Author Topic: Re-Threaded Figure Eight Loop  (Read 1333 times)

75RR

  • Guest
Re-Threaded Figure Eight Loop
« on: July 13, 2013, 08:29:31 PM »
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 12:12:40 AM by 75RR »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Reverse Threaded Figure Eight Loop
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2013, 04:50:10 AM »
Looking to solve the Reverse Threaded Figure Eight Loop's only real fault,
its tendency to jam after a fall.

 ;D  Ha, this is rather comical, given the peculiar nomination!  ::)

I.e., tying a reverse fig.8 eyeknot is exactly solution enough
to the jamming vulnerability of the common fig.8 eyeknot!
Which is to "(re-)thread" the tail in the "reverse" direction
--from the opposite end of the knot!  (This plan has been done
for the overhand eyeknot; cf.
http://i1.tinypic.com/2z3z8ts.jpg
 [ "offset water eye-knot" / EDK loop]
And it poses the question of On which side of
the base knot's parts should the tail be laid?
)

As for the plan to tie on some extra small lines --like garnishing
the knot-- for purchase to facilitate untying, I'm skeptical;
how much force did your limited testing have (and on what
material) --details, please.  What rockclimbers have said to
have done is inserted a 'biner into the knot so as to give
some aid in loosening it.  (Still not an ideal solution.)

--dl*
====

ps : Note that the images given for this knot are of the
commonly misleading/mistaken kind : the upper one shows
with great clarity a tangle that can't endure force (in its
perfectly non-crossing form), and the lower one shows
a knot set asymmetrically (which I doubt was intended).
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 05:21:59 PM by Dan_Lehman »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Reverse Threaded Figure Eight Loop
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2013, 04:02:05 PM »
As for the plan to tie on some extra small lines --like garnishing
the knot-- for purchase to facilitate untying, I'm skeptical;
how much force did your limited testing have (and on what
material) --details, please. 

Give the lack of consensus/guidelines on testing... , would whatever I did
have any correspondence with any other test in a meaningful/useful way?
...
... let's just say ...
All we can note is that you continue to leave us in the
dark about your test --why?  And my question wasn't
concerning any other testings, but it's easy to think
of a method that would have more relevance than others:
tying on with climbing rope and taking a few falls --in short,
doing the usual sort of in-gym or other use of the knot
that tends to be hard to untie, and seeing what ease
can be gained.

So, just say what you did --that is an absolute statement
for which you have all of the information.

ps : Note that the images given for this knot are of the
commonly misleading/mistaken kind : the upper one shows
with great clarity a tangle that can't endure force (in its
perfectly non-crossing form)
... The second ([1st-]shown) shows the re-thread in a darker rope,
before dressing, to aid correct re-threading ID.
[/quote]
I suspect that a field observation of actual tyings would
show this to be not the commonly used re-threading,
in that the obvious/easier way to return the tail into
the base fig.8 is through the inviting open hole but
not on the tight side of the exit of this part!  --unless
one is striving for some particular orientation of the
parts, and I don't know of an instruction that is so
express in detail (and given images don't necessarily
imply intent --i.e., they necessarily have some form,
but it's a leap of faith to assume that that form is
specifically intended).  Although, it seems that if
one makes the less easy first insertion, the rest
of the tracing flows easily!
.:.  A field study would provide results worth considering!

Quote
... and the lower one shows a knot set asymmetrically (which I doubt was intended).

Re-checked think it is ok. Did over-tighten a bit too much, gives distorted view. Will correct.
You meant to "over-tighten" less?   :D

No, I'm pointing to asymmetry, not an aspect of
tightening : note the difference between how the twin
parts from the eye legs nicely turn around the ends
vs. how the ends' twin parts turn around the eye legs
--it is the latter that are breaking what I call "the perfect
form", though "YMMV" in terms of what is hoped to get
(Dave Merchant prescribes a symmetric but different,
tricky-to-dress form, citing jamming as the issue with
my "perfect form" (of one loading or other?).)


--dl*
====