Analysis of Bowlines paper uploaded for review and comment (PACI website)

[agent_smith]

Introducing this name ("anti-b...") is increasingly causing me
regrets; this abuse of it only aggravates that

Your use of the word 'abuse' is going too far. Nobody is abusing the term.
I considered your use of the term 'anti Bowline' for quite some time (more than a year). I could not devise a better alternative so I agreed in principle with its use.
The attached photos show 'standard' (ie regular) Vs 'anti'.

Anti conjured images in my mind of something being 'opposite' or 'against'. If we consider the direction from which the returning eye leg enters the nipping loop, the use of 'anti' to describe an 'opposite' or 'against' direction would appear to be appropriate.

"anti-" already connotes too harsh and wrong notions.
On balance, I favor its complete removal, lest it sully the already
unclear waters with seriously misguided notions.

Who is misguided here?

The terms 'cyclone' and 'anti cyclone' are routinely used in my part of the world - which refer to the relative direction of spin/rotation.
Anti is a prefix in common use in the English language.

There is also 'arctic' and 'antarctic'.

And 'Proton' Vs 'Anti Proton'

The direction from which the returning eye leg enters the nipping loop is key to what type of structure you will end up with (in a Bowline).

Dictionary meaning of 'anti' :

prefix
1. against; opposing: anticlerical; antisocial.
2. opposite to: anticlimax; antimere.
3. rival; false: antipope.
4. counteracting, inhibiting, or neutralizing: antifreeze; antihistamine.
5. designating the antiparticle of the particle specified: antineutron.
[from Greek anti]

...

I used the descriptor 'Anti Myrtle' because it distinguished a Myrtle tied with the returning eye leg entering the nipping loop in the standard/normal direction versus entering from the opposite (anti) direction.
It also fit in with the general concept of Bowline Vs Anti Bowline in terms of which direction the returning eye leg enters the nipping loop.
I wanted to be consistent - and the direction of the returning eye leg appeared to be key to this consistency.

/////////////

I would say that your continued use of the term 'turNip' and/or 'nipping turn' is an abuse.
I thought the notional view of a turn Vs a loop had been settled?

Should we describe a 'round-turn-and-2-half-hitches' as 'a round loop-and-2-half-hitches'?

When is a turn a turn and when is a loop a loop?

At some point, we have to stop and agree on terminology - and this is something I have pointed out several times over the past few years. It appears that elements within the IGKT still cannot agree on a standardized knotting terminology.

I would also comment that your 11th hour change of mind with the use of the term 'anti' is a bit late in the day. Why wait until now (at the very last minute) to waive the red flag?

[Dan_Lehman]

The attached photos show 'standard' (ie regular) Vs 'anti'.

And, in short, they are good to show how my thinking
has lately changed ::  that now I am favoring looking at
the nipped part's angle rather than direction through
the central nipping loop.  !?  --as a reasonable (?)
distinction (rather than merely possible one) for *bowlines*.
That in the one (first-shown) case this angle (readily) makes
the nipping loop orient towards non-helix, crossing-part pressure,
in contrast to the (2nd shown, "anti-") other which invites
helical separation of the loop --though knots of this kind
should be (insofar as they want to be *bowlines*) dressed
and set so as to resist such opening of the loop.

And my verbally sketched hilarious & <similar> bowlines paint
the point well, both having such an angled nipped part,
yet delivering that part from opposite directions --really
op. dir. and not just op. sides!

"anti-" already connotes too harsh and wrong notions.
On balance, I favor its complete removal, lest it sully the already
unclear waters with seriously misguided notions.

Who is misguided here?

The terms 'cyclone' and 'anti cyclone' are routinely used in my part of the world - which refer to the relative direction of spin/rotation.
Anti is a prefix in common use in the English language.

Now you're quoting my utterances back to me!  Yes,
this was just the use that brought out my introduction
of the term.  Re "abuse", IMO it is your taking it purely
qua "against" for anything, rather than my intended
pure "opp. side from #1010" focused denotation!
(E.g., suppose that the myrtle had been itself of
the "anti-b." side, like the Eskimo bwl. : yes, by your
thinking the actual M. would then be "anti-M" but
that focuses on the very "original" knot itself irrespective
of how it is oriented; whereas I, who see *bowlines* as
all with a central nipping loop [<--see, I'm redressing
my past sins!], cite it as a violation of the point, which
is "anti-b." is a genus indicator irrespective of there
even being any "non-anti" corresponding knot : the "anti"
refers to a particular side of working-end entry, period.

I would say that your continued use of the term 'turNip' and/or 'nipping turn' is an abuse.
I thought the notional view of a turn Vs a loop had been settled?

Should we describe a 'round-turn-and-2-half-hitches' as 'a round loop-and-2-half-hitches'?

TOUCHE'!  Ouch, I've been doing this for quite some time.
I'll like to blame another for getting "nipping turn" out into
parlance for my cutesie "turNip" word-fusion,
but, yes, originally and rightly/aptly it is a "nipping loop" about
which we should talk --that, fitting the defined "loop" of many
books (neverminding the overloading of "loop" to be either
an eyeknot or a bight (I can't even bring myself to say "the
rug is made of many bights..."!).

Although if you consult ABoK #32 & 40 you will find
good challenge to the above, and also the defined (in
the glossary) "turn" which denotes a full circle/360degrees.
.:. Knotting nomenclature is a challenge both in cleaning
up and in setting (a) straight (course) !!

When is a turn a turn and when is a loop a loop?

At some point, we have to stop and agree on terminology - and this is something I have pointed out several times over the past few years. It appears that elements within the IGKT still cannot agree on a standardized knotting terminology.

It's a tough task not even well started, IMO.  Although
we've pointed out some of the troubles, to a small (reading)
audience.  IMO, for specific technical discussions, it will
be necessary simply to try to avoid problematic terms
and to otherwise specifically define one's own terms, how
one is using/meaning terms.  (I don't hold hope that common
parlance will have the precision that possibly we might define
for technical talk.)

I would also comment that your 11th hour change of mind with the use of the term 'anti' is a bit late in the day. Why wait until now (at the very last minute) to waive the red flag?

I raised as described --recent turn (loopy?) of mind on
the consideration of hilarious bowline & ..., of *angle*
vs. *direction* --though there are fuzzy in-betweens
or rather neutral (perpendicular to axis of tension)
directions of the nipped parts.
And then a stepping back to ask of the point/purpose
of making some such distinction --gotta be a better
reason than merely "because we can" & "it makes
a divide (in quantity per division) for easier reference".
My initial thinking was the per-direction was a weak
guide to resisting the opening helix; now, I'm thinking
maybe it's *angle* rather than *which-side* as the
better indicator, though noting that compromises
and does-it-better/-worse can occur regardless
(along with the in-between, perpendicular angles
challenging the new classification).  --and esp. in the
knots that delay tucking through the nipping loop;
when the working end goes elsewhere and then...
is tucked through.
(Though having maybe 3, 4, or more classifications
might be a good thing : some will favor ignoring the
further-from-1010 cases as being "bowlines", but
they'll at least be attached at arm's length with
a known relation --whatever one calls them, then.)


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Given my more recent thoughts/realizations about the lack of
a sure, practical-in-knot-behavior distinction based on the
tucking, it might all be "back to the drawing board".

This is worth some greater context, too :: the much-revised
paper IMO is straddling two noble aims, and I think compromises
its potential on one direction --of being a presentation of many
heretofore not well known *bowlines* that are worthy of
consideration/knowing;
and making some profound statement about *bowlines*,
of their essence, workings, and what-have-you.  It is this
latter venture that is problematic and rich with challenges
and points of view, and going much into such discussion
will likely be offputting to those who simply want some fresh
insight into possible useful knots; they might turn away.
(The audience for this latter venture is relatively small;
that for the former might be more agreeable to fee-based
access, provided they get a *clean(er)* here's-the-goods/knots
presentation!?
 

And, wow, would I realllllly like to see ONLY the "right" view
of bowlines, and NOT the "conventional" one!!  The whole
point of advocating for this view was to redress confusions
attributed (conjecture, but ...) to the conventional view.
But for the most part, for an effective part, conventional view
rules the day --as though the new doc. is to be read adjacent
to some old one.   <grumble grumble>


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

that now I am favoring looking at
the nipped part's angle rather than direction through
the central nipping loop.  !?  --as a reasonable (?)
distinction (rather than merely possible one) for *bowlines*.

Yes indeed...this is something that Xarax hinted at several times to me over the course over many emails (over several months) - including emphasizing the direction each leg of the collar takes in relation to the nipping loop. Although I found it difficult to photograph and adequately describe the concept in words. The logical solution (for me) was to look at the direction from which the returning eye leg enters the nipping loop. Furthermore, when attempting to tie a Bowline by following the 'anti' direction - the returning eye leg can not collar the SPart - it doesn't work - you can only collar the ongoing eye leg (or alternatively create a Myrtle).

At some point though - a decision had to be taken - and the 'anti' concept had tipped the balance for me; despite having some reservations.

I personally want to see the matter settled once and for all...But, whatever decision is taken in the future - it MUST be capable of being consistently applied and also withstand peer review/scrutiny.

yes, by your
thinking the actual M. would then be "anti-M"

Indeed - I had to find a way to distinguish one type of Myrtle from the other.... and I was using the 'anti' term specifically in relation to Bowlines - and not trying to apply the concept to a broader set of knots. At the moment, the 'anti' direction seems to hold up - I haven't been able to detect any glaring flaws with the general concept of direction that the returning eye leg takes through the nipping loop.

It is not too late in the day to add another page showing the pitch angle / canter of the nipping loop relative to the returning eye leg as an alternative theory.

and making some profound statement about *bowlines*,
of their essence, workings, and what-have-you.  It is this
latter venture that is problematic and rich with challenges
and points of view, and going much into such discussion
will likely be offputting to those who simply want some fresh
insight into possible useful knots; they might turn away.

Well you know Dan - much of what I wrote down in the paper needed to be documented - if not by me - then someone else surely would have done it at some stage? Part of my driving motivation was to gather up all the current best thinking and document it. With people such as yourself, Xarax, knotsaver, SS369, Derek and a host of others - why not pick everyones brains and develop a comprehensive paper on the subject?

For me, the issue now is whether I have made the right decision to lock the paper down and attach a $ value to it. I have had little by way of reward for my efforts (probably more grief than happiness truth be told) - and it did require a significant and sustained effort on my behalf.

But for the most part, for an effective part, conventional view
rules the day --as though the new doc. is to be read adjacent
to some old one.   <grumble grumble>

I have come to believe that the 'conventional view' actually shows the collar and its 2 legs better than the detail view. I think both views/aspects of the Bowline structure have merit. It depends on what you want to show. If its the operation of the nipping loop - then the 'detail view' is best. However, if you want to emphasize the collar, the 'conventional view' works best (in my opinion). And this is not echoing anything from Xarax...he simply impressed upon me the important of the collar and its structure (ie its 2 legs) - and this made me realize that the 'bight' structure was really a composite of several individual elements. Once the idea of the 2 legs hit home...I just had to devise names that were reasonable for each leg. A few tries (and criticism from Xarax) eventually led me to speculate that 'entry' and 'exit' were reasonable terms.

Although if you consult ABoK #32 & 40 you will find
good challenge to the above, and also the defined (in
the glossary) "turn" which denotes a full circle/360degrees.
.:. Knotting nomenclature is a challenge both in cleaning
up and in setting (a) straight (course) !!

My view is that Ashley was not entirely clear on his distinctions between loops and turns. So I turned to Budworth to see if I could find something more concrete - and the solution appeared to be the 'Round turn and 2 half hitches'. On the fact of it, Budworth seemed to be favoring a definition where the rope encircled some object such as a post, a rail, etc.
This is one of the reasons why I favor a stricter definition of a nipping loop in that it must be loaded at both ends - as it creates more well defined parameters. Xarax favored using terms such as; 180 U turn, 360 degree turn, 540 degree round turn to achieve greater precision (which I tend to agree with). One can look to the CMC '540' rescue belay device as an example of mainstream use of the concept of 540 degrees round turn.

EDIT:
I am adding one extra page on the concept of TIB.
I think it was Xarax who posited that all Bowlines - with the tail exiting through the collar along a parallel pathway with the SPart - ought to be TIB. Is this general hypothesis correct? For example, I note that the standard #1010 Bowline is not TIB. And yet, I can untie the #1010 Bowline with Yosemite finish by way of reverse engineering it without access to either end.
I can find no way to reverse engineer the standard #1010 Bowline without access to either end.

...

I want to be done with the Bowlines paper... I need to move on to another worthy project. And this would be 'Rope Joining Knots for increasing the length of abseil ropes'.

Mark G

[Dan_Lehman]

I think it was Xarax who posited that all Bowlines - with the tail exiting through the collar along a parallel pathway with the SPart - ought to be TIB. Is this general hypothesis correct? For example, I note that the standard #1010 Bowline is not TIB. And yet, I can untie the #1010 Bowline with Yosemite finish by way of reverse engineering it without access to either end.

One doesn't posit morals!
It shouldn't be hard to disprove the X's "posited" wish
--just do some more fancy weaving with the tail before
making the prescribed final exit.  You could even tie a
knot in it --a nonTIB one!

I need to move on to another worthy project. And this would be 'Rope Joining Knots for increasing the length of abseil ropes'.

ARJs --abseil=ropes-joining knots,
end-2-end knots.

Along these lines, I've been playing with making the
initial turns or loops to go in opposite vs. side-by-side
directions, hoping to get the knot to entail each end
making a "loop" and not "arc" into the nub --which
would likely improve strength (which isn't part of the
main design goal, I know); but I've not been satisfied
with the results (they might look promising, but then
in different materials ... not so much).


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Adding a new page to the Bowlines paper.

Topic is 'TIB' Bowlines.

Comments please...

Not sure who started the whole TIB investigation and then development???

Mark G

[knotsaver]

Topic is 'TIB' Bowlines.
Comments please...

Mark,
Scott's simple lock Bowline isn't TIB, but the tail exits through the collar along a parallel pathway with the SPart (doesn't it?).
(A TIB variation of Scott's Bowline is at
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4517.msg30269#msg30269)

I've found this topic about Xarax' position:
"Retuck the Tail end through the collar - you may end up with a TIB bowline."
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4695.msg30329#msg30329

Ciao,
s.

[agent_smith]

Thanks knotsaver.
I'm glad I was only asking the question about TIB and not making any absolute declarations of fact.
The issue for me now is what is the current best theory about what makes a particular Bowline TIB?

I suspect that in the case of Scott's locked Bowline - the S bend weave that the tail takes in order to exit via the collar is the cause of failing to be TIB.

How many other Bowlines with the tail exiting via the collar alongside the SPart are not TIB?

Mark G

[enhaut]

Bravo, this page on TIB bowlines is important, you also provided an excellent tying method.
The yellow dot marking the collar to be is a nice touch,but imho you should add a red one in the frame number 3 in order to show the tip of the eye to be.

[agent_smith]

imho you should add a red one in the frame number 3 in order to show the tip of the eye to be.

Thanks enhaut...implementing your suggestion now.

Also fixing a few grammar issues.

I am still trying to find a theorem for what makes a particular Bowline TIB.

In Scott's locked Bowline, the tail follows an S bend before exiting through the collar and parallel to the SPart. This results in the structure being non-TIB. But is Scott's Bowline the exception rather than the rule?
What was Xarax's theorem?

I'll have to email him...

[knotsaver]

Please try this:
tie a Standard Bowline (#1010) with a strangled double overhand knot (around the returning eye-leg, tail towards the tip of the eye (= around the ongoing eye-leg, tail towards the nub)) and then retuck the tail through the collar along the parallel pathway with the SPart...and try to "UnTIB" (untie without using the ends)
and as if by magic...

(Edit: BTW the TIB method to tie the knot is simple...)
But, if we tie an overhand (single, double...) around the returning eye-leg, with the tail towards the nub we can't UnTIB!

Xarax, IIRC, posites and shows that if we simply (immediately) retuck the tail through the collar along a pathway with the SPart of a standard Bowline (#1010 and #1034.5) we obtain a TIB Bowline (they are 4).
(http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4695.msg30330#msg30330)
Now we can extend the result by adding overhand (single, double...) knots as we've seen above.
--
Mark,
you could mention the method (as in ABok #1080) to discover/invent TIB Bowline suggested by Dan_Lehman,
(see http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4695.msg30331#msg30331)

Another way to look at this discovery/invention by formation
is to suggest another method of formation : insert a bight
through the turNip (and some other bases) and then do
"the "back-flip" (my term) as is done for the bowline in
the bight --which necessarily sweeps the tail back through
the just-formed collar.

--
ciao,
s.

[knotsaver]

BTW the TIB method to tie the knot is simple...

Here it is: a class of locked TIB Bowline:
(it's a variation of Dan_Lehman's suggestion):

- Tie a noose
- with the (slipping) SPart tie an Half Hitch (the future nipping loop) around the  eye of the noose
- back-flip the eye of the noose
- form the eye of the Bowline (use the nipping loop to find the ongoing eye-leg)

you will find the structure (the nub) of the noose around the returning eye-leg (or, reversed, around the ongoing eye-leg) of the new locked TIB Bowline.
--
ciao,
s.

[agent_smith]

I'm not sure if I like you anymore knotsaver...

You are causing me to further extend the length of my Bowlines paper - and hence, further push back the completion date. 

...

But, thank you very much for your input!

I always felt my paper needed to elaborate on TIB Bowlines and the whole concept of TIB in general.

My initial thoughts focused on just a one page summary...but, I see now that this is not possible.

I have to admit that I didn't know about the TIB capable Bowline with strangled double overhand lock on returning eye leg. And your interesting TIB tying solution.

This is all extremely important in my view and I thank you.

I should also point out that it is really easy to 'reverse engineer' knotsaver's above-mentioned locked Bowline - I am sticking with this term. I have personally found 'reverse engineering' a knot a useful tool to determine if the structure is TIB.

By the way, I have received an email reply from Xarax about his theorum on TIB Bowlines. Its all Greek to me...but, I am working through it all now...

EDIT: I wonder if I am 'allowed' to post Xarax's comments re TIB Bowlines on this forum? I am unclear what the IGKT moderators rules are for me acting as a 'proxy' for Xarax?

Mark G

[Dan_Lehman]

Adding a new page to the Bowlines paper.

Topic is 'TIB' Bowlines.

Comments please...

Not sure who started the whole TIB investigation and then development???

Mark G

It wasn't here, and it wasn't via the Net, either :
connections were knotted together the ol'-fashioned
way, by snailmail and Knotting Matters (newsletter,
mailings of physical paper & ink), circa 1987.

Two of knotting's keener innovators, viz. John Smith (UK)
and Pieter van de Griend (Nederland) brought out the
fact that a knot that the former had presented in KM#018
(Spring 1987) was in fact TIB --noted by his comment
(as sparked by private correspondence from PvdG) published
in the next issue (Summer 1987).  That's nigh 3 decades ago.
(And although I came around to the same discovery, on my
own, IIRC --even if this speaks poorly of my reading/research
skills (or sometimes even of my memory : *inventing* a knot
more than once!), I'm pretty sure that it was well later.)

The knot that was presented is the one I've been advocating
for to replace in prominence/usage the Yosemite bowline
--you have it now in the document, but still not with suitable
emphasis.
.:.  It should be HERE, vice what your have as the 2nd, AND
as what gets the step-wise tying imagery.  The idea is to promote
a better knot than the commonly promulgated YoBowl!

Re(-re)ading the old articles, I'm reminded of another point:
the **nub** matches that of angler's/perfection loop (#1017)
but one's ends are the other's eye legs (!).  (And I've not been
clever enough to figure out if one is TIB must the other be?!)

I've found this topic about Xarax' position:
"Retuck the Tail end through the collar - you may end up with a TIB bowline."

Yes, that is a good point --the tuck amounts to a sort
of *retreat* which might beget TIB status.  BUT it
does not ensure it, and the document should not imply
that it is an open question, when it is easily proved false!


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

the tuck amounts to a sort
of *retreat* which might beget TIB status.  BUT it
does not ensure it, and the document should not imply
that it is an open question, when it is easily proved false!

Actually, my question was:

For those Bowlines which are proven to be TIB - do they all have the tail exiting through the collar and then along a parallel pathway with the Spart?
In other words, is it possible for a Bowline to be TIB - with the tail not exiting via the collar?

This is what I am trying to confirm or disprove!

Mark G