The word is therefore ambiguous and its meaning should be deduced from the context in which it appears."
Your mistake is just that ! You do not accept
either the one
or the other meaning, but wish to step on
both !
If you have just said :
"The so-called "perfect" form is not but a benchmark, with the use of which we are accustomed to compare the other fig. 8 bends, but we do not know if this form is indeed the most perfect one, or the most secure one, because, for the time being, we do not have any theory that can indicates this, and we have not done any detailed experiments that can validate this theory." , if you have said that, I would not have said a f... word more, believe me ! However, you did not, because you shift positions all the time. You confuse the method, the tool, with a certain desirable final result. I, too, wish to prove that this form, or any other form, is "the" perfect, and "the" more secure, and the best of all, but I do not confuse my desires with reality. I do not want to cite your phrases, where this ambiguous stance is portraited, but just listen to yourself at your previous post :
"I have ... found them to be inferior to the ABOK 1411 bends. " You speak of superior and inferior bends, not of superior and inferior benchmarks ! And you do not examine ALL the different fig.8 bends I have
repeatedly shown and asked to from you...Make up your mind, please !
I can not but accept the A form as the benchmark, of course, because that is the most/only(?) known form of the many fig.8 bends, and because it is used in climbing more often than any other bend. However, this does not mean that I will make the mistake you do, and persuade myself that this form is the most
"perfect", or that is the most
"safe", the one that has
"the largest area of rope-to-rope contact", the one
"less distorted", and all those erroneous things you were driven to suppose, by the force of will, not the force of reason. I wish the same you do, and perhaps MORE than you do, but I a not going to tinker some half-baked "proofs", or make some easy experiments with some of the many different fig. 8 bends. We want extensive and exhaustive laboratory tests, that can be published and can be replicated, before we can claim something so important, that has to do with the security of the most used climbing bend !
I also have to admit that, concluding from your stance till now, I believe you can not be objective on this subject, even if you try...You have jumped into conclusions far too easy and too early, you have defended your position from many sides - which is a proof that one side would not be enough...I admire your persistence, but not your scientific objectivity
Let us acept the methodology and the accurancy of the knot tests presented in this article as our Gold Standard, regarding the climbing knots, in general, and the various friction hitches, in particular.
http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/14_Report_hitches_PBavaresco.pdfAre you telling me that you
... have examined a few other re tucked Thief Knots and found them to be inferior to the ABOK 1411 bends
in accordance to this Gold Standard ?
My dear DDK, we know very few things about physical knots, ( if any), that can be said that is really "known", with the meaning natural sciences endow to this word. The ignorance and confusion that surrounds the figure 8 bends, is perhaps the best example of this sad fact. We can only make things worse, if we insist/pretend that we know something more than we really do.