[I'm greatly annoyed that a prior attempt to reply
lost text via an unrealized excessive highlighting and
then --poof--, lost to a keystroke w/o awareness until
too late to control-Z recover. CURSES
]
Holding the SPart in one hand and the 'returning eye leg' in the other (and then pulling) replicates the functional aspect of a sheet bend - but it does not alter the fact that it is still a Bowline.
Thank you Mark, we have made considerable progress.
Let us put aside any thoughts of the SbC, it has served its purpose in bringing you to the conclusion that a Bowline loaded only on its SP and its Collar loop leg, leaving the ongoing turNip loop leg unloaded - is still a Bowline.
And there in its simplicity, we have it - the imposed definition that the turNip component must be loaded on both ends in the Bowline, is nothing more than an imagined constraint.
As I must've previously stressed,
this goes right to the point of what IS a *knot*?!
This is a profound, philosophical/definitional consideration,
not one with an answer waiting to be found outside of
ourselves by empirical examination.
Certainly in some situations, it will make sense to say
the things quoted above --i.e., "still a
bowline"--,
where considerations of the vulnerability of that eye knot
to ring-loading or --for the particular loading described--
imbalanced loading that might arise e.g. where a dock
line's eye makes a full/round turn around a pile and upon
the drifting/shifting angle of incidence one leg goes slack
and the other takes all the force.
But it is equally likely that for the purposes of
defining *knot*
that one adopts a position in which that entity is described
by an entanglement and loading profile --and change the latter
(as is the case here), you change the *knot*! And you change
how you have to speak of things, too, which becomes awkward.
One can define an "eye knot" to be an entanglement of two
pieces of material (so, four *ends*) where a one end of piece
A is loaded in opposition to its other end and one end of the
other piece, whose remaining end is unloaded. (And note that
this allows that the opposing ends to not actually join to form
. . . an . . . "eye" --well, that challenges that class name, huh!
But so far as the "nub" feels, that
connection-or-not is irrelevant,
so long as the loading profile obtains. --by one purpose of defining.
(I've conjured the image of a long tow line tied to starboard cleat
of a barge and then a short compatible line from the port cleat is
tied into the other, forming a . . .
bowline --by loading profile,
at least. (Here, one could argue that the barge essentially completes
the "eye", but ... .)
Here's an exercise, which works better or worse depending on how
frictive your cordage is --surely slipping in HMPE, but holding in most--:
tie the
water bowline /mirrored bowline and then pull out a good bit
of the connecting span of the base
clove/larkshead structure
--which will result in
sheet bend mechanics at those two
(primary & secondary)
turNips. And then muse over whether
you have yet a "bowline" or something other. Well, my real point
to this exercise was to show that that "ongoing" part --which is the
crossing part in the just-cited knots-- isn't necessarily all so loaded,
or delivering load *into* the
turNip (if it can be, as is seen in this
experiment, not be needed for the turNip to hold). The loading or mere
in-place passive resistance will have some influence on the roundness
of the
turNip, though.
But you see how forces and so on are coming here in degrees,
not happily in some black-vs-white clear delineation of things
--that's my assertion.
And why I might lean toward *appearances*, a sort of *nominal*
loading of both
turNip ends.
To The Dunnyman, how do you discriminate the U-turning and leg-nipping
part of the
fig.8 eyeknot? Surely, going beyond this area one can
point to its doing this & that. It is
possible by careful positioning
of the "ongoing" end of the nub to also isolate a lose arc of material
to render the S.Part in a
sheet-bend-like form, the returning
eye leg making a bowlinesque "proper collar" to keep things intact!
--have we then (only then?) a "turNip"/nipping loop?
Not by "*appearances*".
But this is problematic.
Meaningless as me now suggesting that we bin the name "Bowline "and instead call it the "Sheetbend Loop Knot", ...
Ha, do realize that in this you have ignored the former end-2-end
knot's asymmetry --that it might be, of it, that the
other side's tail becomes the "ongoing leg" (not very well, agreed)!
Which is sometimes named the "crabber's eye"?
It is worth stating it again - The Bowline is still a Bowline even if it's ongoing turNip loop leg is unloaded - if we accept this, then we must accept that the turNip component in the Bowline does NOT have to be loaded on both ends.
The turNip is able to express its compressive force even if one end is only clamped.
Here one must ask : what (then) makes this cited
component "the
turNip" ?!
--and my *appearances* can answer that?!
Still, I feel some angst about moving away from at least
some even slight contribution to the "compressive force"
--even one more imagined per appearances than actual!
For, in the Beginning, that was how this structure got
*found* : that the wonderfully simple & efficient
bowlineis just the marriage of a bight & loop (aka "nipping loop"...)!
... and then we began the slippery exploration of a slope ...
And no, you do not now need to accept every knot [that] has a turNip component (double end loaded or clamped loaded) into a hypothetically constructed 'Bowline Family', it is a meaningless naming exercise.
... just as we might join up the ends of a Carrick bend and call it the "Carrick Loop Knot"...
How did this all of a sudden become "...meaningless..."?!
Just a second ago we were in the rigors of definition,
and then --pooph!-- we engage our checklist but find
the result devoid of meaning?
Here I think we can see something resulting from losing
the *appearance* of the
turNip by reference to actual forces
--to
material aspects. (--as one might have to change
classification of a "noose" depending on how well the darned
hitch-to-SPart slides or not along that noose-structure SPart!
.:. That is a problem I try to avoid, at leas for knot-theory
definitions (but not to a potential rope user who wants a
(working, effective) "noose", no.
--dl*
====