I think there is room to debate the term 'sharp',
as the loaded line executes a full 360 degree turn (around 3 diameters)
and ...
Here it should be noted that merely counting the number
of diameters surrounded does NOT solely determine
sharpness--e.g., were those diameters in a row (or, as one can find sometimes,
the initially contacted first two--, the turn would be a 1dia turn (think
of running a line down
along a row of trees and turing around the
last in the row).
And, while to some simple degree --a bit above "simplisitic"--,
more diameters are better, rounder, there is also the matter
of shape. I recall seeing a photo of an Instrom(?) test device's
rope-receiving anchor : it has a diminishing-radius bend for
the line to curve around; one can simulate such curvature
sometimes in a knot. (And one can remark that such careful
tweaking is matter not of practical concern but only for those
keen to understand knot mechanics!)
... the Fig 8 where the loaded line executes several partial turns,
gradually transferring force in the process.
Let me suggest that this knot (by which we mean
the eye knot, usually) benefits from the compression
around the S.Part from the turns of the eye legs,
before the S.Part makes its U-turn around them.
Indeed, Dan does hold that the 'Key' component of the Bowline is the nipping loop,
However, how he manages to argue that, in a two component knot,
either of the two components is more 'key' than the other, I do not know.
?! You're confusing "key" with "defining".
Yes, somehow one must stabilize a [please note exact
typing >>>] "turNip" [<-one capital only!],
but IMO it is the principal engagement of this structure
that characterizes
*bowlines*. And so I include
the
Myrtle, and also become aware/bothered by
the fuzzy boundary of the central nipping loop (aka
"turNip"), as it goes from minimal to greater helix
--at some undefinable point one doesn't want to call
it a "loop", but ... . <sigh>
the Turnip
Understand my cutesie term's origin : my game
of letter-fusing of adjacent words,
where shared letters are imaginatively run together
and so rise from lowercase in each to uppercase in
the fusion ::
'turn' ><'nip'
>'turn''nip'<
>>'turNip'<<
("whaTHEck?" you say?!)
' When is an Eye not an Eye? Answer - When it is a loop...'
The eye is a functional aspect of the knot --what
classifies it among other kinds/types/classes of knot.
And the "eye" is indeed adopted because "eye splice"
is universally understood, and "loop" is SOO overloaded
with competing senses --better to stay clear.
("loop" and "bight" compete, e.g..)
while all Eyes are loops,
NOT if you follow many knot-books' defining "loop"
as a 360-degree turn (a circular thing), which many
do in distinction from "bight".
I respectfully disagree that there are 2 nipping loops in this knot. The second 'loop' which you refer to is not loaded at both ends and so it does not fit the definition of a 'nipping loop'
This is a tricky area, and X. of course wanted such
distinction to make the
sheet bend have no loop
but a "hitch". One might reflect on these similarly
shaped knots and wonder how much of that "ongoing
eye leg" contributes to the ability of the turNip to nip
--something, e.g., one might think is done (variously
well per material & foreces) in the
sheet bend(or in the
water bowline which has that
clove hitchcrossing part between arguable turNips though it can be
challenged how much action comes via it!
I would agree with you on this one were it not for the fact that a nipping loop does not have to be externally loaded on both ends in order to function. For a nipping loop to function, all that is required is for one end to be secured, the round turn frictional amplification is then sufficient to transfer the applied load into the nipped core.
Well, I've echoed, reiterated, concurred in this point.
--dl*
====