Can anyone spot the difference between these two almost "identical" knots?

[Kost_Greg]

Hello and greetings to all!!
I guess that pretty much everyone here is familiar with the double bowline knot with the tail tucked back through the collar!I am not a climber but i believe some climbers still use this knot with the tail strangled to the SP part.So,as i was playing with ropes the other day,i came up with a structure that appeared to be familiar to me at least from its conventional view(or detail view for some others).Anyway,at first glance, it looked like a double bowline with the tail tucked back through the collar and i came to this with a completely different tying technique in relation to known bowline tying methods.After examining the knot in detail of course i spotted the differences and can't be so sure if this knot qualifies as a bowline according to Mark analysis.In describing the knot i would say that the double nipping loops are created with a double tail turn which is finally fed through the collar and the collar itself is created by the standing part and the on going eye leg through a twice turning loop clockwise(i don't know how this structure is called, more like something like marlin spike towards right).Then the tail is fed down through that loop twice and comes back through the collar parallel to the standing end as the double bowline with the extra tuck.From my point of view its more like a situation if someone could change positions to the sp part and the tail in a classic tucked double bowline.The knot looks safe(tested only by hand) and solid ,easy to loose,will not jam i think, but if the tail pops out of the collar,the knot breaks,is something else not trustful,but if that happens in a bowline it remains always a double bowline.The advantage is that the load from sp part strangles the double turning tail.My question is that if is there anyone familiar with this knot?Is it new and to be trusted?I don't have the right technical equipment to test it!I know that some photos would be helpfull and i shall try to post them soon!
Thanks!!!!

[agent_smith]

Hello tsik_lestat,

Thanks for your question.

It sounds like you have tied a reversed double Bowline with some kind of tail tuck...?

Without a photo, it can be difficult to pin down exactly what you are trying to describe.
I've attached a few images which are hopefully close to what you are attempting to describe.

[Kost_Greg]

Hi agent_smith and many thanks for your reply!!!
I am really glad that i helped you understand with my poor english first attempt in describing the knot in words.It's been a while since i've used it and it's not my native language.
And yes that's a bingo!It's the third knot from your first posted photo with the only difference that it is tied in the other eye leg so there is no need in posting a photo about this structure.
So a reversed double bowline huh?And you claim that it is not secure for life critical application i assume!!But can we call it a bowline meaning that the load from sp part string does not come from a nipping loop but more like from inside the double tail turning loops?
By the way, nice work with the bowline analysis paper!I am looking forward to your next update!
And many thanks for the other photos too!!Trying to decode xarax's versions of dan lehman EBDB

[Dan_Lehman]

Trying to decode xarax's versions of dan lehman EBDB

There is a simple relation between these two ::
cut the returning eye leg of one and attach it back to its tail
--to get the other !!

(I have found such reconnections productive!
And I like e.g. the single bowline end-bound in
this way, but unlike X's tail tuck, please take
the tail out through the center of BOTH loops
--both the SPart's "central nipping loop" and
the returning eye-leg's *end-binding* loop.)


--dl*
====

[Kost_Greg]

Thanks for your suggestions dan!!!

In regarding to this so called munter based hitch nipping structure, i came up with this yosemite bowline variant which i think someone has already been there before me( don't claim any credits).
Lee's locked yosemite,scott's locked or EBSB seem to hold well in this form!!

Any thoughts or names about these knots?

[agent_smith]

In regarding to this so called munter hitch based nipping structure, i came up with this yosemite bowline variant

I'm unable to arrive at your creations when using a #206 crossing hitch based 'virtual Bowline'.

Are you sure that you are starting from a #206 crossing hitch structure? (refer attached image).
I tied each of the eye knots...EBSB, Scotts locked Bowline and Yosemite Bowline using #206 as the base nipping component.
My creations do not resemble yours...?

[Kost_Greg]

Hello and thanks for your feedback!

My starting point is definitely a crossing hitch as you call it, but i am not sure if it's the same as yours(aka 206).Something else i've noticed in your photos above, is that you are turning towards the crossing point,while my turn is from the opposite side.Anyway i've attached photos with the crossing point and this bowline variant(virtual?).
The rest of the tying process is well known(yosemite,EBSB,scott's locked).

One(among others i guess) easy way to end up with this crossing hitch(first photo) is to first make a loop towards right, then press with your thumb the crossing point to remain steady and then turn the rest section of the loop towards right again.
The final move is to dive down through that loop with the tail!

The rest is easy,we turn left down from spart,up from right eye leg and dive down through the loop next to the left eye leg(second photo)

[SS369]

Hi tsik_lestat.

While manipulating some of these offerings, I find that they distort detrimentally while being ring loaded.
The crossing / twisted nipping area is the contributing factor as the parent eye knot does not exhibit this phenomena.

Just an observation, thanks for the examples.

SS

[Kost_Greg]

Hello SS369 thanks for your comment!!!

You are quite right about this distortion caused by the crossing hitch,i was kinda suspecting that this phenomena could occur in ring loading situations!!

i was actually wondering if some sort of ''brake''/''lock'' could prevent/reduce this from happening.
So i have been experimenting with a variation of scott's locked technique for better results to this matter.

The returning tail dives  down through the left of the left eye leg and comes back through the  collar with scott's locking mechanism.

i do like those kind of crossings and keep on trying for a while, various moves.

Thanks a lot for your crucial observation!!!

[SS369]

Hello SS369 thanks for your comment!!!

You are quite right about this distortion caused by the crossing hitch,i was kinda suspecting that this phenomena could occur in ring loading situations!!

i was actually wondering if some sort of ''brake''/''lock'' could prevent/reduce this from happening.
So i have been experimenting with a variation of scott's locked technique for better results to this matter.

The returning tail dives  down through the left of the left eye leg and comes back through the  collar with scott's locking mechanism.

i do like those kind of crossings and keep on trying for a while, various moves.

Thanks a lot for your crucial observation!!!

Yes, a lock of the kind you mention does inhibit the propensity for deforming, etc., during ring loading, but, the knots are moving away from simplicity, ease of tying and inspection. And that is fine for those who may like the aesthetics or just like tying complex knots.
Keep exploring.

SS

[DerekSmith]

Hi tsik_lestat,  Thanks for bringing us your knot.



It certainly is a strange creation, and I have to admit that my first intuitive impression was not a positive one.  Looking closer at its functional structure, your knot turns into a real challenge.

The first component you show, the one you call the 'crossing hitch' is immediately recognisable as a Carrick Component looking exactly as it would appear on the loop leg of the Carrick loopknot.  In the Carrick loopknot, a second Carrick Component is made around the fully loaded SP and this forms the primary secure nipping function for the whole knot.  The two components close around each other, the function of the loopleg component is only to stabilise the SP Carrick which in turn is providing all the gripping force necessary to ensure the return loop leg remains securely prevented from pulling through.

In your knot however, you have formed the Carrick on the outgoing loop leg, so it is never going to be able to develop the full nipping force available from the SP. which is wasted by being deployed on the carrick collar around the outgoing loop leg.  This was a promising start, employing what is probably the most valuable component available to us, but immediately diminished by giving it to the outgoing loop leg. 

Then finally we have the returning loop leg.  It could have taken a full loop around the two carrick legs and born the benefit of the Carrick nip, but no, it captures only one of the Carrick legs, takes a turn around the SP (doing nothing) then passes out of the Carrick collar which is enjoying some of the compression from the load on the SP.

Just from its components and their engagement, it is a knot of lost possibilities.  So how did it perform?

Well, with that Carrick component in there it should be jam resistant and indeed it was.  In 550 loaded to 50%MBS it did not jam nor fail.  BUT - when I subjected it to oscillating loading, the WE progressively pulled through the Carrick collar until failure.  So. I would have to give this knot the Ashley Skull and crossbones rating.

Having been critical of your knot, I have to applaud your inventiveness.  I hope you found the process of experimentation fun and that critical comments do not stop your experimentation and investigation of knotting components and their interaction.

Welcome to the club of Knot Bothers.

Derek

[agent_smith]

I like your work tsik_lestat...

So much so that I wanted to do it some justice by taking a few photos.

To be clear, this isn't a Bowline... and it doesn't qualify as a 'virtual Bowline' either.
However, it is a very nice eye knot based on #206 Crossing hitch (Munter hitch).

I tied it in EN 564 Sterling 8.0mm cord and found it to be reasonable.
When properly dressed and cinched up tight - it appears to be secure.
It even appears to be resistant to ring loading.

Mind you, this is not definitive...as I would need to run some more thorough tests (enthusiast/hobbyist style testing).
But, when using considerable hand strength to properly dress and cinch the knot, it appears to be 'secure' (in EN 564 Sterling cord).

My quick and dirty 'tests' were as follows: (using EN 564 Sterling cord)
1. Flogging (I smacked it onto my floor about 20 times and it held firm)
2. Slack shaking (I vigorously shook it for 30 seconds) - it held firm
3. I induced ring loading by pulling as hard as I could by muscle strength only) - it held firm
NOTE: I dressed the knot carefully and I cinched it as tight as I could by hand before running these quick and dirty tests.

As for jam resistance, I would assume that it ought to be so... since it is based on a #206 Crossing hitch (which it 'TIB" and topologically equivalent to the unknot). But, this would have to be verified.

Hopefully, Xarax will have a look and comment soon?

[DerekSmith]

@Mark,

I really must compliment you on your excellent photography, you do this forum proud with your high quality images and graphics.

I note though that in your testing you found no weakness in this knot.  This is a worry as my own testing showed a mode by which the knot failed totally.  I am presuming therefore that the error lays with me for failing to explain fully what I referred to by the term 'oscillating loading'.  Doubtless you are aware of this issue, but presumably know it by some other name, so I will describe the challenge in slightly greater detail.

When a loop is made around an object that is rough such as a bough or trunk, or is angular or snaggy such as a boulder, the loop can (often) become fixed firmly in place.  This can have the effect of fixing the loopside of the knot so the knot can no longer remain fully perpendicular to the loaded SP.  In this situation, if the  loaded SP is subject to oscillations, swinging, snapping etc, the result is that the knot can be subject to lateral deformation forces, imposed on just the SP side of the knot.  These forces may then lead to progressive changes in the knot structure.

In the case in hand, the weakness observed under oscillating loading stems from two design 'issues'.  The first is that the WE has just come from a collar around the SP, so lateral movement of the SP will have the greatest impact on the WP and one direction of movement will eventually put the WE under tension directed at drawing it out of its nip.  The second issue lays with the substandard nip available to the WE, the bulk of the SP nipping power having been squandered in the collar around the outgoing loop leg.  Poor nip on the WE allows tension from the SP collar to draw the WP out of its nip, then when this tension is relaxed as the SP loading oscillates, the WE loop leg tension draws the slack from the SP collar into the loop, setting up the collar to draw more cord from the WP nip on the next oscillation of the SP.

I hope this makes sense.

Derek

[Kost_Greg]

Hello Derek thanks for the response!!!

Let's put that knot to the test

I personally thank you for your exhaustive analysis from a technical point of view,wouldn't expect anything better than this.

I admit i did not pay attention to this carrick component, although i have a clue about tying a carrick loop.

Your harsh criticism did not bother me at all, i think it is necessary in regards to new knotting invention.
I am happy to hear that it went well up to 50% MBS and did not jam, keeping this as a positive clue from your analysis.

To be honest, your phrase "takes a turn around SP(doing nothing)" troubled me a little
because for quite some time now i have another knot doing exactly the same thing, involving a more complex initial crossing structure and now i have second thoughts about presenting it( meaning i should check as much as i can its functionality first).

However, if the knot is proved to be a part of the skull/crossbone world, that's fine with me.(would not prevent me from exploring).

Thanks a lot for your most warming welcome in the knotting world!!!!


        Per agent_smith

Hello agent_smith thanks a lot for your appreciation!!!!

The "no bowline qualification" didn't bother me at all!I had a false impression from the begining that's why i was trying bowline tail maneuvers.

 It is hard to believe that you have already made a reference page for this eye knot as a new creation!!!!
Your data sounds more promising than Derek's but i realize that more thorough/sophisticated tests should be run(hardware,material) in order to obtain a complete picture about the functionality of this eye knot.

There is always a chance that simplicity, ease of tying or even the symmetry of a new knot at first inspection could trick us all.

So looking forward to more results of those dirty tests of yours!

Every criticism is more than welcome,especially from Xarax!!!

I assume, this knot won't be used by anyone for life critical application before there is clear evidence from all experienced knotters in this forum or elsewhere about its safety and functionality.

Thank you all for the most valuable advice

    Happy knotting to us all

[agent_smith]

per Derek:

I note though that in your testing you found no weakness in this knot.

I would strongly disagree with this remark since it implies something that I never stated.
Did you actually read what I wrote?

In the first instance, I only used EN 564 Sterling cord.
I also clearly stated that my 'tests' were quick and dirty.

I was also careful to avoid declaring that the knot was suitable for life critical applications.