Author Topic: strange bowline  (Read 3372 times)

Ruby

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
strange bowline
« on: July 06, 2013, 03:43:00 PM »
hi

seems that common bowline #1010 begins with an overhand loop:
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 03:13:44 AM by Ruby »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: strange bowline
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2013, 04:55:36 PM »
do you think my tying method is so easy? :D
   I do not believe that we can compare, in any objectively defined way, the many different tying methods knot tyers use when they tie the same knots... Personally, I always prefer a tying method that may look a little more complicated than the others at the start, but where the structure of the knot is clearly visible throughout its tying procedure, so the initial, loose form and the final, tight form do not differ very much. This way I can easily watch the gradual shrinking of the knot as it consumes its ends, "closes" in itself and settles in its compact form. I do not wish to have to memorize and to recall a sequence of moves, I prefer to concentrate on the structure of the knot, and manipulate the strands so that the knot acquires and retains the form that corresponds to this structure.

so, it's called Irish bowline?
   Read the posts cited in (1), especially the article by D. Clemens cited there, and see the pictures of : 1., the Irish bowline,  and, 2., the eyeknot based on ABoK#1429.
   I see you have Roger. E. Miles book - the best collection of bends after Ashley. I suggest you tie all the pet eyeknots based on the A1 - A25 bends (p. 78 - p. 85), and their reverse bends ( where the eye is formed by the connection of the two tails ), and tell us about your findings.

(1)  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4452.msg28227#msg28227
 
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 08:50:02 AM by X1 »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4004
Re: strange bowline
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2013, 06:27:33 AM »
hi

seems that common bowline #1010 begins with an overhand loop:


how about begin with a underhand loop ?


What I find strange is your use of "overhand/underhand";
in contrast, I find this on-line definition from a scouting
source:
Quote
Overhand loop. An overhand loop is formed when a loop is made so that the running end of the rope is on top of the standing part. It can be formed anywhere along the standing part of the rope in the same fashion.

Underhand loop. And underhand loop is formed when the running end of the rope is placed under the standing part of the rope.

In both of your cases you have an overhand loop
--which is an overloaded term also denoting perhaps
the most common eyeknot ("loop knot").

And for both cases --as I've long argued--, it would be
much better were the bowline presented with what
would here be called an "underhand loop".


--dl*
====

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4004
Re: strange bowline
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2013, 05:13:05 PM »
...
In both of your cases you have an overhand loop
...
just that , as you said,
if they are both overhand loop, then I can't distinguish them,
and, acturally I think they are diffrent things, just mirrored.

I just find it useful, for me, to distinguish them by terms like overhand or underhand.
(maybe lefthanded?)

They are mirrored, and so the notions of
"clockwise"/"anti-clockwise" can be used w/good effect.

Quote
and that you care about the tying method, so if you rotate the overhand loop 180 degree,
it change to a underhand loop ? I think this is confusing.
Here, one must question on what axis this rotation
is made.  "Overhand" --and this isn't a term I like--
simply points out that the working end crosses OVER
and not under.  No matter how you rotate such a
loop, in a clock-face plane, it will remain so.  Now,
rotate it around a vertical axis, and it's reversed.

To my other point, IMO the passage of the tail in forming
the bight through the loop is an easily envisioned thing,
and it's better to present the bowline with that passage
more obscured in favor of making over/under (it will be
over) crossing point completely visible --but nearly all
presentations of the bowline do the opposite (and
so there is much chatter of how difficult the knot it to
recognize, how "complicated" it is).  Yet, nearly all
presentations of the like-structured sheet bend
DO show the crossing point to the fore!  *QED*


--dl*
====