multiple knots in a line

[roo]

Note: Ashley erroneously describes #1058 as a "single Bowline on the bight" (it isn't a 'Bowline').

Perhaps Clifford Ashley had a more flexible definition of "bowline" than you.  Why assume error when a difference of opinion on mere naming convention seems far more likely?  He also assigns that name to ABoK #1057.

[mainebingo]

Note: Ashley erroneously describes #1058 as a "single Bowline on the bight" (it isn't a 'Bowline').

Perhaps Clifford Ashley had a more flexible definition of "bowline" than you.  Why assume error when a difference of opinion on mere naming convention seems far more likely?  He also assigns that name to ABoK #1057.

He gives a definition for bowline in the "glossary of terms" which is an indication he used it broadly.  If you word search ABoK for "bowline", it appears surprisingly (to me) often.

[Dan_Lehman]

#1047 Figure 8 eye knot could not be used for such a test (although #1058 directional F8 could be used).

The CMC Rope Rescue Safety Manual (3rd ed.**) test results
show a higher break point on their tests of these
knots for the former (!), which is not all that much
lower than for the butterfly (of some orientations
/geometries we don't know), in Rhino Rescue rope
(half-inch, low-elongation kernmantle).

[** Aha, I see that there is now also both a 4th & 5th!
  So, two points of interest in these.]

As for Ashley's "bowline" in the cited passage, IIRC
he is rather openly echoing some others' nomination,
citing one or another knot as "having the better claim".
(What surprises me is that a *real* Single BWL on a
Bight was so long in coming, when an adventurous
and clever soul should've pretty much just taken
the 2-eye version and worked it back to single!)


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

per roo:

Perhaps Clifford Ashley had a more flexible definition of "bowline" than you.  Why assume error when a difference of opinion on mere naming convention seems far more likely?  He also assigns that name to ABoK #1057.

A very curious comment indeed.
Not sure why you felt it necessary to post it? There is no doubt a deeper underlying reason that remains elusive.

I would be enthusiastically excited to debate this topic point with you in great detail if you could kindly start another topic post.
That way, this thread wont be derailed.

(Ashley did not have a clear and succinct geometric definition of a 'Bowline' in 1944 - he worked within the traditions and conventions that existed in that era).

[James Petersen]

It would seem that since a knot weakens a rope in the direct vicinity of the knot, a second knot tied at a sufficient distance form the first would have no bearing on the strength of the rest of the rope, and therefore would not further weaken the rope in the vicinity of other knots. 

"A chain is only as strong as its weakest link", not "a chain is weaker than its weakest link."

JEP