Author Topic: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)  (Read 584 times)

shelldandy

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« on: April 02, 2019, 03:17:04 AM »
Hey guys this is my first post!

So after reading a bunch of material from this forum and the PACI website I decided to make a video about the EBSB Bowline since its pretty awesome and well there are no videos about it.


English is not my main language so excuse the spelling/spoken mistakes.

Let me know your thoughts, I tried to give credit where possible (aka thanks Mark Grommers)
« Last Edit: April 02, 2019, 03:21:13 AM by shelldandy »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2019, 12:42:38 AM »
Thanks for your video, and the citation of the on-line
readable knots book A Few Good knots.

Note that where you refer to making a "bight"
you are making a "loop".
(The collar of the knot happens to be a bight.)

[Long discussion and some similarity to a rant
 about things knotty & especially tied in to *bowlines*.   ;)  ]

The EBDB was designed to be secure-when-slack
(particularly in kermantle ropes, as used by rock climbers,
SARescue personnel, cavers, & canyoneers); it achieved
its security from what I decided to call an "end bound"
wrap (with the "end").  ((Though now I might reflect
that such wording is general and could include any sort
of using-the-end securing, and also --per me-- I'd be
better using "tail" vice "end".))

Mark's luv of the "Yosemite" finnish led him (astray)
to prefer saving one loop of the base knot (i.e., single
vs. dbl. bowline), then tack on an extension to my
end-binding ("tail-wrapping"?) extension.  IMO, the
original knot is fine for its intended universe of use
(but to my amazement, it would spring loose in some
small, hard-to-feel-though-"soft=laid" PP cord!).
In contrast to the EBSB+Y, the EBDB has its binding
wrap hauled tight after forming it; this isn't possible
in the former knot, as one must have room to make
a later tuck through it; and after that, it's not so easily
tightened.  In some cases --i.p., the mirrored bowline--,
the knot isn't required to have a tight set, as its structure
though somewhat loose resists further loosening.
The EBDB should be hard-set of the binding wrap,
which in any case will likely see some space within it
on hard loading in elastic rope as the wrapped turns
diminish in diameter --but the security from the wrapping
isn't needed at this time, but when the knot's slack;
those parts should return pretty nearly to their full
diameter, then.


The aforementioned book implies that the EBDB
might be somehow vulnerable to coming untied
in ring-loading --to wit (p.18, between fig.s 17/18),
"The EBSB+Y Bowline, ... , was developed not only to be
more secure but also to resist ring-loading and consequently
reinstate the Bowline as a prominent climbing knot."

But the EBDB isn't vulnerable to ring-loading,
and it is more simply formed (& checked) than the EBSB+Y;
the latter might prove more slack-secure in that intransigent
twisted PP cord, though, as bight's though loose will not
readily *flow around & further wide-loosen* as loops (the
end-binding structure); and it allows the simple tying
method of a quick reach with & rotation of the wrist
described below.


I'm VERY sorry to see you --and this book-- perpetuate the
wrong view of the bowline, looking at it from its underside
instead of the top-side view!   >:(
I thought that this point was made perspicuous in the PACI
document --it's certainly one that Mark, Xarax, & I concurred
in (at least once upon a time) : a confluence of opinion worth
capturing for that fact alone!  ;D
Well, making another journey into that document, IMO it too
much caters to the past-popular perspective vs. giving more
of a better one and less of the old.  I really want to draw
users AWAY from the old way.

Instead of a method with the risk of mistaking which side of
the variously formed loop in the SPart to tuck the tail
through, rather make the simple and orientation-ensuring
quick reach out with the tail (in your right hand) UNDER
the SPart (which, note, prevents it from dropping away,
in contrast to the popularly shown method reaching OVER...!),
and quickly rotate the wrist to take this tail around down
through the just-formed eye and back up-out, casting in
the SPart's loop WITH the proper direction/orientation of
the tail now tucked through it.
AND ONE CAN MORE READILY SEE the workings of the
SPart's circling & nipping of the tail bight from this perspective.

Why perpetuate a tying method and view of the knot
that seemingly has rendered it in the minds of so many
users as being complex & hard to get right & ... so on?!?!
We really need to advance beyond this.
<harumph>


--dl*
====



Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2019, 01:47:25 AM »
Still in "similar to rant" mode,
I'll toss out some general remarks about tie-in knots.

Knotting enthusiasts might relish a plethora of knots
to explore & compare ... , but most In-the-Wild users
--perhaps especially those in life-critical endeavors--
will want few(er) choices and commonality/standards;
they want to quickly use the "right" knot which will be
one that others know to expect and simply *know*
(and not DLehman's latest favorite flight of fancy!).

Quote
[ :: FYI, I've been pressing to illustrate & make presentation
firstly (ca. Oct'17(!)) of tie-in knots history
 (the original, the changes, the mused-along-the-way),
with of course a look at some "bowlines" among others;
and currently --the first effort stalled-- it's now a matter
of what was first one set and then that expanded to now three sets
of "bowlinesque" knots --which is sometimes overwhelming
ME ("Do I have this, already?!" I keep wondering.)

E.g., consider (this isn't in but is somewhat like knots
in one set, in having an *eye collar*) loading the Angler's
/Perfection loop on its tail --which makes a nipping turn,
thus ... *bowline* (for ME)-- :: there are many such
knots that get some stability of orientation via an eye
collar
, and one set in which one can swap the eye collar
with the eye (i.e., retract the eye through its collar and
extend that out through a now shrunken-to-collar eye
to be the new eye), and also can load the tail (of both
prior & subsquent such "swapped" knots).

For my sanity/clarity, I had to sketch out to see that
one *seed* knot could be tail-loaded (okay) or else
eye/eye-collar swapped for decent new knots; and
each of these getting the other's treatment (i.e.,
load tail of swapped knot & swap the tail-loaded one)
produced my "Doubly HAH!".
But reversing the simple tail's-turn crossing w/itself
(which made a fig.8-based like knot, just like my above
"seed" one BUT, unlike that, not TIB), though also
producing decent knots either tail-loaded or "swapped",
when going the further step of taking the other's
operation ... got ITSELF (and not a new corresponding
knot to the Doubly HAH!).

.:.  All these structures had both ends make a turn
on entry (and one end would do more, the other
just exit into eye leg), and the latter case above
the turns were same handedness/chiralty, so that
led to the compounded operations returning to original.
(or so I think).
]

One can see knots from aspects of included structures.
E.g., it should be a simple matter to see a bowline and
then figure a double/round-turn bowline from it; to see
the basic 4-wraps Prusik & ProhGrip friction hitches and
figure out that 5-/6-/n-wrap versions are possible, and
sometimes beneficial!
To see a Yosemite tail wrap,
to see an "end-bound" wrap,
of that overhand-forming tail path Alan Lee included,
and, and the "Janus" collaring of an eye leg,
and so on ...
to producing *new* knots.

For tie-in knots, one should first get a good appraisal
of the materials & tyer needs.  E.g., "ring-loading" : is it
really an issue?  If one is tying so small an eye as is
shown in the OP's presentation, no; but if one has a large
eye or plans to use the eye qua *ring* for belaying
--a practice that has been shown (in some guide book,
even)--, then ... YES.
How about TIB?  --hardly needed for usual tie-ins; but
might be immensely helpful in other situations, no end
in sight.

On overall structure : consider I think it's DAV's (German
climbing org.) recommendation for using the bowline on
a bight
--but reeved, not TIB--, which gives twin eyes
for tie-in.  This had a perhaps advantage of being gentler
to the harness?! (2 strands vs 1 beating into webbing)
And to come completely untied, the tail must go a long
way, during which its flopping about should be obvious.
.:.  So, one could make twin-eyes a design criterion
for selecting a tie-in knot.
And so I've just been revisiting the eye knots derivable
from the overhand & fig.8 eye knots where the tail
reeves back into the base as though to make an *offset*
end-2-end knot
to see about putting in a 2nd eye
--sometimes with a simple tuck of tail through an ample
entanglement.  (But on this simple 2nd-eye finish, I do
worry that if the knot were used for belaying there'd
be confusion about selecting a single eye when both
should be used.)
And, for that matter, I've long ago figured a better finish
for the DAV knot than a pure BoaB, which has the sort
of "overhand" tail finish of Alan Lee's-locked knot (and
can be, not that it matters (or is easily seen), TIB!).
Why tie the BoaB whose tail finishes rather lamely
for the purpose?!

Alternatively, one might seek a knotted structure that
is built up of individually decent components, expecting
redundancy to play the key safety role, and finding some
relief from more complex structures in a combination of
simple ones.  Tying off whatever eye knot with a strangle
knot is an old one.
(To some extent, e.g. Lee's Link Bowline is a redundant
variation of the "Myrtle" --which is possibly what remains
should Lee's final tuck come out (though one must ask
how that could be and in what state is the rest of the knot
then!).  As can be seen of some other complex, extended
knots. )

One could envision and eye knot  feeding a hitch where
the hitch's tail made a stopper before returning into the
eye knot to finish it :: even if the eye ... untied, the stopper
could hardly walk off the line and so should lock even a
loose hitch (!) --sort of a Rube Goldbery tie-in :D .  But
beyond the amusement, one might question the effect(s)
of any looseness in the run of material before a back-up
came to the rescue --think "friction & heat".

Re this last consideration (material movement),
I wonder at some eye knot such as the mirrored bowline
that should avoid being jammed tight, allowing some
relaxation of the structure to be available on a further
loading to compress and absorb force --whereas e.g.
a fig.8 eye knot would jam hard and hold its compression--,
so that on a series of drops (FF1, say) one might see
a more rapidly increasing peak impact force for the F8
vs. the Mrd'BWL!?  But maybe they break at the same
number of drops?!  --with the F8 looking "stronger"
per higher force, but then consider that one's system
must endure those higher forces.  And could this
result happen with a difference in rupture forces
greater than shown in slow-pull testing (presuming
that there is a difference, in the F8's favor),
which we might believe must've resulted from some
damage from the repeated compressions of the BWL
not felt by the F8?!
  (I've NO idea of whether such is the case.)
(To which I must add that I wonder at the tensions
in the respective eye legs of the mirrored bowline,
in that the outgoing eye leg has two nipping turns
feeding it --and these are what will compress--
whereas the returning eye leg runs straight
through these turns.  One can swap the lower
turn into the returning eye leg, for balance!?)
((ACK, now a new stream of knotting fancy is flowing ... !))

.:.  Just more aspects to consider.


--dl*
====

shelldandy

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2019, 09:23:08 PM »
Hey there Dan!

Sorry I haven't logged in in quite a while here. Thanks for the reply! I need to read it carefully since english its not my main language once I do that I'll let you know my thoughts but i do appreciate the time you took to write such a detailed answer

shelldandy

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2019, 10:58:10 PM »
Quote
I'm VERY sorry to see you --and this book-- perpetuate the
wrong view of the bowline, looking at it from its underside
instead of the top-side view!   >:(

That was done clearly on purpose to show it from a first person view when tying into the harness for a climbing application.

Quote
Instead of a method with the risk of mistaking which side of
the variously formed loop in the SPart to tuck the tail
through, rather make the simple and orientation-ensuring
quick reach out with the tail (in your right hand) UNDER
the SPart (which, note, prevents it from dropping away,
in contrast to the popularly shown method reaching OVER...!),
and quickly rotate the wrist to take this tail around down
through the just-formed eye and back up-out, casting in
the SPart's loop WITH the proper direction/orientation of
the tail now tucked through it.
AND ONE CAN MORE READILY SEE the workings of the
SPart's circling & nipping of the tail bight from this perspective.

That sounds really interesting, would you mind elaborating with some pics or a vid on that matter?

Anyways even though the EBDB seems really great from what you are describing for the time being I'll stick with the single version since that has more pull data tests and its recommended on more books.

For your second post I think I need to re-read that several times since I'm not quite getting the message right. But thanks again for taking the time to answer in such a detailed manner.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2019, 08:53:29 PM »
Quote
I'm VERY sorry to see you --and this book-- perpetuate the
wrong view of the bowline, looking at it from its underside
instead of the top-side view!   >:(

That was done clearly on purpose to show it from a first person view when tying into the harness for a climbing application.
Whoa, I think you misunderstand me : I'm referring to
the, yes, as-seen/tied-by-climber-on-tie_in orientation
but flipping the knot over, top/front<=>back/bottom,
so that the SPart will be crossing UNDER the collar
and then in top-side visibility when making its turn
and cross (under) itself; the bight will run down into
the nipping loop and rise up around to collar the SPart
--easier to keep the non-crossing tail-bight parts in
mind than the crossing loop's.

AND the quick-tying method needs only a matching
change of over/under for this preferred orientation,
notably having after the quick tuck-&-turn the benefit
that the SPart will rest upon the outgoing eye leg
instead of dropping away w/o support!

Quote
Anyways even though the EBDB seems really great from what you are describing for the time being I'll stick with the single version since that has more pull data tests and its recommended on more books.
And this pull-test data says what, exactly
--that one wouldn't already know?!
Echoes of something don't really count ("more books");
one can find all sorts of even pure rubbish echoed.
But both knots work.  Echoes beget more; the quantity
does nothing for quality (though in one might hope that
it SHOULD amount to the many echoers having made
at least a little bit of independent assessment --in knotting,
sadly, it's mostly NOT the case.

Quote
For your second post I think I need to re-read that several times since I'm not quite getting the message right. But thanks again for taking the time to answer in such a detailed manner.
The short gist is that knots come with a variety
of mechanisms that make them work, and these
can be combined in new ways.  The "end-bound"
structure can join a "Yosemite wrap" one and
also a "double bowline" base knot be maybe
given additionally a 2nd eye (like the BoaBight)
... .

I tried to set out some thoughts about such
structures *in general*, such as "in general,
one might prefer a more complex knotting
by the tail vs. having the SPart do that,
even though security looks alike --just that
if the tail has a simple finish (in, U-turn, & out),
it raises some doubt.  So, the use of a 2-eye
tie-in eye knot comes with some reassurance
the failure in coming untied --and you don' have
test data on this; strength data is irrelevant--
it will have to lose/loose one eye and at that
point, a long flapping tail should alert the climber
of the state!  --and the, at least, one has a long
tail to be pulled out.

Cheers,
--dl*
====

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2019, 03:02:11 PM »
Hello shelldandy,

A nice presentation of my EBSB Bowline creation.
My name is spelt as Gommers (not Grommers).

Just some points:
1. At 3:38 in your video, you use the term 'bight' which instead should be 'nipping loop' (Dan also pointed this out).
2. Scott's locked Bowline is inherently secure - and can be used in life critical applications.


Some additional comments...
1. Bowline's are 'PET" (Post Eye Tiable) - which is a nice benefit, particularly when tying-in to a climbing harness or when anchoring your rope around a tree or large boulder.
2. We have recently updated the PACI 'protocols' document - which is a very rich and detailed paper on all things roping and height related (including some aspect of law).
Information in the 'protocols' is arrange in alphabetical order like a dictionary. Check out the updated section on knots.
3. My discovery of the EBSB occurred while searching for a 'better' tie-in knot for rock climbing. I was dissatisfied with Dan's EBDB as a potential tie-in knot to a climbers harness. I realized early on that the EBDB was not inherently secure in some human rated ropes.
4. I am now referring to 'ring' loading as circumferential (hoop) stress loading.
5. Tie-in knots for rock climbing and mountaineering must be inherently secure and capable of resisting a variety of off-nominal loading events - including loading events that are not linearly aligned along the Standing Part (SPart).

I am of the view that Dan's EBDB (Bowline) is not inherently secure - as evidenced in some dynamic climbing ropes and certain low stretch (abseil) ropes.
In contrast, the EBSB Bowline is inherently secure in all human rated ropes (eg EN1891 and EN892).

Scott's locked Bowline is also inherently secure in human rated ropes - as is Lees link Bowline.
Lees link Bowline is very interesting because there are no one-rope-diameter sharp turns in the knot structure. It is a little fiddly to dress but, as with any task, practice makes perfect.

I recently posted information about the Harry Butler variant of the 'Yosemite Bowline'. This structure is also inherently secure in all human rated ropes.
Harry Butler's variant has quite distinctive symmetry.

I am updating my 'Analysis of Bowlines' paper - and it will include Harry Butler's Bowline variant.

Mark
« Last Edit: April 27, 2019, 03:03:34 PM by agent_smith »

shelldandy

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2019, 03:29:59 PM »
Thanks for your thorough reply Mr Gommers (sorry for the confusion on the spelling :P) I find it very exciting that you are backing up Scott's lock since that's by far the easiest to tie. About Lee's link Bowline I haven't found some good step-by-step instructions on how to do it properly so for that reason I haven't even tried it. I hope you could point me in the right track towards learning it.

I'll probably do an updated video later on in the year with all the info discussed here. Thanks a lot for the clarifications!

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2019, 04:16:41 PM »
Although drifting away from the EBSB Bowline, images below showcase Lees link Bowline.

Scotts locked Bowline is one of the inherently secure Bowlines.

Of course, this holds true for human rated ropes (EN 564, EN 892, EN 1891).
Dyneema and other exotic cordage (including bungy cords) - are a different matter.
One has to keep in mind that Scotts locked Bowline and the EBSB Bowline were only intended for use in human rated ropes for life critical applications.

Harry Butlers Yosemite Bowline is another inherently secure Bowline (as is Alan Lees Yosemite Bowline).
All explained in my updated Analysis of Bowlines paper:
Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #2 in the table).

As with all knots that are intended for use in life critical applications - due diligence and accuracy is required.
This also means that sufficient tail must be left protruding from the knot core to ensure security.
There is an extreme short supply of peer reviewed testing on the minimum length of tail actually required.
That is going to be my next area of intense focus - will try to call in the cavalry to aid in getting some peer reviewed testing done.
It is slack shaking and cyclic loading that are most important - rather than slow pull to failure tests

Mark G

shelldandy

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2019, 04:26:07 PM »
Hey there Mark!

Just downloaded the paper again. But i still  can't figure out either Harry Buttlers variant nor Lees Link. But i guess knowing 3 out the 5 recommended ones for life critical applications will be enough for me now.

Thanks again for all the work putting that paper together for everyone to learn from

Edit: i managed to get Harry Butlers variant as well :D pretty much the same as Lee's Locked Yosemite huh.

I'll continue to try lees linked bowline.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2019, 05:23:03 PM by shelldandy »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB Bowline)
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2019, 10:57:21 PM »
Although drifting further away from the original topic of the EBSB Bowline...

Here is a link to Harry Butlers Yosemite Bowline.
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6306.0

With the images I posed for Lees link Bowline - you should be able to figure it out.
Start from a Myrtle.

...

With regard to your video on the EBSB Bowline, I would strongly suggest that you distinguish between those 'Bowlines' which are inherently secure versus those which aren't.
An inherently secure 'Bowline' does not require any form of additional 'backup stopper knot' to lock down the structure.
They are resistant to slack shaking and cyclic loading events.
By definition, if a knot requires a 'backup stopper knot' to make it secure - then it isn't inherently secure!

I would also ask that you are very careful when you use the word 'Bowline' - and avoid using that term as a 'catch-all' phrase for all 'Bowlines.
I am now referring to the #1010 Bowline as THE 'Simple Bowline.'
So you could (for example) say... "The #1010 Simple Bowline is not safe for life critical applications" ....... and that would be an accurate statement.
But, you could not say; "THE Bowline is not safe for life critical applications".

Mark G
« Last Edit: May 24, 2019, 11:05:35 PM by agent_smith »