Author Topic: Possibly another Eskimo Bowline?  (Read 579 times)

NAWTZ

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Possibly another Eskimo Bowline?
« on: January 31, 2020, 12:31:48 PM »
Hello IGKT. Here is another variation of the Eskimo Bowline. I call it - Kelvin Lock Eskimo Bowline.
Start with a loose - Lock Eskimo Bowline
Look at photo #3 & #7. You start with image #3:
Take the working end (moving towards the left) and run it parallel with the lefthand side of the loop - ending up with image #7

tsik_lestat

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Possibly another Eskimo Bowline?
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2020, 06:55:32 PM »
Hello NAWTZ, welcome and thanks for your new decent, well secured variations of the Eskimo bowline.

Your idea behind these knots is not exactly new, but if you are not familiar with knots like yosemite bowline, or Lee's locked yosemite bowline, your creations obtain even more knotting value.

You might find plenty of reports in relation to the well known yosemite bowline abound in this forum with the most recent i remember in this link by asemery https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6598.0, as well as a video presentation of Lee's locked yosemite from the original creator, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsay6C91cqc.

You seem to incorporate these locking mechanisms used in the previous mentioned bowlines, as collar components, to further secure an Eskimo bowline, which i have not seen so far.

I do not agree with the consensus view that there is no point of adding further tail maneuvers to secure Eskimo bowlines, but then again i am curious of how would these tangles respond to high strain loadings, since the eskimos have the reputation that they do not untie very easily, so adding figure eights and overhands would render the untying process more challenging or problematic.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 07:33:40 PM by tsik_lestat »
Going knots

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Possibly another Eskimo Bowline?
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2020, 09:36:09 AM »
per NAWTZ,

With regard to your top image:
1. The knot at left is an anti-Yosemite Bowline and the one on the right is a miss-tied Anti-Lees locked Yosemite Bowline.

I say 'miss-tied' in the sense that your tail maneuvers missed going through the nipping loop.
But, you may have intentionally missed going back through the nipping loop on purpose - to create something else?

Have a look at my bottom image (Lees locked Yosemite Bowline).
Of course, you would need to tie the 'anti' version of this...

The concept of 'Anti' Bowlines is not new... i think the first person to describe such a concept was Dan Lehman.
I would imagine that every 'Bowline' might also have its 'anti' version...? Although I make this comment in passing because I haven't fully explored each and every possible 'Bowline' to see if there also exists an 'anti' version of itself. In theory, it 'should' be possible...

NAWTZ

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Possibly another Eskimo Bowline?
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2020, 01:38:51 PM »
Hello agent_smith. I understand what your saying, but I would call the knot Eskimo Bowline (not anti Bowline). I'm referring to the book "The Ultimate Encyclopedia of KNOTS & ROPEWORK by Geoffrey Budworth. In the book it states that the Arctic explorer Sir John Ross(1777-1856) brought an Eskimo sled back to England. Upon inspection, the sled contained numerous such knots in its rawhide lashings, evidence that this was a genuine Eskimo knot. If this knot was created by the Eskimos and who knows how long they've been using it, I would have to honor the Eskimos by naming the knot after them.

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Possibly another Eskimo Bowline?
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2020, 03:06:17 PM »
Quote
Hello agent_smith. I understand what your saying, but I would call the knot Eskimo Bowline (not anti Bowline). I'm referring to the book "The Ultimate Encyclopedia of KNOTS & ROPEWORK by Geoffrey Budworth. In the book it states that the Arctic explorer Sir John Ross(1777-1856) brought an Eskimo sled back to England. Upon inspection, the sled contained numerous such knots in its rawhide lashings, evidence that this was a genuine Eskimo knot. If this knot was created by the Eskimos and who knows how long they've been using it, I would have to honor the Eskimos by naming the knot after them.

And I would counter by stating that what you like to refer to as an 'Eskimo' Bowline belongs to a class of structures known as 'anti Bowlines'.
I would also point out that others have also made claim to the structure. Look at the kalmyk loop as yet another variation of the same basic structure.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmyk_loop
And there is also the 'Cossack knot'...
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_knot

Who precedes who? And who has title to the claim of any local common naming?

What I am saying is that the geometry of these structures is 'anti' - in the sense that all maneuvers are in an opposite direction to the simple #1010 Bowline.
It would seem to be possible that each type of 'Bowline' has an 'anti' version of itself.
Whilst I haven't explored each and every 'Bowline' to see if there is an 'anti' version - there definitely exists an anti Yosemite Bowline, an anti EBSB Bowline, an anti Bowline on-a-bight and an anti Lees link Bowline.

Given these facts, it seems logical to develop a theory to account for these types of knot structures.
All 'Bowlines' (including 'anti' Bowlines) have a nipping loop.
The nipping loop is fundamental to all 'Bowlines' - without which, there would be no 'Bowline'.

Whilst there exists 'common names' for many knots - and yes, the anti version of #1010 has been called 'Eskimo' or 'Kalmyk' - they are nevertheless 'anti-Bowlines'.
The Kalmyk is simply a slipped 'Eskimo Bowline' (aka anti #1010 Bowline).

Did you know that there are actually four (4) different versions of the anti #1010 Bowline (aka 'Eskimo Bowline')?
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 03:09:48 PM by agent_smith »

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 298
    • latest project
Re: Possibly another Eskimo Bowline?
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2020, 12:38:24 PM »
In forces, direction is always and all ways a very important quantity.
Geometry rules as outer constraint in all these loaded things,
such is meant by the G and tools in FreeMason symbol, as a 'Sacred/Holy Science' of outer constraint/defining limits of scenario
and the arch in architecture as well, so as never to try to support at Zer0 cosine position of perpendicular force flow.
>>like lateral/ring loaded/across side force pulls do in eye/ring in normal Bowline
vs. same in the adjusted lock position of 'anti' class that meets more properly the across forces
.
These 'ant-' lateral force' (to rest of rope) Bowline's class of lacings turn the locking mechanism/nipping loop functions to the side/lateral/cross-axis to the rest of the line,
>>converting what was the SPart of a normal Bowline, to now be the reverse of Bitter End (to Be or knot to BE! ) function
to match the spreading/splayed angle of forces different directional from the mainline angle.
>>Normally a Bowline /fixed eye is at end of line for a 'linear' set of pulls down rope length of SPart to eye
Loop spread across is usually more from all force inside of loop, minimal or none to mainline length that would cut across forceline of lateral pulls across eye.
>>Splayed eyes similarly have pulls across, but 2 loops, locking mechanism turned to match this force flow once again, but also more likely to have a pull down the main line/SPart i think, and more angled than pure right angle to rest of line.
>>here each eye serves as Equal/Opposite ballast of other, then have rest of line , SPart too
>>in ring loaded single eye, different game of the E/O's in same domain/eye to locking mechanism as 1 rather than to each side of lock
i hesitate to say mainline as SPart on anti-Bowline /ring loaded/single non splayed eye, for SPart is many times not loaded/BE, so more of a visual than (force) functional reference compared to standard SPart references of more standard linear forces to length of line
>>and i think can have de-stabilizing influences to the structure if heavily loaded.
>>just as cross loading a normal Bowline, who's locking mechanism isn't turned to face the force flow can de-stabilize/same directional thingy
>>specifically as anti-Bowline would not look for the main line to be loaded more than 'cross loaded' ring/eye, if at all because of this
.
i also think there has been some awareness on other forums that the  indigenous Eskimo peoples (for whatever reason/not sure) may have taken exception to this connotation; as like sport teams changing names for similar respects (perhaps Bears will complain next to Chicago?).
.
So all considered, i (personally) think once again the Geometry is the proper descriptor(but that is my usual across the bored stance to be honest) ;
not only in sensitivity, but functional understanding, invitation to look deeper and see the consistent ruling framework  of all these things
>>that a regional reference just doesn't perpetuate, nor even lend.
.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2020, 01:39:11 PM by KC »
Rope-n-Saw Life
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~