Hi Mark,
I like to delete my name on the contributor page, I did not contribute any discussion on the theory side,
I only have a few knots.beside it you are the one found the use for Lee- Zep X eye knot, you guys have more credit than me.
Any way thanks for include my knots in you Bowline paper.
Your bowline paper look great, it is no an easy task, I appreciate your effort making this useful booklet for others to use.
謝謝 alan lee. oh! I live in Vancouer not USA.
VER 2.4f is completed and ready for download.
New content added - and some fine tuning.
…
NOTICE TO IGKT members:
It is my intention to lock this paper down and to start charging a fee for use.
IGKT members who have made a meaningful contribution will receive free copies.
VER 2.4f has reached a stage where it is of reasonable quality with content that is acceptable. Some additional work remains - but I am satisfied that the paper has progressed to a much higher level than earlier versions in 2013. Producing this paper has consumed many hours and taxed much of my resources.
I have not set a lock down date as yet - but, it will be very soon.
Hi Mark,
maybe it could be useful to include a description of a “well tied” (standard) Bowline, for instance, how long (rope diameter) should be the whole collar (the bight coming out from the nipping loop)? 3 - 7?
ciao,
s.
I like this --to my viewing-- enlarged image,
for the sake of some commentary.
Tie this in a reeving-the-tail method (not TIB way)
up to the point where the tail is returned in through
the central nipping loop the 2nd time,
AND THEN
take the end around behind the left-side twin
eye legs --as done, so far-- BUT ALSO back
behind the right-side (“ongoing”) eye legs,
AND THEN
tuck the tail down into the nipping loop
between the collar legs and under itself.
Hauling the tail tight should gain security,
BUT WITH LARGER EYE than maybe one might
normally want/use for a climber’s tie-in (as
you need enough eye to be pulled in by this
tightened tail wrap, and then to be able to
open for whatever is tied to by the eye).
IMO, this finish makes more sense than the
promoted just-like-bowline_on_a_bight finish
–which, yeah, gives the tail more turns that should
impede loosening/ravelling a bit, but really aren’t
the best engineered as a finishing movement,
unlike what I’ve just verbally sketched.
(And which sketch results also in a TIB knot,
although there are some further adjustments
that destroy this feature, but which might be
favored where the TIB aspect is irrelevant.)
Otherwise, and further, we should note that the particular
version/loading of this knot is one of two possible; and
there is some issue of how exactly to orient the eye legs
as they come from the nub --a problematic thing.
VER 2.4g is ready for download.
A major re-write of the Myrtle section at pages 30-31.
Some new images added and some older images replaced and/or enhanced.
Several amendments / grammar / edits made to several pages.
Removed the ‘barbie shoe’ from the mirrored Bowline.
…
I also need clarification on the images at pages:
page 40 (figure 8 )
page 49 (figure 24 )
I am confused as to who discovered what and when and to what extent Xarax was involved…???
…
I think I am drawing closer to the light at the end of the verrrrrrry lonnnng tunnel.
I welcome any constructive criticism…
Mark
Hi Mark,
i didn’t have time to analise all; but for now have one sugestion. I should like to see conv. view of Lee’s Zep X Bwl in mirrored view. See attachment!
Best regards (to all)
ZZ
VER 2.4g (27 Feb 2016)
Some last minute additions/amendments to the following pages:
pages 30-31
page 32
Redefined the characteristic of a Myrtle is that each leg of the bight enters the nipping loop from opposite directions.
NOTE: Although #1033 (Carrick loop) presents difficulty since it also has each leg of the bight entering the nipping loop from opposite directions - but, the collar structure is different. The collar of a Myrtle encapsulates both the SPart and the ongoing eye leg. In #1033, the collar does not envelope/encapsulate the ongoing eye leg. I have to work through these issues to further refine and tidy up loose ends…
Also added another image on page 32 to assist with understanding the structure of an Anti-Bowline (if thats the moniker that is accepted…). Stating that the collar forms around the ongoing eye leg rather than the SPart (and also a reference to the direction of the returning eye leg as it enters the nipping loop).
Mark G
Hi,
I probably was not enough clear. (It is obvious that a knot by operation with mirror can be transformed from R-handed to L-handed and vice versa.) But I want to put accent on the thing - that Fig.24a and Fig. 24b show 2 knots which are 2 different knots (1st is R-handed, 2nd is L-handed.) Through the article there is analog approach where left and right placed pictures show the SAME knot (with front and back view, or rear, detail, conventional, … - or whichever name you prefer; term is not important for this remark). Fact that the knot is only the one is outlined with a thin curve with arrow.
Now back on Fig.24.: a & b are two distinct (similar yes, but one is Left-handed, other is Right-handed. In that sense 24b has to be mirrored oriented to show the same knot (with view from opposite side!) I’ll make new scheme for illustration.
Regards,
ZZ
Thanks zoranz - all fixed I hope!
VER 2.4h (28 Feb 2016) is ready for download.
Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php
Some further amendments have been made.
You will now see copyright warnings on each page.
Added note that contributors are not legally liable for any content or its use thereof. Also added wording that the content and theories presented do not necessarily reflect the views of the contributors unless expressly stated as such.
added info to page 13 (para 1)…Derek Smith only requires one end of the ‘nipping loop’ to be loaded (SPart)
added image to page 24 (test method for investigating effect of increasing the radius of the nipping loop)
fixed image 24a at page 49
Mark G
Hi Mark,
I’m not able to test anything, but (as I’ve said already here
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4480.msg38319#msg38319 )
I insist the (wrong) Myrtle in the linked picture is unstable, even if the
the ‘returning eye leg’ enters the nipping loop from the SPart side!
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4480.0;attach=20457;image
–
In the analysis of the standard bowline, what about adding a lateral view of the bowline
to see the torsion of the nipping loop?
–
Ciao,
s.
Now: Fig.24 = OK 
ZZ
Hi Mark, I'm not able to test anything, but (as I've said already here http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4480.msg38319#msg38319 ) I insist the (wrong) Myrtle in the linked picture is unstable, even if the the 'returning eye leg' enters the nipping loop from the SPart side! http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4480.0;attach=20457;image–
In the analysis of the standard bowline, what about adding a lateral view of the bowline
to see the torsion of the nipping loop?–
Ciao,
s.
I’ll have a look at this tonight… I have to admit that the whole section on the so-called ‘Myrtle’ is giving me a headache.
I’ll try to capture some more photos (and lateral view).
This would probably mean adding yet another page to the Myrtle section.
I’m struggling with finding a robust definition - particularly in the context of #1033 Carrick loop (ie each leg of the bight enters the nipping loop from opposite directions).
…
zoranz, are there are any figures/images/diagrams that are incorrect? My eyes are starting to bleed…!
Mark G
Hi Mark,
It seems like the boobash-headache!
I'll try to capture some more photos (and lateral view). This would probably mean adding yet another page to the Myrtle section.I was referring to the standard bowline about the lateral view! (Does the Myrtle deserve more space?)
I'm struggling with finding a robust definition - particularly in the context of #1033 Carrick loop (ie each leg of the bight enters the nipping loop from opposite directions).
You show the right Myrtle in the paper, you could say that the most stable Myrtle (the right Myrtle) has legs entering the nipping loop from opposite directions and “turns” (nipping loop and the other one) with opposite chirality.
The instability of the wrong Myrtle (legs entering from opposite directions and turns with same chirality) is better noticed if the angle between the eye legs is more than 45 degree (for instance think the (wrong) Myrtle tied around a tree). In that case the tail can get out of the nipping loop.
About the “Myrtle” having legs entering from the same direction, I’m not able to evaluate the stability, even if I prefer that with opposite chirality.
Maybe we should consider the “Double Myrtle” (Round Turn Myrtle = Myrtle structure with ABoK 1013 nipping loop))!!! 
:o
Ciao,
s.
p.s. p. 3 missing a “)” after “Scott Safier (USA”
Thank you (not needed to access, so available here 
) !
Some quick comments on remarks visible in this thread.
So, re p.30 of 49 boxed assertion of a mistaken distinction,
there is no regard for what the entering part does AFTER,
only how it enters --it might loop as seen in the Myrtle
or collar as seen in the bowline (both knots are NOT
“anti-bowlines”. (Trickier cases can come when this
defining entry is made somewhere later, the initial
eye-leg return doing something other than going
through the nipping loop.)
You should perhaps best set this distinction by:
showing both --as you do-- images of the JUST-ENTERED
states of bwl/anti-,
AND THEN
complete both a bwl & Myrtle,
and in contrast also an Eskimo Bwl & “Bollard loop”
–which latter will differ from the Myrtle by having
the tail tuck out towards the eye and hence
achieve opp. chirality also. (AND IF you want to include
the benefit of a fine eye knot so formed, make one
further wrap with the tail and dub that “double”
for a “double bollard loop” (which double-wrap gives
much better gripping/nipping hold on the central
nipping loop’s parts). That’s a good knot to have!
(The clearest cases have the bights/collars; the loops
within loops are a trick to decipher, as we’ve seen! But
having both presents a fuller set of knots, and helps
the latter tricky cases by having the easy ones nearby.)
DO NOT CALL IT “UNSTABLE MYRTLE” :: it is NOT NOT NOT
a(ny sort of) Myrtle! (And, it is not all so bad, esp. if the
tail is secured to the S.Part as some have done; one can
“double” this knot, too, and improve stability. You are
right about dubious stability, but I think it’s better than
the wrong-way (same-handedness loop) Myrtle
(though in current fiddling rope of 1/2"? laid flat-film PP,
even that one was holding --and thus confusing me!).
ACK, p.31 is exactly what I’m talking about above ::
2.c the left knot is QUITE STABLE, and in fact holds better
than the bowline in some cases --“jams” sort of–
and presumably was so chosen by some commercial fisher
whose handiwork I later salvaged --actually, it was the less
stable version that I have (fairly unworn 5/16"? marine
kernmantle, kite-strings-like yarns).
.:. THOSE STRUCTURES ARE (a) NOT “MYRTLES”, (B) ANTI-BWLS,
(c) STABLE & MAYBE-STABLE, RESP., AND …
you’ll do best if you consistently refer to how the tail
enters the nipping loop RE S.Part --i.e., don’t say
“as eye leg” for one and “as S.Part” for other,
but “same as”/“opp. side to/as” for consistent reference
item, the S.Part (I think this should be best, the common
reference part).
Further re these images :: note that you’ve changed too many
things between them --i.p., the loop of the tail–; rather, just
show same silhouette in right side as in left, but there
with tail crossing behind itself rather than in front
–and an arrow to connect these two side-by-side diff.s of
course focuses attention to this ONE point (and that’s all
there is). As it stands, one goes back’n’forth trying to see
what’s different, and there are specious differences because
you’ve rotated/changed the tail’s loop in right image vs. left.
THE DIFFICULTIES IN DEFINITION, or we might more sympathetically
state “in applying/realizing such definitions” can be shown both in
the Eskimo bowline and maybe more strongly in the carrick loop
#1033 which you wrongly label “1439” of the end-2-ender,
showing the non-bowline (IMO) tightly set knot vs the
softer set expressly to comply w/preserving a “nipping loop”
knot --a diff. that can be illustrated but not well realized
in #1010 by setting it hard via the tail --loading will see the
S.Part pull back sufficient collar to dispel the crossing-knot
appearance of the tightly set (“SS369’d”) knot.
[ ] added info to page 13 (para 1)...Derek Smith only requires one end of the 'nipping loop' to be loaded (SPart)I'll not go further here but to note that you're grasping for definite definitions which haven't been forthcoming; they are a matter of opinion, experience or lack of, and aims for classification (purpose). For me, at this stage, it's the nipping loop, and includes things that are not [i]PET[/i] (which have the mid-fype geometry of the [i]fig.8[/i] e.g.). BUT, if one has a purpose to exclude such ... , then that can be put into definitions, as you have.
But we all assume the basis that we’re talking about
eye knots so much that I’d not even list this as one
of the defining aspects --or as #1 sine qua non, not #3 (!).
ps : This is what happens w/me & knotty stuff :
the “quick” loses out to further thinking & looking and … ;
go to record 1 fiddled knot and instead of doing so end up
with that same 1 and maybe 2 others standing in need!
Thank you, Dan_Lehman!
I read my previous post and I notice that I said what I meant very very very badly! :-[
The legs (I was referring to) are the returning eye leg and the ongoing eye leg (even if the ongoing eye leg doesn’t enter the nipping loop!?!?), that is to say (I meant (I would have meant)),
the returning eye leg enters the nipping loop from the side opposite to the ongoing eye leg (= the returning eye leg enters the nipping loop on the SPart side).
Thanks,
Ciao,
s.
From Dan Lehman:
(The viewing community doesn't see this and remark to Mark ... ?!?!?!?!!!)
Probably the reason is the same as mine - staring at a computer screen for way too long and going loopy from looking at Z and S twist loops.
I am fixing this error…
Definition of a Myrtle:
A defining characteristic of a Myrtle is that each leg of the bight enters the nipping loop from the same side - forming a loop. The legs of the bight have a crossing point and do not lie in parallel as with a standard #1010 Bowline.
In a standard #1010 Bowline, each leg of the bight enters the nipping loop from opposite directions. The legs of the bight lie in parallel.
This is to advise that VER 2.5 (08 March 2016) is ready for download.
Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php
Document is now 50 pages in length.
Another re-write of the section on Myrtles - significant changes made.
Added a new page comparing Anti-Bowline to Myrtle.
Several amendments and new additions have been made - in particular arrows showing direction each leg of the bight takes as it enters the nipping loop.
Added new content on page 11 about reverse engineering a knot by untying it (without access to either end) to determine if it is TIB.
Added new content on page 13.
Added content on page 14 showing direction each leg of the bight relative to the nipping loop.
Added another knot on page 17.
New content on page 24 - showing test method to determine effect of 3 rope diameters inside nipping loop.
Added direction arrows on page 28 (#1033 Carrick loop).
Numerous changes and amendments on pages 30+31 (added new term of ‘Anti-Myrtle’).
Page 33 is new content.
Call-out text box added to page 34.
I welcome comments and constructive criticism.
I’ll keep the document open and free for a little while longer…
EDITED:
I need feedback and clarification on the following:
page 14 - reference to the bight having 2 legs (with each leg entering the nipping loop from opposite directions in a standard #1010 Bowline) - is the use of the term ‘legs’ and ‘legs of the bight appropriate’?
page 28 - another reference to ‘each leg of the bight’… I had advanced the concept that the bight has 2 ‘legs’ - to aid in describing the structure - is the use of the term ‘legs’ and ‘legs of the bight appropriate’?
page 30 - need to redefine what a ‘Myrtle’ is (yet again) - remove reference to a ‘bight’ since there is no actual ‘bight’. It is a loop.
page 31 - I advanced the concept of an ‘Anti Myrtle’ to distinguish from ‘Myrtle’ - hopefully this is in accord with ‘Anti Bowline’ and that the use of the term Anti Myrtle is appropriate?
page 33 - Myrtle photo at bottom right - I should perhaps redefine that Myrtle don’t actually have a ‘bight’ component - they only have a collar (there is no bight - it is in fact another ‘loop’)
page 41 - figure 8a - I still dont have accurate information about its discovery and who was involved - including the name originally given to it
page 50 - figure 24a and 24b - I still dont have accurate information about its discovery and who was involved (I know Alan Lee was involved but i dont have dates and to what extent Xarax was involved).
I also want to include some greater details about ‘TIB’ - and why it is a valuable property of a Bowline (compared to those that aren’t TIB).
I also would like some TIB tying sequences for a few Bowline structures. I had advanced the concept of ‘reverse engineering’ a knot by trying to untie it without access to either end (which I think was also posited by Harry Asher??).
Mark G
VER 2.5a (16 March 2016) is ready for download!
Note that the paper is still free-for-use to IGKT members. Once I lock down the paper - only those IGKT members who have made a meaningful contribution will continue to get free access.
Critical review and feedback is welcomed.
Significant amendments have been made.
I would like to thank Dan Lehman and in particular Constant Xarax for their precise, targeted critique.
It send me back to the drawing board in some areas… (with my tail between my legs).
Both Dan and Xarax hinted at the trouble I was running into with loops and legs (making clear cut explanations of which leg is going in what direction muddled).
Xarax pointed out that I was looking at the ‘bight’ in the wrong way. I can now see with clarity his viewpoint and it makes sense.
In a nutshell, the ‘bight’ is actually a composite of 5 individual segments. When referring to the ‘bight’ - this is simply a holistic view on a macro scale.
On a micro scale - the bight structure consists of:
the collar
the legs of the collar (2 legs)
the returning eye leg
the tail
And this was what I needed to enable the overhaul the whole section on Myrtles (again) along with several other key interpretations in other pages.
In a nutshell, the Myrtle can now be defined as:
In contrast; in a standard #1010 Bowline, both legs of the collar lie on the same side of the nipping loop. The legs exit from and then re-enter the nipping loop from the same side.
Furthermore, the legs of the collar can be distinguished:
loaded leg
unloaded leg
The nipping loop itself marks the demarcation point from where the returning eye leg enters the nipping loop and then exits as the loaded leg of the collar.
The tail segment begins from where it exits from the nipping loop.
…
Anyhow, I think that light at the end of the very loooonnnnnng tunnel is growing much brighter now
Mark
EDIT: A couple of last minute typos were corrected and the contents page was corrected…if you download the document after this edit notice all will be fine!
VER 2.5b (17 March 2016) is ready for download!
Note that the paper is still free-for-use to IGKT members. Once I lock down the paper - only those IGKT members who have made a meaningful contribution will continue to get free access. Permission to freely download for personal use is authorized!
Critical review and feedback is welcomed.
Change log:
page 6: small typos corrected (also removed white arrows)
page 14: clarified legs of the collar and removed white arrows
page 15: typo corrected (sheepshank has 2 nipping loops)
page 17: reference to ‘double helix’ deleted to avoid confusion with DNA ‘double helix’ structure
page 19: New page added! Bowlines based on a Girth hitch nipping loop
page 30: Lee Zep Bowline (removed ‘X’ from descriptor) - also added May 2012 discovery date
page 32: added callouts to further enhance interpretation of structures…also corrected error in reference to legs of the collar
page 33: corrected white arrows - to enhance interpretation
page 34: error corrected
page 40: added TIB symbol to Yosemite Bowline
page 42: added TIB symbol to figure 8b - also added name of knot (Lees Link Bowline reference to Nov 2013)…still unclear about exact discovery date and who tied it!
page 51: changed name to… 'Lee Zep Bowline (removed X). Added discovery date May 2012.
Am close to exhausting all my available time to this project. So last round of comments are welcomed…
Mark G
Hi Mark,
p.19, ln.2 “(aka ‘lark’s head’)”
ciao and thanks,
s.
p.s.
I haven’t changed my mind about the wrong Myrtle!
You haven’t changed your mind about the wrong Myrtle!
:o 