Bowline Family Tree

[X1]

   75 RR. we have seen a similar idea in the Forum some time ago, where the slippage of the bight was blocked by its continuation, bight-ed again ( meaning, not the single segment of the tail, as in your knot, but the twin line slipped tail was used ) and inserted through itself, between the fist collar and the nipping turn, as a toggle. I have searched, but I was not been able to find it - I only remember dL s reply, and that I felt this type of security is depended on the stiffness of the material more than I would like. Dig a little deeper ! 
   It seems that we all have the same collective subconscious impulses - a KnotJung thing ! 

   P.S. I have found what I was searching for:  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4367

[Dan_Lehman]

... I only remember dL's reply, and that I felt this type of security
[depends] on the stiffness of the material more than I would like. Dig a little deeper ! 
   It seems that we all have the same collective subconscious impulses - a KnotJung thing ! 

Yes, I think I recall your doubts, too.  One way
to secure against the need for firmness is to make
a full wrap & (2nd) tuck.  Something might look
okay if set and loaded just so, but then the X-feared
vulnerability could show its treachery upon some
differently made loading, or in some not-quite-so-stiff
material, and ... that would be regrettable!

With the presented knot here, that bight that is
used to nip the tail could instead surround the eye
--IF one hasn't tied through a ring or something.


--dl*
====

[X1]

To find the loop based on a similar idea which I had seen in the Forum, I searched for the name "loop" - 14 pages of posts -, in vein. This morning, perhaps because I had not much sleep after those overnight knot-tyers-wars,  , I searched for the name "toggle". Instant satisfaction    :

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4367

[X1]

looks like a quick release/slip version.

However, the fact that the "toggle" is made by two lines, not only one, means that it is stiffer, and it is more difficult to be dragged and "swallowed" into the nipping turn.

[X1]

   This is a better lock - I have used something like this in the Fontus bowline ( a Janus-like bowline ). See the attached  picture.
   Of course, what immediately comes to mind, is to use, as a stiff toggle ( stiffer than the single line of the Tail ) the two eye legs - and reeve the whole eye of the knot through the eye of the bight component - penetrating it from the "front" or the "rear" side. But I guess you know those two TIB bowlines already.
 

[Dan_Lehman]

looks like a quick release/slip version.

However, the fact that the "toggle" is made by two lines, not only one, means that it is stiffer, and it is more difficult to be dragged and "swallowed" into the nipping turn.

Actually, we should be chary of such things (even
by some per se analysis --backed by experience):
to expect some toggle action requires that there
is slippage in the turNip of otherwise gripped parts!

I have done things like this, which from on perspective
seemed attractive, but then the nipping-gripping effect
of the turNip frustrated the hoped-for pressure to secure
the toggle.  (And, e.g., in some fiddlings to find some
slip-free hitch, there have been cases where I had the
turNip and it proved too tenacious and impeded the
spilling that was wanted, holding like a sheepshank.)

E.g., one can use a structure just like the sheepshank
with that bight-end only beside and not collaring
the SPart, and do the collaring with a like-above wrapping
of the tail (around SPart & through bight end, which is
passed through the turNip), but then that turNip grip
proves at least a little problematic in getting the sort
of strong bight-down-upon-tail-wraps effect that's wanted!


--dl*
====

[X1]

to expect some toggle action requires that there is slippage in the turNip of otherwise gripped parts !

the nipping-gripping effect of the turNip [frustrates] the hoped-for pressure to secure the toggle.
   
that turNip grip proves at least a little problematic in getting the sort of strong bight-down-upon-tail-wraps effect that's wanted.

 
   I understood it !    Am I getting smart, or now you are talking, and talking to be listened. Thanks.

[zoranz]

A question about End Bound Water Bowline. Is it standard or only an attempt of generalization EBDB?
Thx, regards
ZZ

[Dan_Lehman]

A question about End Bound Water Bowline: is it standard or only an attempt of generalization EBDB?
Thx, regards
ZZ

And by the emphasized expression, what do you
expect, what do you mean?
But that one is, we can say, much just an obvious
combination of things --i.p., of the "end-bound"
tail tuck on a closely dressed water bowline
(noting that in some sources this older knot is
shown with widely spaced turns, like a sheepshank).

Btw, the possibilities far exceed the mere combination
of named extensions, as the particular order or dressing
or ... will distinguish one from another.  (E.g., the
Yosemite finish could "end-bind" on its passage
through the turNip either coming or going.     )


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Perhaps we should refer to it as the Left Hand Janus, rather than use "cowboy" with its negative connotations.

Believe this is a Dan_Lehman call!

Firstly, the correct modifier sh/would be "left-handED"**.
Secondly, that is the pejorative; seeing such for
"cowboy" ... must be fight'n' words in some necks o'
the wood (or range), pardner!

[** Either expression has the unwanted connotations
of "handedness" arising since it's a knotting name.]

 

[Dan_Lehman]

Either expression has the unwanted connotations...

So... no third choice?

Seriously, hmmm, I'm thinking of making the *movement*
of the turn of the collar-bight to be indicated in relation to
that of the nipping-loop, and for this the terms introduced(?)
by Charles Warner for whether the overhand-knot halves
of the fisherman's knot were like-handed :
"concordant / discordant", of like / opposite, respectively.

So, hmmm, we might bring into discussions of bowlines
"concordant-collared" for #1010 but then might want
to use similar indication for the added nipping loop of
the water bowline --where "discordant" would give one
the base of the mirrored bowline ("cow" vice "clove").
And now we've dug into long-winded designations ... .

.:.  Hmmm [<-- my 3rd, X.  ], such terminology works maybe
okay in technical discussion and not so well in common parlance,
naming.


--dl*
====

[X1]

  I will say it, even if I am not "eligible"...
   Your "Eskimo" bowline is only the one of the four variations - and the worst of them all !