International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Knotting Concepts & Explorations => Topic started by: agent_smith on July 02, 2018, 01:49:29 AM

Title: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 02, 2018, 01:49:29 AM
There has been a reasonable volume of forum discussion about knot testing and indeed, criticism of existing knot test reports.

I have noted that there appears to be a vanishingly small volume of test reports that actually can be regarded as authoritative with relevant and meaningful data.

It seems that, more often than not, knot testers seem to repeat the same old tired mistakes and report data that is either misleading or somewhat irrelevant.

One has to ask the question; "Why?"

...

So I have been giving this matter some thought and I believe that the IGKT has to accept some of the responsibility for this recurrent issue. I am not pointing the finger at any one individual - I am saying that we, as a knot tying community, should have addressed this issue long ago.

We have some really clever people in the IGKT - and there is a remarkable body of knowledge and advancement of the science of knotting - all due to the IGKT.

But, for one reason or the other, when it comes to knot testing and reporting, we seem to lack motivation and focused energy to take a leading role in developing a set of guidelines for knot testing and reporting of results.

At this stage, I am simply asking the question; "Why?"

I guess the question that follows from this is; "What can we do about it?"

...

Mark Gommers
02 July 2018

Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 03, 2018, 12:23:17 AM
There has been a reasonable volume of forum discussion about knot testing and indeed, criticism of existing knot test reports.
I'd say that the volume is more hot air than substance,
which was my point to urging precise comments in the
recent/current thread about a Yachting Monthly article
reporting some rather lame testing.
.:.  We need to keep generating such pointed criticisms,
trimmed by internal debate & Occam's razor, to become
a set of guidelines for future testing (and for appraising
extant test reports!).

Quote
It seems that, more often than not, knot testers seem
to repeat the same old tired mistakes and report data that is
either misleading or somewhat irrelevant.
One has to ask the question; "Why?"
The same question is raised by knots books parroting
the same old nonsense over & over & over, often in
incredible cases --The Encyclopedia of Knots & Fancy Ropework
by "Hensel & Gretel" being maybe the king of crap!

Quote
I am saying that we, as a knot tying community,
should have addressed this issue long ago.
Sometimes it seems to me that this imaginary
community is ascribed to those of more *real*,
active communities (angling, caving, e.g.) who
happen to focus on knots --but often rather
parochially vs. broadly.  And the *broad*-minded
interested parties haven't been good at collecting
the widespread/disparate information and trying
to make sense of it all.

E.g., I am abashed to say that I've not built a list
of extant test reports --an easy thing to refer to.
... lazy ..., "do it sometime (later) ... " ?!
Well, SOMEone has done a bit of this --to wit
(news to me, which I captured w/these remarks)  ::
Quote
Finding a rich lode ?!
Here's the overview, which has citations of so many others!
http://itrsonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Evans_Truebe.A-Review-of-Knot-Strength-Testing_2016.pdf (http://itrsonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Evans_Truebe.A-Review-of-Knot-Strength-Testing_2016.pdf)

Quote
there is a remarkable body of knowledge and
 advancement of the science of knotting - all due to the IGKT.
What advancement do you see?
(I see that in the pre-latest (#138?) Knotting Matters there is
still parroting of the obviously overinflated "knots" count
for our "bible", The Ashley Book of Knots !)

"What can we do about it?"  --see above.
(And maybe a thread for it, perhaps awaiting first
a good set of things to capture in the thread's OP
--so let's run a bit on the comment-&-critique bit
prior to establishing a thread on testing.)

Here's my reaction to the above-linked collection
of test reports.

Quote
>  He commented that we do not need more <knots> testing,
>  but a synopsis of the data already available.

It's great to be looking over the seemingly vast
knots-testing-literature field and trying to make
some sense of it.  But this survey overlooked a
couple of key criticisms of this vastness :

1) test reports seldom show the exact knot/geometry tested
(and common literature is usually pretty vague on such detail
--e.g., in MANY instances, the fig.8 eye knot (nevermind the
pretended distinction of "on a bight"/"rewoven") is shown
only with both ends going out of view, and so no indication
of which should be loaded, which the tail (!).

2) testers don't all have very good knotting skills and tie
things haphazardly.
(A shockingly bad case just came to light for me,
www.yachtingmonthly.com/sailing-skills/strongest-sailing-knot-30247
!  --i.p., note their fig.8s !  Egadz, ...)

So, sadly, a survey of much knots testing is a dive into
muddy waters; much of the stuff is pretty worthless, IMO.
And it would be nice to get some better ideas of WHERE
--which should lead to theories of Why-- knots break.
(In the aforementioned Yachting Monthly report, it is
MOST peculiar to see a fig.8 eye knot breaking in one
of the eye LEGS --I can't raise a theory to figure this! ??



Cheers,
--dl*
====
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 03, 2018, 01:29:56 AM
Please read this very carefully before hitting the reply button!

Of all the current and future knot testers in the world; where do they go to find one coherent and clear set of instructions to guide them in their knot testing efforts and report writing?

At risk of pressing this issue to hard - is the IGKT best positioned to take the initiative and address this matter?

I acknowledge and understand that the IGKT is a loosely cemented community - with no particular agenda to solve this matter.
However, we do have on board a few very talented individuals who do possess very specialized and technical level knowledge about this subject.

QUESTION: As it currently stands, knot testers such as Thomas Evans, Grant Prattley, Dave Richards, Richard Delaney; The various would-be testers from Climbing and Yachting magazines; et al - where exactly do they go to find information to guide them?

ANSWER: Nowhere! There is nowhere to go and there is nothing to guide them other than their own personal view of how to test and report.

QUESTION: Just because 'we' (ie interested members of the IGKT) can assist the knot testing community, does that mean 'we' should?

QUESTION: Who actually cares?

QUESTION: Should 'we' do nothing - and just allow the present status quo continue?

QUESTION: Am 'I' (ie the individuals reading this post) prepared to do something to alter the current status quo?

...

Mark Gommers
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: NautiKnots on July 03, 2018, 01:52:07 AM
...where exactly do they go to find information to guide them?

ANSWER: Nowhere! There is nowhere to go and there is nothing to guide them other than their own personal view of how to test and report.
The Cordage Institute and the IEEE would be good sources to search for testing procedures of cordage and knots.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 03, 2018, 02:27:36 AM
From NautiKnots:
Quote
The Cordage Institute and the IEEE would be good sources to search for testing procedures of cordage and knots.

No they aren't! (And this could be a source of irritation to you when you read this). These entities wont be able to explain 'what' to test. Do not misunderstand my meaning...I do like testing authorities and I like the cordage institute. They do valuable work. However, they are not knotting experts - knot tying is not their core business.
For example, if I contact the cordage institute and asked them; "How do I tie and test the offset overhand bend?" - they will not be able to respond.

Can you show me exactly where they describe in detail how to tie and test knot specimens in order to produce relevant and meaningful data?

I think you are confusing MBS break testing of ropes and cordage with physically tied knot specimens.
The cordage institute do not publish documents that specifically deal with knots, knot geometry and loading profiles of knots.

Here is a link to fibre rope testing from cordage institute: http://www.ropecord.com/cordage/publications/docs/CI1500.pdf

Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: NautiKnots on July 03, 2018, 03:35:21 AM
That's a pretty quick summary dismissal.

I didn't say anything about any specific tests performed, nor about what they attempt to determine, merely that these two organizations' publications would be worth searching for topical research.

For example, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6859564/, in which the researchers used a knot-tying machine in order to assure the uniformity (and, presumably, correctness) of their test samples.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 03, 2018, 05:11:26 AM
I am concerned that the concept behind my original post is going to bog down and evaporate.

NautiKnots - your bringing the cordage institute and IEEE into focus is appreciated but in the end - of no actual use.

These organizations do not publish technical information about knot structure and form - they focus on the machinery that produces a force and the accuracy of testing/sampling methods.

Can you not see this?

For example, lets say I wanted to test #1410 Offset overhand bend.

These institutes wouldn't know anything about the following:
[ ] effects of rotation
[ ] where to position different diameter ropes within the knot structure
[ ] correct use of naming terms (eg 'offset' versus 'flat' or 'one-sided')
[ ] jamming threshold
[ ] instability threshold
[ ] low stretch versus dynamic ropes
[ ] use of ABoK numbers to positively ID a knot

Same goes for any other knot you can think of...eg #1053 Butterfly eye knot.
These institutes wouldn't know or publish information about 'eye loading' versus 'through loading' versus different dressings (eg crossing the SParts as they enter the core versus parallel SParts etc etc.

These institutes tend to focus on dry technical information that pertains to the tensile force producing machinery, statistical sampling methods, pure MBS break testing, and accuracy of reporting. It is generic in nature and not specific to knot geometry. Pulling knots to failure (by itself) is not and should not be the sole focus of testing!

If I wanted to test #1410 offset overhand bend, I would find little information from these institutes that would guide me in how and what to specifically test.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: NautiKnots on July 03, 2018, 02:05:38 PM
These organizations do not publish technical information about knot structure and form - they focus on the machinery that produces a force and the accuracy of testing/sampling methods.
Perhaps you'd be more interested in Feasibility of Knots to Reduce the Maximum Dynamic Arresting Load in Rope Systems (http://"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40870-015-0015-5").  This paper is an introductory exploration of how a select few knots affect shock absorption and tensile strength in Technora cordage under dynamic load.  It is specifically aimed at fall-arrest systems for climbing and safety use.  Is this not the type of study you're hoping to see?

Quote
These institutes tend to focus on dry technical information that pertains to the tensile force producing machinery, statistical sampling methods, pure MBS break testing, and accuracy of reporting. It is generic in nature and not specific to knot geometry.
Are you saying that testing technique, accuracy, and statistical sampling methods are unimportant?  If so, I disagree. 

Quote
Pulling knots to failure (by itself) is not and should not be the sole focus of testing!
I agree, and have repeatedly said so myself.  Before setting out to "test knots", one should first state what one hopes to learn, and then construct test(s) that will yield the desired information in a meaningful way.

Quote
If I wanted to test #1410 offset overhand bend, I would find little information from these institutes that would guide me in how and what to specifically test.
But you will find lots of information about testing standards, and about how others constructed and performed their experiments in order to produce repeatable, statistically significant results that can be extrapolated to real-world applications.

Yes, it is meaningless to perform statistical analysis on knot tests if you don't know how to tie the knots.  But, it is also meaningless to perform statistical analysis on knot tests if you don't understand testing methodology or statistics.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 03, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
NautiKnots,

I am dumbfounded by your posts.

Either you are on a campaign to declare that; "No, the IGKT is not the entity to play a key role in guiding knot testers"; or, "Allow the present status quo to prevail"; or "the cordage institute and IEEE are already addressing the issues I have raised and therefore it is a non-issue"; or some other agenda which is obscure to me.

Your link doesn't work:
Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40870-015-0015-5
And what exactly are you trying to prove with this link?
This paper examines the use of knots as mechanisms to reduce the impact force of a fall.
In the paper, the F8 eye knot (#1047) is poorly dressed.

Again - why did you post this link? What are you trying to prove? And why?

I am wondering if you actually understand the nature of the issues I have raised?
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: NautiKnots on July 03, 2018, 04:17:55 PM
I am dumbfounded by your posts.
Then I am afraid I cannot help you.

Quote
Either you are on a campaign to declare that; "No, the IGKT is not the entity to play a key role in guiding knot testers"; or, "Allow the present status quo to prevail"; or "the cordage institute and IEEE are already addressing the issues I have raised and therefore it is a non-issue"; or some other agenda which is obscure to me.
I choose Option 3. 
Quote
Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40870-015-0015-5
And what exactly are you trying to prove with this link?
Again - why did you post this link? What are you trying to prove? And why?
I'm just pointing out that there are people out there testing knots in rigorous ways and publishing their methods in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  You asserted that there were none.  I think (if one wants to test knots) one could learn about accepted testing methods from published examples.

Quote
I am wondering if you actually understand the nature of the issues I have raised?
Apparently, neiher of us understands what the other is saying, so I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 03, 2018, 05:13:18 PM
Quote
Then I am afraid I cannot help you.
Your alleged 'help' is misplaced.

Quote
I think it's wrong to say that there is nothing to be learned from the CI or IEEE (or other journals).
I think you are misguided and imagining things that you think I stated, which I did not.
I think you are motivated by something you imaged in your mind. Hmmm, there is something behind all this...

Quote
I'm just pointing out that there are people out there testing knots in rigorous ways and publishing their methods in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  You asserted that there were none.
I am again dumbfounded by your proposition.
Do you really imagine that I am unaware of all the existing knot test reports?
I never stated this imagined assertion.
Of course there are people doing knot testing! And of course there are existing knot test reports.
I stated that current/existing knot test reports are often drawing incorrect conclusions or testing aspects of knots that are irrelevant or misleading. Many typically focus on pure MBS knot yield (ie pure pull-to-failure mindset).

Which part of what I am stating are you struggling with?

I am aghast at your stance on this matter, and it leaves me wondering if other IGKT members feel the same way?
Sadly, I think the future of knot testing is at risk of staying on its present heading.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: NautiKnots on July 03, 2018, 06:49:04 PM
Quote
I think it's wrong to say that there is nothing to be learned from the CI or IEEE (or other journals).
I think you are misguided and imagining things that you think I stated, which I did not.
Ok, I said:
"The Cordage Institute and the IEEE would be good sources to search for testing procedures of cordage and knots."

And you replied:
"No they aren't!"

Please explain exactly why you said they are not good sources to search if there IS something to be learned from them.

Quote
I think you are motivated by something you imaged in your mind. Hmmm, there is something behind all this...
All I've ever said, is that meaningful "KNOT TESTING" requires both knowledge of KNOTS and knowledge of TESTING.  This community is already quite familiar with knots.  I propose that if the IGKT wants to give advice on knot testing, that it learn about testing as well.

I don't know where this vitriol comes from.  I have made no personal attack on you whatsoever.  On the contrary, I have great respect for your knotting expertise and I find this discussion quite distressing.

Quote
I am again dumbfounded by your proposition.
Do you really imagine that I am unaware of all the existing knot test reports?
I never stated this imagined assertion.
Of course there are people doing knot testing! And of course there are existing knot test reports.
Ok then, please reconcile this statement with your above comment (of "No they aren't!").  Are these peer-reviewed publications worthwhile examples of test methodology, or aren't they?

Quote
I stated that current/existing knot test reports are often drawing incorrect conclusions or testing aspects of knots that are irrelevant or misleading. Many typically focus on pure MBS knot yield (ie pure pull-to-failure mindset).
A statement I agree with, but which has no bearing on what I've tried to say about test methodology and statistical significance.

Quote
Which part of what I am stating are you struggling with?
Well, to be honest, I'm struggling with your reaction to my statement that before designing our own test procedures, we should be familiar with how Industry Standards organizations perform tests.  Not what specific tests they run, but how testing is validated in general, so we can have confidence that our test results correspond to real-world knot behavior.  Why are you so upset about that?

Quote
I am aghast at your stance on this matter, and it leaves me wondering if other IGKT members feel the same way?
I am at yours as well, when I think we should actually be in agreement on this.  Wouldn't you agree that:Because #2 is all I've ever suggested.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: SS369 on July 03, 2018, 09:44:25 PM
So, let's say someone finds a test facility, has a camera, has some selected rope (maybe various dimensions?) of the same construction/materials and wants to invest some life to run some tests. What list of procedures, protocols, etc., etc., can they use that the results won't be systematically poo-pooed or nitpicked?

Backyard or field testing and even some of the sources online of tests gone by are regularly picked apart for one thing or another here.

If we have an agreed upon check and set up list, then it makes sense to to do the investment. That is what I hope to see this thread develop into.

SS
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 03, 2018, 09:56:33 PM
The Cordage Institute and the IEEE would be good sources to search for testing procedures of cordage and knots.
I got some stuff from the former, and it impressed me
as overly attentive to less important things than I'd want
to see.  In any case, while there are some standards for
knot testing regarding pull rate and so on, there aren't
similar for tying the knot --e.g., a given specification
for dressing the fig.8 eye knot and which end to load.
(CE/UIAA I think specify a test method for dynamic ropes
which demands such a knot, but there there is no like
spec. for the knot itself (and even how long its eye should
be for those tests).

"ISO/TC 38/WG 21, Ropes, cordage, slings and netting, Working group"
is a subset of ISO's Textiles body, and is the place for some
international standards.
Quote
Standardization of :
fibres, yarns, threads, cords, rope, cloth and other fabricated textile materials;
and the methods of test, terminology and definitions relating thereto; ...
The Cordage Institute operates in some bit of American independence
of that, or at least as a competing standard.  (As I mentioned elsewhere,
I recall that one body defined  advertised tensile to be determined
by eye splices --so, they are by def. 100%--, whereas some
other standards allow other ways to figure this value (which
would give then a way to evaluate the eye splices).

Looking for such things under USA's "ANSI", I find :
Quote
Founded in 2003, the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA)
became the first industry association to achieve the ANSI Accredited
Standards Developer status in 2005.  On March 3, 2014, ANSI designated
the ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 2014 as the sole ANSI American National SAFETY
Standard (ANS) for Challenge Courses, Ziplines, and Aerial Adventure Parks.
This standard covers both participants and employees.  Accordingly,
the ANSI Essential Requirements outline that no other conflicting or
duplicating ANS should be allowed.
The mission of the PRCA is to develop end-user applicable standards,
documents, and to define, document and outline the construction /
operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline,
and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.
There are probably some words re knots in this.

And there is this, for arborists:
ANSI Z133 Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operations Manual


--dl*
====
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 03, 2018, 10:16:13 PM
If we have an agreed upon check and set up list,
then it makes sense to to do the investment.
That is what I hope to see this thread develop into.
Right.  It might be that, in continued deliberations
here, we draw out many test-method desiderata
[where'd I draw THAT words from!  ::) ]
from which various subsets are made as best fits
--perhaps within cost or time or ... constraints--
the particular needs of a tester consulting with IGKT
about testing.

(E.g., for someone keen to test some abseil-rope joints
with strength-testing in mind, the advice might be to
test for some significant but non-rupture forces and
to evaluate in some more meaningful way.
Otherwise, to be able to refer the tester to good images
& specifications for tying a knot.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 04, 2018, 02:26:29 AM
My original concept and purpose behind starting this thread was to mobilize a concerted effort to address the shortcomings and failings of knot testing and reporting of results.

I maintain and reaffirm that there is no current body or entity that a knot tester can turn to for advice in the following:
[ ] knot naming conventions
[ ] knot form and structure (geometry) - ie getting the dressing correct for a particular knot species
[ ] what to test - eg rather than the default pull-to-failure mindset that permeates the entire sub-culture
[ ] use of appropriate control knots to draw comparisons against

NautiKnots source of continued irritation is linked to his belief that current institutions (eg cordage institute USA) already address statistical sampling methods and proper use of tensile (force) generating machines so that testers can obtain reliable results.

But this misses the point entirely.

There are principally 3 distinct forms of testing carried out:
1. Hobbyist/enthusiast style testing done by interested individuals who largely act in isolation. This type of setup is not a business enterprise. It is typically conducted at the testers home (but it could be carried out in a garage/shed or even the persons backyard).
2. Semi-formal testing done in a non-certified lab with mechanised equipment and is generally done by individuals who hold themselves out as possessing an expertise. This type of setup is sometimes a business enterpise  - eg rope access and/or vertical rescue business enterprise.
3. Formal testing done in a certified lab in accordance with their accredited procedures - but the individuals behind the tests are typically lab technicians first and knot enthusiasts last. This type of setup is usually a business enterprise.

I think NautiKnots source of irritation is linked to #3. In a formal certified test lab - everything is done in accordance with strict protocols. There is specialised force generating equipment that is carefully calibrated - and an environment that is purpose built to carry out a range of destructive style testing.

In #1 above, funds are typically very limited and so is spare time. There is no formal environment in which to operate. There is no strict use of calibrated force generating instrumentation.

In #2 above, usually the tester(s) have access to more funds and may have setup a pseudo lab. A good example would be 'Rope Test Lab' run by Richard Delaney in NSW Australia. He is a roping enthusiast but his 'lab' is not 'certified' as such. Within Australia, such lab certification is typically done through 'NATA' (National Association of Testing Authorities). Note that 'NATA' is not specifically knowledgeable about knots and knot structure. NATA is about setting up a test lab so it can test articles consistently and reliably to a certain standard.

This is largely what the cordage institute is.
It is not specifically knowledgeable about knots and knot geometry. Its more about measurement and pulling test articles to failure. Although the word 'cordage' is embodied in the title, this has more to do with cord/rope construction rather than knot tying.

And this is where NautiKnots source of irritation comes from.

As it currently stands, well funded knot testers could turn to a certified lab and request a set of tests (for a fee). The certified lab would not have any expertise on how to tie the knot specimens or what to test. This would be the responsibility of the individual who hires the use of the lab facility for a fee.

In Richard Delaney's case, he is not a certified lab - but, he does have a pseudo lab environment and access to motorised force generating equipment. Richard would not turn to 'NATA' or the 'Cordage institute' for advice when testing. This is because 'NATA' and the 'cordage institute' do not possess specialized expertise in how to tie knots and what to specifically to test.

Whilst I have due respect for testing authorities such as 'NATA' and the 'Cordage institute', these entities do not possess specialised expertise in knot tying.

Hopefully, Nautiknots irritation will subside, now that I have clarified that testing authorities do not possess specialised expertise about knots and knot tying. These entities focus on reliability of test methods and the machinery that produces the tensile forces. And it is all based around the mindset of 'pull-to-failure'. If I contacted the Cordage institute and asked them;
"How do I tie and test the Offset overhand bend?"
Their response would be; "          " (blank).

Remember that all entities and authorities consist of people (humans like you and me). It is the people that comprise the entity. Merely because an entity carries a title such as 'NATA' or 'Cordage institute' or 'IEEE', does not by itself automatically grant expert level knowledge about knot tying.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 05, 2018, 01:09:41 AM
This is my attempt at shifting into 1st gear - in order to cease spinning wheels and going nowhere.
Note that this is only 1st gear - but at least its a start.

And so...  I propose the following as a basic framework for knot testers and aspiring knot testers.
This shouldn't be too onerous / difficult to achieve.

KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES (A basic framework)

Checklist:


[ ] Determine the purpose of your test
    eg; to determine the MBS yield point (ie load at which the knot breaks) or to investigate something else? (eg at what load does the knot jam or, at what load is instability triggered or, which dressings improve or lessen stability?)
     - if you are of the 'pull-to-failure' (ie break it) mindset, ask yourself "why?" Why is it important to pull your knot specimen to failure?
     - what are you trying to prove?
     - is 'pulling the knot to failure' really going to conclusively prove anything? (note that harness tie-in knots dont break when you take a lead/climbing fall...there is no force that a falling climber can generate that will break a knot. Your climbing rope is more likely to fail due to cutting/sawing over sharp edges). Even in highlines, where the line tension is maxed out, still doesn't break knots. In this case, your anchors are more likely to fail or yield. If you are of the general population mindset that pulling knot 'A' to failure against knot 'B' to failure proves superiority of one compared to the other - you should re-think your proposition!

[ ] Determine the type of cordage/rope that you will use for the test
    - this is crucial. The type of material plays a significant role in how the knot will respond to load.
    - slippery materials such as 'dyneema' will behave differently to regular EN1891 certified low stretch abseil rope
    - what diameter cordage/rope will you use? The larger the diameter, the greater the force required to reach its MBS yield point
    - maybe you want to use 2 different rope diameters (eg a 'end-to-end' joining knot to see how it responds to increasing load)
    - are you testing ropes that conform to an EN standard? (eg EN 892 dynamic climbing rope)
    - is it imperative that you test human-rated ropes that conform to a standard? (eg EN 1891, EN 892, etc)
    - is your rope/cordage in brand new (unused) condition? Or is it aged? If aged, how old?
    - either way, it is important that you are very clear on exactly what type of rope/cordage you are using

[ ] What type of test facility are you?
    - I am a 'backyard' tester. I do not have any sophisticated test apparatus. I am not well funded and I don't like math (ie statistics).
    - I have a pseudo test lab. It is not a certified lab but, I do have access to force generating equipment and limited funds.
    - I am a certified nationally accredited test lab. I have calibrated force generating equipment and computers to measure and document results. I am reasonably well funded.

    NOTE: The level of expectation scales according to which test category you fit within. If you are a 'backyard' tester, we are not going to criticize you for failing to use calibrated digital instrumentation and avoiding hard statistical mathematics!

[ ] Check in at the IGKT website/forum and run your test idea there.
     - although full of nerdy knot enthusiasts, the IGKT has some exceptionally talented individuals who have unique insights into all things knot related. They can provide expert level advice all free-of-charge.

[ ] Use appropriate naming conventions for your knot specimen so it can be properly identified

    eg; Where possible, use 'ABoK' reference numbers.

[ ] Pay close attention to knot 'dressing' (ie form and structure)
    - dont be sloppy - be ruthlessly accurate in getting the dressing correct!
    - diligence is the key

[ ] Photograph your knot (before, during and after your load test)
    - take your photos against a plain while background...eg, use a plain white bed sheet as a background for your photo
    - make sure all segments of the knot structure are visible in the image (including the 'tail' end)

[ ] Repeat your test several times to obtain a reasonable statistical sample (ideally, at least 5 repeats)
    - breaking or jamming knots costs money - we know this. Keep in mind that a test sample of '1' is not sufficient to draw any conclusions...you need to do more than just one test.

[ ] Use a 'control'
    Try to be 'scientific'...all good science testing uses what is known as a 'control'.
    Link to info about scientific 'controls': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

[ ] Measure the force that you are applying to the knot
    - try to use force generating equipment that has a 'gauge' so you know how much tensile force you are applying
    - digital is best but, if you only have an analog gauge then this will suffice.

[ ] Report your results
    - make sure you write a conclusion

...

Mark Gommers
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: KC on July 05, 2018, 01:17:18 PM
i don't approve of road racing, but see pro-racing as measurement, competitive development; that in end drives us forward.
i think strength tests are good, but not total purpose, just benchmarks and expanded understanding as we groom the mechanics.
.
Standardization would be good, nice list, but wouldn't throw away thoughts and observations of the mentioned testing associations;
to get their experiences as well as draw them into helping mature this, and then also adhering and leading with it.
.
i think that safety awareness should be part of this; as pushing knot to 'explosion' especially if metal link is attached can be hazordous to people, expensive testing gear etc.
.
i liked Eric22 / alan_lee's http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6120.msg41258#msg41258 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6120.msg41258#msg41258)
>> shows deformities, changes, damage to line  >> data is data, and seeing what really happens makes so well makes simpler watching more tangible and intuitive.
>>perhaps anti-climatic w/o knot explosion, but still many lessons shown >> data is data
and safer to walk to edge and not jump off, knot explosion could have been injurious, taken out measuring device etc.
>> should look to have safety guidelines, suggestions if not just warnings
.
i think several tests and different materials done at same time /circumstance / tester
>>in playing around when could, i have made eye to eye sling with different Bowline's
one of the things testing is tail in eye or not  >>  1 Bowline of each on ea. end of sling to same type carabiners pulled by truck
>>different materials seem to break earlier on the 'innie' and others on the 'outie' side of the home-made sling
no meter, just who fails first: the most direct Nip of 'outie' missing Bitter End or w/less directness but more primary force on both parts of final turn around SPart of 'innie'.
.
i'm all with observing the proper geometries, as really the most key concept anyway
>>and think naming or at least family groups should be formed by respect of such geometries and force flow thru them.
>>but for reachability outside to the masses, some groupings by type of usage are necessary; or at least need to be allowable.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: NautiKnots on July 06, 2018, 01:56:27 AM
NautiKnots source of continued irritation is linked to his belief that current institutions (eg cordage institute USA) already address statistical sampling methods and proper use of tensile (force) generating machines so that testers can obtain reliable results.

But this misses the point entirely.
No, you missed my point entirely.  I never promoted the use of tensile strength as a useful measure of knots.  Nor did I ever say that the Cordage Institute is a source for information on knots.  Now you are the one trying to put words in my mouth and your assertions are utterly false.

ALL my statements were about testing methodology and statistical significance, not about what tests were being performed, nor about what tests should be performed.  I simply said that although the IGKT is skilled at knot tying, it is not skilled at designing consistent, repeatable, and statistically significant tests, and could learn from the exmaples of others.

At this point, you have exhausted my desire to participate, so I have stopped following this discussion.  You need not worry about further posts from me.  I simply leave you with this food for thought:

If you truly want to be a "key player" in setting standards for knot testing, is it really wise to begin by summarily dismissing all published work byDo you really believe that you know more about how to construct scientific tests than they do?  Good luck -- I have little faith in your success.

Regretfully,
Eric
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 06, 2018, 03:38:49 AM
NautiKnots,

I think you have a strong desire in wanting to defend yourself in relation to some imagined proposition.

And your desire to defend appears to be linked to your belief that methodology established by testing authorities is very important - and should not be ignored.

There is no intent to extinguish existing methodology established by 'testing authorities'. To the contrary, they are complimentary and should coexist with these established testing methodologies.

Dont forget the 3 different types of testers:
1. Backyard type testers who largely act in isolation
2. Pseudo lab testers (eg Rope test lab...Richard Delaney)
3. Accredited/certified testing labs with calibrated equipment and measurement recording devices.

Expectations and accuracy scales according to each type of tester.

For example, I think it would be unreasonable to hold a 'backyard tester' to the same level of rigor as an accredited and certified test lab. In contrast, we would expect an accredited, certified test lab to produce scientifically valid test results.

Perhaps your views re consistency, and collecting statistically valid test data is aimed largely at accredited, certified test labs and (possibly) pseudo test labs?
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Mobius on July 21, 2018, 09:40:12 AM
So, let's say someone finds a test facility, has a camera, has some selected rope (maybe various dimensions?) of the same construction/materials and wants to invest some life to run some tests. What list of procedures, protocols, etc., etc., can they use that the results won't be systematically poo-pooed or nitpicked?

Backyard or field testing and even some of the sources online of tests gone by are regularly picked apart for one thing or another here.

If we have an agreed upon check and set up list, then it makes sense to to do the investment. That is what I hope to see this thread develop into.

SS

Indeed, that is why I am rather hesitant to offer suggestions in this thread or post any sort of 'conclusion' from home trials of a knot I test. That is especially true if I do some trials and they happen to contradict someone's theoretical proclamation about their cherished knot. Been there, done that, and it has not been worth the insults I received on this site in the past ???


KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES (A basic framework)

Checklist:


[ ] Determine the purpose of your test
    eg; to determine the MBS yield point (ie load at which the knot breaks) or to investigate something else? (eg at what load does the knot jam or, at what load is instability triggered or, which dressings improve or lessen stability?)
     - if you are of the 'pull-to-failure' (ie break it) mindset, ask yourself "why?" Why is it important to pull your knot specimen to failure?
     - what are you trying to prove?
     - is 'pulling the knot to failure' really going to conclusively prove anything? (note that harness tie-in knots dont break when you take a lead/climbing fall...there is no force that a falling climber can generate that will break a knot. Your climbing rope is more likely to fail due to cutting/sawing over sharp edges). Even in highlines, where the line tension is maxed out, still doesn't break knots. In this case, your anchors are more likely to fail or yield. If you are of the general population mindset that pulling knot 'A' to failure against knot 'B' to failure proves superiority of one compared to the other - you should re-think your proposition!

[ ] Determine the type of cordage/rope that you will use for the test
    - this is crucial. The type of material plays a significant role in how the knot will respond to load.
    - slippery materials such as 'dyneema' will behave differently to regular EN1891 certified low stretch abseil rope
    - what diameter cordage/rope will you use? The larger the diameter, the greater the force required to reach its MBS yield point
    - maybe you want to use 2 different rope diameters (eg a 'end-to-end' joining knot to see how it responds to increasing load)
    - are you testing ropes that conform to an EN standard? (eg EN 892 dynamic climbing rope)
    - is it imperative that you test human-rated ropes that conform to a standard? (eg EN 1891, EN 892, etc)
    - is your rope/cordage in brand new (unused) condition? Or is it aged? If aged, how old?
    - either way, it is important that you are very clear on exactly what type of rope/cordage you are using

[ ] What type of test facility are you?
    - I am a 'backyard' tester. I do not have any sophisticated test apparatus. I am not well funded and I don't like math (ie statistics).
    - I have a pseudo test lab. It is not a certified lab but, I do have access to force generating equipment and limited funds.
    - I am a certified nationally accredited test lab. I have calibrated force generating equipment and computers to measure and document results. I am reasonably well funded.

    NOTE: The level of expectation scales according to which test category you fit within. If you are a 'backyard' tester, we are not going to criticize you for failing to use calibrated digital instrumentation and avoiding hard statistical mathematics!

[ ] Check in at the IGKT website/forum and run your test idea there.
     - although full of nerdy knot enthusiasts, the IGKT has some exceptionally talented individuals who have unique insights into all things knot related. They can provide expert level advice all free-of-charge.

[ ] Use appropriate naming conventions for your knot specimen so it can be properly identified

    eg; Where possible, use 'ABoK' reference numbers.

[ ] Pay close attention to knot 'dressing' (ie form and structure)
    - dont be sloppy - be ruthlessly accurate in getting the dressing correct!
    - diligence is the key

[ ] Photograph your knot (before, during and after your load test)
    - take your photos against a plain while background...eg, use a plain white bed sheet as a background for your photo
    - make sure all segments of the knot structure are visible in the image (including the 'tail' end)

[ ] Repeat your test several times to obtain a reasonable statistical sample (ideally, at least 5 repeats)
    - breaking or jamming knots costs money - we know this. Keep in mind that a test sample of '1' is not sufficient to draw any conclusions...you need to do more than just one test.

[ ] Use a 'control'
    Try to be 'scientific'...all good science testing uses what is known as a 'control'.
    Link to info about scientific 'controls': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

[ ] Measure the force that you are applying to the knot
    - try to use force generating equipment that has a 'gauge' so you know how much tensile force you are applying
    - digital is best but, if you only have an analog gauge then this will suffice.

[ ] Report your results
    - make sure you write a conclusion

...

Mark Gommers

Mark, as you know I 'home-test' knots. I suggest to you that I actually home-trial knots, there is a distinction perhaps.

I am about to get very busy again with the start of the new school term. If you are interested in my thoughts I will try and find some time to provide them. The framework you provide above is off to a good start, FWIW.

Cheers, Ian.

Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 21, 2018, 11:57:56 AM
per Mobius:
Quote
it has not been worth the insults I received on this site in the past ???

Thats a harsh criticism. If your backyard testing fulfills certain minimum criteria, I am sure that everyone would appreciate your conclusions.
Some people get very fixated on a concept and will defend it to the end.

I can see one brewing already - with the distinction between 'backyard testing' versus 'home trials'.
The word 'trial' versus 'test', (is it a trial or is it a test?). Most people understand the concept of a knot test.
And 'home' versus 'backyard', (home implies at someones house, or perhaps your own house. What if you performed the 'test' at a park, in someones garage, or at someones workplace?).

Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Mobius on July 22, 2018, 12:53:27 AM
per Mobius:
Quote
it has not been worth the insults I received on this site in the past ???

Thats a harsh criticism. If your backyard testing fulfills certain minimum criteria, I am sure that everyone would appreciate your conclusions.
Some people get very fixated on a concept and will defend it to the end.

No, that wasn't harsh. Words like insulting, belligerent, and trollish behaviour immediately spring to mind for some 'feedback' I have received in the past. But let's move on, shall we?

I can see one brewing already - with the distinction between 'backyard testing' versus 'home trials'.
The word 'trial' versus 'test', (is it a trial or is it a test?). Most people understand the concept of a knot test.
And 'home' versus 'backyard', (home implies at someones house, or perhaps your own house. What if you performed the 'test' at a park, in someones garage, or at someones workplace?).

I was not intending to nitpick your proposal. I have experience in home trialling knots and that might have been helpful.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 22, 2018, 08:40:54 PM
ALL my statements were about testing methodology and statistical significance,
not about what tests were being performed, nor about what tests should be performed.
I simply said that although the IGKT is skilled at knot tying, it is not skilled at
designing consistent, repeatable, and statistically significant tests,
and could learn from the examples of others.

And I'd like to see some description of what these
tests would be.  As you've stated, it matters to understand
what you want to test, and I think that we can come
to some agreement about what seems to be but actually
isn't (so well) tested, in a number of cases.

We might come to see that extensive testing as some
urge on the basis of adequate test cases for statistical
sanity sadly simply doesn't really give us great information
for understanding knots.  --to which my How Many Samples
to Test Milk... example was meant to suggest.

And that a better, surer step forwards is articulating
the data aspects --i.e., things to be noted (probably
less temp./humidity and more rate-of-loading ...)
by testers.  I'm always wanting to SEE what the actual
--not presumed well-enough specified in literature--
knot looked like when push came to shove!


--dl*
====
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 27, 2018, 09:10:42 AM
This is in reference to my previous post (Knot Test).

Images of test equipment...

EDIT: The load cell I would really like to own is the rock exotica 'enforcer'.
It is the best in its class. But, very expensive to purchase here in Australia (AUD $1200.00).
Link: https://www.rockexotica.com/enforcer-load-cell
Brilliant engineering - made in USA.

Maybe one day a kind IGKT member living in the USA might be able to do a deal with me (I transfer private payment and we organize cheap shipping to Australia).
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Mobius on July 29, 2018, 09:06:18 AM
This is in reference to my previous post (Knot Test).

Images of test equipment...

EDIT: The load cell I would really like to own is the rock exotica 'enforcer'.
It is the best in its class. But, very expensive to purchase here in Australia (AUD $1200.00).
Link: https://www.rockexotica.com/enforcer-load-cell
Brilliant engineering - made in USA.

Maybe one day a kind IGKT member living in the USA might be able to do a deal with me (I transfer private payment and we organize cheap shipping to Australia).

Thank you for sharing agent_smith.

BTW, there is a significant difference between the equipment you use to 'test' with and what a 'knot trialler' like myself, with my own modest measuring equipment, can achieve at home. I might be asking you for tests from now on ;D
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 29, 2018, 02:35:15 PM
per Mobius:
Quote
BTW, there is a significant difference between the equipment you use to 'test' with and what a 'knot trialler' like myself, with my own modest measuring equipment, can achieve at home

Hardly (not in a derogatory sense, rather - that I myself identify as a 'backyard tester' - with limited resources).

I find this word play on trial versus test amusing (not in a derogatory sense, but simply in terms of such close dictionary definitions)
Trial definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trial
Test definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/test

As a 'backyard tester' like me, there is little real-world difference between us.
I have a load cell (and this is likely a key difference - but see below...any force measurement device could be used).
You could also purchase a load cell - or at least some type of device that is capable of measuring force.

The following is simply examples of different options...it is not an inventory of what you may or may not possess!
I have a 2 ton lever hoist - which cost me less than AUD $100.00 (although you could rig your own system by just using some pulleys). If you have a small boat - you could use the winch that pulls your boat back on to the trailer.
If you have a 4WD vehicle with a winch on the bull bar, you could use that...
If you have a 'high lift' jack, you could use that.

My camera is an el cheapo compact pocket digital which cost me about AUD $100.00 (although these days, the camera on a typical mobile/cell phone produces very high image quality (better than my little pocket camera).
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Mobius on July 30, 2018, 10:43:00 AM
per Mobius:
Quote
BTW, there is a significant difference between the equipment you use to 'test' with and what a 'knot trialler' like myself, with my own modest measuring equipment, can achieve at home

Hardly.

I find this word play on trial versus test amusing.
Trial definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trial
Test definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/test

As a 'backyard tester' like me, there is little real-world difference between us.
I have a load cell.
You could also purchase a load cell - or at least some type of device that is capable of measuring force.
I have a 2 ton lever hoist - which cost me less than AUD $100.00 (although you could rig your own system by just using some pulleys). If you have a small boat - you could use the winch that pulls your boat back on to the trailer.
If you have a 4WD vehicle with a winch on the bull bar, you could use that...
If you have a 'high lift' jack, you could use that.

My camera is an el cheapo compact pocket digital which cost me about AUD $100.00 (although these days, the camera on a typical mobile/cell phone produces very high image quality (better than my little pocket camera).

Please desist in quoting the dictionary at me, it is not the first time you have done it, and it is easily construed as being an act that attempts to demean me. I have ignored this in the past, along with usually (at best) dismissive comments from you that are inappropriate.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with using the word 'trial' as opposed to the word 'test'. Used in the way I am using it is the more appropriate word. Some more research on your part is required, though I can play it your way and guide you to a reference if I must. However, you might find my doing so a slight.

That you presume to know my knot rig well, along with its strengths/limitations simply astounds me. The technical specifications for my knot rig are significantly less accommodating for doing the level of knot testing you can achieve. I have evidence for this assertion, you have nothing it seems.

If you want to apologise to me then I assure you, I can move on and we can both (hopefully) be careful to treat each other with respect in our comments. If not an apology from you, then please find some self-restraint and leave me alone. For my part, I won't respond to your posts in the future.







Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 30, 2018, 11:42:34 AM
Previous comment from me:
Quote
I find this word play on trial versus test amusing.

I find many things in life amusing.
I am allowed to find the insistence of use of one word over another similar word amusing. Amusement by itself is not an act of demeaning anyone.

Quoting dictionary references also isn't an act of demeaning anyone - its simply referring to external authorities for definitions.

Quote
That you presume to know my knot rig well, along with its strengths/limitations simply astounds me.
I think you place your own interpretation on a perceived construction of my words. You did it before in relation to the Riggers X bend where you thought that I stated that Xarax 'discovered it' - when I never stated anything of the sort. Remember that? You never responded to that...

And now you are doing it again. If you read my words very carefully, there is no presuming anything about knowing your "knot rig" (presumably you mean some sort of 'test' rig?). All I was doing was pointing out various ways that you might be able generate force (ie various options).
Can you point to the exact words where I stated that I presumed to know your "knot rig"?

Quote
The technical specifications for my knot rig are significantly less accommodating for doing the level of knot testing you can achieve.

Okay... I was simply stating that you can use anything to generate force. It doesn't have to be a lever hoist! The force generating 'machine' is actually irrelevant. The knot doesn't know what is pulling on it - it merely responds to a force. Does it really matter how you generate a force?
I had previously used my 'Hi-lift' 4WD jack to generate a force on some knot tests. And, I once used my electric winch mounted on the bull bar of my 4WD. I have also used my next door neighbour's boat winch on his boat trailer.

I did state that I have a load cell. Obviously, for the sake of accuracy, you need to have some means to measure force - right?
You could use fish scales (hook-to-hook)?

Quote
If you want to apologise to me then I assure you, I can move on and we can both (hopefully) be careful to treat each other with respect in our comments.
???
What exactly am I apologizing for?
I already treat you with respect. In science, others need to confirm or refute a persons theory of hypothesis - thats how science is done. If someone refutes your theory or hypothesis, does this make them 'a bad person' -  should a person apologize for being in disagreement?

Quote
If not an apology from you, then please find some self-restraint and leave me alone. For my part, I won't respond to your posts in the future.
Does that mean no one is permitted to refute any of your findings? And that it is only permitted to agree with and confirm your position?
I guess you'll just have to not respond to my posts in the future.
Is anyone permitted to disagree with you?

By the way, nothing I have written is intended to defame, demean or slander you. I am simply responding to your allegations.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 31, 2018, 01:15:09 AM
Ahhhh, loverly to see actual-factual knots images ! ! !
 :D

This is an addition to my test report in relation to #1425A Riggers X bend.

I increased the load to 10.0kN.

Result: Jammed

My original test report has been updated to reflect this new finding.
I have also advanced a theory which needs to be confirmed or refuted.
But this looks like you changed ropes between those
BWII worn ropes of the earlier trio of loadings and
here comes a white rope (which is the jamming half)!?

Also, in the trio of BWII (3 loadings) knots above,
it looks to me that the 2nd & 3rd images are in
opposite orientations --i.e., the tails have changed
sides, insofar as one can ID the tail from blue-fibre
tracer & burned marking; AND in the amount of
each tail that has been pressed into the bight
of the respective collars (note in the jammed
white rope, there is no tail part keeping open
its collar --one of the points of the Xing!) ?!

IMO, for the jamming pair --and like cordage--,
one might anticipate behavior (incl. compression
flattening of parts) by setting the knot tighter
than one might in less deformable (and less
able to take such loads!) material!?  --thinking
that in the nylon the knot achieves but then
moves past an ideal geometry?!

One can contrast the special, careful dressing
and setting of SmitHunterMan's bend with that
of #1452 --attention to orientation needed, but
hardly so carefully-- & #1408 & the zeppelin
& #1425 ... .

One should also pause and consider likely behavior
in cases of unequal ropes --possibly like diameters
but low-elongation joined to dynamic, old to new!?


--dl*
====
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on July 31, 2018, 02:40:32 PM
Presumably, having noticed the repeated occurrence of jamming on the force generating machine side of the knot, you repeated the tests with the orientation reversed in order to establish if there was any bias induced by your test rig?
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on July 31, 2018, 04:34:09 PM
Quote
Presumably, having noticed the repeated occurrence of jamming on the force generating machine side of the knot, you repeated the tests with the orientation reversed in order to establish if there was any bias induced by your test rig?

Thanks for your interest Derek.
I would presume that simply flipping the test rig along the 'x' axis would not alter the results?
I would do an x axis inversion and also invert the knot.
Will repeat to 12kN again.
Knot was tied with S/S chirality (S twist interlinked with S twist).
I could also try Z twist interlinked with Z twist if you think its also relevant?

Xarax has commented that I should also test #1425A Riggers bend (without the X tail twist) as a control.
There is also another version of the Riggers X bend that Xarax has explored and suggests should be tested.
Link: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4561.0

...

My focus will soon be shifting to #1410 Offset overhand bend.
We still dont have clear answers to the effect of rotation.
In the attached image I depict 3 different orientations (ABC).
I did a quick and dirty 'backyard test' today up to 2.5kN load...and was surprised to find that one of the rotations (A versus C) appeared to be quite stable in comparison to the other. I had my suspicions but was surprised by the initial result.
Was 'A' more stable or, was 'C' more stable?
Note 1: I consider 'B' to be the control.
Note 2: I stopped at 2.5kN because I knew from past experience that 3.0kN appears to be the jamming threshold (and I didn't want to risk damage from using tools to loosen and untie the structure).
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on July 31, 2018, 08:49:37 PM
"Is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?"

With the knot knowledge and expertise that is collected within the membership and Forum contributors, I believe the answer is without question  YES,  after all, if not the IGKT, then who?

BUT:  The IGKT title is pretentious, because the IGKT is not in fact a Guild.  It is not a Guild because it does not award levels of membership based on knowledge or achievement or services to Nodeology.  In truth, the IGKT is little more than a 'Mens Shed' for Knotters.

So, rephrasing the question slightly to 'Should the IGKT involve itself in setting fundamental guidelines?'  then, I believe my answer would need to be a resounding NO.  For this seeming contradiction, obviously some explanation is both due and indeed, necessary.

Let me start with a little background.  My career has been spent in Analysis, and for the major part I ran Analytical Laboratories covering the disciplines of Chemistry, Microbiology and Physical attributes.  During that time, I served on numerous Industrial advisory bodies and a similar role to the government, achieving both academic and professional accreditation.  When need arose to produce Guidelines on Testing and Standards of Operation, I was in a position to Chair working parties drawn from industry, to produce those guidelines and to expect them to be accepted by the industry as a whole.  In drawing up those standards and guidelines, the Working Parties would often draw upon the knowledge and advice of experts in highly specialist areas, who, although vital to the process, could not be expected to be able to draw up standards and guidelines acceptable to the industry at large.

So, based on that background, I frame my first question - "Who / what is the target industry that these Guidelines are to apply to ?"

If the target audience is nothing more than IGKT members, then it would be appropriate to draw a working party from those expert members.  But if that is the case, then the goal is incredibly myopic.  Hopefully though, the goal is to produce guidelines of value to the whole (or at least a major part) of the knot using industry.  If that is the case, then, for the guidelines to be acceptable to that industry, the working party would need to include respected representatives from its various branches.  It is rational for the IGKT to champion such a project, perhaps even initiate its funding, even provide a rich supply of specialist experts - But, the working party would need to be established from respected members of the target industry.  This is a lot of work and means starting the project in a 'different place', but without it, the good intentions are likely to 'Light their way to dusty death' (thank you Will.).

This is turning into a lengthy post, but one more aspect is worth throwing into the pot for consideration, and that, based on my experience as a professional analyst are the two 'Laws of Analysis'.

The first is that the result depends upon the sample, and the second is that we almost never test for what we wish to know...

Now, before you all start muttering "Stupid boy Pike (Derek)" for stating the obvious - that 'the result depends upon the sample' - you should by now, know me better - there is more to it than just the obvious.  Yes, the magnitude of the test result will be influenced by the value of the parameter in the test sample, but also, the nature of the sample will influence the choice of the test method, and test methods almost never measure exclusively the parameter you are interested in, and to compound the problem, they often measure some other parameter and infer the parameter of interest.  Of course, I don't expect you to believe me, so here are a couple of simple examples -

Moisture in cordage : If the sample is expected to be be high moisture, the analyst might used a vacuum oven at 70 C.  But this method measures anything that is volatile in a vacuum at 70C and does not measure any moisture that is tightly bound to the sample.
: if the sample is expected to be low moisture, the analyst might use Karl-Fisher reagent.  But again, he is not analysing moisture, he is analysing anything that reacts with hot Iodine, and hopes that this is mostly water.

So you see, yes the sample and the magnitude of its target attribute will directly influence the result, but it will also influence the choice of measurement technique which in turn will influence the inherent errors potentially present in the selected analytical technique.

This leads nicely to the second law - that we almost never test for what we want to know...  You have already seen this in the simple example of measuring moisture, but it gets worse.  We rarely stop to ask - what do we really want to find out?  Instead we ask - what can I measure?  then attempt to infer from those results a feel for the real issue that compels us.

So, my second question is - "What is the real thing we want to quantify?"

This leads us to HACCP, but I will cover that is a second post.

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 31, 2018, 10:26:39 PM
per Dan Lehman:
Quote
But this looks like
...
I repeated the tests again today as follows:
...
[ ] at 12.0kN load: Jammed

I was unable to untie the test sample loaded to 12.0kN.

WHOA, I think you've mis-labeled "JAMMED"/<not> there:
for the SParts in what you're claiming are respetively (J/~J)
looking rather UNbound and more nearly bound,
and surely these are pretty good looks that you're
presenting in the nice pics.  The SPart you claim to have
been jammed sits with a decent bit of captured tail
keeping the collar adequately out from pinching it,
whereas one can see in the opposite side --which you
say was easily loosened-- that the collar had slid down
to more nearly --not entirely, but partly-- pinch the
SPart opposite another part of the knot.

Another note : there is a wee bit of daylight/space
visible in the side you claim jammed, between nipped
tail and alleged jammed SPart; and one can SEE the
full SPart from this space-point across the strand,
so there's no there there for it to be jammed against/into!
(And, frankly, although the situation is different on the
other end, even there it seems that there should be
ample uncovered-&-pinched-against SPart for it to
have been readily loosened; but I trust that you would
have done so had it been able.)


Thanks,
--dl*
====
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 01, 2018, 12:22:03 AM
Derek:
Thank you for your informed post.
Thats the first really constructive and well considered reply.

I would like to reinforce a point that I believe is crucial:
I had advanced that all testers could be classified into one of the following groups:
1. Hobbyist/enthusiast testers
2. Pseudo lab testers
3. Certified, nationally accredited test labs.

I believe that expectations of quality scale according to which category a tester identifies as.
I identify as a 'backyard tester'.
I don't have anything sophisticated...with the one exception being a 'load cell'.
Obviously, a tester needs to be able to measure force - but anything suitable could be used (it doesn't have to be a multi-thousand dollar digital load cell). Fishing scales used to weigh fish could suffice. Although the load capacity of the load cell would be a limiting factor in how much tension force you could safely generate. My end termination anchors are 2 trees growing in my yard!

My camera is a simple el cheapo compact digital  type - my daughters i phone takes better quality photos!

So I am not sure if you had thought in terms of these 3 categories of testers?
Note: There are a few on this IGKT forum that dislike the term 'tester' - presumably because they fear drawing undue criticism if they hold themselves out as being a 'tester'.
And the term 'backyard' is a metaphor - for informal locations where 'testing is conducted (it could literally be in a persons backyard, front yard, park land, a garage, a shed, inside in your living room!).

I would imagine that you wouldn't place the bar too high for a 'backyard' style tester?
But, I would imagine that you would have clear expectations of a certified, nationally accredited test lab?

I started this thread out of frustration for what appeared to be endless, mind numbing tests that examined nothing else but the MBS yield point of a knot (ie pull-it-till-it-breaks default mentality). Tests often appear to be knot A versus knot B in a pull to failure contest - with the winner being declared superior. Also, the myriad of inaccurate reporting on 'Bowlines' and 'Offset' bends (eg 'EDK') is prevalent and misinformation is parroted endlessly. So I felt compelled to do something...

Others have bogged down with statistical mathematics, consistency and repeatability - to the point where it seemingly went beyond the capabilities of a 'backyard tester'. I would expect a great deal of scientific rigor from a certified, nationally accredited test lab - but not hold a 'backyard' style tester to the same degree of rigor and expectation.

I personally think a tester should declare up front what tester category they identify as - and then expectations would scale accordingly.

EDIT NOTE:
I repeated a test by inverting the test rig and changing the chirality of the knot.
Same situation occurred: The collar adjacent to the force generating machine (ie a lever hoist) was most vulnerable to jamming.
After an initially jammed state was reached - the only way to loosen the structure was to use tools on the opposite collar. Once that collar was loose, it was then possible to work on the jammed collar - using considerable effort aided with tools - to finally work that collar loose. Time frames of around 15 minutes were require with tools to eventually succeed in loosening the structure.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 01, 2018, 12:31:21 AM
per Dan Lehman:
Quote
WHOA, I think you've mis-labeled "JAMMED"/<not> there:
for the SParts in what you're claiming are respetively

There is no 'WHOA' at all Dan.
Everything reported is factual and as I observed.
Jamming consistently occurred with the collar oriented to the same side as the force generating machine (a 2 ton lever hoist).
I am going to invert the 'test rig' and also invert the knot to see if jamming is still occurring on the collar facing the force generating machine (per Derek's recommendation).

I would respectfully request that you try this for yourself - load up a #1425A 'Riggers X bend' and see for yourself?
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 01, 2018, 02:02:36 PM
Hi Mark,

Constructive discussion is a dance of sharing perspectives, preferably without alienating or offending fellow contributors when opinions clash.

When clashes occur, I find it sometimes valuable to attempt to explain why and how my perspective is different, yet hopefully remain sufficiently valid to be included and enrich the discussion.

With that in mind, I would like to attempt to paraphrase your Group definitions :-

Group 1 :  Ingenious, motivated amateur(s) with virtually nothing but household/garage equipment, some types of cordage and a knowledge of knots. [Remember Ashley developed and documented two highly reputable test systems using nothing more than timber, hinges and a bag of sand] .

Group 2 :  Group 1 plus access to some sophisticated but not formally calibrated force measuring equipment and recording systems.

Group 3 :  Accredited testing facility with certified calibrated Stress / Strain measuring and recording systems, operated by Technicians following detailed and rigorous methodologies.

I hope that you can agree that these definition expansions remain in accord with the classification you have advanced.

Now let us consider a simple investigation and frame it with the two questions I posed in my earlier post:-

Q1 - who is the target audience?  for this case it will be simply me, intending to climb a tree.
Q2 - what do I want to find out?  I have an 11mm kernmantle climbing rope for security and assist, and I want to know which of the three following knots would be better for my tie in point and why?  a) Carrick Loop,  b) Bowline, or c) Whatknot Loop.

Now, had my goal been to write a paper for my Masters, and all things being equal, I would have chosen Group 3 because it would have given me opportunity to detail levels of Accreditation and Calibration reports, along with copious amounts of data that I could have thrown through numerous respected statistical engines in order to be able to claim a statistically justifiable level of confidence in my findings.  It might even have been enough to win me a good grade.

But, if my goal was as I stated - to choose the best knot as a tie in, then Group 1 would be my best choice by a country mile.  They would be able to identify the parameters that mattered - ease and accuracy of tying, risk of mis-tying, proneness to jam, ease of release, response to snag loading and deformation under load, resistance to dressing structure deformation under flogging,..

One of the key tests here is going to be 'accuracy of tying' - the exact opposite of what has been proposed so far - i.e. the pedantic prescription of what the knot must be in order to be tested.  The tester in Group 1 would ask several people to tie each knot in order to determine a) the likelihood of tying a working (safe) knot and b) the likelihood of a mistied knot being identified before use; all this and not a digital meter in sight...

Result :- Carrick Loop with advisory to check the pattern of the Carrick mat before dressing the knot  - the other two, advisory not to be used based on increased risk of death.

Amateurs are often the pinnacle of expertise within their chosen field (amateur radio fans have lead the world in aerial design) and should not be dismissed through lack of modern test equipment. [Remember, ingenuity can help you calculate the circumference of the Earth by standing at the bottom of a deep well].

I hope I have been able to explain why I stand your list of competence of groups on their head.  I put output from Group 1, leagues ahead of mountains of calibrated data from Group 3.  It is a sickness of today's mindset that we must have calibrated data in order to make a qualified decision, and that a mountain of statistical analysis is a substitute for intelligence and understanding.

Derek


Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 01, 2018, 03:57:59 PM
Thanks Derek,
I concur with your comments and thought processes.

Quote
Group 1 :  Ingenious, motivated amateur(s) with virtually nothing but household/garage equipment, some types of cordage and a knowledge of knots.

So, what 'title' would you suggest for this group?
Just to be clear (and full disclosure), I had never intended the term 'backyard tester' to be derogatory or insulting. Its simply a metaphor. I (for example) identify as a 'backyard tester'.

Quote
I hope I have been able to explain why I stand your list of competence of groups on their head.  I put output from Group 1, leagues ahead of mountains of calibrated data from Group 3.
Perfectly understandable...and I would chime in that I had no intended hierarchical order in mind... that is, by listing them 1,2,3 - this did not mean that 'group 3' were by default superior to 'group 1' or 'group 2'. It was simply a way of classifying the different entities.

Quote
It is a sickness of today's mindset that we must have calibrated data in order to make a qualified decision, and that a mountain of statistical analysis is a substitute for intelligence and understanding.

Perhaps - though I have found in technical discussions with various authors of knot reports around the world, that they request references and citations to back up claims. Citing a 'backyard' test report doesn't hold as much weight as a report from a higher level source/authority. That is not to say that a backyard tester cant make a valuable contribution or produce worthy reports.

A question that you did not answer is the level of scientific rigor and expectation from each of the 3 classes of tester. I had advanced that expectations of scientific rigor scale according to the class of tester.
NautiKnots argued for scientific rigor - underpinned by consistency, repeatability and statistically valid sampling of data. NautiKnots also argued that external agencies such as 'The Cordage Institute' and the 'IEEE' could and should be consulted when devising knot test plans because of their expertise. I am unclear if NautiKnots had considered the class of knot tester when tendering his arguments?
 


Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 01, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
HACCP vs Statistics

Most of us have heard the phrase 'Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics', but how can a branch of mathematics have acquired such a bad reputation?  The answer to that comes partly from a misuse of the interpretation of the results, and partly from a nasty habit statisticians have developed of 'deleting outliers'.  These 'outliers' are claimed to be recording errors or misreads or some other fault which creates faulty data, so they simply delete it from the data set, giving them a nice 'statistically significant' result.  But what if those outliers were real?

Take as an example a rope maker with a continuous process that occasionally introduces a fault that drastically reduces the MBS.  Regular QC checks will fail to see this occasional fault, but on the one occasion it happens to occur in the section of rope taken for testing, the very low result will likely call for repeats of testing which will of course all measure within the normal range.  The rogue figure is then likely to be put down to a mis-measurement, an outlier, and be deleted.  The risk though is that occasionally lengths of rope are sent out with a below standard MBS, and somewhere, sometime, one of these weakened ropes will be called upon to deliver its full expected strength and fail - possibly with fatal consequences.

It is human nature to seek nice tidy data sets and to steer shy of complexity.  It is this nature that leads us to reject 'problematical' data values and to set up our tests with rigorously uniform knots, in search of nice clean data sets.

Recognising the existence of these infrequent events and the unlikelyhood of their being detected by routine QC testing, has led industries to embrace HACCP - Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points.

Using HACCP, this fictional rope manufacturer would observe that multiple spool changes might occur simultaneously which could lead to a single point weakening in the continuous rope making process.  This would be identified as a Critical Control Point and the manufacturer would set procedures in place to prevent simultaneous changes, or arrange for the faulty rope to be marked for removal.

The relevance for us knot testers is that we should be realistic in our choice of a range of possible tying forms as part of the range of actual variants this knot experiences.  Of course, this would go along with a resistance to considering any form of outlier deletion.  This makes the data set far messier, but will far better reflect the reality of the 'Knot space' that we are studying.

Of course, when we are comparing knots, it is these worse case outliers that we should be concentrating on, because they will occasionally be made and classed as the knot we are testing.

Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 01, 2018, 06:55:08 PM
Quote
So, what 'title' would you suggest for this group?

I neither like pretentious titles, nor denigratory ones, which is why I would naturally go for the likes of Group 1 etc.  but I take your point that a more descriptive name has merit.  How about :-

Amateur
Amateur Equipped
Professional Testing Facility. ?

But to be honest, I don't see much need to separate them, because if a test claims some measurement, then we need to be able to put some error limits on the values, they will simply be far tighter in the case of the Professional facility.

Quote
by listing them 1,2,3 - this did not mean that 'group 3' were by default superior to 'group 1' or 'group 2'. It was simply a way of classifying the different entities.

Yet by scaling the scientific rigour required across the three levels, you automatically accord greater credibility to group 3.

Shouldn't we expect the same level of rigour from all three groups, but simply expect group three to be able to claim a far lower error confidence than the other two, yet while an equally important aspect of rigour - knot competence - would be expected from all three groups, we would of necessity expect it to be completely lacking from group 3 reports ??

Quote
Perhaps - though I have found in technical discussions with various authors of knot reports around the world, that they request references and citations to back up claims.
 

This sadly is a commonplace form of arrogance and attempted superiority, practised extensively to cover up a lack of expertise in the key elements of the report.  It is where,if the IGKT were it truly a Guild, it would be of value to its members by giving recognised accreditation to individuals who have demonstrated exceptional contribution to the field - but alas, it is not to be.

[perhaps as a separate subject, knotters should petition the IGKT to award one of say three levels of accreditation to nominated individuals - say, Master, Associate and Graduate in either the Art or the Science of knotting ?]

Quote
NautiKnots argued for scientific rigor - underpinned by consistency, repeatability and statistically valid sampling of data. NautiKnots also argued that external agencies such as 'The Cordage Institute' and the 'IEEE' could and should be consulted when devising knot test plans because of their expertise. I am unclear if NautiKnots had considered the class of knot tester when tendering his arguments?

Yes, they should be included in the consultation, but when it comes to Knots - the experts are from within the IGKT - not the Cordage Institute and certainly not the IEEE, and I hope I have made my opinions of 'statistical validity' suitably clear - we must seek out and understand the outliers, for they are the knots which might kill or maim, they are our path to understanding the complexity of our field, and that is completely at odds with mainstream 'Testing' mindset.

Yes, we should have rigour, but it must be rigour relevant to the reality of the world of knots tied every day by people of very little knot awareness - that is our playing field, that is the grey goo that we continue to sift through for understanding.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 01, 2018, 08:17:17 PM
Proposition :-

Fundamental Guideline #1

Establish what it is that you want to know.  Do not be distracted by the 'how it might be determined', concentrate on formulating exactly what it is you want to know.

Only after you have formulated your goal should you then start to investigate what tests might yeild your answer.

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 02, 2018, 01:25:17 AM
per Dan Lehman:
Quote
WHOA, I think you've mis-labeled "JAMMED"/<not> there:
for the SParts in what you're claiming are respetively

There is no 'WHOA' at all Dan.
Everything reported is factual and as I observed.
...
Okay, well, I didn't think there was no jamming,
only that your image belied which side.  But I see
now that the apparent "space"-revealing white
spec is some sort of reflection off of the rope tail and
not the space I'd thought --which sort of bit of space
can be seen in the less-loaded knot to the left and
at the other side of both SParts than is this midleading
spec.

Now, to try this in some different rope --i.p., something
that doesn't compress like the multi-stranded-kern'd
rope.

(-;
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 02, 2018, 03:08:30 AM
per Derek:
Quote
Amateur
Amateur Equipped
Professional Testing Facility. ?

But to be honest, I don't see much need to separate them

I had considered using the descriptor 'amateur' but, it can imply a meaning that is unfair or unwarranted:
See this link to a dictionary definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/amateur  (scroll down a bit to see this possible imputation; ..."someone who does not have much skill in what they do")

Perhaps a more suitable descriptor for backyard testers is; Hobbyist/Enthusiast tester ?

Full disclosure statement: Derek, I am providing a dictionary link not in an attempt to be derogatory or insulting toward you. I am merely pointing to an external source. There is absolutely no intention to be insulting in any way! I have to insert these disclaimers because I ran afoul with Mobius for quoting the dictionary - which he interpreted as being demeaning or derogatory. Just to be clear, I intend nothing of the sort!

So for the reason that the word 'amateur' could possibly be misconstrued - I chose not to use it.

In terms of a desire to distinguish between different classes of 'tester' (and here again is a source of irritation with the ambiguous distinction between a knot tester and a knot trialer):
I do think making a distinction is important.
I believe that expectations of scientific rigour scale accordingly.

I believe that some on this forum have apprehension of drawing criticism for their 'knot testing' efforts.
And so they shy away from identifying as a class of tester where expectations may be beyond their capabilities.
In my view, I think advances are made in a scientific field when others have a chance to peer review of try to reproduce results published. That is how science is done - someone tests and publishes - and then others can either confirm or refute the results.
Criticism is part of the process - but it is inevitable that some may have difficulty in accepting criticism. And if expectations scale according to your 'tester class' - setting a lower bar is a way of escaping this process.

If we look at past evidence and the current crop of knot test reports from around the world - it is clear that some are 'holding them self out' as being an expert. That is, you can read/download some reports from certain individuals - and it is clear that they are holding themselves out as possessing a special expertise. Readers often assume they are 'experts' - and accept their conclusions on face value.
Credibility plays a role - and some knot testers (mostly from a class of testers I refer to as 'pseudo labs' - or well equipped enthusiasts) - hold a certain level of professional credibility and can significantly influence the lay public. Examples of these pseudo lab testers are Richard Delaney (rope test lab) and Grant Prattley (Over the edge rescue). They regularly test and publish their results. I would not class them as enthusiast/hobbyist (aka 'backyard testers'). But they are not certified, nationally accredited tests labs.
So my view is that semi-professional (pseudo lab) testers like Richard Delaney and Grant Prattley must be willing to accept criticism and peer review of their published results - as they are publishing to the world - and people assume they are 'experts'.
Expectations scale accordingly - and I believe that a higher level of scientific rigour is warranted from these individuals than from enthusiast/hobbyist testers.

Richard Delaney (for example) also holds an Engineering degree from a university - which he further promotes as an integral part of his test lab. Such credentials impart credibility - which an enthusiast/hobbyist generally does not have (some may - but on balance, most enthusiast/hobbyist testers likely wouldn't hold Engineering degrees).

I would expect a much higher degree of scientific rigour from a certified, nationally accredited test lab (ie professional test lab). If this class of tester is publishing to the world, they must be willing to accept criticism via peer review. Certainly, NautiKnots arguments for scientific rigour would apply to this class of tester. They are generally well funded, have a purpose built test facility and can measure and capture data with sophisticated computers and software. There is usually an Engineer in residence at the facility.

For an enthusiast/hobbyist class tester, with very limited funds (meaning nearly zero $), improvised force generating machine and maybe some sort of force measuring device (a fishing scale?) - not to mention very limited spare time - scientific rigour is likely to be (at best) minimal. The ability of others to try to repeat their results (to confirm or refute) is probably not possible. For example, the cord/rope material is often the cheapest they can source - and likely doesn't meet any particular manufacturing standard. For another peer review tester living in a different nation, it would be near impossible to try to purchase the exact same identical material.

So I think we do need to distinguish between different classes of tester - and it is most certainly not intended to be demeaning, derogatory or insulting. Furthermore, differentiating classes of knot tester is also not intended to be insulting or to devalue anyone. It is simply a way of scaling expectations of scientific rigour.

EDIT NOTE
In relation to distinguishing between different classes of testers:
1. Hobbyist/Enthusiast
2. Semi-professional
3. Professional test lab

This avoids the term 'backyard' - which some may take offense to (even though it isn't intended to be derogatory or demeaning - it is just a metaphor).
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 02, 2018, 12:20:03 PM
Quote
I had considered using the descriptor 'amateur' but, it can imply a meaning that is unfair or unwarranted:
See this link to a dictionary definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/amateur  (scroll down a bit to see this possible imputation; ..."someone who does not have much skill in what they do")

I take your point on this Mark.  Here in the UK the distinction is more focused on payment.  If you are paid for your work you are professional and if you are unpaid you are Amateur, there is no denigration in perceived value.   This possibly stems from the fact that Amateur Radio hams are amongst the world's top experts in their field.  Often, because they are not constrained by the need to turn a profit, Amateurs are able to progress R&D way beyond that achieved by 'Professionals'.  Add to this the fact that Amateurs are driven by passion while Professionals are driven by wage and continued employment, and you might see that Amateurs are generally respected as the experts.

Still, I am not a word botherer,  and far more important to me is the unjustified and unjustifiable elevation in credibility you seem keen to accord to Professional Test Labs.     I have said it already, but it seems worth stating again - I have been there - my labs used state of the art equipment, 0.1DIN test equipment, NIST traceable standards, automated analysis equipment, direct data capture and latest generation Statistical Analysis software.  High precision, high accuracy, high repeatability using agreed methodology.  Yet with no Nodeologist present it might be nothing other than highly accurate rubbish, while a Knot expert in his workshop, with a ruler and a bag of sand or a 10ton jack (for comparative assessments) would be able to make seriously valid assessments of knot behaviour.

Put it another way - scalling precision without expert intelligence does not scale value.

Accuracy without Expertise is a sham of our modern mindset, and it should be our job to think of them as a 0.1 DIN hammer ...

There, I have explained it twice now.  You know where I stand and why.  I will now shut up on the subject.

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 02, 2018, 12:30:23 PM
Quote
I believe that some on this forum have apprehension of drawing criticism for their 'knot testing' efforts.
And so they shy away from identifying as a class of tester where expectations may be beyond their capabilities.
In my view, I think advances are made in a scientific field when others have a chance to peer review of try to reproduce results published. That is how science is done - someone tests and publishes - and then others can either confirm or refute the results.
Criticism is part of the process - but it is inevitable that some may have difficulty in accepting criticism. And if expectations scale according to your 'tester class' - setting a lower bar is a way of escaping this process.

Point made.  New ideas and perspectives are more valuable than a 0.1DIN hammer.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 02, 2018, 01:11:59 PM
Quote
If we look at past evidence and the current crop of knot test reports from around the world - it is clear that some are 'holding them self out' as being an expert. That is, you can read/download some reports from certain individuals - and it is clear that they are holding themselves out as possessing a special expertise. Readers often assume they are 'experts' - and accept their conclusions on face value.
Credibility plays a role - and some knot testers (mostly from a class of testers I refer to as 'pseudo labs' - or well equipped enthusiasts) - hold a certain level of professional credibility and can significantly influence the lay public. Examples of these pseudo lab testers are Richard Delaney (rope test lab) and Grant Prattley (Over the edge rescue). They regularly test and publish their results. I would not class them as enthusiast/hobbyist (aka 'backyard testers'). But they are not certified, nationally accredited tests labs.
So my view is that semi-professional (pseudo lab) testers like Richard Delaney and Grant Prattley must be willing to accept criticism and peer review of their published results - as they are publishing to the world - and people assume they are 'experts'.
Expectations scale accordingly - and I believe that a higher level of scientific rigour is warranted from these individuals than from enthusiast/hobbyist testers.

This, to me, is the most interesting (and valuable) category - Professional knot user, using ingenuity rather than a 0.1 DIN hammer. and yes they should certainly attract extensive scrutiny and review of their publications by experts from the knotting world.  I haven't noticed their work published anywhere near the IGKT - perhaps there is a reason for this?

If they are publishing knot related work, then the IGKT Forum is an excellent review platform that they should be eager to utilise.

Someone mentioned earlier that this Forum could use a Peer Review Page, perhaps the WebMistress could set that up for us and perhaps you could take on the role of feeding those reports into the page?

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 02, 2018, 05:34:47 PM
Quote
Add to this the fact that Amateurs are driven by passion while Professionals are driven by wage and continued employment, and you might see that Amateurs are generally respected as the experts.
Not all professionals are driven solely by employment (and this imputes 'money').
Some also want to make a difference and/or contribute to improvement.

Quote
... and far more important to me is the unjustified and unjustifiable elevation in credibility you seem keen to accord to Professional Test Labs.

Am unclear where you joined the dots to reach this viewpoint?
Where did I type words that specifically convey that I (personally) accord a higher level of credibility to professional test labs? For the record, I don't accord any one class of knot tester any elevated status in credibility over another.

All I was doing was identifying that there are different classes of knot testers. And that expectations of scientific rigour scale according to which class you identify as.
Note: I personally identify as a hobbyist/enthusiast tester, and I acknowledge that a professional test lab would not automatically have expertise in knots and knot tying.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 02, 2018, 06:05:24 PM
Quote
Not all professionals are driven solely by employment (and this imputes 'money').
Some also want to make a difference and/or contribute to improvement.

Agreed, but you try working in a testing lab and see how long your will holds out...
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 02, 2018, 06:13:45 PM
Quote
All I was doing was identifying that there are different classes of knot testers. And that expectations of scientific rigour scale according to which class you identify as.

If more credibility is not accorded to a greater level of rigour, then what is the value of  that additional imposition?

But, I seem to have struck a nerve, if I have then I apologise, it was not my intention.

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 03, 2018, 01:13:23 AM
Quote
If more credibility is not accorded to a greater level of rigour, then what is the value of  that additional imposition?
I thought that with this long discussion, I had already explained why?
I think it is important to identify which class of tester you identify with because this then sets the level of expectation of scientific rigour.
Examples are Mobius, Alan Lee and NautiKnots.
NautiKnots had a long argument for scientific rigour - with lengthy discussions about accuracy, repeatability, and the need for statistically valid sample gathering. He emphasised the need to consult with external institutions such as the cordage institute and the IEEE. He became irritated when I advanced that the cordage institute and IEEE are not experts in knots and knot tying.

I had advanced (for example) that the cordage institute is not going to be helpful in devising knot tests that examine aspects not related to pure MBS yield (ie pull-it-till-it-breaks default mentality). Examples include things like assessing different knot geometries, dressing states, and knot security and stability. Their expertise is linked to cord/rope manufacturing standards and MBS break testing of rope manufactured material (not knots per se).

For a hobbyist/enthusiast tester who wants to examine something like jamming and stability in a particular knot geometry, I dont see how contacting the cordage institute is going to make any revolutionary breakthroughs in experimental design. Given that a hobbyist/enthusiast tester likely has non existent funds, non existent test bed (eg a 10 ton ram) and likely a non existent calibrated load cell, measurement accuracy will not fall within the reliability standards of a professional test lab. Photographs of any real quality are also likely to be non-existent - and a typed report with a conclusion is also likely to be absent.

The things that NautiKnots was arguing for - are likely beyond the reach of your typical hobbyist/enthusiast tester.

And Mobius insisted that he is not a backyard tester (ie a better definition I now use is hobbyist/enthusiast tester) and indeed insisted on identifying as a 'knot trialer' (and not a knot tester). Presumably, this insistence was related to the type of 'rig' that he uses to apply force and, to avoid being held to the same standards as semi-professional testers and professional test labs. The point being that Mobius didn't want to identify as being in a class of tester where the bar is set at level where expectations of quality and accuracy are in the domain of the professional lab (and therefore avoid drawing unwanted peer review criticism).

For me personally, I identify as a hobbyist/enthusiast tester (aka formerly a 'backyard' tester) - and my measurement accuracy is only as reliable as my eye watching a dimly lit LCD screen while cranking a lever. My mathematical skills are poor and I dont have sophisticated instruments and software to aid in capturing data.
I do know how to use my el cheapo compact digital camera - which is simply aided by placing a white screen behind the knot so you have a uniform plain white background - and voila - you can get reasonable images. I am also working on my own, with very limited spare time and I dont have an engineering degree (which is likely a common theme with all hobbyist/enthusiast knot testers).


Quote
But, I seem to have struck a nerve, if I have then I apologise, it was not my intention.
You have absolutely nothing to apologise for! And you have struck no nerve.
That's the problem with typed words instead of the traditional face-to-face conversation. You are reading what I type - but, you place your own interpretation on it.
I have direct first-hand experience with all 3 classes of testers, and can see the limitations for each class. These limitations are financial, time, reputation and equipment resources related.
A hobbyist/enthusiast tester will be restricted by access to funds, free time, and equipment resources.
In contrast, a professional test lab is usually well funded, has allocated time, high precision equipment and likely an established reputation.

...

Derek, my original questions was in relation to what can the IGKT do to establish robust knot testing guidelines.
You have attempted to answer this question.
In my experience on this IGKT forum, I have a feeling that there is going to be spinning wheels for quite some time. I dont think we will find 1st gear to get moving in the short term (and maybe not even the long term).

I think this will come down to the motivation of individuals - who are willing to make a difference (but will draw inevitable attention, both positive and negative).
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 03, 2018, 01:32:39 AM
per Derek:
Quote
Someone mentioned earlier that this Forum could use a Peer Review Page, perhaps the WebMistress could set that up for us and perhaps you could take on the role of feeding those reports into the page?

I am definitely a strong advocate for adding a new category to this forum:
Titled: Knot test reports and peer review
This category should only be for test reports and peer review criticism/feedback of those tests reports (no other non related off-topic discussions - that is, discussion should be constrained to critique and feedback on the test reports tendered.).

I would not be willing to take on any role in isolation. I would be willing to (when I have spare time) upload test reports that I find on the internet - as anyone else could easily do.
I would be willing to upload my own hobbyist/enthusiast test reports (as anyone else could do too).
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 03, 2018, 12:10:55 PM
Quote
I think this will come down to the motivation of individuals - who are willing to make a difference (but will draw inevitable attention, both positive and negative).

We can but propose, consider, discuss and review Guidelines, then put them out there for others to consider their usefulness.  We cannot force anyone or any organisation to follow them.  We can use them ourselves and demonstrate a value by example and promote them in discussion.

I do not believe that the IGKT as a body will endorse or support any such guidelines, so yes, it will be a long road and down to the individuals motivated to progress our field.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 03, 2018, 12:15:12 PM
Quote
This category should only be for test reports and peer review criticism/feedback of those tests reports (no other discussions).

Review without the facility of question and discussion becomes nothing more than an opportunity to grandiose ones own opinion.

If we wish to understand and develop, then we must also be prepared to question, discuss and understand before passing a qualified opinion.

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 03, 2018, 01:26:15 PM
Quote
Review without the facility of question and discussion becomes nothing more than an opportunity to grandiose ones own opinion.

If we wish to understand and develop, then we must also be prepared to question, discuss and understand before passing a qualified opinion.

Derek, I think I have to choose and type my words very carefully - otherwise, it appears that you inject your own interpretation?
I have added a few extra words to my earlier post to clarify what I meant.

When I said "no other discussions" - to be crystal clear and very precise so it cant be misconstrued:
I meant:
No other off-topic non related discussions. Discourse should be constrained to providing critique and feedback directly related to the knot test reports. For example, posting a new topic on a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with peer reviewing a knot test report should not be permitted. In this way, the category of "Knot test Reports and Peer Review" can remain focused on the relevant subject material and not drift or veer away to completely irrelevant and non related discussions.

Hopefully my original intent is now clearer?
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 04, 2018, 11:19:37 AM
I fully concur.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 04, 2018, 06:31:49 PM

I am definitely a strong advocate for adding a new category to this forum:
Titled: Knot test reports and peer review
A start --maybe enough-- could be a thread under
Practical Knots in which the OP will be what lists
all brought-to-our-attention knot tests; the author
simply continually Modifies this msg. to include
new citations/URLs as they are brought forwards.
Commentary can then refer to this msg. and to the
particular reports, in other threads.

(URLs that go dead should probably be retained
with the note to that effect.  The "Wayback Machine"
can sometimes find things otherwise apparently dead,
too.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 06, 2018, 02:50:20 PM
Okay...

So, what is the procedure for creating a new topic category in this forum?

Is it done by a forum vote or is it done by web admins decision?

In my view, if a separate knot test report and peer review category was created - it would hopefully turn up in google searches by future knot testers. Over time, and by default, perhaps it could develop into something quite useful and worthwhile as a central hub for knot testers.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: SS369 on August 07, 2018, 12:39:45 AM
Okay...

So, what is the procedure for creating a new topic category in this forum?

Is it done by a forum vote or is it done by web admins decision?

In my view, if a separate knot test report and peer review category was created - it would hopefully turn up in google searches by future knot testers. Over time, and by default, perhaps it could develop into something quite useful and worthwhile as a central hub for knot testers.

Hi Mark.

The procedure is to firm up the format of how the data will be presented, how much opinion or if any straying discussion should be included in the postings, should the data be locked after entry and only modified by request and should it be a child board and in what parent board?

A forum vote can be good, then go from there.

SS
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 07, 2018, 12:49:46 AM
Okay...

So, what is the procedure for creating a new topic category in this forum?

?!  What I meant was simply begin a thread on this point,
which thread lists test reports as they are known.  As the
author of this OPost, you are who maintains it.  I suppose
follow-on posts in the thread could be what bring in ever
more citings of tests, which you then collect into the ever-growing
OP listing.

Maybe we agree on a simple format, on what to list/say
about each citing given.  (E.g., name of tester(s), some
description of tested material & knots & test method
(drop test, pull test, <other>) ?)  Perhaps we should
figure out how to present test reports that are not
URLinked (say, are present in a book) --maybe as
follow-up msg.s, which themselves could be linked
to in this master OP.

Thom EVANS's summary of testing given at :
http://itrsonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Evans_Truebe.A-Review-of-Knot-Strength-Testing_2016.pdf (http://itrsonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Evans_Truebe.A-Review-of-Knot-Strength-Testing_2016.pdf)
concludes with a long list of such things.
And which shows a problem we'll have to deal
with : knot designations !  (Of course, that can
be forseen --silly me, <sigh>!)

.:.  In short, I don't see this --at this inchoate start,
at least-- as differing from our usual forum posting,
except in the expected --though UNusual-- updating
of the OP (which is the master list)!
Now, experience might induce us to some better course?


Some places have special-status threads that appear
always at the top of the (sub-)forum listings!?  Activity
otherwise will put this one current, in initial building.


--dl*
====
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 07, 2018, 01:51:48 AM
As it currently stands, there is no consistent and coherent place for people to post knot test reports within this forum.

I 100% believe that an wholly new and distinct category needs to be created within this forum - titled "Knot test Reports (and peer review)".

At the moment, it is random and incoherent - exactly where does a would-be knot tester currently search? The search function of this forum is not exactly perfect - I just dont see how this will ever develop legs and turn into something really useful unless a whole new category is created.

So, I guess Dan Lehman is not in favor of creating a whole new category titled "Knot test reports"?

How many people do we need to make a giant leap forward for mankind and create a new forum topic/category?

The IGKT really has an opportunity here to create something that could turn into a central hub for knot testers and peer review of those tendered knot test reports.

The key is to make the information easy to find/search in one obvious and readily identifiable place. And not the current random incoherent mess which is laborious and not user friendly to search.

I was hoping that I am not the sole person in this forum who has a vision to really make a difference?
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 08, 2018, 11:52:13 AM
Okay...

So, what is the procedure for creating a new topic category in this forum?

Is it done by a forum vote or is it done by web admins decision?

In my view, if a separate knot test report and peer review category was created - it would hopefully turn up in google searches by future knot testers. Over time, and by default, perhaps it could develop into something quite useful and worthwhile as a central hub for knot testers.

Hi Mark.

The procedure is to firm up the format of how the data will be presented, how much opinion or if any straying discussion should be included in the postings, should the data be locked after entry and only modified by request and should it be a child board and in what parent board?

A forum vote can be good, then go from there.

SS

Hi Scott,

Please correct me if I am  wrong, but I believe that our WebAdmin and WebMistress between them have the authority and ability to amend the Forum structure, provided that the Forum Administrators have no objections on the grounds of any changes 'bringing the IGKT into disrepute' or of being generally inappropriate to IGKT business.

So far I have not read any posts that suggest that the addition of a Review section was raising objections.

The Simple Machines engine that our WebMistress has used to build this Forum is capable of handling forums of far greater complexity and content than our little IGKT Forum.  One of the nice things about this engine is that it is very easy to make changes.

For example, we could easily add a board called Reviews, with a couple of sub boards called perhaps Books and Literature and Technical Reports.  This would not in anyway change or interfere with the rest of the Forum, but would allow us to 'try out' such an addition for a few months, to see how it would work.  If it is good, we keep it, if it has problems, we can discuss improvements or even, if the experiment is a failure, we can delete it.

This Forum has three top level boards - GeneralFeedback and International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum - Info 
Center
   I was rather hoping that Reviews could be made into a new top level board with its two sub boards.

I think there are two or three agreements to add this new board, and as yet no disagreements, so, is it appropriate to hand this over to you and your fellow admins for your final say?  - Remember, it is just a test - we can always change it if needs be.

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: SS369 on August 08, 2018, 01:30:50 PM
Good day Derek.

You are correct that is should be a simple matter to add a board.
Approval will be sought after a firm consensus is acquired and the format dialed in.

So far, not too many forum members have put their two cents in...

But, for now, a test of how this can work for a while, perhaps we can just accumulate some of the subject posts within a thread to be then transferred to the new board.

SS

Edit: Spelling
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: roo on August 08, 2018, 04:42:34 PM
Good day Derek.

You are correct that is should be a simple matter to add a board.
Approval will be sought after a firm consensus is acquired and the format dialed in.

So far, not too many forum members have put there two cents in...

But, for now, a test of how this can work for a while, perhaps we can just accumulate some of the subject posts within a thread to be then transferred to the new board.

SS
If the volume of knot testing posts were so much as to overwhelm the Practical Knots forum, I could see possibly having a separate board for it.

But currently, such posts are so few and far between, I can't see it being a problem for the Practical Knots forum. 
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 08, 2018, 05:01:12 PM
Thanks Roo,

Apart from your opinion that those who would like a specific board, cannot justify it on volume grounds, can you make an argument for NOT having a trial of such a facility?  I am fairly confident that the Admins are more likely to be swayed by reasons that would compromise IGKT principles and reputation, rather than just a 'I don't think we need it'.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: roo on August 08, 2018, 05:07:31 PM
Thanks Roo,

Apart from your opinion that those who would like a specific board, cannot justify it on volume grounds, can you make an argument for NOT having a trial of such a facility?  I am fairly confident that the Admins are more likely to be swayed by reasons that would compromise IGKT principles and reputation, rather than just a 'I don't think we need it'.

Simplicity is a good aim.  Having a separate board for every variation of Practical Knot topics violates that principle.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 08, 2018, 05:14:29 PM
Thanks Scott,

Quote
So far, not too many forum members have put there two cents in...

Given that this new board and its topics might only attract attention from 4 or 5 prolific posters, what sort of consensus are you wanting to see?

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 08, 2018, 05:23:30 PM
@ Roo
Quote
Simplicity is a good aim.  Having a separate board for every variation of Practical Knot topics violates that principle.

I totally agree, and would likewise argue against  "Having a separate board for every variation of Practical Knot topics ".  Of course that is certainly not what is being suggested with the proposed Review Board.

As well as Simplicity, I would also suggest that Clarity is a good aim, and again, the proposed board is aimed at untangling the clutter of vastly differing posts, such that readers may more easily focus on the fields they find interesting.

The proposal that we untangle Decorative from Functional was one such proposal and has proven to be hugely successful.

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: SS369 on August 08, 2018, 05:27:55 PM
Thanks Scott,

Quote
So far, not too many forum members have put there two cents in...

Given that this new board and its topics might only attract attention from 4 or 5 prolific posters, what sort of consensus are you wanting to see?

Derek

Hi Derek.

I would like to see as many as possible in the next days. It would be good if the prolific and non-prolific (occasional) posters chimed in.

SS
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: roo on August 08, 2018, 05:32:47 PM
The proposal that we untangle Decorative from Functional was one such proposal and has proven to be hugely successful.
I think that most people who are interested in Practical Knots would also like to see Practical Knot test results.

However, most people who are interested in knotting in general almost always focus either on decorative or practical knots, but not both equally.  So in that case it makes sense to have separate boards.

Since we're talking about it, I'd like the New Knot Investigation Board to go away.  I'm tired of not knowing if I'm going to be clicking on a Practical or Decorative knot topic.   The main forums can easily absorb the once-a-week (or less) new knot investigation topic.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 08, 2018, 06:03:19 PM
Quote
Hi Derek.

I would like to see as many as possible in the next days. It would be good if the prolific and non-prolific (occasional) posters chimed in.

SS

I am certain we can both agree on that, but equally, I am sure we are neither of us naive enough to believe that it will happen.  Contrary to Roo's assertion that most practical knotters will be interested in test reports,  they may read them, but the fact remains very few are interested in commenting, questioning or interpreting the findings.

How should we interpret your response?  If there are no more 'chimes', is the request dead in the water?

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: roo on August 08, 2018, 06:19:41 PM
Contrary to Roo's assertion that most practical knotters will be interested in test reports,  they may read them, but the fact remains very few are interested in commenting, questioning or interpreting the findings.
I actually mostly agree with you here.  As with most topics, the number of reads far exceeds the number of replies.  That's normal. 

I won't split hairs on what level of interpretation people may or may not conduct on their own.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: SS369 on August 08, 2018, 06:23:59 PM
Quote
Hi Derek.

I would like to see as many as possible in the next days. It would be good if the prolific and non-prolific (occasional) posters chimed in.

SS

I am certain we can both agree on that, but equally, I am sure we are neither of us naive enough to believe that it will happen.  Contrary to Roo's assertion that most practical knotters will be interested in test reports,  they may read them, but the fact remains very few are interested in commenting, questioning or interpreting the findings.

How should we interpret your response?  If there are no more 'chimes', is the request dead in the water?

Derek

Not dead in the water at all. Just wanted to have more input from additional people. Perhaps I am naive... sorry.

I personally think it would be a good endeavor and helpful to the rope/knot users who come searching for this type of data and reports.

roo's assertion is his personal opinion and perhaps desire that he is entitled to.

SS
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: SS369 on August 08, 2018, 06:26:10 PM

Quote
Since we're talking about it, I'd like the New Knot Investigation Board to go away.  I'm tired of not knowing if I'm going to be clicking on a Practical or Decorative knot topic.   The main forums can easily absorb the once-a-week (or less) new knot investigation topic.

I am not inclined to remove that board. I believe it is useful to the forum readers.

SS
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: roo on August 08, 2018, 06:49:39 PM

Quote
Since we're talking about it, I'd like the New Knot Investigation Board to go away.  I'm tired of not knowing if I'm going to be clicking on a Practical or Decorative knot topic.   The main forums can easily absorb the once-a-week (or less) new knot investigation topic.

I am not inclined to remove that board. I believe it is useful to the forum readers.

SS
OK.  In the spirit of testing, let us test that belief:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6221.0

 ;)
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 08, 2018, 07:05:41 PM

Quote
Since we're talking about it, I'd like the New Knot Investigation Board to go away.  I'm tired of not knowing if I'm going to be clicking on a Practical or Decorative knot topic.   The main forums can easily absorb the once-a-week (or less) new knot investigation topic.

I am not inclined to remove that board. I believe it is useful to the forum readers.

SS
OK.  In the spirit of testing, let us test that belief:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6221.0

 ;)

LOL, Gem...

Personally, I like that little board, and it certainly attracts a large number of reads.

I am not so taken by the 'hopeful' new knot posts, but do enjoy the occasional new (or rediscovered old) way of tying a knot..  As much as I agree with you that I don't like 'Decoratives' spoiling my tea, I really haven't found (m)any on there.

But the big issue tho' is - will the poll get any more than 2 votes???

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 08, 2018, 10:12:17 PM
As it currently stands, there is no consistent and coherent place
for people to post knot test reports within this forum.

I 100% believe that an wholly new and distinct category needs
to be created within this forum - titled "Knot test Reports (and peer review)".

At the moment, it is random and incoherent - exactly where does
a would-be knot tester currently search? The search function of this forum
is not exactly perfect - I just dont see how this will ever develop legs
and turn into something really useful unless a whole new category is created.

So, I guess Dan Lehman is not in favor
of creating a whole new category titled "Knot test reports"?

How many people do we need to make a giant leap forward for mankind and create a new forum topic/category?
You have my outline of a step --if not a giant leap-- forward
above, in which a thread carries a "sticky"/master OP
listing test reports, and follow-on posts to this thread would
be citations of other reports of possible interest which then
should be added by Modification to the OP master list.
Discussion of any given report(s) would come in separate
threads, and all of this under Practical Knots I suppose.

But you envision threads that themselves are reports and
which have follow-on posts of review/discussion, and all
of this wants a superstructure above *thread* which would
be a new (sub-)forum, with an obvious title, for recognition.
Oh, I get that (now); but, really, how many posts would actually
come to such a forum?  --Dave Richards, Tom Moyer, Yachting
Monthly, etc. test reports will continue to be of interest to us,
and continue to be made on their own terms and put in their
own ways (possibly in a mag.'s print pages un-URLinkable,
but amenable to someone's summarizing-reporting).

Still, as a conspicuous collection of testing discussion of
whatever sort, a concentrated presentation would help
--if we have a critical mass to constitute that.  Could it
be a forum-wise "child" forum to Practical Knots or some
other extant forum?  And a new forum could also carry as its
OP a listing as I envisioned, along with guidance on what is
expected or hoped-for in testing & reporting.

I think that it's possible to move thread from current to
new places if need be?  --otherwise, there is simple pasting
& replication/duplication to get the posts to the new spot,
should that become the way forward.


--dl*
====
ps : I'm still remiss in fully responding to the Yachting
mag. test report, and others.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 08, 2018, 11:55:38 PM
@ Dan

Quote
Could it be a forum-wise "child" forum to Practical Knots or some other extant forum?

I do not understand the suggestion that we need to 'fudge' or 'squeeze in' a child board into the existing structure.

SMF, the engine which runs this forum is hugely capable, it is used by companies with thousands of active posters and millions of posts.  Just take a look at the Bitcoin forum https://bitcointalk.org/ (https://bitcointalk.org/)  - it has five major boards and dozens of sub boards, allowing them to clearly lay out the various areas of interest for their members.

It is easy to add a new top level board (Reviews), and a couple of sub boards (Reports) (books and Publications) (IGKT Testing Guidelines) etc.  -  Run them for a couple of months and review their value, headings etc.  Easy to set up and if they cause a problem, ultra easy to take back down again.

OK, so there may only be a handful of posts, but if so, what is the harm?  And if it attracts some attention from the people who wrote the reports, and perhaps their followers, all the better - we will be doing what the IGKT is here for.

So how about it Dan - give it a try?

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 09, 2018, 12:28:11 AM
The key issue as i see it is that the IGKT can position itself as an easy to find/search one-stop-shop for knot testers, knot test reports and peer review of those reports.

As it currently stands, where exactly does a would-be knot tester post results and seek peer review? For the IGKT's part, it is an incoherent mess. It is not easy to search for, and find knot test report in one coherent place.

The default site to publish appears to be the ITRS  Link: http://itrsonline.org/

But peer review/discussion doesn't occur at the ITRS site.
Also, there appears to be a single-minded and nauseating default mind-set that MBS yield is THE defining factor for determining knot performance. That is, the default mind-set is 'Knot A' versus 'Knot B' in a pull-it-till-it-breaks contest - with the winner of the contest being declared 'superior'.

There are many people undertaking knot testing around the world...and where exactly do they go to publish their reports and to seek peer review of their reports? As stated, the ITRS is one place but, you dont receive advice and/or peer review feedback.

The IGKT has an opportunity to position itself as the world clearing house for all knot testers and test reports.
Its a case of... "If you build it, they will come".

So, because there is essentially no where to go at the present moment, knot testers continue to act in isolation and publish their findings as they see fit - right or ludicrously wrong - with no mechanism for any critical peer review. And so misinformation and sometimes disinformation continues to propagate.

As it currently stands, few see the IGKT as being a credible place to publish knot test reports and to seek expert peer review. For example, Richard Delaney, Grant Prattley, Tom Evans, etc, are semi-professional knot testers who continue to test and publish their results. These are the type of individuals whom the IGKT could have as a target market.

Over time, you begin to gain momentum and you reach a critical mass of knot testers. Word-of-mouth helps too.

I see this as such a critically important matter that it warrants creation of its own separate topic category. It should be easy for people around the world to search for and find knot test reports. The idea is that you make it EASY to find, dont bury it in-between or underneath something. Make it stand out like the proverbial!

I might also add that when members of the IGKT provide critical feedback, it should be done in a respectful manner - using science as voice. If we berate or scold the author of the test report - they will likely feel vilified and not return in the future. So we need to be careful to be constructive and not destructive in our criticisms of their reports.

The IGKT has a real opportunity to make a difference...I truly hope that the decision makers share this vision :)

PS I was thinking about Elon Musk and SpaceX and how they are changing the default mindset of access to space. The default mindset has been to build a rocket, use it once and then throw it away. Its like building a Boeing 747 jet, fly it once from point A to point B and then throw it away.  Elon Musk now has his 'block 5' Falcon 9 rocket which can be re-used 10 times with just inspections and maybe up to 100 times with some refurbishment. This is changing the paradigm - and shaking up the entire space industry (for the better). Elon is making a real difference...he has a vision and the will-power to see it through. It will revolutionize access to space and make human kind as a multi-planet species.

Obviously the IGKT is not Elon Musk, nor is it SpaceX. But, the IGKT is in a position to make a real difference!
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 09, 2018, 09:17:11 AM
Excellent argument - well said.

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Harold Kahl on August 11, 2018, 07:33:09 PM

I am going to invert the 'test rig' and also invert the knot to see if jamming is still occurring on the collar facing the force generating machine (per Derek's recommendation).

I'll go out on a limb and state that this additional test is pointless. Newton's laws have been pretty well tested, so we can categorically state that the force exerted by your hoist at one end is equal and opposite to the force exerted by the tree on the other end. It is about as useful as doing the tests under different phases of the moon.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 11, 2018, 08:45:40 PM

@Harold
Quote
I'll go out on a limb and state that this additional test is pointless. Newton's laws have been pretty well tested, so we can categorically state that the force exerted by your hoist at one end is equal and opposite to the force exerted by the tree on the other end. It is about as useful as doing the tests under different phases of the moon.

I have to agree with you Harold,  However, we have an unresolved situation, the knots always jam on one side of the test rig.  Do you have any ideas what might explain this or can you suggest a test to identify the cause?

Derek
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: Harold Kahl on August 12, 2018, 12:51:51 PM

@Harold
Quote
I'll go out on a limb and state that this additional test is pointless. Newton's laws have been pretty well tested, so we can categorically state that the force exerted by your hoist at one end is equal and opposite to the force exerted by the tree on the other end. It is about as useful as doing the tests under different phases of the moon.

I have to agree with you Harold,  However, we have an unresolved situation, the knots always jam on one side of the test rig.  Do you have any ideas what might explain this or can you suggest a test to identify the cause?

Derek
Reading through the thread, I noted 4 cases of jamming. I might have missed something, but if it was 4, then if there is a 50-50 probability in each case, it would be like flipping a coin 4 times and getting heads each time. That is 1 chance in 16, which is not entirely incredible.
Title: Re: KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?
Post by: agent_smith on August 12, 2018, 02:23:32 PM
In my case, the collar of the end-to-end joining knot always jammed on the side facing the force generating machine.
This occurred in 100% of the tests.

I used EN564 cordage and EN1891 type A ropes.

In terms of jamming, I modeled my definition as follows:
1. Initial/threshold jamming; and
2. Maximal jamming.

With initial/threshold jamming, it is not possible to untie the structure by hand. Tools are required.

With maximal jamming, not even tools will not loosen the knot structure.

I did not reach maximal jamming - because the peak load I achieved was 12kN.

I speculate that maximal jamming will occur beyond 15kN (in EN certified ropes).