What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology

[TheTreeSpyder]

To me, a Hitch made to line itself on a single line is a Half Hitch (in perpendicular pull on spar form). But this Half Hitch, made to a bight/ eye is a SheetBend / Becket.

Can also have a Half Hitch pulling inline on spar (if slid off end leaves no knot); but makes Marl(if slid off end leaves OverHand Knot) if Half Hitch perpendicular pull form is used and free end just pulled.

Bowline, is then a SheetBend to self to form fixed eye.

BoB, does same on bight by sneaking an inversion in the back door, but must be sure to complete the inversion until Standing is deformed into Half Hitch locking into bight/eye of the end of the bight of the whole arraingemeant.

Karash would seem to give similar inversion, but not from OverHand (as in BoB); but rather fig.8. Must still make sure to carry the inversion all the way across to deforming the Standing into more of a fig.8 Hitch (Abok 1666) SheetBend to self.

Weather using a 1666 in place of a 1662; because it is more towards a better Nip of 1663(more ref. thru 1707) + more Frictions; disqualifies the form as a Bowline, i really can’t say. Except that the main change in the mechanic is more of a fig.8 Hitch than Half Hitch as locking Nip formed from Standing’s immediate tensions.

Line can only resist/ support on the inline axis, and then only in the tension direction. A line is strongest/ at potential strength when totally inline / straight; but mostly must be bent/ deformed from optimal straight to be used. There are only so many of these base bends/ deformities possible; and they should be named and mechanically understood. Also, should see same lacing as different mechanic / name per direction of force/pull/ flow on lacing.

One of my favorite strength retention references in Abok is 1669.

[xarax]

@TheTreeSpyder post:21

Bowline, is then a SheetBend to self to form fixed eye.

TheeSpyder, it shows that you have gone to school, together with Derek Smith !
As I have already argued at Replies #2 and #6, this theory is falsified by the simple fact that a Bowline can hold even when the collar is very loose, while the Sheet bend can not.
Have a look at ABoK#160 and ABoK#161. Do you see any elements of the Sheet bend there ? Do you see any elements of any hitch whatsoever ? Do you see segments of lines perpendicular to each other, as in the Sheet bend ? No ! But you see elements of the Bowline, of course ! And you see elements of the Bowline in the Gleipnir, too, which is nothing but a bowline-type of knot, where the capstan advantage of the collar has been replaced by the mchanical advantage of the second line.
The false theory of the close relation of the Bowline with the Sheet bend was, in fact, initiated by Ashley, who had not paid much attention to ABoK160 and ABoK#161 as structures that could evolved even further : that is why he missed the Gleipnir ! Had he met the Gleipnir, I am sure that he would have seen its close relation with the Bowline, at once.
The Gleipnir proved that the primary element of the Bowline is the nipping loop, and the secondary element the collar. If we did not know the Gleipnir, ( and the ABoK#160 and ABoK#161 ), we would be justified to see the relation of the Bowline with the Sheet bend, indeed, a relation that is more remote and less important that the relation between the Bowline and the Gleipnir.

[knot4u]

@agent_smith post:20

I wanted to point out you do NOT need to begin from #1047 (figure 8 loop) to tie a Karash.

You can tie the karash by forming an overhand loop (doubled or ‘on-the-bight’) and then following the tying method depicted at #1080 and performing a ‘backflip’ maneuver.

However, after initially forming the overhand loop, you then need to induce an extra twist (or 180 degree U turn) by folding the working end back on top of itself (sort of like a Munter hitch on a double strand). Then you perform the #1080 backflip maneuver.

That’s a slight of hand to avoid the issue…

Let’s talk about single loops. Tie a loosely tied Overhand. Now, without without completely untying the Overhand, can you tie a Karash Single Loop on that Overhand? I don’t think so. But I can tie other knots I know to be Bowlines. Also, if I start with a loosely tied Figure 8, I can tie a Karash Single Loop on that Figure 8, but I can’t tie other knots I know to be Bowlines.

Again, if you include the Karash Double Loop (or Single Loop) in the Bowline Family, then you must include an infinite number of other loops based on the Figure 9, Figure 10, Figurre 11, etc., as I explained in my previous post.

http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd468/iq201/Public/Loop-KarashSingle001a.jpg

Karash Single Loop, Front

http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd468/iq201/Public/Loop-KarashSingle002a.jpg

Karash Single Loop, Back

[agent_smith]

Quote from knot4u: Posted on: July 13, 2011, 07:36:18 PM

Try these tasks:

Task A

1. Tie an Overhand Knot on a bight.
2. Without completely untying that Overhand Knot on a bight, can you tie a Karash Double Loop on that Overhand?
   NO.

Actually, YES! You can.

Lets be 100% clear here. I am NOT stating that the Karash double loop is a Bowline! What I am stating is that your hypothesis does not hold up (at least with regard to your ‘task A’).

This thread is about defining a Bowline. I am seeking a robust definition - a workable theory. I think others would like to see such a theory also. I deliberately chose ABoK #1080 as a comparison to the Karash double loop because of the similar form. I thought this would be a great test of the theory. As I stated, you can tie a Karash double loop starting from ABoK #1009 (without untying #1009). I admit that you need to induce a half rotation to #1009 (sort of like a munter in form) before performing the #1080 backflip maneuver. But, you do not need to untie #1009!

I liked DerekSmith’s hypothesis…that is until he did his own backflip ! DerekSmith’s hypothesis was based on a particular form and structure which he was able to indicate clearly with the use of color.

knot4u, your hypothesis is based around #515 and #1009, in that, you must be able to tie a Bowline from one of these knots as a starting base. I think thats what your hypothesis is. Is this correct?

I am still hoping to hear more from DerekSmith in terms of argument/further theory on why he believes the Karash is a Bowline variant…perhaps with more coloration!

I am merely stating facts here…nothing more, nothing less.

Mark

[AikBkj]

@knot4u post:19

. . . As shown in the video, you tie the Karash Double Loop by starting with a loosely tied Figure 8 on a bight. . . . Figure 10 (Stevedore) on a bight. . . . (Figure 11, Figure 12, etc.), then the number of knots you must now include in the Bowline family is theoretically infinite.

That’s absurd. Let’s not be absurd.

I believe knot4u has a legitimate point. If the nipping structure is left out of the definition of a bowline, there is much that one could call a bowline. This irreverently mocks the fact that the very simple bowline (ABOK 1010) is a relatively good start to a secure fixed loop. As an example, the Karash SINGLE Loop is a lousy start to a secure fixed loop as it easily slips. Those single loops that do not slip easily are, from what I’ve seen, more complex than the simple bowline.

DDK

[Dan_Lehman]

@agent_smith post:24

Quote from knot4u: Posted on: July 13, 2011, 07:36:18 PM

Try these tasks:

Task A

1. Tie an Overhand Knot on a bight.
2. Without completely untying that Overhand Knot on a bight, can you tie a Karash Double Loop on that Overhand?
   NO.

Actually, YES! You can.
…What I am stating is that your hypothesis does not hold up
(at least with regard to your ‘task A’).

While not buying into Knot4U’s criteria,
I do believe his assertion in “task A”,
so I’ll need to see what it is you think disproves that.
the direction of certain parts is opposite between
the two cited starting knots, and I see no way
around that to achieve the same result.

–dl*

[Dan_Lehman]

@xarax post:11

I believe that it is a self-evident truth, that has no need for any other justification :
If part of a knot is a bowlne, the whole knot remains a bowline - albeit a more complex one.
As part of the Karash loop is a bowline indeed, …

??? What is this part that is a bowline, please?

BTW, the single-strand structure corresponding to the so-called
“Karash double loop” is given in “Hensel & Gretel’s” [u]EKFR
as the “twist bowline” --for whatever that’s worth (one might
surmise that they invented the name, if not the knot as well).

–dl*

[Dan_Lehman]

@DDK post:25

As an example, the Karash SINGLE Loop is a lousy start to a secure fixed loop
as it easily slips.

??? In what material & force(s) are you finding slippage?
I’ve tried a couple of materials and used a pulley, but see
no hint of slippage. (Btw, Mr. Karash had the twin-eye
knot tested to rupture, and it performed well, in some
low-elongation kernmantle (11mm or thereabouts) rope,
IIRC.)

–dl*

[Dan_Lehman]

How do the debaters here classify Ashley’s #1033,
the carrick loop --which begins exactly as #1010
through the turn around the SPart with the tail,
but then takes the tail (instead of immediately passing
back out through the nipping loop) over the SPart-side
eye leg and then out through the central nipping loop
but in the same direction (vis-a-vis loop’s side)
as it entered (i.e., so that it could now trace the
first pass of the tail for a 2nd course).

–dl*

[alpineer]

@DDK post:25

As an example, the Karash SINGLE Loop is a lousy start to a secure fixed loop as it easily slips.

In slick braided poly I’ve found the Cowboy Karash Single doesn’t slip(under manual tension), however the Regular Karash single will. If the cowboy version doesn’t slip under higher loading I would have to say that I am very impressed with this knot. In nylon cordage my guess is the Karash Double does a good job of isolating each eyeloop from the other by very simple locking mechanism. Even as a Cowboy Sheet Bend type of knot it seems to be a very secure knot. In cyclic loading any slack in the collar is taken up by the loaded leg and not the tail. For the record I don’t consider the Karash to be a Bowline. It doesn’t have Derek’s cited SB Core form. In the Knotting world “function follows form”.

alpineer

[alpineer]

@Dan_Lehman post:29

How do the debaters here classify Ashley’s #1033,
the carrick loop --which begins exactly as #1010

Certainly not as a Bowline, if that’s what you’re getting at.

[xarax]

@Dan_Lehman post:29

How do the debaters here classify Ashley’s #1033,the carrick loop

Read my lips : No collar = no bowline (*). I know you do not cosider the collar as an essential element of the bowline…but I do :). I agree that the principal element is the nipping loop ( just as it happens in the case of the Gleipnir,), but, to my mind, the collar is also un indispensable element, albeit of a lesser importance. I have seen bowlines holding with very loose collars, but not with very loose nipping loops !

• Of course, by the most common definition of the “collar” (which is exactly what the bowline has - and the Gleipnir has not.) So, yes, with a collar - defined that way -, when the working end re-enters the nipping loop, it has to point to the opposite direction than when it exits from it.

[knot4u]

For those who say a Karsah Double Loop is a Bowline, do you also put a Figure 8 Double Loop in the Bowline Family? If you don’t, then how do you describe the line of distinction?

http://www.animatedknots.com/fig8loopdouble/index.php

http://i55.tinypic.com/2uthjlt.jpg

[xarax]

@knot4u post:33

do you also put a Figure 8 Double Loop in the Bowline Family?

Read my lips : No knot-that-can-be-fully-untied-with-the-removal-of-the-tail(s) off the standing part(s) = no bowline. (1) I know that you do not consider this characteristic to be an essential element of the bowline…but I do…

[knot4u]

Yeah, I’m not sure why you shortened an already short question. Both parts of my question were necessary.

First part…Do you put a Karash Double Loop in the Bowline Family? If no, then there is no need to continue. If yes, then (Second part), what is the line of distinction between the Karash Double Loop and the Figure 8 Double Loop, such that one is a Bowline while the other is not?

I read your answer, Xarax. Through all your rhetoric and hand waving, it is still unclear to me where the line of distinction is. Or maybe by default you also put the Figure 8 Double Loop in the Bowline Family?

[xarax]

@knot4u post:35

Do you put a Karash Double Loop in the Bowline Family?

Make an educated guess…What does the following answer - that you have read, as you claim - does say, in a plain and CLEAR way ? Does it say that the Karash double loop IS NOT a bowline ?

@xarax post:11

If part of a knot is a bowlne, the whole knot remains a bowline - albeit a more complex one.
As part of the Karash loop is a bowline indeed, the whole double loop remains a bowline. Completing a knot can not erase a previously tied part of it, so, if a knot was a bowline, at one stage of its tying, it will remain a bowline, even after one adds some new parts on it.

@knot4u post:35

what is the line of distinction between the Karash Double Loop and the Figure 8 Double Loop, such that one is a Bowline while the other is not?

The reason why the Karash double loop IS a bowline, is given in the answer above, that now you have read, I hope !
The reason why the figure 8 Double loop IS NOT a bowline, is already repeated many times, but I would make just another attept : The figure 8 knot, tied on the eye leg of the standing part of a figure 8 Double loop, is not an unknot - it can not be removed after we remove the segment of the tail that goes through it.

@xarax post:34

No knot-that-can-be-fully-untied-with-the-removal-of-the-tail(s) off the standing part(s) = no bowline.
After a sailor has removed the tail from the eye leg of the standing part, he wants the bowline to turn onto the unknot immediatelly, so it will not run the danger to be caught somewhere, as the ship leaves the dock. So, even before the end of the line exits through the mooring ring, for example, the bowline should have been untied completely. If you are left with a figure 8. knot on your mooring line, you will probably forced to be an armchair only knot tyer, very soon !

Make an educated guess…What does the proceeding answer - that you have read, as you claim - does say, in a plain and CLEAR way ? Does it say that the figure 8 loop IS a bowline ?

@knot4u post:35

it is still unclear to me where the line of distinction is.

Let me help you here a little bit, because THAT IS the most difficult point, indeed…
The Karash double loop IS a bowline, while the figure 8 double loop IS NOT a bowline !
That is a somehow CLEAR line of distinction, to me…
Of course, you can find many other, secondary reasons why two different knots are different, I suppose… I would be nterested to learn them, too, however insignificant they might be, because any difference of two different entities can reveal something essential from the deeper identity of each of them.

@knot4u post:35

Or maybe by default you also put the Figure 8 Double Loop in the Bowline Family?

Did I say that you should have read my answers by now ? Well, this question makes me wonder if I should really be so sure ! If you could could only listen and see my “rhetoric and hand waving” to myself now…

Knot4u, please, let us be liberated, at least for some time, from this sterile exchange of opinions ( among other things… :)) about this Karash-double-whatever, that I, personally, do not find such a clever knot… In my reply to a thread that you, too, have participated, (1), I have published the pictures of a particular dressing of a ,double loop that might be of some interest to you. Let us talk about double loops then, a very interesting and vast subject !

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3046.0

[Dan_Lehman]

@alpineer post:31

@Dan_Lehman post:29

How do the debaters here classify Ashley’s #1033,
the carrick loop --which begins exactly as #1010

Certainly not as a Bowline, if that’s what you’re getting at.

C’mon, you know that this cryptic answer begs the question why (not)? !

To my mind, it has exactly the central turNip that is essential
to being “a bowline” --and differs only a little in the reeving
of the tail to stabilize the knot.

So, you’re on : if not “bowline”, then what?
And why not …, btw.

–dl*

[Dan_Lehman]

@xarax

@Dan_Lehman post:27

@xarax post:11

I believe that it is a self-evident truth, that has no need for any other justification :
If part of a knot is a bowlne, the whole knot remains a bowline - albeit a more complex one.
As part of the Karash loop is a bowline indeed, …

??? What is this part that is a bowline, please?

Please, read more than 1 out of 30 what I write…otherwise, you will be right to consider what you read as a “noise”, I suppose.

And then, with that gratuitous admonishment, you go on to
ramble off-topic about some game-playing notions --providing
fuel to the flame that maybe only 1-of-30 of your words addresses
the issue!

When the answer sought is given only later, sans introduction,
as :

@xarax post:153

The “Karash” bowline is… a worsened bowline, because its not-retraced-yet form is but a “twisted nipping loop” bowline.
(See attached picture) The nipping loop, being twisted and inverted like this, is only a worse nipping loop, as much of its
nipping / constricting power is lost around the U turn of the eye leg of the standing part.

WHICH IS A QUOTE FROM ANOTHER THREAD!!
You win the prize, for this.

Now, as far as there being some equivalence --some family heritage–
between the turNip of the bowline and this crossing knot
coyly regarded by you as merely a “twisted nipping loop”,
you’re on your own with this. I don’t accept it as a reasonable
distinction. (And, as you admit, the nipping mechanics are different
between these forms.)

–dl*

[alpineer]

@Dan_Lehman post:37

@alpineer post:31

@Dan_Lehman post:29

How do the debaters here classify Ashley’s #1033,
the carrick loop --which begins exactly as #1010

Certainly not as a Bowline, if that’s what you’re getting at.

C’mon, you know that this cryptic answer begs the question why (not)? !

To my mind, it has exactly the central turNip that is essential
to being “a bowline” --and differs only a little in the reeving
of the tail to stabilize the knot.

So, you’re on : if not “bowline”, then what?
And why not …, btw.

–dl*

If, as you suggest, Ashley’s #1033 is a Bowline, then by your criteria you must also include an EyeLoop version of Ashley’s #1406 Whatnot, which differs from ABoK #1034.5 only tail wise.
That Carrick loop, in it’s finished form, shows a munter base shape as it’s central structure and not a nipping loop.
As for what it is, well, I’m happy calling it a Carrick.

alpineer

[xarax]

@Dan_Lehman post:38

…as you admit, the nipping mechanics are different between these forms.)

True, and the one is far superior to the other ! But the worse of them IS a nipping loop nevertheless ! The fact that the nipping mechanics are different, indeed, does not make the one a genuine “nipping loop” and the other a “not-nipping” loop ! Only a worse nipping loop…
There are many other forms of more complex nipping loops we have discussed in this forum, and you, ( at least a finger of yours… :)), should remember very vividly. The Pretzel double nipping loop, the Constrictor/Transom double nipping loop, etc. They are more complex, indeed, and we are not yet able to prove that they nip better than the single nipping loop, the nipping mechanics are different, indeed - but this does not turn them into “non-nipping” loops !