Attempt to label and recreate bowline variations without pics. New knot too?

[Dan_Lehman]

I'm slowly yielding to a sort of *strategic* plan for
life-critical-secure eye knots where one adopts one
or both of these general plans:
1) the tail has a complex finish --nothing simple,
irrespective of the clamping/gripping prowess
of the SPart's part.
(E.g., my favored locktight is designed to deliver
strangle-like tight-secure binding to an eye knot
(but enable easy untying), and the returning eye leg
does but a simple --non-"complex"-- in-collar-out
finish as for the BWL.
Whereas Scott's lock and others have the tail
make a meandering back'n'forth.)

2) there is a 2nd eye formed, after the first returning
eye leg has some *involvement* (maybe simple) in
the knot.  (DAV e.g. recommends using the BoaBight.)
Should the knot start to come untied, there would be
this last-formed eye-leg material flapping about to
warn the user!  (Similarly if one tied off the tail with
a strangle knot.)

It's a sort of guard against the "who knows how ..."
threat of mysterious loosening, in which a simply
made tail might >whoooosh< out of a knot on a fall?!


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Although this now drifting off-topic...
See attached image for explanation of chirality.
Also see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix

The word chirality is derived from the Greek χειρ (kheir), "hand," a familiar chiral object.

...

With regard to the notation system as proposed by the original poster...
I have seen several attempts to come up with knot notation systems and all have either crashed and burned or died a slow death.
I think Harry Asher was possibly the first to try this... refer to his book: 'The Alternative Knot Book'.
All proposed systems appear to be conditional and based on a reference frame that might only have meaning to the individual who proposed it.
All notation systems rely on language - which can be problematic.

Its amazing to see the power of a clear, high quality photo

Be that as it may, am interested to see how this one plays out... and whether it too will die a slow death as those that went before.

EDIT NOTE:
I recommend interested readers have a look at the PACI protocols at this link:
Link: http://www.paci.com.au/guides.php (scroll down to the section titled 'Learning Support Materials')

All content is arrange in alphabetical order.
Look at 'chirality', 'Bend', and 'Knots'.

This document sort of represents my own personal doctoral thesis on all things related to activities at height.

[KnotLikely]

-----will someone please tell me how to escape the  back into ( 8 )s, please?-----

There is supposedly something one can  switch OFF,
but I don't recall what and IMO it seemed giving up
capability for too little.  So, I've used a '.' to thwart
the getting-a-facial out of using '8' sometimes.

Ugh.  The working copy of my main text (of which you are, here, referencing the first draft, 4 days after I first tied a bowline) is a text document on my computer.  Considering the formatting issues, it is best read when copied and pasted into a simple .txt document.  I'll not be keeping two separate copies.  I was hoping something like a simple / could cover it.  Meh.  Minor issue, considering what I'm working with.

Please use the last posted draft for discussion of my knot "naming" (though I try to re-order things as little as possible to prevent having to "re-name" each knot).

I'm personally interested only in climbing harness tie-in relevant bowlines,
at this time.  Part of this is my fascination with the knot.  Part of this is me having
realized how little information I could find on the practically infinite structures and
variations and finishes that are possible.  Part of this is that I'm sick of tying
figure 8 follow throughs and even more sick of attempting to untie them after any fall.

One way to have your 8 and eat it too,
is the Lehman8 --to wit:
(see Reply #9 at https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3133.0
I designed this eye knot expressly to have whatever the
magic was that made the fig.8 so strong AND the ease
of untying (via a collar) of the bowline --sorta succeeded.
Here's one informal report:

I loaded both the Zeppelin Loop and the Lehman8 to slightly greater than 50% MBS
 (~100kg in my stiff 3mm braid).
 Both knots did not noticeable slip and were easily untied after this high load.

...and this is why I began writing this paper of mine.  I have no clue how that knot is tied from the picture!  There are 4 lines exiting the nub; (Up), (Right), (Down Left Side), (Down Right Side).  My best guess is that it is a bowline with the S.Part in the Up position, the ongoing eye-leg in the Right position, the returning eye-leg in the DLS position and the tail in the DRS position.  This makes it a double bowline with the working end, post collar, returning only through the secondary nipping loop and then performing an "end bound" behind the ongoing leg with the tail following the returning eye-leg toward the harness.   This would be 2acvjmz (and also 2acvjmb as they are identical from that position).  Does the other side of that knot show the return of the collar through the nipping loops exiting after the secondary nipping loop and forming a Z loop around the ongoing eye-leg before returning through both nipping loops?

My 2acvjmz appears identical to yours from the one picture that I have, but seems to be lacking the tail security that is offered by the EBDB's (2acbgb) returning of the collar through both nipping loops.  Also, if I have the knot correct, the return of your tail binding returns through the collar, as well, before entering the nipping loops.

> Spart

Rather, that's 'SPart' or even 'S.Part' !   
--my hybrid merging of terms where I think
that strictly speaking, by definition & use,
"standing part" is ontologically limited to
the tying phase, and not necessarily
what becomes the fully loaded part of a knot
(i.p., where in using a reasonably short length
one can tie something *backwards* more
effectively than the *usual* way).
And I wanted it to mean that part that DOES
get the heavy load (of end-2-end joints & hitches,
of the 1-vs-2parts part of eye knots).

I refer to the S.Part as the belayer's line up to the point where it is forced to curve as it becomes the primary nipping loop.  As far as I can tell, this is the definition.

in the left hand with the working end coming toward me.
Spart shall be threaded from bottom to top through both loops
of a standard climbing harness and the working end will begin
all knots to the right side of the Spart.  My right hand will twist
to create the nipping loops in the Spart.  A "top twist" (Z chirality)
(right handed loop)(right hand thumb moving up)(loop formed on
the right side of Spart) will create a loop where the Spart goes
out the bottom and the working end, going into the harness,
will come out the top.  A "bottom twist" (right hand thumb moving down)
will create a loop where the Spart goes away from me on the
bottom side of the loop.  When multiple nipping loops
are created, they will be created and named from closest to me
to farthest from me.  All working ends shall begin by going through
the bottom of the nipping loop, around the Spart, and returning through
the nipping loop from the top (notwithstanding Lee's Link "Bowline").

[reddened stmnt referred to below]

I'm afraid you've lost me with the above.
A common reference to loops can be a compass
rose or a clock (or degreed circle with 0/360 at
the top/N/12:00), though you seem to imply that
your eye will fall in a vertical plane perpendicular
to you (so to have lower/upper eye legs per the
harness tie-in points which are vertically arrayed).

If I have a rope starting at me and moving away and I form a Z loop in it that lays to the right of the rope, the S.Part will exit the loop from the bottom side at 9 o'clock.   The portion of rope that comes to me will "exit that loop" from the top side at 9 o'clock and head toward me.

IMO, all bowlines ("BWLs") should be presented
such that the SPart crosses on TOP --in a plane
perpendicular to viewing-- of the nipping loop
that it forms; historically, it has been just the
opposite --and opposite to this for the similar
sheet bend(!!)--, and this IMO contributes much
to confusion in understanding this knot.
(Agent_Smith's BWL paper calls my favored view
"the detail view", and uses it too seldom, but at
least puts it out there vs. parroting fully the
historical nonsense.)

I agree.  This is half of the form that all my knots are viewed from.  The other half is that the eye should be at the bottom as this is the reference point of a climber tying in to their harness.  While using their right hand to form the initial Z loop in the S.Part, the Spart travels in front/on top of the collar.  The one photo of your Lehman8 appears to be flipped over both vertically and horizontally, to me.

As for "chirality" --an expensive substitute for "handedness"
  --, IIRC Agent_Smith's reading of this disagrees with my
own.  (E.g., looking at an eye-going-up image on a page,
and the SPart going around anti-clockwise and crossing
OVER ..., I call that a right-handed loop.  But do note
that while at this *start* of the loop it's going indeed
as a Z helix, unlike that it comes around behind/below
itself, and of course a helix would continue turning up
and away!?)

Yes.  Right handed and Z chirality are the same thing.

For discussion of the nipping loops after initial creation, in cases where multiple nipping loops were created, the first nipping loop shall be the loop that cinches first (closest to running Spart).  **This may be the reverse of the order given in the creation of the nipping loops.**  The specific knot being discussed should already be defined.  Calling the loop that grabs first and the hardest the "first" just seems to make sense to me, as does creating them closest to me first and moving away.

Your red statements immediately & farther above IMO
contradict each other.  I side with this latter one, in the
spirit of its being what first gets the 100% force into it.
Though do note that a BWL can be "cast" in with a tail
to the SPart after some other tying occurs (and then
one might reeve the tail through this other knot for
security).

--dl*
====

They do contradict each other, as previously noted in green.  I have left "first nipping loop" as the one created closest to my harness and "second nipping loop" as the one created next, moving further from me on the S.Part.  I have already changed the references to "the nipping loop that engages first" to "primary nipping loop" and removed that paragraph to avoid confusion.

[Dan_Lehman]

Although this now drifting off-topic...
See attached image for explanation of chirality.
Also see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix

... which misses the point to be made : that the turNip
(central nipping loop) of your traditional BWL is NOT a
simple "helix" --it begins as such but then turns back
upon itself (which would be a helix with negative angle!).
And this has the practical effect on esp. laid cordage.
What you show on your PACI BWL doc. p.8, e.g.,
is a LEFT-handed BWL per common rope-assessing
& knot-assessing procedures : the SPart going away
from the viewer (into the nipping turn) bends leftwards;
but then it bends so much as to deny a helical continuation
that way, coming back under itself.  (And is maybe one more
thing better presented by showing the BWL from the front
and not the so-wrongheaded-&-parroted traditional view!) 
That is the issue with the "loop" of a BWL.

It's amazing to see the power of a clear, high quality photo

Or so I thought, 'til the OP looked at mine of the Lehman8
and saw novel things in it other than I intended --but, ah,
such seeing is one more way to find *new* knots (a good
one, too)!!

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

One way to have your 8 and eat it too,
is the Lehman8 --to wit:
(see Reply #9 at https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3133.0
I designed this eye knot expressly to have whatever the
magic was that made the fig.8 so strong AND the ease
of untying (via a collar) of the bowline --sorta succeeded.
Here's one informal report:

I loaded both the Zeppelin Loop and the Lehman8 to slightly greater than 50% MBS
 (~100kg in my stiff 3mm braid).
 Both knots did not noticeable slip and were easily untied after this high load.

...and this is why I began writing this paper of mine.
I have no clue how that knot is tied from the picture!
There are 4 lines exiting the nub [:]
 (Up), (Right), (Down Left Side), (Down Right Side).
My best guess is that it is a bowline with the S.Part in the Up position,
the ongoing eye-leg in the Right position,
the returning eye-leg in the DLS position
and the tail in the DRS position.
This makes it a double bowline with the working end,
post collar, returning only through the secondary nipping loop
and then performing an "end bound" behind the ongoing leg
with the tail following the returning eye-leg toward the harness.

Well, the image is defensibly ambiguous, though
that's quite a swing for the outgoing eye leg(!).
But the context was of using a fig.8 base which
is amply clear in the adjacent knot's orange rope.

So, Up is SPart, Right is tail, DLS is outgoing eye leg,
and then I --basing judgement on one assertion of
stronger version of F8 being with *exterior* strand
loaded (and inferring that this resulted from its bearing
into the twin/interior strand and off-loading force over
a fair distance gradually)--
sought to put in such a part for the SPart to bear into,
and that you see means that the DRS is the returning
eye leg reaching in to turn towards viewer adjacent
to the (and so supporting the) SPart,
then wrapping around (and making an overhand
in more of a stopper orientation) the eye legs for a
squeeze and out (into Right field).  (Set by tightening
this overhand so to give good slack-security AND
to have a solid lump for that SPart to bear against.

But, again, doing some imagining of other ways that
knotted tangle might be connected ... can sometimes
yield a nice surprise!  (E.g., I discovered a nice mid-line
BWL this way : cut off returning eye leg to leave now
a new tail and connect to old tail.)


> Spart

I refer to the S.Part as the belayer's line up to the point
where it is forced to curve as it becomes the primary nipping loop.
 As far as I can tell, this is the definition.

Hmmm, I'd say you've gone indefinitely long,
in that my "SPart" is of the knot, not of the
great wide world beyond, and indeed of the
knot and not of things YET TO BE & BECOMING
a knot(!) --more the traditional sense.
And I've mused about a regard of SPart to be
up to the point where force is so low that it
could  be damaged w/o much consequence
--but isn't that a problematic criterion!



--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

IMO, all bowlines ("BWLs") should be presented
such that the SPart crosses on TOP --in a plane
perpendicular to viewing-- of the nipping loop
that it forms; historically, it has been just the
opposite --and opposite to this for the similar
sheet bend(!!)--, and this IMO contributes much
to confusion in understanding this knot.
(Agent_Smith's BWL paper calls my favored view
"the detail view", and uses it too seldom, but at
least puts it out there vs. parroting fully the
historical nonsense.)

I agree.  This is half of the form that all my knots are viewed from.
The other half is that the eye should be at the bottom
as this is the reference point of a climber tying in to their harness.
While using their right hand to form the initial Z loop in the S.Part,
the Spart travels in front/on top of the collar.
The one photo of your Lehman8 appears to be flipped over
both vertically and horizontally, to me.

In making a BWL in tying in, the right-handed climber
working as you describe re tail in right hand
should reach out UNDER the SPart from the right
and back OVER it from left (in a fluid motion)
and down & up-rightwards to cast into the SPart
a right-handed loop (which Agent_Smith would
call "lefthanded/S", but see other post's response
to that --that we don't have here a real helix but
a loop, where from either end into it the line only
begins to helically curve but continues in a sort
of *negative* angle.  (I want my right-handed
knots to match at the point of initial turning my
like-handed rope!)).
AND so --contrary to the trad. way of making this
casting-in operation going the opposite direction--,
the SPart will rest upon the now-revealed
outgoing eye leg (and no 3rd hand is needed!).


My photo'd Lehman8 makes a left-handed turn
of the SPart into the 8, and has the initial/main
crossing of SPart at its U-turning reach going
OVER (nevermind the less significant passage
through the collar.  Ditto for the BWL, as noted.
Just as the sheet bend is primarily presented!
(There is a little variance here, but only little.)

((Ha!!  Here's quite some variance --looks to be
my locktight but it comes merely as adornment
sans explanation, and all else of the page/site
is pure basic BWL.
https://gravitec.com/fall-protection-rescue-knots/bowline-2/
))

Yes.  Right handed and Z chirality are the same thing.

That I've got; it's the bit about assessing the
quality --by whatever name-- that's the issue.


--dl*
====

[KnotLikely]

My climbing tie-in.  End Bound Girth Hitch Bowline.  8acbgb.

https://imgur.com/a/7xF8w1q

This knot must be released by snapping the collar, drawing in some standing line and then snapping the switchback.  It cannot bind like a figure 8 follow through.

You can mess this knot up in almost every way possible and it stays secure.

Make the girth hitch wrong and it simply forms into one of the other 3 ways to position a girth hitch
-sz, switchback faces away is my preferred, and pictured
-sz, switchback faces me places the primary nipping loop closest to the S.Part and allows the ongoing eye-leg to slightly separate the nipping loops.  The EB move helps to stabilize them.  A link before the collar does even better.
-zs, switchback faces away also has the S.Part, primary nipping loop on top.  Needs the End Bound to help stabilize
-zs, switchback faces me produces a stable knot

If you insert the working end into the nipping loops from the wrong side, you have just switched the way the switchback faces and the order of the nipping loops.

Even if you absolutely fail to properly make a collar, and instead make a loop around the nipping loops, the switchback forms a collar, of sorts, and you have done a sort of double end bound.  This failed collar results in the "link" from Lee's Link Bowline followed by the "end bound" from the EBDB (these are basically the same thing).  Even with no collar, both of the resulting knots appear to be stable and secure as long as one of these loops incorporates the ongoing eye-leg.

The security of the knot does not seem to be affected by line positions through the nipping loops.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems impossible to tie my EBGHB wrongly enough to kill myself.  Can anyone produce an insecure variation from this nipping loop form?

[SS369]

Hi Knotlikely.

Sticking to the original post I have this to add.

One of the most comprehensive websites on knotting is Peter Suber's  "Knots of the Web. > http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/knotlink.htm  It is no longer updated since 2004...

That offered, here is an additional link (on topic) to his page on knot notation. > http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/knotting/notate.htm

This subject has been iterated numerous times with most "I'd like/need pictures" comments.

Thank you for your work.

SS

[KnotLikely]

Oh, my god.  I saw that notation system, like... 9 years ago!  I looked and looked for hours for some notation system so I could organize and replicate and compare the bowlines that I was beginning to tie.  I didn't find it and started writing one, myself, specifically for bowline tie-ins from the climber's perspective.  I know that agent_smith mentioned that systems had been attempted, before, but he didn't provide any links.

I still prefer my system, being more concise and with a quick cheat-sheet, over something better defined, but much harder to memorize or notate a new knot with.

Thanks, again.

p.s.  Any thoughts on the tie-in I chose?  Can you find a way to make a tying mistake that makes it unsafe?

Hi Knotlikely.

Sticking to the original post I have this to add.

One of the most comprehensive websites on knotting is Peter Suber's  "Knots of the Web. > http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/knotlink.htm  It is no longer updated since 2004...

That offered, here is an additional link (on topic) to his page on knot notation. > http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/knotting/notate.htm

This subject has been iterated numerous times with most "I'd like/need pictures" comments.

Thank you for your work.

SS

[SS369]

Knotlikely,

if you like it, feel safe with its use, then by all means enjoy.

I tied it a few times and found I had to fiddle with it to make it satisfactory, to me, and it made me think of if and when my hands are tired or cold or even gloves on how would it go. Personally, for me, I don't think the added complexity adds much if anything for my own use.

Be safe.

SS

[Kost_Greg]

Hi, KnotLikely and thanks for this distinctive bowline variation. I believe you are the first knotter, to my best of knowledge, who introduces an end bound finish in a girth hitch-like nipping structure and it appears that you have accomplished your design goal of developing a stable, well-secured knot for your application.

Should i add some remarks, just for clarification purposes.....

My climbing tie-in.  End Bound Girth Hitch Bowline.  8acbgb.

1) With respect to your knot depiction and provided that i have followed your tying sequence properly, it appears that you have rather formed a type of a pretzel/reversed girth hitch bowline with an end bound enhancement.

If you insert the working end into the nipping loops from the wrong side, you have just switched the way the switchback faces and the order of the nipping loops.

2) Still, if you wish to end up with a girth hitch bowline, you might insert the WE down through this particular nipping structure you show, continuing then with your additional end bound link maneuver in order to complete the knot.

3) In my view, there are eight potential variations of pretzel/girth hitch bowlines, depending on the four potential girth hitch formations (as you correctly point out), and the way of insertion of the WE up or down through the nipping loops.

Personally, for me, I don't think the added complexity adds much if anything for my own use.

4) I would not argue about the added complexity, which i find rather reasonable, but i would draw attention to the powerfull constriction of a pretzel nipping structure and how this type of nip in conjuction with the end bound link would feed back negatively, into the jam resistance of the knot.

5) I am not into notation/coding systems a lot, but i admire your will to create order out of knotting chaos . Having said that,  although i am a supporter of the consensus that an image equals to thousand words, i believe your notation system might work and reward us with new offerings.

Can anyone produce an insecure variation from this nipping loop form?

I would not know anything about insecure variations, but i would certainly like to contribute with some  decent knot structures, presented in the following links, for comparison and further study/evaluation, closely related to your creation.

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4306.msg26837#msg26837

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3994.msg23760#msg23760

Would a choice of an Ampersand-like finish  be another path for the WE that leads to Tibness in both pretzel/girth hitch knot structures?

[Dan_Lehman]

My climbing tie-in.  End Bound Girth Hitch Bowline.  8acbgb.

https://imgur.com/a/7xF8w1q

This knot must be released by snapping the collar, drawing in some standing line and then snapping the switchback.  It cannot bind like a figure 8 follow through.

Yet to play with THIS version, in some prior fiddling
with what I think Agent_Smith/Xarax MIGHT deny
*bowline*ality --because the initial SPart turn comes
back on the eyeside of itself opposite to that of a
bowline-- found that it could jam at least to the
point of being a PITA to loosen.  But your falling upon
it has found it pliable enough?

At the point of your 5th image, the returning eye leg
should --per remark above-- be going through from
the opposite side (i.e., down through the girth's
nipping loops), which puts it on track to become
the mirrored bowline.

Your knot has so many strands *stuffed* into it
that it's likely to stay tied even rather loose,
which is my design for the mirrored bowline
--as opposed to the "end-bound" ones which
were expected to be set tight and hold that set
(and which in one particularly difficult cord did NOT!).
.:.  Definitely the tail is taking a *complex* finish,
not to come undone very easily!


--dl*
====

[KnotLikely]

Yet to play with THIS version, ... found that it could jam at least to the
point of being a PITA to loosen.  But your falling upon
it has found it pliable enough?

Absolutely.  As soon as I bend back the collar, the Spart is able to be pulled through.  As soon as I bend back the switchback (only possible once the Spart is quite loose through the collar), even the tiny bit possible when it is held in place by a misplaced tail of the EB through the nipping loops, the primary nipping loop releases enough to allow the ongoing eye leg, the tail and the secondary nipping loop to practically fall apart.  I haven't tried pulling a stump with a tractor, yet, or anything, but I've taken 4 good whippers in a row and it has released as easily as when I'm sitting in front of my computer beating the knot into my head by tying it, again and again.  I've needed a carabiner to release a figure 8 follow-through after a single whipper.

Hi, KnotLikely and thanks for this distinctive bowline variation. I believe you are the first knotter, to my best of knowledge, who introduces an end bound finish in a girth hitch-like nipping structure and it appears that you have accomplished your design goal of developing a stable, well-secured knot for your application.

1) With respect to your knot depiction and provided that i have followed your tying sequence properly, it appears that you have rather formed a type of a pretzel/reversed girth hitch bowline with an end bound enhancement.

If properly ~~tied~~ (set, not tied.  Once all 4 lines have been tugged on, it dresses itself), the cross exists only directly at the switchback, never revealing any pretzel formation.  I'd be happy with End Bound Reverse Girth Hitch Bowline; EBRGHB.  My, the name is getting long.

2) Still, if you wish to end up with a girth hitch bowline

I do not.  From my limited testing, I believe that tension on both the S.Part and the ongoing eye-leg being able to separate the nipping loops leads to instability and a less secure tie-in.  When using a proper girth hitch, I would always advocate for a Lee's Link move before the collar is formed in order to attempt to combat the spreading of the nipping loops.

I'd also advocate the added complexity, if only for the beauty!  https://i.imgur.com/eF7Bzas.jpg
(proper girth hitch switchback pointed away on left side, lee's link, regular bowline, EB ...dressing and setting the EB pulls the collar off the link)

3) In my view, there are eight potential variations of pretzel/girth hitch bowlines, depending on the four potential girth hitch formations (as you correctly point out), and the way of insertion of the WE up or down through the nipping loops.

In my harness tie-in knotting system, I have chosen to ignore all mirror image knots as they are simply an upside down or mirror version of a currently described knot, not something novel.  Inserting through the nipping loops from the other side creates a mirrored version with the primary nipping loop switched.  That "same" knot can be created by simply switching the SZ to ZS and/or by switching which way the switchback is facing.

Personally, for me, I don't think the added complexity adds much if anything for my own use.

4) I would not argue about the added complexity, which i find rather reasonable, but i would draw attention to the powerful constriction of a pretzel nipping structure and how would this type of nip in conjunction with the end bound link might feed back negatively, into the jam resistance of the knot.

If you are saying that the reverse girth hitch may increase the jamming of the knot, I've found the reverse to be true.  The switchback keeps surprising me at how easily it allows the knot to be released while maintaining the structure when not purposefully pulled apart.  Also, the primary nipping loop binds the secondary nipping loop at the switchback, helping to hold its tension, but also allowing the second breaking step to allow an easy release.

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4306.msg26837#msg26837

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3994.msg23760#msg23760

I have had both those tabs open in Firefox since the day before I posted, along with probably 20 others.  

Would a choice of an Ampersand-like finish  be another path for the WE that leads to Tibness in both pretzel/girth hitch knot structures?

Never mind, I found it.
~~I know that one of those 20 tabs has a reference to the Ampersand finish buried on page 15 or 16.  Care to share a link with me, here, so I don't have to go searching for an hour?~~

A "half ampersand" finish that only incorporates the secondary nipping loop is stable and is TIB.  A "full ampersand" finish that incorporates both nipping loops is not TIB and the knot sets itself in such a way that the secondary nipping loop never engages.  It locks itself into a loose position and the knot is much harder to undo after loading.

If the ampersand finish didn't require such precise weaving to be tied correctly (I'll never be able to repeat that 100 times, perfectly, with my eyes closed) I might consider it as a possible (bonus TIB) replacement for my EBRGHB.

As I weave the tail through different places, I find myself coming to the conclusion that as long as the tail returns through some part of the nipping loops (and often even just the switchback) of a reverse girth hitch and it doesn't undo a previous line through the nipping loops, it is likely stable.  A half ampersand from both the front and the back of the ongoing eye-leg gives a stable knot.  A version of the ampersand from the returning eye-leg side, running through the switchback, or not running through the switchback are also secure.  The half-ampersand around the returning eye-leg is also TIB.  Most of these also work with the cowboy bowline (left hand bowline) as well.

If the knot doesn't fall apart in my hands when I dress and set it, it seems to produce a secure knot as long as I perform any sort of finish with the tail.  Very few moves seem to not work in conjunction with the RGHB to secure the tail.  Basically, just don't reverse my last move.

[Dan_Lehman]

Yet to play with THIS version, ... found that it could jam at least to the
point of being a PITA to loosen.  But your falling upon
it has found it pliable enough?

Absolutely.

Yes, quite.  I must've been thinking of versions
using a similarly *cross*-loaded  clove h. start.

Personally, for me, I don't think the added complexity adds much if anything for my own use.

I'm afraid I come down on this being overly *involved*
for what is otherwise available for less complexity;
and I still like variations of the mirrored bwl for their
loose-but-no-looser aspects,
BUT for which I'd love to see tests of low-to-moderate
(well, one relevant to actual usage) repeated falls upon
so to assess any chafing issues (of the non-jamming,
loose-knot-remaining, knot, which must be so as a result
of significant rope movement/tightening in each fall).


--dl*
====

[Kost_Greg]

Care to share a link with me, here, so I don't have to go searching for an hour?~~

There is no other link with such a reference allied with your previous creation that i could point you to, except for my own implementation of a pseudo ampersand pretzel bowline structure, shown in the attached images.

The nipping structure slightly diverges from yours and demands a Z loop lying on top of an S loop this time, with a down through insertion of the working end for a pretzel bowline structure formation.

I guess, i could hold the Ampersand (&) tucking at the Fontus level, but beyond tibness, i need this three strand squeezing effect to take place and firmly clamp the tail. It appears to be a stable and secure variation, but still in experimental phase.