Whew, there's a load here.
You can also tie a bowline on a bight of rope. (There's a knot called the "bowline on a bight", but ironically that knot is not a bowline tied on a bight.) This is called the triple bowline on a bight (because it has three loops in total--the major loop becomes two loops and the tail becomes one loop) or the double bowline on a bight (I don't know why it's called that).
Because it is a bowline (up)on a bight--without ends.
As opposed to a "b. WITH a bight", using a bight ("loop"/"doubled") of rope.
Knots nomenclature is quite an adventure, to be sure.
Note the contrast between "Triple Bowline" and the more common use for
"Double Bowline" which is to denote the "Round-turn Bowline", a single-eye
knot with two "minor" loops in your terminology. I'd like to keep the sense
of "double" to denoting repeated/extended parts of the structure (as in
"Dbl.Sheet Bend"), and not number of eyes. But in any case, the use you're
attacking is ancient (Ashley cites 1808 ref.), and pretty common to my reading.
Your distinction of "on" vs. "with" is exactly opposite mine; the variance hinges
really more on what sense of "bight" (seemingly unchanged--in spelling) than
the nuances of the preposition, but I'd say that "with" has a better connotation
of using a structure to perform ... , and "on" more of a passive reception to
the knotting, which fits my observation of traditional useage. YMMV.
We're talking about new and different knots, with potentially quite different properties. It's worth knowing what happens when you load them heavily in a single event, before trusting your life and the lives of others to them.
Except that by the vast field data of rope useage for decades, and some common
sense about the geometries of the knots in question vis-a-vis known knots, and
the strength of the materials employed, it is beyond doubt that they will be amply
strong. I''m guessing some will prove stronger.
The Australian fellow updating the report now plans to perform testing on 5mm
kernmantle (he insists on '...mantel') accessory cord (Sterling), with 3 pieces per knot;
I've urged knots in both ends per piece, so double the tested number (and surviving
knots to examine (or later re-strain to rupture).
[re 'left-handed" connotation] You have on your side a respected (though dated) knot authority.
I was not aware that Ashley had said that. On the other hand, I have on my side an extremely simple explanation.
If one is seeking origin(s), "dated" is a plus, not the latest echoes of misunderstanding
or revisionism. But surely you have Webster's 3rd New and look up the meaning, where
"left-handed" is a colloquial expression for non-standard, dubious things!? And your
long-winded, inventive answer is quite the antithesis to Occam, of all things. Esp.
as in most all of the references I've seen, the bowline is presented as it was in the
2nd post (from NZcaver) here, mainline up (the "tree"), cross of the ("minor") loop
on left, and a Cowboy's end would thus be .. RIGHT--but that is hardly the basis for
the knot name. (And it would be foolish to think that knots books influenced those
using knots, except maybe in some specialized fields such as climbing/caving; sadly,
it seems too much that actual knotting didn't much influence knots books--only prior
knots books did that.)-:
"I don't recall the double overhand stopper finish specifically used with the Bowline ever being taught or shown in NCRC literature."
As you can imagine, the Double Fishermans/Grapevine knot itself is a staple of the NCRC diet.
But my point was: is the Strangle knot (that half-a-Grapevine) expressly noted for
being a useful security knot (whether applied to a particular back-up role or not)?!
Just having the image and knot implicitly available isn't good assurance that such
use will be recognized.
Cheers,
*kN*