Add new comment


Quote from Masa:
"I would appreciate the reference to support your argument, if you could give one – and hence the discussion that follows."
Reply: I had given links to various papers on Bowlines and knots in general. Hve you read them yet?

Quote from Masa:
"Anyhow, the primary point of the article is that Bowline, including Yosemite Bowline, is much more insecure than Figure-of-Eight, especially in the course of a long day."
Reply: This statement is factually incorrect. When you use the word 'Bowline' - you need to be very clear as to which 'Bowline' you are actually referring to. There are actually dozens of different 'Bowlines'. In fact, there is a class of structures known as 'secure Bowlines'. Examples of secure Bowlines include: Scotts locked Bowline, EBSB Bowline and Lee's link Bowline; all of which are totally secure and stable.

You are publishing your article to the world via the internet and as such, you need to make sure that the information you convey is accurate (which it is not). Presumably, when you use the word 'Bowline' - you might in fact be referring to #1010 Common Bowline. But it is known that this type of Bowline is not secure - so why base your article on a structure that is already known to be insecure? This doesn't make any scientific sense. If you are trying to compare the #1047 Figure 8 eye knot against 'a' 'Bowline' - you need to compare it to one of the secure Bowlines. For example, if you want to compare particular off-road 4WD (SUV) vehicle against another vehicle, you need to select another 4WD (SUV). It would be invalid to compare against a conventional 2WD car. In effect, this is what you are doing.
Mark Gommers