Bowline Family Tree

[X1]

Perhaps I should have titled it: A visual representation of some knots in Bowline Analysis

Ooops ! ! had missed that "some"...I thought your intention was to include ALL of them, and then some...

[Dan_Lehman]

What do you mean by "a single variation".

I am referring to the Bowlines in the Family Tree, I am calling each knot a variation from the ABoK 1010 and 1013.
For example the "End Bound Double Bowline" is one, "Lee's Locked Single Bowline" is another and the "End Bound Single Bowline Yosemite Finish" is two. See attachments.
If you have an objection to the term "a single variation", I have no problem calling them anything you want.

I think that this is a good course to sail.

I don't like those overlapping circles, which are both
problematic to arrange, and will run into troubles
showing 3-(n- [!])dimensional depth of variations+versions.

How about something more like a Truth Table :
across the top (say) run your **variations**
of base knot --1010, 1030, ...--
and down the side can be variations of **closure**/**extension**
("Yosemite", "end-binding", ...).
There then comes the additional *depth* of combinations
of those finishes (Agent_Smith's dang Yobowlingover of all  ).

"**versions**" can be seen as slightly different arrangements
of **variations** --inescapably [?] a matter of some *feel*
in subjective judgement, but a reasonable point (the diff. of
#1010 & "Dutch Naval/Cowboy" bowlines being *version*-ish,
and yet ... we'd set these as distinct I think across the top!?
(well, some extensions only *flow* from one or other, so there
is that significant aspect to consider; yet, at the basic/simple-knot
level, their difference strikes me as "version"al).)


--dl*
====

[roo]

My effort was / always is to remove any looming shadows, so that there will be no room left for the dragons to hide.

I'm sure you mean well, but after all 23.1 billion loops knots are shown, I think you'll find plenty of hiding room.   

75RR,

To help you tackle the billion-knot problem, I'd like to make a modest proposal:

Any loop with a knot body that consumes more than 50 rope diameters should be excluded from consideration.  If you want to further narrow things, you could reduce the number down to 45 diameters, for example, etc.  Gargantuan knot bodies tend to make things hard to adjust anyway.

[X1]

Any loop with a knot body that consumes more than 50 rope diameters should be excluded from consideration.  If you want to further narrow things, you could reduce the number down to 45 diameters, for example, etc.  Gargantuan knot bodies tend to make things hard to adjust anyway.

   
    I thought that the magic number was 42 ! (1)
    The volume, the "bulk" of a knot, is not determined by the length of the rope segments inside its nub / body. There are compact knots, which occupy less volume than others, although they consume more rope diameters. Gargantuanism has very little to do with rope length !
    What is really important in a practical knot, is simplicity. However, simplicity is a very complex thing !    It has to do with rope length, number of tucks required to tie the knot, various topological characteristics, and, last but not least, "total curvature" . Total curvature is a measure of how much convoluted are the rope strands that compose the ( settled in its final form ) knot. Read : http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3740.msg21674#msg21674
     
1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_to_The_Ultimate_Question_of_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life.2C_the_Universe.2C_and_Everything_.2842.29

[Dan_Lehman]

Any loop with a knot body that consumes more than 50 rope diameters should be excluded from consideration.  If you want to further narrow things, you could reduce the number down to 45 diameters, for example, etc.  Gargantuan knot bodies tend to make things hard to adjust anyway.

   
    I thought that the magic number was 42 ! (1)

This is true.  (Perhaps the best presentation of Douglas
Adams's "trilogy" of 4 books is the radio one --well, that
was my first (never really got the t.v. bit), which perhaps
falls well shy of the 4 or even 3 ... books in scope.  One
remembered line, to Marvin, the super-smart robot :
"Marvin, there's a whole new world opening before you!"
"Oh, no --not another one.")

The volume, the "bulk" of a knot, is not determined by the length
of the rope segments inside its nub / body.

Whoa, who's talking about length --except what
is implied for the turNip to circumscribe so many
enclosed rope parts ("diameters")!?

What is really important in a practical knot, is simplicity.
However, simplicity is a very complex thing ! 

No, the important, sine qua non quality is that the
knot solves the problem.  It might be that doing so
entails much material & time to tie; or otherwise,
for some other problem where time isn't available!
Inkanyezi remarked recently about the inability to
untie some of the suggested improved bowlines
being a mark against them; but in that given search,
the key quality was security, not untying ease (as
one will have ample time to untie the knot, and
do so more quickly/easily than with the primary
competitor, the fig.8 eyeknot).

In a particular case of needing speed in securing,
one might find that a quickly tied but material-inefficient
knot works better than some compact one that must
be carefully tied (and worked set).


--dl*
====

[X1]

What is really important in a practical knot, is simplicity.
However, simplicity is a very complex thing ! 

 
  No, the important, sine qua non quality is that the knot solves the problem.

 
  I beg to differ on this. It is the existence of the knot that determines if there is a "problem" in the first place, before we can evaluate this knot as a probable solution of this problem. If we do not know the knot, we do not even know that we have a "problem", and that this problem can be solved with a "knot", in general, and with this knot, in particular. Knots are rope-made mechanisms, that can be evaluated as such, without any reference to "the problem".
   We see a heavy rock sitting on the path to the village with the pretty young women next to ours. What we will do ? We will treat it as it is, as a small mountain that was placed there at the time of the incubation of the cosmic egg. We will not consider it as a "problem", we will just try to draw our path around it, if possible. Then, somebody that has not been married yet with any of those women, in his Eureka moment, discovers the block and tackle simple machine. So, now he has the knot, the tool. Instantly, he sees the rock as a "problem" that can be solved, by the implementation of his machine. He can now pull the rock, and open the path to the abandonment of his celebrity. He has the tool, he starts to see a given by nature situation as a "problem", he tries to solve this problem with the tool he already has. We already had the wings or the rockets, and because it had happened we had them, we could see the trip to the moon as a "problem" that could be solved with the proper use of those "tools".
   A knot can be evaluated without any reference to a problem. It can be good or bad, stable or not, secure or not, jamming or not, strong or not, per se. There are well defined and measurable quantities in a practical knot that can be evaluated by theoretical or experimental examinations, independently of a particular problem. We have first to tie all the possible simple knots, then to evaluate them as knots, and only at the very end we can start thinking if a particular knot we already know can be used to tie the hands and feet of the husbands of those women around trees.
   The issue of the speed with which a knot can be tied and/or untied by the knot tyer, is directly related to the number of the required tucks of the working end in order we tie and/or untie it. As such, it is included in the general characteristics of "simplicity" mentioned in (1). So, the following comment on the mentioned post should be judged as premature, to say the least :

And aside from launching Mike in Md. to venture into really complex reading, what does any of this do for the knot tyer?

 1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3740.msg21674#msg21674

[X1]

The volume, the "bulk" of a knot, is not determined by the length of the rope segments inside its nub / body.

Whoa, who's talking about length --except what is implied for the turNip to circumscribe so many enclosed rope parts ("diameters")!?

 
   You missed my point. I was not talking about the bulk, the volume of the nipping turn, but of the bulk, the volume of the whole knot. One need not be a rocket scientist to see that a nipping turn that encircles, say, three rope diameters, is wider, bulkier, than one which encircles only two !
   The strands of the rope inside its nub can be arranged the one next to the other in an efficient, regarding the consumption of 3D space, way, or not - and this is not directly related to their rope length - i.e., to the consumption of 1D line. In other words, the rope segments inside the knot s nub can be interwoven to each other in a economical, regarding volume, way, even if themselves are quite long, i.e., they are not economical regarding length. See the Tweedledee bowline, and compare it to the post-eye-tiable and TIB eyeknot shown at (1) and at the attached pictures. The latter is a flat, not compact knot, of a large outline, even if it does not consume much rope length, just because of the way the strands are interwoven to each other. On the contrary, the Tweedledee knot is a very compact knot, although it consumes approximately 25 rope diameters for each link, so 50 rope diameters in total.
   Moreover, there are bowlines where the collars should better not be pulled too tightly towards the central nub, because, if they are, the deflexions of the limbs of the knot that penetrate them may be severe, and diminish the strength of the knot. So, when those collars are left a little loose, the length and the outline of the whole knot remains quite large - see the "Mirrored bowline", for example.
 
1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4422

[Dan_Lehman]

What is really important in a practical knot, is simplicity.
However, simplicity is a very complex thing ! 

 
  No, the important, sine qua non quality is that the knot solves the problem.

 
  I beg to differ on this. It is the existence of the knot that determines if there is a "problem"
in the first place, before we can evaluate this knot as a probable solution of this problem.
If we do not know the knot, we do not even know that we have a "problem",
and that this problem can be solved with a "knot", in general, and with this knot, in particular.

Uh-huh.  Look, the climber seeking to be secured
to the line knows the problem plenty well; what
s/he needs to learn is the solution to it, and this
will entail learning some or several knots (perhaps
even including a hitch or two).

You, OTOH, have presented countless (oh, I'm sure
you've counted 'em) knots for which there is the
obvious question So what?! --as the basic jobs
they do, be it joining ends or forming an eye, are
long solved in generally satisfactory ways.  And if
something "new" is to gain interest, it needs some
claim to that interest beyond existence.


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

The volume, the "bulk" of a knot, is not determined by the length of the rope segments inside its nub / body.

Whoa, who's talking about length --except what is implied for the turNip to circumscribe so many enclosed rope parts ("diameters")!?

 
   You missed my point.

Actually, I think I missed Roo's --which wasn't some
great exaggeration of enclosed "diameters" but rather
a size-independent measure, by diameter, of the rope
consumed in the knot!

To this, then, I say that his notion of 50 dia. as an
appropriate constraint is way too stingy.  By my
sizing --done carefully w/markers on tied & set knots--,
an end-bound (single) bowline is 37, the EBDB
51, fig.8 56 (seems high!?), locktight (w/2 extra wraps) 58,
YoBowl 40, and the bowline (1010) 26.
To my mind, many of the more complex bowlines
are deserving tie-in knots for climbers, and these
will be considerably more costly in material.


--dl*
====

[SS369]

To my mind, many of the more complex bowlines
are deserving tie-in knots for climbers, and these
will be considerably more costly in material.


--dl*
====

The considerably more costly in material does not seem like much of an issue if the trade off is solid security. At most climbing events there is considerable waste of materials with long tails that then have to be tied out of the way. The loop is over large where the nub is solar plexus high. And for sake of having enough, the length of ropes used generally are beyond sufficiently long and lying in the soil to be stepped on, as happens.
Not always (I do realize) is this the case in more extreme unknown, first time climbs, but if the, let's say 12 inches additional material used is going to fail someone, then that will be bad.


That said there is a thread  here about the sheer number of bowlines that one member compiled. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2897.msg19660#msg19660
And the link to his list. http://www.morethanknots.com/bowline/bowline_list.html
And the link to his pictures of some. http://www.morethanknots.com/bowline/BK_Pics_1.html

Perhaps this will generate additional ideas for the Family tree.

SS

[X1]

   I would luve to delegate to somebody the project of tying all those bowlines, and presenting them, with pictures, in the Forum ! 
   http://www.morethanknots.com/bowline/bowline_list.html

[X1]

You could always self-delegate.

I do not have the books, the journals, the web references...However, I have all the time in the world, and the desire to examine them all, one by one, as I do with the Alan Lee s bowlines.
If somebody sends me all the original pictures and/or the texts describing those bowlines, I would be able to tie them, take new pictures, and post those pictures in the Forum. Then, we could possibly be able to see general patterns between them, and draw a simple yet all inclusive map of the bowlinedom..

[SS369]

Hi 75RR.

File size limit is set for the time being and I'll bring it up for discussion with the Admin.

I have, in the past, used the Adobe "Save as" function to reduce the document. Can't say how much it will do for you, but it does work. Optimizing can be a pain, but it helps as well. There are freeware programs available, some limited function or time wise, that can also be helpful.

Using Google Docs is another avenue to explore and then there are free hosting sites too.

If all else fails, there is the option of splitting the file.

Good luck.

SS

[SS369]

Hi 75RR.

If you have searched, etc. and think this a presentation of something new, then by all means post it to the New Knots Investigation board.

SS

[Dan_Lehman]

This is what happens when one spends time drawing several
versions of bowlines, you start to think about them.

   Drat, it is what sooooo slows the recording process,
for me : as soon as the subject knot to be illustrated is
laid out and regarded with an eye to best presentation
perspective, my mind tends to flow off into "what if ...?"
musings about variations (or some nagging feeling
that I've previously recorded the knot)!  And sometimes
instead of having recorded one knot and liberated some
literally "tied-up" rope for further play, I've tied up
MORE rope in playing with the variations, and nothing
yet is recorded!  (And then along comes X. with another
lode of novelty begging considerations :: and my feet
are run over by wheels.))
            


(-;