“eye leg of the Standing Part” is improper syntax as it implies that the eye leg is part of the S.Part
“Standing Part Side eye leg” is proper syntax as it implies that the eye leg has an association of proximity to the S.Part
Is nt it ? To my view, anything ante the tip of the ey , is Standing Part… Anything we can form a second, or third, etc. nipping turn on, and pass the eye leg of the Tail through it, after we pass it through the main nipping turn, belongs to the Standing part.
I will follow whatever agent_smith decides - because we should have a common ground to understand each other, and the “Analysis…” offers such an opportunity…The next one may well come after 60 years. Will I live till then ? I doubt it… 
I am not “washing hands”, I have my own opinions and I express them whenever I can, as my tons of blahing blahing in this Forum prove – so, evidently, I am not afraid to do this ! I wonder how one can think I am the kind of person that is not willing to bear the consequences of expressing what he believes, by hiding himself behind others !
My own collection of bowlines, my terminology and my views of how they work, were and still are not the same as agent-smith s - but I have no problem to follow his choices, or anybody else s choices, for the sake of finding a common ground, when I am convinced they are about as near the truth as mine s.
The " Analysis …" is published for 4 years now. I do not think they have established any de facto standard - regarding knots, in general, and bowlines, in particular, we are still living in the Tower of Babel ! I do not see much consensus on much things, I do not even see many people that have studied the previous versions…What makes you think that they are gong to swallow the present one, without any criticism ?
It is not even like this ! It is “eye leg of the Standing part s side”, and the "eye leg of the Tail side " …
However, I have not seen any better alternative, so, for the time being, we are left with this. Imagine that I write this looong phrase each and every time I am writing about bowlines - and I have to admit that I write about bowlines a lot ! Place your bets / faites votre jeu..
But you have, and it has been explained.
The focus of the language is on the eye and on
Which side/leg, therefore the proper grammar is
to refer to the eye and qualify that noun.
Agent_Smith’s terminology is bassackwards, referring
to either SPart or Tail and modifying IT to denote part
of the eye. How clumsy can you get? Well, that’s too
harsh : this challenged terminology can be seen as
“nub”-centric, looking out from where there is a SPart
& tail into the eye. But, practically, I think we’re best
oriented upon the eye and then qualifying; after all,
the eye here is a key element, joining human to safety!
Improvement might be seen, in actual diction, using
“tail” & “through” as modifiers : the SPart side is the
latter, as forces --and indefinite distance-- run “through”
the nub, in contrast to that on the tail’s side, where
there is the end of things. (Woe be unto us and the
mid-line eyeknots, “with no end in sight”!)
–dl*
Recently, Alan Lee has tied some fine, secure bowline-like PET eyeknots where either the first (1) or the second (2) leg of the collar do not penetrate the nipping loop ! ( The only instance I have seen something remotely resembling this, but not so radical, is at the Fontus bowline (3) : a Janus-like bowline where the Tail End does not penetrate the nipping loop - but, regarding the first or the second leg of the collar, I had never questioned the need to go through the nipping loop…). The problem arises instantly : Should they be considered / defined as bowlines, or not ?
I have to admit that I have been tying “ordinary” bowlines for too long, during most of my life, so I can not judge this matter objectively. I still find it “difficult”, mentally, to tie those loops without looking at their pictures, although I have tied them many times till now. That is, I have been brain-washed by the “working end going through the nipping loop before and after the collar” pattern, and, being an old dog, I can not really learn the new trick… Younger and fresher knot tyers would perhaps be more able to have a say on this matter.
The Capstan Effect:
Does it exist and is it measurable?
Can a test rig be devised which can reliably and consistently detect it? And if so, could others repeat the experiment to verify it?
The test rigs I have used thus far have not revealed a capstan effect in a standard #1010 Bowline.
While toying with some ideas - it occurred to me that perhaps it may be possible to detect a capstan effect in #1431 Sheet bend.
In advancing my Analysis of Bowlines paper, I have posited that there is no nipping loop in a Sheet bend because it is not loaded at both ends. The compressive force of the nipping loop in a standard #1010 Bowline effectively grips and crushes both legs of the bight - removing any detectable capstan effect.
But the core of a Sheet bend should not produce the same compressive force as a Bowline because only the SPart is loaded. And therefore I surmise that it might be possible to detect a capstan effect. A few quick tests by hand did indicate some promise…
If a capstan effect can be demonstrated in #1431 Sheet bend - this would provide strong evidence that the core function of a Sheet bend does not produce the same level of compressive force as a nipping loop in a Bowline. And this in turn would support the definition that a nipping loop must be loaded at both ends.
Mark G
The capstan effect is real and it is an absolutely critical part of knot operation. For example, in #1010, the capstan effect is responsible for transmitting SPart load into the bight legs and thus into the ‘return’ loop leg.
The capstan effect is present and active every time one cord passes around another and has a loading differential one end to the other. This includes the situation found in the Sheetbend where one end of the turn is loaded and the other is simply clamped.
However, no capstan effect is generated when neither end is loaded or when both ends are loaded equally.
I believe this issue though, came about over the suggestion that the Bight collar in #1010 expresses a capstan effect, and this helps prevent the WE from being pulled through the nipping helix.
The simplest test rig we can set up to demonstrate the presence or absence of this effect in the working (i.e. loaded) is shown in this image made by Mark.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4480.0;attach=20421;image
If there was any capstan load shedding around the SPart, then one of the legs would be more loaded (and therefore straighter) than the other. We can see clearly from this image that neither of the legs are loaded, and so it is impossible for there to be any capstan load shedding in this part of the knot.
This situation however, does not hold true for extreemly low CF cordage. In very strong, low CF cord, some of the load on the loop can escape the grip from the nipping helix and progress into the collar area, where, because the WE is clamped, it can start to set up a slight capstan load shed around the SPart. However, because of the low CF and the presence of only one and a half radians of turn, only an insignificant capstan load shedding force is generated.
Of far greater significance however, is the negative cogging present in the legs of the bight component. It is generally presumed that there is no load on the WE. In reality the negative cogging is able to transfer load from the outgoing loop leg into the WE, essentially generating an effective WE load and contributing towards overall knot function and stabilisation.
Derek
Why are you reaching so desperately for something here
re the alleged “capstan effect”?! I don’t see great promise
for this pursuit, esp. vis-a-vis the bowline.
As you note, the end-2-end knot differs significantly,
but you’ve only remarked about one side/end’s
difference : the bight’s side differs in that what would
be the “returning eye leg” bears full load in the
end-2-end knot, not in the eye knot; so there is not
only less nipping as you suggest, but more need.
That the end-2-end knot has been reported to slip
in some kernmantle ropes (the Dave Richards report,
once hosted by NSS but removed for silly reasons)
only goes to confirm these differences.
–dl*
I disagree that this image proves anything, much. As I’ve
previously said --in another thread?–, this image shows
so much bending of the collar’s legs that one can suggest
a capstan effect at this point / in the turNip, nevermind
needing anything further, at the bight’s head/collar!
And I surmise that the situation is different where the collar
is reasonably sized much smaller and the bight legs more
nearly aligned with the axis of tension. And it might be
that one could load and measure --somehow-- tensions
of either side of the collar (or maybe observe slight slippage
of the returning eye leg into the eye?) which would give
weak support to the alleged effect.
But I think that the alleged effect is being exaggerated
in significance. It seems to consume a great deal of the
latest draft of the Bowlines document, to no benefit and
much diminution of the overall presentation, IMO.
Meanwhile, Derek has raised a valid point about how the
central nipping turn can be stabilized w/o a collar, and in
that point I’ve indicated one knot (which came by his
recipe though his verbal description ran off incomprehen-
ably to me), and which has other knots to rely on such
non-bight stabilization, too. --where the opening of the
nipping loop=“tightest helix” requires the bending of
nipped parts anchored on one side, and esp. in firm cordage
will work with good stabilization, I think.
As for calling the loops through & around the nipping loop
a “collar”, I’m thinking “no, they’re not” --or what would
NOT be, if they are?! Yes, they do stabilize, but … !?
–dl*
I have to go with what DerekSMith said. One of the fundamental aspects of a bowline is the inclusion of a Sheet bend.
I have to go with what DerekSMith said. One of the fundamental aspects of a bowline is the inclusion of a Sheet bend.
That makes absolutely no sense.
A sheet bend is an ‘end-to-end joining knot’. It is not an ‘eye knot’.
By definition, a Bowline is an ‘eye knot’ - because it has a connective interface (the ‘eye’) - which enables the Bowline to attach to something (eg a carabiner, or to a climbing harness).
I think what you meant to say is that Bowlines have a SB core (meaning that there is a ‘bight’ segment and a ‘nipping loop’ segment…although in the case of a Sheet Bend, the nipping loop is ‘partially formed’). This is the basis of Derek Smith’s position.
I have difficulties with the SB core theory…because some Bowline structures dont quite fit this definition. An example is the ‘Lee Zep Bowline’ and #1033 ‘Carrick Loop’ (per Ashleys naming). Both of these structures have a ‘nipping loop’ as a key mechanism and they are both ‘eye knots’ that are jam resistant. I view both these structures as ‘Bowlines’. The central nipping loop as a key mechanism that all Bowlines share is a theory that does seem to work - while the SB core theory is too narrow and does not apply to some structures.
In my personal view, there is no functional nipping ‘loop’ in a Sheet Bend. And the Sheet Bend is not an eye knot.
And this comes back to what is the definition of a ‘loop’ (and indeed…what is a ‘nipping loop’). I had required that the nipping loop must be loaded at both ends in order to qualify. In a Sheet Bend - the nipping structure is not loaded at both ends…and so it is not a ‘nipping loop’.
In my paper - I have advanced the theory that all Bowlines have a ‘nipping loop’ as a key mechanism. This of course was a concept originally advanced by Dan Lehman - which I concur with.
Other features which all Bowlines share include; a connective ‘eye’ (giving rise to the term ‘eye knot’ - because the ‘eye’ enables connections to be made), resistance to jamming, and ‘PET’.
Many of these concepts were independently advanced by Dan Lehman, Xarax, and a host of other IGKT members over a very long period of time.
Mark Gommers
In a Sheet Bend - the nipping structure is not loaded at both ends...and so it is not a 'nipping loop'.
How about a double sheet bend? Does it have a nipping “loop”?
How about a sheet bend as a netting knot (aka weaver’s bend)? The nipping “loop” is loaded on both ends in that case?
cheers
andy
Hi Andy,
to my mind it does not! the end isn’t loaded, we could say that it is locked.
Please notice that another difference in the Sheet Bend is that the Standing Part of the U turn is 100% loaded, whilst in a Bowline it is 50% loaded (Edit: roughly speaking, I think it is not so simple to understand how the load is shared between the two eye-legs in a real case, it depends on the angle between the eye-legs too: the extreme case is the ring loading)
In that case I think we shouldn’t call it a Sheet Bend , it isn’t a Sheet Bend…
Ciao,
s.
p.s. @Mark happy to “read” you again
It gets tricky to base definitions upon physical characteristics,
as those can be “YMMV” per materials (and loading force)!!
E.g., I’ve fiddled what I regard as bowines where the U-part
doesn’t lead to the eye, or where the continuation of the turNip
runs not into the eye but into a collar around the eye legs
(and so might be seen to not really be loaded).
And what of the multi-eye bowlines? If load is distributed evenly
over alllll of those eye legs, that one leading back to the “Is it a
nipping loop?” part must have only a fraction of the load, right?!
How much is enuff?
Knotty nuances!
It gets tricky to base definitions upon physical characteristics, as those can be "YMMV" per materials (and loading force)!!
Tricky yes - but we can say the same thing with many areas of science and physics (particularly quantum physics). But this by itself should not deter humans from seeking to understand and describe and measure the physical world.
I am surprised that you did not speculate about ABoK #1117 (The running Bowline noose).
This is a structure that is worth examining to see if it deserving of having the title ‘Bowline’ in its name.
What is #1117?
Certainly, it is a ‘noose’.
Can it be described as a ‘Bowline’?
Strictly speaking - it is not an eye knot (it is a noose). Bowlines are understood to be ‘eye knots’. In a classical sense, Bowlines have a fixed ‘eye’…however some have a communicating segment which contradicts the notion of ‘fixed’.
#1117 does not have a ‘communicating’ segment as does #1083 and #1087 (see below).
Perhaps it is a composite Bowline noose?
I would be interested to learn of your thoughts here…
I used #1117 as a follow up to your contention re ‘nipping loops’ (for which you still seem to prefer to use the term ‘turNip’).
In #1117, the ‘nipping loop’ would still be functional when the noose structure is loaded and cinches up tight against an object.
And what of the multi-eye bowlines? If load is distributed evenly over alllll of those eye legs, that one leading back to the "Is it a nipping loop?" part must have only a fraction of the load, right?! How much is enuff?
And some examples include: (list is not exhaustive)
#1083 (Double Bowline on the bight) - this structure has a functional ‘nipping loop’
#1087 (Spanish Bowline) - this structure has 2 functional ‘nipping loops’
#1088 (Sheepshank knot with Half hitches) - interesting structure - does it have a functioning ‘nipping loop’? Yes - it has 2. But, the mere presence of a ‘nipping loop’ does not by itself qualify the structure as being deserving of the title ‘Bowline’.
In #1088, there are 2 nipping loops - but, it has no collar. The collar is a key element of a Bowline.
And all Bowlines are ‘eye knots’ - but it gets murky here because in all three cases - the eyes have a ‘communicating’ segment…and so the ‘eyes’ are not of a fixed dimension.
Ashley correctly identified #1083 and #1087 as ‘Bowlines’ - because both structures have a collar and a nipping loop (but the eyes are not fixed).
#1088 fails to be a ‘Bowline’ on account that it has no collar .
As for your posit -
“How much is enuff?”(per Dan Lehman in relation to the definition of a ‘nipping loop’)
The answer would seem to be any load - provided that there is load at both ends of the ‘nipping loop’.
So this means zero load at one or both ends would disqualify a structure from being a ‘nipping loop’.
Some/partial load still qualifies as ‘load’.
And this is why a Sheet Bend has no ‘nipping loop’ - because only one end is loaded.
Summary:
Bowlines must have the following elements present:
- A collar
- A nipping loop (there may also be nipping loops)
- An ‘eye’ (or more than one eye) - and the eye structure may have a communicating segment, in that it does not have to be of a fixed dimension.
A further quality of Bowlines is that they are jam resistant.
And a further quality is ‘PET’ (post eye tiable) - although not all Bowlines are PET for attachment to an object such as a climbing harness - so PET is not an absolute requirement.
Mark Gommers
EDITED for clarity and to properly respond to Dan Lehman’s questions…
Deserving that, yes, but it’s not a knot IMO,
but a knotted structure (the knot part being #1010).
Certainly, it is a 'noose'.Okay, but a noose isn't a *knot*, but a structure. (And put [i]2 half-hitches[/i] in this group --where the knot is a [i]clove hitch[/i] in this *noose* structure.)
[ ] #1088 (Sheepshank knot with Half hitches) - interesting structure -QUITE !! Where I have mused about ignoring the eye of a [i]bowline[/i] --and focused on a "cookie-cutter" knotted part, solely, and of what of the 4 ends (parts exiting this cutter) are loaded--, how then ... the [i]sheepshank[/i], for IT's center strands run w/o definite length between knotted parts (two, as you note), and aren't really a part thereof (knotted, i.e.). QUITE a challenge. (And the would-be "collar" bight is just out in the air, indefinitely sized, too!?)
While we’re at it, the twin bowlines structure asks YOU if
it is a bowline (if it has an “eye”), and us if it is a knot;
its knotted parts are more engaged than above, but are still
plural, separated, and … !? (And in neither the “twin…”
end-2-end structures nor the sheepshanks need the two
knotted parts (oh, yes, there can even be more than two
–center stuff for decoration/fascination!) be the same.
The collar is a key element of a Bowline.Aha, Xarax lives!
Many of MY bowlines do w/o a collar and all seem happy at that. ;D
And all Bowlines are 'eye knots'Unless I go on with the cookie-cutter *knot* idea, which would focus solely on the entangled/knotted part. Maybe "solely" is too strong? --but it seemed so [i]pure[/i]!
–dl*
As for your posit - Quote "How much is enuff?" (per Dan Lehman in relation to the definition of a 'nipping loop') The answer would seem to be any load - provided that there is load at both ends of the 'nipping loop'. So this means zero load at one or both ends would disqualify a structure from being a 'nipping loop'. Some/partial load still qualifies as 'load'.
I find this notion of definition based on loading pattern to be problematic.
Imagine a Round Turn Bowline (https://tinyurl.com/lrujzxs) tied around a sizable tree branch to suspend a child’s swing. Assuming sufficient friction between the tree bark and round turn, when the swing pendulums, a leg of the eye will slack. Given the “loading” definition paradigm proposed, when the child swings the knot will transform from Sheet Bend, to Bowline, to Lapp Bend.
I propose that this result is at odds with common sense.
Another example would be that of a Long Tail Bowline, where the working end of a standard Bowline (ABoK#1010) or Outside Bowline (ABoK #1034 1/2) is intentionally left extremely long, for the purpose of being loaded (usually in a rope rescue application). If their is load solely on the long tail of the bowline (ie working end) and not the loop eye, does the knot cease to be a bowline? And if the loop were loaded again it would again become a bowline?
Taking this logic an absurd step further, would a standard (#1010) bowline tyed, dressed and set, but unloaded (ie standing end, and eye both slack) would it not be a bowline? Does it become a Bowline only when taut?
In general I mostly agree with Agent_Smith’s summary:
Bowlines must have the following elements present: 1. A collar 2. A nipping loop (there may also be nipping loops) 3. An 'eye' (or more than one eye)
I’m not quite sold on some aspects of it, particularly that a nipping loop must be loaded on each end.
My own (current) conclusion is an unloaded Bowline is still a Bowline.
Quote from: knot rigger How about a sheet bend as a netting knot (aka weaver's bend)? The nipping "loop" is loaded on both ends in that case?In that case I think we shouldn’t call it a Sheet Bend , it isn’t a Sheet Bend…
knotsaver; names of knots are based on common usage IMO, (see ABoK #952) If a certain knot, in a certain application, that has been called by a certain name for hundreds of years, doesn’t fit a proposed definition, I find it more reasonable to modify the definition rather than changing the name of the knot!
One last note, I came across this topical article:
How Many Bowlines? by Glen A. Dickey in Knotting Matters issue 87
I'm not quite sold on some aspects of it, particularly that a nipping loop must be loaded on each end. My own (current) conclusion is an unloaded Bowline is still a Bowline.Per knot rigger...
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here…possibly caused by language.
Obviously, an unloaded Bowline is still a Bowline!
The absence of load is not the issue.
Going back to #1431 (Sheet bend) as an example - I posit that there is no functional ‘nipping loop’ in this structure.
The unloaded state does not change the fact that it is a Sheet bend
When load is applied, we can see that the nipping structure will have load at one end only (and so it can’t be defined as a ‘nipping loop’).
The point is, a loaded or unloaded state does not change its identity as a Sheet bend.
If I tie a common #1010 Bowline and hold it loose in my hand - obviously there is no load.
Loaded or unloaded… its identity as a Bowline remains unchanged.
However, in the loaded state - we can see that the nipping structure experiences load at both ends - and therefore it can be described as a ‘nipping loop’.
Mark
We are mixing two “layers”: the static and the dynamic one and this often creates a misunderstanding, but we have to be able to distinguish the nub of a Sheet Bend from the nub of a Bowline. I like the concept of a functional “nipping loop” and I think that it is fundamental in the characterization of a Bowline.
Why do we have to say
?
and why don’t we say: one of the fundamental aspect of a Sheet Bend is the inclusion of a broken Bowline?
I think because they work differently…
Perhaps the Sheet Bend was tied before the Bowline, perhaps the first one was the Becket Hitch (who knows? does anyone know it?) but I think we have to distinguish one from another.
About PETness (I agree with Xarax) I think it should be an absolute requirement…
hm? I exaggerated but we shouldn’t name it a Sheet Bend.
ABoK #952??? :-
for the name? ah ok so we can’t name a netting knot “Sheet Bend” (Ashley named it Mesh Knot #402 but he said…(he said: “is the ordinary way of tying the Sheet Bend when it is made with a netting needle.”))
I think it does not help us in our attempt to define a Bowline…however it is interesting.
Ciao,
s.