What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology

[DerekSmith]

@knot4u post:78

Is there a way to quantify things here? This thread reminds me of freshman year Physics 101 in undergrad. There was a lot of “talking” before the test. At the top of that test, the professor gave us one arrogant formula: F=ma. The average score on that test was about 40%. One unassuming student got a 100% and messed up the curve. Suddenly, everybody wanted to pay attention to that kid. The application of physics principles silenced a lot of the noise. Likewise, we have got to find a way here to settle knot disputes with mathematics and scientific principles.

Hi K4u,

When I started to attempt to categorise knots based on their component parts, I had in mind my chemistry background, and naively thought that a knot could be described much like a molecule - by defining its component atoms and describing how they were arranged. But over time I realised my error. In chemistry, a Sodium atom is always a Sodium atom with exquisitely fixed properties, but in a knot, any component can morph and slew through an infinite continuum of forms - from an identifiable hitch, through a hitch / turn hybrid, through to a turn, and exhibit all those properties in turn and in part simultaneously by degrees.

Sadly, the more I study knots, the more I believe we are further than ever from a Science or Physics of knots - certainly, I do not possess a mind capable of taking us there. But I do not give up hope that the scratchings and searching for understanding that we do today, will offer some chance in the future for some bright mind to make a breakthrough. To that end all our confusion and mumblings may have some value.

On the particular issue at hand, there is little chance of moving forward, because the arguments proposed are simply opinions, and every one is valid although each might be at odds with the other.

Mark asked - “What defines a Bowline?” - I have answered that with my opinion, but that is all it is - a single persons opinion, my definition. Someone else defines a Bowline differently and there you have an equally valid opinion and definition.

Unfortunately, the question has a very familiar counterpart - ‘How long is a piece of string?’

Derek

[DerekSmith]

@Dan_Lehman post:79

(It’s not a matter of Right/Wrong here,
but of viability/usefulness of the definitions.)

–dl*

Good point Dan, and it falls directly in line with the tight definition I have offered for a Bowline and a slightly less tight definition for Bowline Variants. The usefulness then is that we describe a relatively small group of knots with similar attributes. If by contrast we opt for a far more ‘flexible’ definition - then for example if we were to define a Bowline as a knot which has a nipping loop, then as this can be found in the vast majority of knots (by little or large), then just about everything becomes a ‘Bowline’ - and what is the usefulness in that?

Derek

NB I have offered a definition from the ‘components’ perspective - but Mark did not make the question that narrow - are there any other aspects of what we perceive as a Bowline that can be added to the definition in order to confine the group size and hence improve usefulness.

[Dan_Lehman]

@DerekSmith post:82

@Dan_Lehman post:79

(It’s not a matter of Right/Wrong here,
but of viability/usefulness of the definitions.)

–dl*

Good point Dan, and it falls directly in line with the tight definition I have offered for a Bowline and a slightly less tight definition for Bowline Variants. The usefulness then is that we describe a relatively small group of knots with similar attributes. If by contrast we opt for a far more ‘flexible’ definition - then for example if we were to define a Bowline as a knot which has a nipping loop, then as this can be found in the vast majority of knots (by little or large), then just about everything becomes a ‘Bowline’ - and what is the usefulness in that?

Derek, I think that by your criteria, the Fig.8-based knots become
bowlines, as their SPart’s initial geometry fits your SBCore, and
at least the one with a simple bight-collar finish fills the bill.

In contrast, my & X.'s criterion of the turNip excludes these,
for the closure of that nipping loop in the 8 is more akin to the
locked-off end in the sheet bend than the loaded-not-locked
continuation (into an eye leg).
.
.
.
But it might be that we need to see some considerable set of
prospects run through the various criteria to see what we think
of what emerges, in order to get a better feel for what we’ve
wrought in our criteria.

Now, there can be indicated infinities of things so classified
in some rather pointless extents (e.g., if the dbl. bwl is
a bowline, wouldn’t a trpl.bwl be so --add one wrap?
… and when does that knot-building Add-A-Wrap ever cease
to qualify? (It gets silly, though, nearly immediately!)
So, mere number needs some qualification.
Yes, though, one can get such a big field of bowlines that
one has then to subdivide into many sub-classes of bowlines;
but maybe this is yet preferable to a bunch of classes of the
first order which one might have some desire to see related
as kinfolk by some other means?

Xarax seem willing to regard the crossing-kinot-based knots
as nipping-loop bwl.s, while I want them distinct,
even though pointing out that that carrick loop can be seen
to reside in either camp --and in some fuzzing in-between state–
depending on how it’s set.

Btw, you keep neglecting Mytle --your old flame, no less!-- :
where would you classify that? (I call it bowline; X. will find
it short of a “proper collar”.)

–dl*

[xarax]

@Dan_Lehman post:83

Now, there can be indicated infinities of things so classified in some rather pointless extents (e.g., if the dbl. bwl is
a bowline, wouldn’t a trl.bwl be so --add one wrap?.. and when does that knot-building Add-A-Wrap ever cease
to qualify? (It gets silly, though, nearly immediately!)
So, mere number needs some qualification.

@xarax post:10

All families of knots are infinite, if you do not put a limit on the number of tucks, or the number of crossings. The family of bowlines is not infinite, if we consider only the practical knots. In that sense, if we put a reasonable upper limit on the number of nipping loops and the number of collars of a bowline ( say two, for example ), the number of practical knots that belong to the bowline family remains big, but finite…

@Dan_Lehman post:83

… seem willing to regard the crossing-knot-based knots as nipping-loop bwl.s, while I want them distinct

No, I am not willing, I am obliged to do so…I would love to throw them out, but I can not see how, without throwing out the baby, too : the complex, “improved” TIB nipping loops, as the Pretzel, the Constrictor/Transom, ( and their “inverted” forms ), in short, any structure tied on the standing part, topologically equivalent to the unknot, that can efficiently nip/constrict/secure the tail - with the help of a “proper” collar :), of course ! I want a better definition of the nipping loop, which would possibly exclude the ugly “crossing knot”, ( and the Karash loop that is based on it ), but, for the time being, I have not any…However, I would not go as far as Derek Smith, and try to analyse further the nipping loop itself, in its various similar forms, into some even more elementary parts, that might have somethng common with similar parts of a particular hitch, or not. The nipping loop is no hitch, even if the hitch, too, constricts the pole or the line around which it is tied.

[Dan_Lehman]

@xarax post:84

@Dan_Lehman post:83

… seem willing to regard the crossing-knot-based knots as nipping-loop bwl.s, while I want them distinct

No, I am not willing, I am obliged to do so…
I would love to throw them out,
but I can not see how, without throwing out the baby, too :
the complex, “improved” TIB nipping loops, as the Pretzel, the Constrictor/Transom,
( and their “inverted” forms ), in short, any structure tied on the standing part,
topologically equivalent to the unknot, that can efficiently nip/constrict/secure the tail - …

Hmmm, I see no reason to make the definer “UNknot”;
leave as the turNip --a requirement that the loop feed
into the eye, to be directly tensioned thus. The crossing knot
violates this with its turn around the SPart –indirect.

(But I think that I’ve been too casual on my considerations
of the Dbl.bwl, water bwl, and so on, where the turNip
feeds something else, not the eye; it might be that one
must allow more than the turNip --some like structures.)

–dl*

[xarax]

@Dan_Lehman post:85

the loop feed into the eye, to be directly tensioned
The crossing knot violates this with its turn around the SPart

But so does the nipping loop in the case of the Eskimo bowine ! You don t expect me to throw out this baby, do you ?
I believe that the (first)collar should be tied around the standing part, on whatever side of the nipping loop it can. : If it had happened to the rabbit / working end, to enter into the nipping loop from the one particular side, it can only make a U-turn around the standing part and go back into its nest by a collar around the one particular end of the nipping loop. If it had happened to enter into the nipping loop from the other side, it can only make a U-turn around the standing part and go back into its nest by a collar around the other end of the nipping loop. The nipping loop is there, on the standing part, waiting for the rabbit to pass through it from whatever side, make a U-turn around whatever end/leg of the nipping loop it can, and return into its nest. If the rabbit happens to enter from the one particular side of the nipping loop and exit from the other side, it can only go around the one particular end/leg of the nipping loop. If it happens to do the opposite, it can only go around the other end/leg of the nipping loop. I am not willing to sacrifice this symmetry of the rabbit s path, in relation to the nipping loop, AND throw the Eskimo bowline baby out, with the dirty water, the “crossing knot” and the Karash loop.

[AikBkj]

What defines a bowline? To this point, convention which has led some fixed loops to be labeled bowline and others not. When a formal definition is desired and sought by committee, it resembles this thread.

I might point out that much of what has been proposed would appear to invite substantial subjectivity. The elimination of this subjectivity would be objectionable to most of us. For example, one way to eliminate subjectivity would be to consider each fixed single loop as a looped version of a knot or bend and all double loops as variations of their single loop counterparts. Thus, the bowline, dbl. bowline, and Eskimo bowline are bowlines as they are Sheetbend Loops. The Karash single loop and its variations are Karash Sheetbend Loops, and so, are not bowlines.

I did not say you were going to like this. I was merely pointing out what the elimination of subjectivity is going to look like. Otherwise, the spinning of wheels does have its benefits as a number of interesting topics and ideas have been discussed.

DDK

[xarax]

@DDK post:87

…one way to eliminate subjectivity would be to consider each fixed single loop as a looped version of a knot or bend

If THAT has anything to do with “objectivity”, no wonder what “subjectivity” looks like !
The end of line loops are loaded entirely differently than their “corresponding” bends. So, the bowline has nothing in common with the Sheet bend, and, of course, it is not a “Sheetbend loop” ! Not even Derek Smith said anything like this…
I prefer a live camel from a dead horse…

[Dan_Lehman]

@DDK post:87

I might point out that much of what has been proposed would appear to invite substantial subjectivity.
The elimination of this subjectivity would be objectionable to most of us.

Not sure I follow this. What we’re trying to do is
to be objective --to establish a rule in the face of what
has been somewhat haphazard naming.

Thus, the [i]bowline, dbl. bowline,[/i] and [i]Eskimo bowline[/i] are bowlines as they are [i]Sheetbend[/i] Loops.

Well, the 3rd is a reverse sheet bend --yes, it can be seen
as having in a sense the same formal shape, but on
setting it is quite different (as Xarax remarks, more of a
crossing knot-based eyeknot, not with a turNip base).

And, so, yes, Xarax, I do expect the Eskimo Bwl. to be thrown
out of the bowline set.

–dl*

[AikBkj]

Both xarax and d.l. picked up immediately on several of the objectionable sacrifices that an unambiguous and non-subjective nomenclature of fixed loops might suffer from. Namely, for the example that I gave, the ignoring of the loading of the ends, knot element mechanics and functionality (and likely a few others). This was, in fact, one of my points. Will there always be a slippery slope without accepting some objectionable (to some) limitations? I will be pleased to find it not true as it would be like having our cake and eat it too.

DDK

[xarax]

@Dan_Lehman post:89

I do expect the Eskimo Bwl. to be thrown out of the bowline set.

You miss the symmetry argument that I have tried to explain in Reply#82…and according to which, we should define the bowline independently of the side of entrance of the eye leg of the bight into the nipping loop. Using the “direct / indirect” argument about the nipping loop legs and their relation to the eye, you will get rid of a few pesky “crossing knot”-based loops, ( like the Karash loop ), that is true, but you will also lose the Eskimo bowline…and I think that you will do it, because that is what you had in mind right from the beginning ! The Karash loop was just a minor, secondary target, your true purpose was always the declassification of the “anti-bowline” Eskimo bowline…
It would be more general and accurate if one makes a distinction between (+) and (-) bowlines, for example ( or whatever pair of antonyms one chooses). I believe that, from time immemorial, people tied bowlines in both ways, just preferred the common bowline, when the eye legs were close to be parallel ( in loops tied around small diameter objects, where the knot s nub is far from the object ), and preferred the Eskimo bowline, when the eye legs were close to be aligned ( in loops tied around large diameter objects, where the knot s nub is close to the object). There is no essential difference : the collar , an extension of the eye leg of the bight, helps the nipping loop secure the tail, and makes a U turn around the line that is more aligned with the eye leg of the bight. If the loop is elongated, because it is tied around a small diameter object, the collar makes a U turn around the segment of the standing part outside the bight. If, on the other hand, the loop is round, because it encircles a large diameter object, the eye leg of the bight is more aligned with the segment of the standing part inside the bight, so it is natural to the collar to make a U turn around this segment of the standing part, i.e. around the eye leg of the standing part.
The main victim of a restricted classification, that fails to take into proper account this symmetry I am talking about, will not be the Eskimo bowline itself : The main victim will be the objectivity DDK is talkng about : the accuracy of the description of the common bowline, and the generality of its definition…

[alpineer]

Excluding the Eskimo Bwl. from it’s set requires you to exclude the Offset OH from it’s set likewise. What 's needed is a Hierarchy of Criteria by which knots are classified according to. Say something like; Working Form, Topology, Loading Profile, Attributes, Use, Existing Name, etc. Each criteria would serve to differentiate one knot from another and in/exclude then from a particular family of knots.

alpineer

[Inkanyezi]

I don’t see a real need to classify linguistically in the same way as structurally. Language doesn’t follow strict rules, so we may well exclude the Eskimo Bowline from the Bowline family of knots, but still call it a bowline, and the same might go for the Bowline tied in the bight, if they don’t conform to any more or less random rule that we set up as a definition for the family of knots.

OTOH those knots may be included if we follow a different set of rules. I have no problem to see the Eskimo Bowline as part of the bowline family, when we consider the likeness, its way of tying and the behaviour of the knot when load is applied upon only two of its parts. Most of these knots might behave as a sheet bend when loaded at either one bight leg and the standing part or between the two legs of the loop even if many of them in their working form and intended load will incorporate a nipping turn resembling the Gleipnir. At least one collar around a leg or the standing part is a distinctive feature, but we should not disregard the possibility that the bight might not by its own means embrace its relevant part, but is attached with a toggle.

Of course my stance in part might be explained from the fact that I use several languages on a daily basis, and if a classification is done, I feel an urge to apply it to all languages, which makes it a lot more difficult to apply strict rules linguistically, while structurally it might be a bit simpler to classify knots. Still I would try not to exclude knots that as the Eskimo Bowline display so many likenesses with other knots of the family, while it is easier for me to think of the Myrtle as something else. Either way, I don’t think classification is a “Practical Knots” issue, but more one of the theoretical kind.

I think disregarding the Gleipnir-like nipping turn from the family criteria, in favour of a more relaxed view based on what things look like on the surface and how they are made, is easy to live with. Structurally they may differ a lot, but that is what we should expect from different knots made for different purposes, even though they share family features.

[xarax]

@Inkanyezi post:93

Most of these knots might behave as a sheet bend when loaded at either one bight leg and the standing part, or between the two legs of the loop

Yes, but, most of the times, ( say, 99.99% :)), they are NOT loaded like this ! They are three-loaded-ends, single or double, LOOPS, not two-loaded-ends BENDS ! Big, Huge difference !
You can easily see how irrelevant/wrong is that phrase, if you invert it…
“The Sheet bend might behave as a bowline, when loaded at both legs of the one link .”
The Sheet bend is a bend, all the times, ( .i.e., 100.00 % :)), a knot connecting TWO lines, where ONE and - and not but one - end of each link is loaded. !
( I have been recently studying the “inverse” knots of the the three Shakehands bends, where we load the ends that were used to be the tails of the “parent” knots. Although the number of ends that is loaded remains the same, the knots are transformed, in looks as well as in function, completely, I would say miraculously ! )

The only relevant/correct phrase would be :
“If we load three (particular) ends of a Sheet bend, we get the bowline structure.”
So, what ?
The Sheet bend - bowline false correlation was initiated by some Ashley comments, and Derek Smith elevated it into a new theory. People are seduced into this theory by the appearance of a one-leg loaded bowline, like the one shown in the picture of reply# 60. However, appearances are often misleading, especially if they are meant to "to force square pegs into round holes " :). The inclination of the nipping loop of the bowline is due to the pressure of the collar. So, the one leg ot the eye, the eye leg of the standing part, is squeezed in between the collar and the nipping loop s inclined plane, and it looks like it is at right angle/perpendicular to the standing end ! Legs at right angle, perpendicular to each other resemble the structure of a hitch, a misleading, confusing sign had made Derek Smith believe the obviously wrong thing, that the bowline is related to the Sheet bend… Well, my eyes, too, can see the evidently similar picture, but my mind can not fail to see the entirely different essense, due to the entirely different loading and force distribution…and, I am afraid that “The mind sees and the mind hears”.

[alpineer]

@Inkanyezi post:93

I don’t see a real need to classify linguistically in the same way as structurally. Language doesn’t follow strict rules, so we may well exclude the Eskimo Bowline from the Bowline family of knots, but still call it a bowline, and the same might go for the Bowline tied in the bight, if they don’t conform to any more or less random rule that we set up as a definition for the family of knots.

OTOH those knots may be included if we follow a different set of rules. I have no problem to see the Eskimo Bowline as part of the bowline family, when we consider the likeness, its way of tying and the behaviour of the knot when load is applied upon only two of its parts. Most of these knots might behave as a sheet bend when loaded at either one bight leg and the standing part or between the two legs of the loop even if many of them in their working form and intended load will incorporate a nipping turn resembling the Gleipnir. At least one collar around a leg or the standing part is a distinctive feature, but we should not disregard the possibility that the bight might not by its own means embrace its relevant part, but is attached with a toggle.

Of course my stance in part might be explained from the fact that I use several languages on a daily basis, and if a classification is done, I feel an urge to apply it to all languages, which makes it a lot more difficult to apply strict rules linguistically, while structurally it might be a bit simpler to classify knots. Still I would try not to exclude knots that as the Eskimo Bowline display so many likenesses with other knots of the family, while it is easier for me to think of the Myrtle as something else. Either way, I don’t think classification is a “Practical Knots” issue, but more one of the theoretical kind.

I think disregarding the Gleipnir-like nipping turn from the family criteria, in favour of a more relaxed view based on what things look like on the surface and how they are made, is easy to live with. Structurally they may differ a lot, but that is what we should expect from different knots made for different purposes, even though they share family features.

Now this is the kind of level headed, even handed and measured dialog we need more of. Thank you Inkanyezi.

alpineer

[xarax]

@Inkanyezi post:93

I think disregarding the …nipping turn from the family criteria, in favour of a more relaxed view based on what things look like on the surface… is easy to live with.

It is always “easy” to live with “more relaxed views” of things, of how things “look like”, “on the surface”…Perhaps fortunately, most people live like this…
However, if one s purpose is not to live easily, but to live truly, and to understand things underneath the “surface”, to discover the essence of things often hidden behind misleading appearances, I am afraid he has to try and search a little more…
I hope that the much wanted “level headed, even handed and measured dialogue”, should not dictate us to accept a “level headed, even handed and measured” truth, because there is not such a thing ! Fortunately, in science, a thing is either true or false !
The bowline is not a Sheet bend, and the bowline structure is more related to a “Gleipnir with a collar” than to the Sheet bend.

[Inkanyezi]

@xarax post:96

The bowline is not a Sheet bend, and the bowline structure is more related to a “Gleipnir with a collar” than to the Sheet bend.

Maybe I should remind you that I was the first one to point that out?

This is not a discussion of what is truth about a Bowline, but I see it as a tentative to do some classification of a group of knots that are supposed to belong to a family, which should be further defined. In such classification it may have some merit to be very strict, but there might also be reasons for a more lax attitude. After all, whether science or not, the issue is not falsifying any knot that is named Bowline, but rather trying to find common treats if we find it fruitful to classify a certain order of knots as belonging to the bowline family.

In such an effort, I would find it natural to include the Eskimo Bowline, in spite of its odd orientation and structural difference compared to other bowlines. It is an anomaly if we consider the nipping turn to be crucial and if we regard it essential that the finishing U-turn, the collar, should embrace the standing part. Nevertheless, it shares many features with the proper Bowline, and it is a useful knot. By excluding it from the “family” on grounds that it has no TurNip, also mutiple turn bowlines should be excluded, and we get into a maze of classifications that I find unneeded. Someone else might feel a need for it, but I do not.

[xarax]

@Inkanyezi post:97

Maybe I should remind you that I was the first one to point that out?

Thank you, but, as you should have known by now, questions about priorities are not my cup of tea… I just repeated what I keep saying to Derek Smith from my first reply. I am glad you have the same view, because I respect your knowledge about knotting, which is, evidently, far more extended than mine.

@Inkanyezi post:97

This is not a discussion of what is truth about a Bowline…

Well, it was supposed to be… Read the heading of the thread ! The questions about other members, or not, of the bowline group, were only brought into the discussion afterwards…

@Inkanyezi post:97

… I would find it natural to include the Eskimo Bowline, in spite of its odd orientation and structural difference compared to other bowlines.

More than simply “natural” : true ! Some things might appear “natural”, and be false, but if we follow the simple definition of bowlines I have tried to offer, the Eskimo bowline can not but be included in the bowline group. Its “structure, characteristics, topology” oblige us to clasfy it in the same group as the common bowline. If, on the other hand, we insist to specify the side of the nipping loop the tail enters into, or exits from, and/or the leg of the nipping loop that serves as the tree for our U-turning rabbit, we can eliminate the Eskimo bowline from the bowline group (which might be an unwanted thing to do), but also we can eliminate other “crossing-knot” based loops, as this !@#$%^&*()_overestimated Karash bowline ( which is a thing I would love to be able to do, indeed ! )

@Inkanyezi post:97

It is an anomaly if we consider the nipping turn to be crucial and if we regard it essential that the finishing U-turn, the collar, should embrace the standing part.

…from either side of the nipping loop ".
Why ? Both characteristics are necessary. The (first, main) nipping loop should be tied on the eye leg of the standing part, because its function is to secure the tail, which is on the eye leg of the bight. And the collar is a just a clever means of the tail, to make this job of the nipping loop easier. So, the collar should embrace the standing part. Why is it an anomaly ? If there were a nipping loop and/or a collar only elsewhere, I would nt consider this end-o-line loop a member of the bowline family.

@xarax post:56

The collar is not any U turn of a segment of the rope…The collar is a U turn of the tail, it is a mechanism of the tail, a means of the tail to be secured easier by the nipping loop…
Also, the nipping loop is not any 360 degrees turn of a segment of a rope…A nipping loop is a 360 degrees bight around the tail, it is a constricting mechanism that nips the tail, a mechanism to secure the tail.
It is absurd to talk about collars on the standing part, and nipping loops on the working end / tail !

[Dan_Lehman]

@alpineer post:92

Excluding the Eskimo Bwl. from it’s set requires you
to exclude the Offset OH from it’s set likewise.

Huh? (He gasps, w/o even effort at decorum.)

I don’t understand what you’re saying re the latter knot.

[Dan_Lehman]

@xarax post:96

Fortunately, in science, a thing is either true or false !

How’s that work for you with quantum mechanics?
Didn’t the Law of the Excluded Muddle get broken there?
(And, actually, there are reams of thoughts on what
makes “true” … .)

The [i]bowline[/i] is not a [i]Sheet bend,[/i] and the bowline structure is more related to a [u][i]"Gleipnir[/i] with a collar"[/u] ...

It is you who see necessity in some collar, not I
(who even sees more of collaring than you do!).
My base is the turNip (not the Gleipnir, which is a
structure incorporating that).

On the question of the eskimo bowline, I’m going to straddle
the middle, or be on both sides, as with that carrick loop
–can be either, depending upon the setting. I think that
it might here be more unnatural to get the crossing-knot
form, given any casualness in setting, and elastic rope.
But it has some potential to go further away from the
crossing-knot geometry, past the loop into a spiral
–something I see “anti-bowlines” vulnerable to, with their
tail entering on the opposite side of the loop (making
stabilization of the turNip more a challenge).

ack!

Further, to X. : "SPart is that bring 100% tension into the
knot; what runs from this into the eye --an eye leg-- is just
that (eye leg), not SPart any more. So your bit about some
“symmetry …” with collaring going either direction loses me.
But then I don’t need any collar as such, so I don’t really
care.

To Ink., multiple-turns don’t worry me, as the turNip is but
the start of a coil of constriction; but the clove base would
be tossed, or make some kind of sub-class (and it is partly
a confusion of history itself --the additional loop has been
located at some remove from the first, in some references,
and it’s unclear what was in fact used).

Keep in mind, also, that we are here focused on #1010 and
seeing how it might be generalized/defined so as to guide
us on a formal bowline classification: what might appear
to be something that should be brought in under this tent
from this focus could well see stronger ties to some other
start point, and a big tent here might simply result in a
fight over where things go when other knots come to get
their essences defined --and having things in several classes
at once doesn’t sound terribly helpful, either. There IS such
a thing as a crossing knot, and one can build up a set
of eye knots with it as a base --and it will lay a claim on the
eskimo bwl. right away.

–dl*