Now, for some dates of interest, maybe. Lee's Link Bwl is my #20020301f10:22, and #2---b22 = similar with returning eye leg's loop opp.-handed. (AND both w/o the final Yosemite tuck through the collar.)
Dan, Please bring in your knot, Xarax and I will not take away anything that not belong to us.
謝謝 alan lee.
It’s worth noting that the Lee’s Link can be seen
as a Myrtle with a collar (vs. “wrap”) extension
–something that occurred to me for the anti-bowline
variation.
(-;
VER 2.8b (18 NOV 2017) is now uploaded.
Direct link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php
Changelog:
page 14: amended accompanying text for ‘EEL’ image of #1034 1/2 Bowline
page 26: amended text for accompanying image of enlarged collar (per Dan Lehman feedback)
page 48: amended content of the historical background of Lee’s link Bowline (hopefully Xarax will approve this time?)
page 61-64: Major rewrite of content in conclusion pages
…
This is likely the last update for this year (2017) and maybe most of next year…unless something important or significant occurs!
Mark G
Hi Mark,
I have a few suggestions below.
yChan
Please note that Agent_Smith has taken and abused
Dan_Lehman’s moniker “anti-bowline”, which was in
the latter’s use a general term to denote ALL of those
bowlines --here, the most general sense of this much
overloaded name-- in which the returning eye leg goes
through the central nipping loop in the opposite direction
to that for the (specific sense) bowline (#1010)
–of which the Eskimo bwl is but one example.
This btw is what the flow chart of pg. 19 shows (i.e.,
the general sense of “a-b”).
Conceivably, this moniker will be better put aside for
something lacking the hostile sense of “anti-”! For
now, it was just a “clockwise/anti-clockwise”-like term
of distinction, for handy reference.
IMO, “Eskimo bowline” (a) doesn’t/shouldn’t give offence,
and (b) doesn’t itself apply to only one orientation of the
tail (inside/outside).
Note that p.7’s red-highlighted “region of highest strain”
is NOT that; rather, the high pressure comes --as images
later in this document show-- where the SPart turns hard
around the returning eye leg, the tail having been easily
drawn up, around, out of the heavy line of fire. NOW,
one CAN dress the bowline such as to anticipate this draw
of the tail by setting the tail well back behind --in reference
to this particular image’s orientation-- the returning eye
leg, so that the SPart’s draw of it will only upon much
load bring it to where traditional images show the tail
beginning!! This more fully gives two diameters
of bending; the rather unloaded tail material will more
readily compress per SPart pressure than does the
50%-loaded returning eye leg, and that I think will
benefit the SPart. YMMV per material … . (no test
data to analyze re this and other aspects)
In the presentation of the Myrtle etc. there is much
good knotting lost (not presented) for want of simply one
2nd turn of the tail in ANY of the orientations --i.e., this
simple turn remedies the asserted flaws. And if the author
does no more than merely “posit” superiority/inferiority of
two knots rather than offering a basis for this ranking,
the reader is cheated of anything to go on.
Beyond positing, thus, I’ll note that a 2nd turn as urged
above will give a 3-dia. turn to the SPart and surer
gripping/security to the knot. (One could even make
this additional diameter come via a collar/bight added
vice the 2nd turn --oh, the possibilities, varieties! ;D
Further, note that were that heavily loaded BWII bowline
shown from the other face, or side, the viewer might see
that the “crossing point” no longer, or barely, had any
contact of SPart w/its following --that the circular nature
was pulling towards more helical shape, towards capsizing.
–which would change the structure from a bowline
into a pile-hitch noose! And all in ONE knot (token)!
–not mere theory, but something seen in actual heavy
mooring lines.
Not that my opinion counts for anything, but I agree that “Eskimo” is perfectly acceptable, at least in some parts of the world, and I’d hate to see this knot given yet another name. If you must bow to political correctness you could call it the Cossack knot, which is already a recognized name for it.
I am also not too sure about the terms “tail outside eye” and “tail inside eye.” That is where the tail ends up on ring loading, but the “inside eye” version can also naturally fall outside the eye if you tie it like the Cossack knot illustrated on the wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_knot
I agree with Harold.
As far as I know, we used to tie the Eskimo Bowline with it’s tail inside the eye, not the one with the tail outside the eye. Can anyone tell which is which or they are both the same knot.
In the perpendicular loading or ring loading, inside tail or outside tail are entirely different. My suggestion to Mark is why not include the analysis of the Eskimo Bowline (tail inside eye).
yChan
Despite Dan Lehman’s suggestion of abusing the term ‘anti-Bowline’ - it nevertheless was the best descriptor thought of at the time.
The descriptor still holds weight - due to the fact that tying is (in a generic sense) mostly opposite to that of the common (#1010) Bowline.
As for the term ‘Eskimo’ Bowline, and other exotic names attributed to it - there is no general consensus and no hard evidence to strongly point a researcher in any particularly direction.
And for me, the use of the descriptor ‘anti’ is not associated with any ethnic group, so it is less likely to cause irritation to one class of people or another.
Edit note:
An interesting thought experiment is to try to deduce what name Clifford Ashley would have given the ‘anti Bowline’.
Would Ashley have recognised it as belonging to a class of eye knots known as ‘Bowlines’ - or would he have preferred an alternative name?
It is my view that Ashley did not have a clear and concise theory of the structure of a Bowline - evidence for this being #1057 and #1058 - which Ashley identified as ‘Bowlines’.
My research led me to conclude that a fundamental component of all Bowlines is the ‘nipping loop’ - the absence of which disqualifies a particular knot from being a ‘Bowline’. A further (and obvious) component is the ‘eye’ - that is, all Bowlines have an fixed ‘eye’ - which does not slip like a noose.
Another component is the ‘collar’ - which Xarax has explored in detail.
So does an ‘anti-Bowline’ have a nipping loop and a collar. The answer is yes - it has both of these components - but they appear differently to the observer who is accustomed to the common (#1010) Bowline.
It is not clear if Ashley had a notional concept of a ‘nipping loop’ and a ‘collar’ - again, because illustrations #1057 and #1058 appear to contradict his concept of the structure of a Bowline.
…
As a side observation, it does seem that some individuals hold an impression that technical documents such as those I have written are easy to correct and change at will - which is not the case. The photography alone is painstakingly difficult to get right - to capture all of the salient properties - and the technical writing more so.
Be that as it may - I have always tried to release my work into the general public domain free-of-charge but, I am not sure that this approach is sustainable for me going forward.
Mark G
VER 2.9 (22 MAY 2019) is now uploaded.
Direct link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php
Changelog:
re-write of foreword / intro
rearranged content into something more cohesive
many new images added
new content added
rewrite of conclusion
…
Comments/feedback welcome 
Mark G
This paper is getting better version by version and it has been established as an ideal reference paper for anyone (newbie or advanced), who wishes to get into bowline field of study.I wish there were more bowline structures in it, since knot tyers, are inquiring minds and they need to tie every possible bowline structure that exists in this universe!!! 
;D
The very best bowlines are included,though.
Great work and many thanks!!!
VER 2.9a (27 MAY 2019) is now uploaded.
Direct link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php
Changelog:
new content added to simplify understanding of ‘anti Bowlines’
added #1074 Bowline with a bight (as a TIB Bowline that is also biaxially loadable)
added new content to explain concept of ‘TIB’
added a few additions and clarifications to conclusion
…
Comments/feedback welcome
Mark G
VER 2.9b (31 MAY 2019) is now uploaded.
Direct link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php
Changelog:
new content added to improve and clarify concept of TIB
new content added to explain concept of biaxial loading profile
new images of #1074 Bowline with a bight along with some variations to #1074
added new content explain why some eye knots are excluded from being awarded title of ‘Bowline’
a few minor typos corrected
…
Comments/feedback welcome
Mark G
VER 2.9c (04 June 2019) is now uploaded.
Direct link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php
Changelog:
new content added to explain correspondence between ‘bends’ and ‘eye knots’
a few minor typos corrected
a few minor enhancements were made
…
This wraps up my creative work for a while…
Comments/feedback welcome
Mark G
Roughly quoting p.24 (of 76 ; vers. 2.9c)
Every end-2-end joining knot (joint) has a corresponding eye knot.I'll again remark that this correspondence is but one of possible relations --and one that arguably is less matching in terms of knot-*working* than another, which I've given as :: form the joining knot with one single end tied to the BIGHT ends (of what will become the eye); then resolve how one of these ends will be fused with the single end.
I’ve posted here my illustrations of such a corresponding
eye knot for the zeppelin joint.
And for the sheet bend, it’s presumptuous to take
only the given bowline form as corresponding :
the asymmetric end-2-end joint has TWO such knots,
depending on which end is taken to form the eye!
(It might not have two GOOD such corresponding knots,
but knot quality is a separate issue.)
Dan Lehman noted that all of the tying maneuvres were in the opposite (or "anti") direction relative to the Simple (#1010) Bowline.(Frankly, "opposite" I think gets one something other than what is shown --could/should go around SPart too, in "opposite" direction (and w/no-knot result).)
I must reiterate (or must I --does it help?)
that my concept of “anti-bowline” is markedly different
from the Mark-edly one in the document. My term is
intended to separate into two broad halves all of
the bowlines --which FOR ME are eye knots in whcih
the SPart makes a nipping turn (and, alas, maybe some
other forms need to be included here)–
into those in which the “returning eye leg” (Mark’s unambiguous
useful term) enters the nipping loop from the opposite side
that it does for The bowline (#1010) --i.e., from the side
where the outgoing eye leg crosses the SPart on this leg’s
side of the crossing (whereas the bowline enters from
the SPart’s side of the loop).
And if there were anything to be called by me “THE anti-bwl”
it would be the Myrtle-like loop-though-loop structure
but w/end making 2nd nipping-loop entry on the side of
itself nearer the eye (vs. nearer the SPart as for the M.).
VER 2.9d (06 June 2019) is now uploaded.
Direct link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php
Thanks for your feedback Dan.
Because I have cited you several times in the paper - it is important to get the facts 100% correct.
Can you please check and confirm if the content is a closer match to what you require?
Within the constraints of the theory underlying what an 'anti Bowline structure is, I have advanced that the collar always forms around the ongoing (outgoing) eye leg in ‘anti’ Bowlines.
I have also posited that there is an ‘anti’ version of all Bowlines…eg an anti Lees link Bowline; an anti EBSB Bowline; an anti Bowline on-a-bight, etc.
With regard to correspondence between end-to-end joining knots - the problem is language. When i used the word ‘a’ - it was not intended to mean just one (1).
I assumed that with the 4 corresponding ‘Bowlines’ shown relative to the #1431 Sheet bend - this would be self-evident.
To make it clearer, I have added new content to theorize that there should be 4 corresponding eye knots for each bend (due to the 4 rope segments exiting from the knot core).
For example, withe the #1053 derived Butterfly bend, there should be 4 corresponding fixed eye knots.
I will add this to a future update of the Zeppelin bend paper (where I show several bends and corresponding eye knots).
Changelog:
added new content and clarifications for correspondence between end-to-end joining knots and fixed eye knots (page 24)
added new content and clarifications for anti Bowlines (page 47)
…
Comments/feedback welcome
Mark G
Hi, Mark,
I’ve greatly enjoyed reading your analysis, which was one of the sources that got me into knotting in the first place! I wanted to ask about Harry Butler’s Yosemite Bowline. I’ve come across several images/instructions on how to tie the Edwards Bowline, and depending on the site it’s the same (e.g., here and here) or the same apart from initially tying a Cowboy Bowline (e.g. here) as Harry Butler’s. I haven’t been able to find an “official” way to tie the Edwards Bowline, so I have no idea if the links I’ve provided are the standard way to tie it, but I figured I’d bring it up to see if there was a potential independent discovery occurring.
~A
Hello Akano,
I have responded in ‘New knot investigations’.
Please direct your enquiries there.
Thanks for this very interesting paper.
I was wondering about the five bowlines on the last page; all five are identified as suitable tie-in knots, but ‘Scott’s locked’ also as the end point of an anchor - what are the properties that make ‘Scott’s locked’ particularly suited to that use, in a way the others might not be?
Hello darkergreen,
There are no unique properties that make ‘Scotts locked Bowline’ any better (or worse) as an end-of-line fixed eye knot.
I need to revise the content/text in the Bowlines analysis document to reflect this fact.
However, an argument could be advanced that ‘Scotts locked Bowline’ is the simplest structure to tie and learn.
There are in fact 4 different variations of ‘Scotts locked Bowline’ (within a particular chirality - eg, Z).
So there are 4 different versions with Z chirality.
And there are 4 different versions with S chirality.