
comes into play on that --which seems more exactly
based on (much) long-witnessed, historical experience.
And yet that very *knot* fails in some modern cordage,
never mind one's opinion of it --and how would you per se
have understood, expected this failure?

Well, you might say, because I would have
 --not done so yet, but argue for it, nevertheless--
so honed my method of evaluation that I could know the
limits of applicability in terms of cordage qualities.

Okay, maybe so, but that is so far just a hoped-for capability,
not one that is realized in anything we have for use.


Quote
It is an altogether different matter if this knot can, at a particular instance,
solve a particular "problem", or not.  Knots are rope-made physical mechanisms
--they can serve as tools, and they can sometimes solve a problem,
and sometimes they can not this problem, but they can solve another one.
In the underlined definition, you make *knot* something
that is all the more remote to your "per se" evaluation,
which is otherwise seen as based on geometry and less
so the multitude of factors that come into play variously
with actaul-factual physical stuff.


--dl*
====
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 01:27:45 AM by SS369 »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #42 on: July 22, 2013, 11:43:43 PM »
and my belief that no "evidence" whatsoever, coming from "outside" the knot itself,can turn a "good" knot into a "bad", and vice versa.  A knot should be examined per se.
???
What a looney tune you sing!

 :) :) :)

and my belief that no "evidence" whatsoever, coming from "outside" the knot itself, can turn a "good" knot into a "bad", and vice versa.  A knot should be examined per se.

 I wonder how your "per se" analysis comes into play on that --which seems more exactly based on (much) long-witnessed, historical experience.
   
   Nonsense ! ( to be in a-cord-ance to your frequency / frequent tune... :) )
   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 ! My own experience comes from one only particular use of it, as a mooring knot - but 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 climb on top of the Everest, to be consulted by Moses, or to live a thousand years, in order to "experience" this ! 
   Of course, when I say "we", I mean the orchestra - some lonely instruments are always out of tune !
   Remember Gleipnir.

... you make *knot* something that is all the more remote to your "per se" evaluation, which is otherwise seen as based on geometry and less so on the multitude of factors that come into play variously with actaul-factual physical stuff..

   Not only on geometry ! However, neither on a zillion other " factors that come into play variously with actaul-factual physical stuff" !
   There are a few things that we can evaluate on a knot, before the next thousand years, before we tie them on a billion different materials, and without figuring out new excuses, to avoid any verdict, so we will not run the danger to be proven wrong in the after life ! Those are the things that constitute what makes a knot a "knot, a simple knot, a stable knot, a secure knot, a non-jamming knot, and a strong knot - a knot per se. Of course, if you still believe that a knot is just some "knotted material" , you will never acknowledge this simple fact.
   If you really believe I am so dumb to think that the physical environment can not influence the behaviour of a physical object, as the bowline or any other practical knot is, which is contained in it, you should better play another musical instrument !  :)  The pitch of the present one is too high for my song !   :)
   
   That s all, folks !
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 11:56:26 PM by X1 »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2013, 06:40:22 AM »
... you make *knot* something that is all the more remote to your "per se" evaluation, which is otherwise seen as based on geometry and less so on the multitude of factors that come into play variously with actaul-factual physical stuff..

   Not only on geometry ! However, neither on a zillion other " factors that come into play variously with actaul-factual physical stuff" !
   There are a few things that we can evaluate on a knot, before the next thousand years, before we tie them on a billion different materials, and without figuring out new excuses, to avoid any verdict, so we will not run the danger to be proven wrong in the after life ! Those are the things that constitute what makes a knot a "knot, a simple knot, a stable knot, a secure knot, ... . Of course, if you still believe that a knot is just some "knotted material" , you will never acknowledge this simple fact.
But if you believe that you've so well assessed the
venerable sailor's bowline when you tie in with modern
kernmantle climbing rope, you will be proven wrong AND
in your afterlife!   ;D

Quote
If you really believe I am so dumb to think that the physical environment can not influence the behaviour of a physical object, as the bowline or any other practical knot is, ...
And yet you keep on claiming such omniscience to be
able to determine so much about the knots (while also
begging for others to test them --which, to my mind,
is much a physical activity, not the sort of mind-seeing
vision you proclaim!)?


--dl*
====

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2013, 07:05:33 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 !
 
And yet you keep on claiming such omniscience to be able to determine so much about the knots
Look who is talking about other people claiming omniscience !  :)   :) :)