Author Topic: yChan's Knot - Y69 Knot  (Read 496 times)

siriuso

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
yChan's Knot - Y69 Knot
« on: August 29, 2018, 11:40:43 AM »
Hi dear all,

I attach here a bowline. Welcome for your comments.

Happy Knotting
yChan
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 07:54:06 PM by siriuso »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: yChan's Knot - Y69 Bowline
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2018, 01:45:07 PM »
per yChan:
Quote
I attach here a bowline. Welcome for your comments.

I admire your tenacity in trying to devise a structure that is entitled to use the name 'Bowline'.

I can comment as follows:
In the final front/rear images you show - it fails to qualify as any type of Bowline (eg not even deserving of the title 'virtual Bowline'). But, read on...

However... the dressing you show is transient - when you apply load, it undergoes a transformation into a virtual Bowline.
The transformation arrives at an energy stable state - and the collar performs a nice U turn around the SPart. The resultant knot has a nipping structure that fully encircles and clamps both legs of the collar.

Note that one of the key requirements of [a] 'Bowline' is the nipping structure must fully encircle and clamp both legs of the collar.

I am not sure if you were aware that the 'loose' dressing state you show is transient?
After transformation and settling into an energy stable state - it is a nice creation.

It even has 3 rope diameters inside the nipping structure - which almost takes the form of a #206 Crossing hitch.

One thing I should point out is that the returning eye leg has a tendency to pull down on the nipping structure - which might diminish the clamping of the legs of the collar.
I don't have time to load test the knot to assess the effect of this issue.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 03:05:52 PM by agent_smith »

siriuso

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
Re: yChan's Knot - Y69 Bowline
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2018, 04:04:04 PM »
Hi dear all,

Well before presenting this knot, I have tried a few possible ways to make it qualified a bowline. Finally I got this.

I have read Mark?s comment (the above thread, the original one, before editted). What Mark said it would be better to have the last collar came over the 1st collar (Marlingspike Hitch) and got the WE into the nipping loop. This was one of the ways that I have tried. I found it is not as good as presented here.

I know It is well defined before that the legs of the collar should be encircled/clamped by the nipping loop. But in my knot Y69, the WE (of the 2nd collar) enters into the nipping loop also with the leg from the 1st collar (Marlingspike Hitch). It is actually two legs (of different collars) being encircled by the nipping loop. I think I want to try in different legs.

In my opinion, Bowline ABOK #1010 is not so secure because the leg rounds the collar and enters in the nipping loop, it will slip away from the encirclement due to shaking and of short length. In seeing that some knot tyers improved the shortcoming by adding different extra tail tuckings and have discovered a lot of new bowlines. For this reason, I tie this knot in a different way in leg encirclement.

In naming this knot as bowline, I expect to receive criticism. I think my knot is a weird example. So I have some questions for you to consider. How to determine the definition of legs? Why is it necessarily that legs should come from the same collar? Why not others?

I am not asking for any exemption or privilege to classify my knot as bowline. I may, by the opinions from you all, revise this knot as Loop Knot, as I did before.

Happy Knotting
yChan

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: yChan's Knot - Y69 Bowline
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2018, 05:08:35 PM »
per yChan:
Quote
I have read Mark?s comment (the above thread, the original one, before editted).
Any edits that I make are done for very good reasons.
I have been having computer issues - and cutting and pasting typed words has sometimes gone haywire.
What is currently visible and readable is my intended post (not something that doesn't actually exist). So if it doesn't exist (or isn't currently readable) - then it is entirely irrelevant.

Quote
In my opinion, Bowline ABOK #1010 is not so secure because the leg rounds the collar and enters in the nipping loop, it will slip away from the encirclement due to shaking and of short length.
We already know this!
It is a well established fact that #1010 primary Bowline is insecure and vulnerable to slack shaking and cyclic loading.
For example, if a climber tied the rope to his/her harness using #1010 Bowline, it would be tantamount to committing suicide!

Quote
How to determine the definition of legs? Why is it necessarily that legs should come from the same collar? Why not others?
Some here in the IGKT forum consider that the 'bight' component consists of a collar and 2 legs. There is an 'entry' leg and an 'exit' leg of the collar.
If you go back and read some of Derek's posts, you will see that he likes to refer to the 'legs' as being 'bight legs'.

In the primary Bowlines (eg #1010, #1012, #1013, #1080, etc) you will see that they all share the same fundamental structural components.
They all have a nipping structure that takes the form of a helix/loop which is loaded at both ends, is TIB, and jam resistant.
You will also see that the collar performs a U turn directly around the SPart (Derek appears to refer to this as the 'bight collar').
You will also see that both legs of the collar enter the nipping loop from the same side.

Once you start to deviate from these fundamental structural configurations, you move away from the primary Bowlines - and end up with 'something else'.
Its the 'something else' that generates debate amongst knot theoreticians.

There are some on this IGKT forum who rigidly refuse to acknowledge a knot as being [a] 'Bowline' if it doesn't have the same fundamental structure of the primary #1010 Bowline.

There are others who are not so rigid in their views... who might be willing to see beyond the primary Bowlines (over the horizon) - and look for other ways to classify 'Bowlines'.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 02:27:02 AM by agent_smith »

siriuso

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
Re: yChan's Knot - Y69 Knot
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2018, 07:52:05 PM »
Hi Mark,

I do not like to get into the argument of knot classification. I revise it as a knot. Thanks.

yChan

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: yChan's Knot - Y69 Knot
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2018, 11:44:12 PM »
per yChan:
Quote
I do not like to get into the argument of knot classification. I revise it as a knot. Thanks.

??!  :o

yChan, its not an 'argument' - its merely and simply a technical discussion (nothing sinister or demeaning).
You asked the question, and you named it as [a] 'Bowline'. Your tying image still identifies it as some type of 'Bowline'.
My reply simply attempted to answer your question - and I gave an example image.

You are entitled and welcome to post new creations - so we can try to understand your work. There are lots of people who have posted new creations - and had them evaluated and discussed. Most people understand that receiving technical feedback is implied on a forum such as this.

I actually like your work..and I think this recent presentation does transform into a form that could be classed as a 'type' of Bowline!

You seem to be confusing 'argument' for technical discussion????

siriuso

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
Re: yChan's Knot - Y69 Knot
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2018, 04:39:51 PM »
Hi dear all,

Thanks for the comments to my Y70 and Y71 Loop Knots by Dan. I agreed with his comments on these knots for the tail will slip away while shaking. Since this knot Y69 is of the same start, I hereby revised it as the following photos shown.

Happy Knotting
yChan

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: yChan's Knot - Y69 Knot
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2018, 01:14:49 PM »
It is not a Bowline.

It is an x Carrick component on the SP with a hitch component on the returning loop leg.  Replacing the standard Carrick component with an x variant makes the knot more complex, but I cannot see any obvious advantages of the additional complexity.

Interestingly, it is a very slight variant of the Jug knot.

Derek