It seems to me that the "relative" anti-jamability in comparison
to all other knots would remain the same regardless of the
type of cord or rope used and ...
And yet somehow you managed to get a
water bowlinejammed !? We'd luv to see a photo of that, to better
understand; for the added turn in this knot ought to help
keep the return leg of the eye from getting pulled
through it and the basic turn, to tighten so much
around the S.Part !? (I've seen
bowlines where the
"collar" is pretty tight around the S.Part, and infer that
on heavy loading the material diameter diminished and
the collar was or got pretty tight around the S.Part
and on relaxation of force, the *swelling* of the rope
back towards normal, thicker diameter made this
collar-around-S.Part connection tight. (I've also found
jammed
sheet bends.)
So, not only the nature of the material, and the loading
--you elsewhere tell of quite dynamic, "shock" loading--,
but also how the knot is actually tied, figure in effect.
(Long ago we had some debate here about
Ashley's bend
#1452 jamming, and eventually we learned that it was
not dressed in an orientation to prevent this --Ashley himself
doesn't address the variety of orientations & their effects.)
that the "relative"(compared to other knots) untie-ability remains the same. You could
still take a rated "easy to untie" knot and tie it in frictive material
and it would jam.
But it's not so simple as this : e.g., in super-
slippery HMPE
rope, movement occurs within a knot well past where it
would do so in frictive material, and that can defeat the
structural elements that had rendered the knot easily untied!
(It's not clear to me how much surface condition matters:
on the one hand, the friction impedes movement for the
loosening, but it might have also limited the delivered tension
into the knot, which helps!?)
--dl*
====