Notes on latest version.
p.12 of 32, l00ks like you got careless on your
"tied with bights" variation : => Asymmetric
--see the non-mirror'd SParts (both are left of tails)!
If you're doing such a thing,
then the eye<->joint corresponding knot I've
presented fits in, happily.
Posited that #1053 Butterfly formed by linking the 2 tails from
corresponding Butterfly bend is perhaps the only TIB knot formed this way?
How quickly you forget about (nearby of your papers)
the
offset water knot --which produces the most often
Found-In-The-Wild mid-line eye knot.
(But you might want to examine other in-line eye knots,
such as the
fig.8 and so on.)
To my mind, though, you reach out of bounds
in claiming some of these corresponding knots
to be so for some particular end-2-end joint :
no, not when that knot's SParts are not one or
the other the SPart of the correspondent --then,
its'some other joint (one w/diff. SParts). You
are, in my thinking, going "same" at the *tangle*
not *knot* level.
p.21, top table of break-test results.
Isn't it puzzling that there is such difference
between some of these results!? It's about
a 9%-pt stepping on that for the
bowline,
and then some oddity in the
fig.8 <various>results, too --where one can question what
orientation (and any setting) was made!?
(20 & 14 %pt.s for the later two testings
between eye & joint ! --vs. nil of 1st.)
((Btw, "Rhino..." sounds like CMC Rope Rescue
data, which (Ref. Man.) DO have
butterflyresults. (Interestingly, pulled purely end-2-end,
it does little better than the
fig.8, for them.)
))
p.22 (of 32). Oh, my, that "toggle axis" ...
Bit much of X. coming through here,
but in any case, one can (also) see that
--and esp. where the material deforms more,
or wasn't dressed & set snugly--
the SParts can mimic the bowline's nipping turn.
(YMMV.)
--dl*
====
