Crossing knot, a foundamental knotting tool to build jam-proof knots

Practical Knots
1

A jam-proof form of adjustable clove

Most of us are familiar with the clove based structure of first image and its vulnerability to jamming under hard strain, a component that strangles whatever passes through it, which also renders the adjustability feature rather problematic.

The cure to this unwanted behaviour of clove is the crossing knot, or in other words , adding a collar around the SPart, which means an additional twist at the SP continuation when forming the clove structure.

This extra little twist, induces a huge positive effect on the jamming profile of the knot, even with loadings that reach the MBS yield point.

Crossing knots as stand alone knotting elements, are vulnerable to distortion at heavy loadings, but in this case, the on going clove turn, acts supportively and enhances the overall stability.

Sceptics are promted to perform a simple stress test in order to determine the practicality of this knot.

2

Clove structure, as a cluster of crossing knots-the Scarab loopknot

Similarly, if i was to stress the first image clove structure, which is a conventional clove form, loop hitched in carrick fashion, i would probably need a tool to decompress it, for loadings a bit more than the average level.

Well, it appears that this clove geometry, as a nipping component, is a killer, in terms of jam resistance, unless it takes the form of the second image structure.

Just imagine a round turn formation, where the two loops of same chirality, are replaced with a pair of crossing knots, also of same state/chirality.

Using the same Carrick stabilizator (loop) as previously, and the Scarab loopknot, with this small geometrical modification, obtains the desired pliability that was missing from the fist Carrick clove structure.

3 
                                Good idea, I like it !     :)
4

Thanks Alan, you know that i’m really keen on building jam-proof knots, and i tend to believe, based on my tests of course, that every single knot posted (or going to be posted) in this thread, does not appear to develop any blocking issues, in full loading scope.

I’m of the view, that we have to redefine the basic knotting components, closed form (knotted,e.g. figure eight), or open form (unknotted, e.g. clove), using crossing knots, in order to build non prone to jamming structures, that can be included in the practical zone.

I have to point out that i’m using “weighed” (or is it weighted? :slight_smile: crossing knots, meaning that the prime crossing knot which is a direct SP continuation, is supported by additional, on-going nipping turns, or crossing knots, in clove or munter configuration, to enhance stability.

5

I really like the water bowline which has the tendency to maintain its pliability under hard strain.

However, in my view, it appears that there is a downside, concerning the coherence of the two half hitches and the solidity of the water bowline core nub.

As shown at the top of first image, the opposing loading forces, develop a slack between the two clove half hitches, that is proportional to the loading magnitude, therefore, the knot, ΙΜΟ, falls short on nub firmness, compactness and stability.

A smartly thinking person, would probably suggest the swapping of the two half hitches, in order to change the direction of loading forces, which now generate an attraction between the nipping turns, forging a more solid core nub.

This is accomplished by threading WE through the other side of the nipping structure (through the SP turn first), forming the clove hitch bowline, shown at the bottom of first image.

Given that the clove hitch bowline is vulnerable to jamming, how do i get to intergrate the pliability of the first with the stability of the second knot, in one single structure?

The answer is the use of crossing knots, but in a clove orientation (not water-like), in order to keep them tight fitting one other.

I have used before, this equivalent to clove, second image, symmetrical nipping structure, with two opposing state crossing knots (i would use the term “complement” to one other, not mirror).

The crossing knot collars of the resulting crossing knot based, clove bowline, function as SP restrainers, or tension smoothers, maintaining nub pliability and stability.

Let me bring to mind that the complexity of this bowline structure does not exceed topologically, those of round turn, water, clove bowlines, it is just a geometrically different, yet jam-proof and stable profile.

6

I think that we need to attach this name to that structure
with obviously separated HH/turns, and call the shown
knot here “clove BWL” --and THIS being how the clove
part is loaded.

(Possibly we’ll find use of the structure in which the tail
doesn’t reach to the away HH/turn!?
–methinks that one will find such structures formed with
a common overhand “throw” (e.g., initial step of tying shoes),
and a 2nd one put in with the BWL closure, and trying
to effect some binding-grip with the eye part around the
object.)
)
What you’re calling a “clove BWL” here I’d not :: loading
is more buntline than 2HH, which latter IMO is more clove.
(Then there is the “Cloverhand” base, the mistaken-for-clove
structure that’s an overhand enlarged and dressed to look
like a clove --but the ends cross on opposite sides to each
other–; that makes a wonderful BWL, and I think reasonably
unjammed, though at times needing effort to loosen.)

... the opposing loading forces, develop a slack between the two clove half hitches, ... A smartly thinking person, would probably suggest the swapping of the two half hitches,
... or to wrap the Tail back over its near Xing point to tuck out through the S.Part's turNip, pulling the Clove's HHs together, giving some slack-security. --if not simply going with [i]Mirrored BWL[/i].
The answer is the use of crossing knots, ...
Eh, IMO much too bulky for its dubious value.

–dl*

7

Hey Dan thanks for weighing in with your comments, even if sometimes are quite challenging to decode.

-if not simply going with Mirrored BWL.

Beautiful knot, no doubt, but here is some constructive feedback about the mechanics behind it.

  1. I wonder, didn’t you notice any bulkiness at your beloved mirrored BWL ::)?

Mind you, there is no doubt that it actually leaves a very large footprint, and uses more rope than the BWL knot at reply#4 (third image), i have both available in front of me.

Perhaps the bulkyness/complexity is not measurable to ghost/mirror knots? :o

  1. Are you absolutely certain that you are going to solve the slack problem, which is also present here, with just tail maneuvering?

Maybe you might restrain/bind somehow the second HH (out-going leg continuation), by capturing the ongoing line, in janus fashion, but you can’t control SP’s nipping action, and minimize the slack at heavy loadings.

  1. Do you really need to implement this mirror binding, to strengthen the knot, or is it just for the aesthetics?

It seems to me that you are not satisfied with the first part of the knot, which makes you bury the tail back through the HHs adding more bulkiness.

  1. Don’t you think it’s about time to investigate the jamming profile of the mirror BWL in full loading scope?

The untying situation might be quite challenging, with three rope diameters inside the nip, and with a girth hitch collar rather inaccessible, being blocked by the SPs forces. I feel that both SPs, want to furiously overstretch the girth hitch collar and deform it.

To be objective, i think that the poor collar will do its job to hold and restrain the SPs, so that you’ll be able to loosen the knot, it will just take some more time.

Edit note 1: Despite its bulkiness, i feel that mirrored BWL’s complexity is balanced and acceptable and most certainly, such a knot, does not go unnoticed, at least by me. :wink:

-methinks that one will find such structures formed with a common overhand "throw" (e.g., initial step of tying shoes), and a 2nd one put in with the BWL closure, and trying to effect some binding-grip with the eye part around the object.)
(Then there is the "Cloverhand" base, the mistaken-for-clove structure that's an overhand enlarged and dressed to look like a clove --but the ends cross on opposite sides to each other--; that makes a wonderful BWL, and I think reasonably unjammed, though at times needing effort to loosen.)

I’m not very keen on using overhands in the nipping system, unless they form a specific topology.

However, i’m not so close-minded, if i had a visual of the structures you are describing above (am no good in realizing knot structures just from descriptions), i would certainly investigate and test them and maybe would provide feedback.

Edit note 2:

Possibly we'll find use of the structure in which the tail doesn't reach to the away HH/turn!?

What’s the point of having a redundant nipping component, if you are not intending to exploit its full nipping power, at the second stage? I assume that the tail is constricted by both HHs at first returning, bight leg insertion, (first stage), but the nipping of the returning bight leg suddenly stops at the first SP’s HH (second stage)? In my view, a third stage needs to be added with some aditional tail maneuvering, employing a second rope diameter visit back through the on-going HH.
Perhaps a mirrored water BWL? :-\

Edit note 3 :

Eh, IMO much too bulky for its dubious value

You might want to perform a simple stress test first, and then speak about dubius value! You also appear to have ignored my last comment about efficient rope usage, at least about as much as the known bwls that i mentioned previously.

Edit note 4:

Do you feel like experimenting with the technique, demonstrated here that binds the HHs neatly in your girth hitch bowline?

This means that you have to feed the tail from the other side of the the girth structure (first through the SP HH), in lobster buoy nipping fashion (or pretzel?) Abok #1714.

Doing so,

  1. You don’t have to implement mirror binding, there is more than enough nipping action with the crossed SP lines.

  2. You won’t face any HH distancing/gliding, by opposing loading forces ,achieving a more solid core nub.

  3. You now obtain a more accessible collar with less strain.

  4. Less bulk in the system.

Note that there are two profiles, that need to be investigated, if the SP crossing lines are swapped (over, under). Images are not available for now, but soon.

Edit note 5 :

Xarax had demonstrated those knots many times, in slipped adjustable form, or bowline form (refer to attached image and to edit note 4).

Regards

8

Of course : BWL x 2 (but BWL is cheap).
YMMV to what extent this bulk matters much;
it’s not much compared to BWL+ Strangle Tail tie-off.

Perhaps the bulkyness/complexity is not measurable to ghost/mirror knots? :o
Oh, not to the dracula BWLs, where the mirror image is void!
2) Are you absolutely certain that you are going to solve the slack problem, which is also present here, with just tail maneuvering?
I've given it some of like-Roo's "shake tests" in springy, hard-surface'd laid PP and other stuff :: it is not a SNUG-TIGHT knot, but one that starts loose and stays TIED, loose. The various parts that must feed into the knot so to enable spilling will abut against each other, to a reasonably significant degree, IMO, esp. in ropes pertinent to SAR/climbing. (I don't see this as being used for angling!)
3) Do you really need to implement this mirror binding, to strengthen the knot, or is it just for the aesthetics?
While non-(fully)mirroring structures exist, the point is as aforementioned --the abutting of parts into each other to impede further loosening. (As a fine detail, I look to a version in which the collar-2-collar pass lies *outside* the other two passes of the nipped strands, thinking that that will give some further containment/abutting as this collar-2-collar strand can only loosen if material feeds into IT via going round each U-fold collar --unlikely!
It seems to me that you are not satisfied with the first part of the knot, which makes you bury the tail back through the HHs adding more bulkiness.
I think my above reply explains the back'n'forth, and additionally the collaring at each end.
4) Don't you think it's about time to investigate the jamming profile of the mirror BWL in full loading scope?
There is no jamming to profile.
The untying situation might be quite challenging, with three rope diameters inside the nip, and with a girth hitch collar rather inaccessible, being blocked by the SPs forces. I feel that both SPs, want to furiously overstretch the girth hitch collar and deform it.
There is one S.Part, and a lookalike --but not loaded-alike-- reflection. As for complexity, one needs to think more broadly and see the construction (the name helps, here). It is then the doing of a venerable common thing, twice.
-methinks that one will find such structures formed with a common overhand "throw" (e.g., initial step of tying shoes), and a 2nd one put in with the BWL closure, and trying to effect some binding-grip with the eye part around the object.)
(Then there is the "Cloverhand" base, the mistaken-for-clove structure that's an overhand enlarged and dressed to look like a clove --[b]but the ends cross on opposite sides to each other[/b]--; that makes a wonderful BWL, and I think reasonably unjammed, though at times needing effort to loosen.)

I’m not very keen on using overhands in the nipping system,
unless they form a specific topology.

However, i’m not so close-minded, if i had a visual of the structures you are describing above
(am no good in realizing knot structures just from descriptions),
i would certainly investigate and test them and maybe would provide feedback.


Overhands in the like-minimal-TimberH. geometry are genearally
not a problem. As for “just descriptions”, do I need to send an
image of a Clove h.? (no) Then since you understand that,
surely you can tie it and then just swap positions of the ends
coming in/out --the one seen on left (say) move to right,
and, presto, you’ve got it. L00ks like a Clove 'til you pull
it sans surrounded object and see it collapse into an OH.

LOADED like a friction H. --i.e., tension roughly parallel
to the surrounded stuff (here, the legs of S.Part collar),
the Cloverhand’s ends cross under the overwrap in an
X not + geometry, and this seems pretty good at
allowing loosening by pulling these legs towards the +
state, opening a gap between them under the overwrap.
YMMV per material & load :: highly tensioned nylon maybe
seeing a small gap but yet being … highly tensioned and
reluctant to yield?!
I’ve only been able to get about 800# force upon things,
a far way from what some uses might see,
but a far way from nothing, too (don’t try it w/jamming knots!).

Possibly we'll find use of the structure in which the tail doesn't reach to the away HH/turn!?

What’s the point of having a redundant nipping component,


You have it above, as was given:
… trying to effect some binding-grip with the eye part around the object.)
Well, to the “point” :: it ISN’T to have that loop, per se :: rather,
that loop results from capsizing --pretty naturally occurring–
the OH “throw”. In much commercial-fishing cordage one can
find eye knots that result from a series of such throws, usually
with the S.Part making a loop nearest object/eye, and running
straight through the Tail’s loops going away --a matter of how
the knot’s set.

“Mirror’d Water BWL” yes has been played with; it seems less
resistant than the Cow orientation to loosening; but it’s there
as one of various options.

–dl*

9

Hello Dan, i appreciate your extensive replies to my questions.

You see, i’m not yet fully convinced to purchase the mirrored BWL, despite its low cost (why so cheap, it’s an intelligent design) :).

I don’t know if this sounds comforting, but i am also sceptic, about the super stable bowlines of reply#6 (lobster, pretzel), as they don’t seem so easily manegeable to me under heavy strain.

Although i acknowledge all three as very decent knots, they all seem to lack the properties that i’m searching to find in a knot.

Some remarks:

1) It is clear, that in a dual HH nipping system, the stability path lies through the SP HH first, for a conventional bowline design, and through the on going HH first for the anti-knot design respectively.

2) In my view, it’s even better to add qualitative complexity at the nipping stage of this very system, rather than the returning stage.

For me, the key is in the nip. A good nip does not require convoluted tail maneuvering. A simple bight is adequate.

I shall make another attempt to get the concept through to you or to any other, (as i tried to impart it with my clove structures previously) using the cow/girth nip of your mirrored BWL, but not here, it would be a lengthy reply.

10

IMO, this is exactly backwards :: 'tis much better to see
the assurance of a complexity in the Returning Eye Leg’s
finish than in the base structure into which it’s reeved.
Should the knot loosen --Murphy’s Law if not some physical one–,
a rockclimber out on the “sharp end” will far prefer that there’s
a lot of entanglement of the only-part-that-can-possibly-pull-out
Tail side than the maybe-it’ll-capsize-(into-a-noose-maybe) S.Part
side, as the Outgoing (please, not "on"going) Eye leg & S.Part
are connectedly secure things.

That said, I much like the Locktight eye knots, which are finished
with a BWLesque U-fold of the Tail --these are set-tight knots.
And Heinz Prohaska put forwards the tying of an Anchor Bend
as the base knot, as it could reasonably well nip a merely inserted
Returning Eye Leg (and therein be seen as connected to his
offered ProhGrip aka Blake’s Hitch); but mere looseness
in this base knot could see so a so simply held Tail fall out. (Still, I’ve
had some fun exploring what I’m calling “Hitched-Tail eye knots”
–i.e., the Tail is hitched by the knot to effect an eye (possibly one
that can be adjusted after loading).

BTW, in terms of loading, it might be more accurate to call what’s
called “Mirror’d BWL” “Mirror’d Sheet Bend”, as that bridge part
between HHs could be drawn out as an eye, unloaded thus then
the HHs would be loaded only from one end, the other merely
nipped in resistance!
(But marketing likes “Mirror’d BWL”.)

–dl*

11

I believe that there may be a misunderstanding of the intended purposes for which each person is attempting to create a knot. The addition of strength / complexity / nipping power is wonderful for the security of a bowline. The bowline structure does not necessarily lend itself to stability, though. No matter what you do to the nipping loop, I will not feel safe using that knot as my all purpose harness tie-in. The tail requires the complexity. Even the simplest finish requiring the least rope, Scott’s Lock, requires this to be both stable and secure. How stable and how secure? Well, that depends on not only the finish/lock, but also with its interaction with the nipping loop being used. Scott’s, for instance would perform poorly with a simple triple loop nipping structure, where as an end bound from the EBDB would perform just fine or maybe better, at the cost of bulkiness.

The qualitative complexity isn’t found in only one part of the knot. It is how all parts of the knot interact with all other parts. A perfectly stable nipping loop (once loaded) that is also releasable doesn’t exist by itself, or maybe at all, considering that it Has to be releasable. That returning eye leg to collar to tail is just too simple to, alone, to make me trust my life to it.

Anyway, I believe that Dan is looking for more guarantees to stability under all conditions and actions possible where you are just looking to add security and slightly more continued action to the nipping loop (you can’t add perfect continued action of the nipping loop(s)). You are trying to use the locking force of the clove to secure the tail in one fell swoop. If you pry and wiggle and jiggle a bowline tied in any climbing rope, the nipping loop will eventually loosen.

That said, I think I can take the Lobster Buoy bowline that you posted, modify only the collar and finish, and satisfy all of the properties you seem to be looking for, and with an extra move for the tail also satisfy (but not convert :slight_smile: Dan. You want a nipping loop that locks into a hard rock but is also somehow easily releasable when you want it to come undone. Dan wants more stability so the tail will never move at all.

Tie your Lobster Buoy. Uncross the lines that are needlessly crossed (no topological changes needed). This will twist the bowline’s loop around, making the bowline now form into a cowboy/left hand bowline. This also makes the standing line form the primary (HH?!) nipping loop on the bottom / bowline loop side. The tail will transform and suddenly be on the outside. Fix that by redoing the collar move.

Now you have a girth hitch with the loopback facing away from you and a standard bowline. This structure tightens down into a very solid rock of a knot once set and dressed tightly. It certainly stays that way better than most.

Points of slight weakness that allow it to loosen after a few good bendings and thrashings:

  1. The nipping loops travel in opposite directions when taking load. If they could be pressed more firmly together then that increase in friction would help hold the nipping loops tighter in place when given slack.

  2. It has a slight gap where the standing part and the ongoing eye leg meet and exit the structure. That can allow for some wiggle. I want no wiggle. It should be tightened down, somehow, also helping the previous issue.

  3. If the collar loosens excessively, standing line can slowly begin to feed back through it and to the loopback of the girth hitch. The collar should be kept tight enough to not allow standing line to flop around on the knot side of it.

To fix both of these points at once, we simply bring the tail around the ongoing eye leg from inside the loop and put it back through both nipping loops to bind the slight gap that exists there. This is the End Bound move from the EBDB. To be maximally effective here, it must capture all three lines (ongoing, nipping 2, nipping 1).

Now, when the knot is set and dressed tightly, the nipping loops grab the tail twice and pin the collar fairly tight. Definitely pinned tight enough to prevent any slack from passing that point. The nipping loops are easily bound together by the tail finish and they stay that way, reducing any wiggle and helping to hold the nipping as tight as you can set it with tugging on all four lines.

Despite being harder and tighter than any Figure 8 Follow Through, forcefully bending the collar and feeding a few inches of slack allows the girth hitch nipping loop loopback to move, no longer bound sideways by the standing line. Feed slack through it to release the primary nipping loop and the tail can be wiggled a few times. After that, the knot falls apart as easily as a single bowline.

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

I’ve found other nipping loops that lock down tighter, but I’ve never been able to untie them after a couple hard catches. As for crossing lines, they never seem to lend themselves to the long term stability of a knot. They wiggle and there isn’t much you can do to stop that. If you ever find a bowline nipping loop structure without any tail finish that Mark will call both stable and secure… oof.

12

Yes Dan i know, i have also played ball many times in this field, but at times we have to keep an open mind.

KnotLikely, i think you have posted a similar bowline somewhere else, i recall that i had shown you how to secure the tail with the ampersand trick.

and satisfy all of the properties you seem to be looking for,

I’m not trying to further secure an already secured bowline from the first stage, with extra tail maneuvering! That would make the nub less pliable for my standards.

Anyway, the crossing of the load lines, at lobster buoy bwl, is not a matter of dressing, but a distinctive feature of this specific nipping configuration, as it always lies within the nub despite your round turn- like dressing.

Moreover, where is the girth hitch collar in the last photo? It looks like it has been vanished, unless you have placed it under the knot to crop some bulk! :slight_smile:

Seriously now, thank you for re-posting it, i regard it very relevant to the concept discussed here.

You have two lines loaded in crossed fashion, within the boundaries of a collar and an EBDB turn generating endless friction, so keep using it since you have tested it and you feel safe!

However, given that your first stage of your knot, appears to endure cyclic loading, slack shaking or flogging forces, do you find the finish binding turn as a must component or is it there only for psychological reasons?

On the contrary, Dan’s mirrored BWL, calls for additional tail maneuvering, due to its vulnerabilities at the first stage.

What about its respose to heavy stress? Whatever complexity induced, should it maintain its ease of untying. This bound turn looks very harsh to me in terms of jam resistance. Have you thought about implementing Dan’s mirrored janus -like method? It would had given you more degrees of freedom at loosening!The knot would certainly be more stable yet not so aesthetic as the mirrored bwl!

I have the sense that you are trying to denature a bowline into a figure eight loopknot! I feel you because i have done the exact opposite!

13

Per Knotlikely

Here is a showcase paradigm for the crossing knot concept, derived from one of your illustrated structures.

Take your third image in a row with your half hitches, exactly as you show them flat on the floor.

Place the SP HH on top of the other, and feed the tail down through the HHs forming first image’s, Alpineer’s bowline.

This is one of the strongest nipping structures i have come across, it really strangles the returning bight, it is rather unlikely to survive jamming.

Repeat the above process by inducing a twist to the SPart (always the crossing knot around the SPart), and examine the Munter X (X as for the crossed munter lines) bowline with this strange appearance.

If you understand the difference between these two knots, strictly in the light of jam resistance, you’ll probably get the idea.

14

Hi Greg,
I like your Munter X bowline. Just by looking at it I can tell it is a jam-proof knot.
Beautiful work. Thanks for sharing.

15

That is simply reeving of the tail back through the hole made by the collar and the standing line, right? (sorry, it’s been a while) (!! Please respond to at least this.)

The collar is free to move upon unloading. Any movement that allows the tail to move is too much movement for me.

and satisfy all of the properties you seem to be looking for,

I’m not trying to further secure an already secured bowline from the first stage, with extra tail maneuvering!

An extra tail maneuver is necessary to make any bowline safe in a set-it-and-forget-it life-on-the-line situation. As per my previous post, the simplicity of the collar and tail (through the nips, around the SP and back through the nips) will never be enough. Any hitch will loosen with time. That is what all the nipping loops are. They are a hitch placed upon a bight.

Edit: Can we look to the prussik/knut/klemheist/blake’s type hitches for guidance in our nipping loops without adding unnecessary bulk to our knot?!?!

That would make the nub less pliable for my standards.

…but for a secure and Stable knot, you want the knot to be as minimally pliable as possible. You want an irretrievable mess of a rock (after any loading) that can somehow magically be easily untied. I have tried and tried but never found another bowline (or pseudo-bowline) with these properties.

Anyway, the crossing of the load lines, at lobster buoy bwl, is not a matter of dressing, but a distinctive feature of this specific nipping configuration, as it always lies within the nub despite your round turn- like dressing.

Yes, but if you take the crossing and move it to its far end, you find that it has a channel to sit in. This channel loads the secondary nipping loop with extra friction. The SP never, upon loading, makes any attempt to leave this configuration. This is the “lowest energy state” for a reversed girth hitch. It will stay there and add friction. This also forces the lower nipping loop to be the primary and for the nipping loop friction to counteract unloading movement (as long as they are aided in their counteracting binding by the doubly nipped tail). It not only affects the lay of the lines, it affects the overall knot stability.

(I have practiced in my tying of the knot a specific position when reeving the collar, images 4 and 5, turning into 6 before the End Bound. This prevents the topological change that I am sad actually exists within my knot. {I hate knots with multiple topologies that don’t reform upon loading} It is probably my 10,000 tyings of it that are the reason I have never had a crossing line while tying into my harness)

It should also be noted that any mis-tying or alternate topology of this knot never renders it unstable or insecure. The base reversed girth hitch nipping loop is great at grabbing and holding anything that goes through it. That is the second best part of my base nipping loops. A person who fails, making a wrong turn anywhere, or even failing to complete a second turn, is likely still hanging on one of the most stable and secure unfinished bowlines. Yes, the first stage of my knot (further question from you) does resist cyclical loading as much as a few other that you have offered. It is a good base and is at least slightly forgiving of errors. If I don’t include the ongoing eye leg, I am likely still safe. If I collar the ongoing eye leg, I am likely still safe.

Moreover, where is the girth hitch collar in the last photo? It looks like it has been vanished, unless you have placed it under the knot to crop some bulk! :)

True, though it is still smaller or equal to any Figure 8 Follow Through that I see tied by my fellow climbers. It does have a 3rd dimension. It isn’t huge. Tie it yourself and see.

Seriously now, thank you for re-posting it, i regard it very relevant to the concept discussed here.

You have two lines loaded in crossed fashion, within the boundaries of a collar and an EBDB turn generating endless friction, so keep using it since you have tested it and you feel safe!

I definitely will. I just want others to see its simplicity and qualities. I wish it was as partner checkable as an 8, but that will always be true of any knot that can compare to it.

However, given that your first stage of your knot, appears to endure cyclic loading, slack shaking or flogging forces, do you find the finish binding turn as a must component or is it there only for psychological reasons?

The nipping loops alone endure them well, but well is absolutely not good enough. I don’t trust JUST them. If they have any opportunity to pull slack then they might. That 1/1000 is too much.

I’ve stated it a couple times, but a bowline in anything stiffer than super supple with a long tail is simply not stable in a tie-it-once-and-feel-safe-forever setting. My knot rubs on slab. Slack is taken and given. One failure in a million uses means that someone dies, eventually. It is there out of necessity. Its interaction with the nipping loops (as per my last post) are what enable the knot to stay rock solid. The entirety of the structure is what enables it to be easily released with two moves.

On the contrary, Dan's mirrored BWL, calls for additional tail maneuvering, due to its vulnerabilities at the first stage.

I’d argue that the inherent looseness of the (reversed from mine) girth hitch nipping loops are what make it unstable. It can never lock down upon itself and therefore, with enough time and movement, it is unstable. It is easily untied because it maintains that looseness and because of added complexity of a second entire bowline for a tail lock. It is absolutely beautiful for its symmetry and it is one of my favorite knots that I have ever seen. In a double bowline, Lee’s Link move (end bound before forming collar), followed by collar, followed by end bound on nipping loops only… (Shamrock bowline? Man, is it easy for a partner to check!)… is probably up there, too. Unfortunately, only the tail complexity and added length really secures them, and never into a solid immovable rock.

What about its response to heavy stress? Whatever complexity induced, should it maintain its ease of untying. This bound turn looks very harsh to me in terms of jam resistance. Have you thought about implementing Dan's mirrored janus -like method? It would had given you more degrees of freedom at loosening!The knot would certainly be more stable yet not so aesthetic as the mirrored bwl!

As of this statement, I don’t believe that you’ve ever tested my bowline in any line that it can be used on for its purpose. Please take any cordalette from 6mm dynamic to stiff static rope at 11.5mm and tie my knot. Put your full strength into tightening all 4 lines, starting and ending with the tail. The two moves (seriously?!? per my last email…) will release it every time, despite it feeling like it will take a hammer and a marlin spike to undo. (I can’t speak for its use in fishing line or 550 as a releasable knot. Sorry.)

I have the sense that you are trying to denature a bowline into a figure eight loopknot! I feel you because i have done the exact opposite!

To be fair to that, a figure 8 is just a bowline in a silly nipping loop with a bad Yosemite finish. It would be a pretty amazing bowline if it was post eye tiable. The beauty of the Figure 8 Follow Through is the opposite and opposed friction. That is what I have found with my bowline, and with no other. It holds tension until movements are made that are easily done intentionally, but never by usage.

For the first time that I have ever read, I actively disagree with Alan Lee. I do not like the Munter X. It is a complicated nipping loop to form PET and it deforms into a loopback like my Reversed Girth Hitch, but without any qualities that help it hold anything. It definitely will not seize, but neither will a slip knot.

The Alpineer’s Bowline is pretty good for what it is. It is almost great, despite the crossed lines. The returning eye-leg going through a part (the SP and collar) that is, in any bowline, meant to remain untensioned, is a deal breaker for stability. I’d have to cinch the loop tight to my harness to get permanent stability. The returning eye leg and collar will slack at the same time, loosening the lower nipping loop as well as the unfinished/half formed upper nipping loop.

16

Hi Knotlike,
Can you please analyse my loop below ?
Thanks.

17

Hi Knotlikely,
Might at well get you to analyse another loop for me too.
Thanks again.

18

The bowlines at reply#12 (second image) and at this reply here (first image), correspond to the nipping structure of munter X and munter respectively. I am bringing to mind the tail feeding through the SP HH first.

With respect to the knot in question, one might say, that it could be formed by inducing a twist to the SP turn of a round turn nipping structure, or even remove the out-going eye leg crossing knot of the structure at reply#4 (third, fourth image).

The out going complexity is not as essential as the crossing knot component around SP, which for me is unquestionable.

It is certainly neater than the munter X, and it also maintains a stable and no prone to jamming state at heavy stress. It may be considered, as an improvement to the round turn bowline, from a jam resistance perspective.

What amazes me even more, are the anti-bowlines of second and third image, which i consider as the best anti-knots that i have tied so far, even better than the previous two, conventional bowlines.

To be clear, they are not the anti-knots of the previous two, they just simply correspond to the Munter X , munter nipping structures respectively, employing tail threading through the out-going HH first.

The vertical contact of the SP with the bight structure, develops so pοwerful constriction, so that it actually induces a curving at the returning lines!

If i assume that the line that connects the crossing knot with the nipping turn is the weak, prone to distortion link, with a closer look, we may see that it is placed between the collar and the out going line, (like a sandwich) being compressed by both components.

In my view, these two knots feature outstanding ratings, being top-ranked in my list.

I have also formed the reverse based munter bowlines that correspond to these anti-knots which are fairly good (the crossing knot, is formed around the outgoing turn, see above link).

About the knot at reply#16, i have responded in the new knot investigations thread.

19

Per knotlikely

That’s true i have tied it but never tested it in my 10 mm very stiff static line, only in small diameter rope, but i’ ve seen many bowline tests ,and conversed with individuals who conducted myriads of tests as well and shared their valuable experience.

I don’t mean to take the wind out of your sails, but i have seen bowlines with simple nipping loops, like Eskimo, kalmyk, Cossack .to turn into stones after heavy stretching by Alan Lee.

That means that we have to try very hard (including me) to develop releasable bowlines, unless the loading zone of interest ranges from 0 to 5 KN.

Note that the anti-bowline jams at 730 kg (20%MBS) and the butterfly knot at about 400 kg when eye loaded. It appears as though, the hammer and the marlin spike tool, is a one way road to decompress the jammed kalmyk at around 30% of MBS(maybe even less) of this specific line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtx1vH25JpU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbRDGe9pmmU

20

Alan, I’d “fore<->aft” this ::
use the Outgoing Eye Leg as S.Part, and vice versa;
then run the Returning Eye Leg through the nipping loop(s),
initially being beside Outgoing Eye Leg at the eye collar,
as the yellow strands go but collaring the (new) S.Part (the white AND yellow strand)
–Tail exits parallel to itself (i.e., R.E.Leg) as for a BWL.

.:. This gives the S.Part a 3dia. turn,
and a non-immediate exit into eye (will this maybe
help tame slipping of HMPE cordage --and HMPE core
within a polyester sheath, note?!

The two longish U-fold collars (around S.Part, both,
separately) should enable loosening.

–dl*

ps : BTW, in your Eskimo BWL testing, I’d tie the
knot differently :: the S.Part should bite hard into
the TAIL, not R.E.Leg. (I.e., it should be to the Lapp
Bend what the BWL (#1010) is to the (same-side
Sheet Bend (so, both bends/joints are same-side
as basis. Dress it to have Tail taking the S.Part’s
initial turn. (One CAN dress the Tail to be AWAY
from this, locked snugly under the R.E.Leg.)

–dl*