Worrying about exactly what distribution you have (I assumed gaussian of course) is by far second fiddle to first making an estimation of the general scale of the spread of the distribution and converting that into some error scale, as I described.
The first priority is to understand what knot is tested.
Here, it is the "legs-abutting" version of the
butterfly.
In this case, I hope that my prior remarks about
the orientations, "the geometries" of the "
butterfly knot"
have been understood; alas, though, for there to be
several comments on the report without any mention
of this, I'm afraid not.
(Please refer to that image shown by Alan Lee, e.g. :
that is of a different, "legs-crossed" geometry.)
TO ME, I must see the relatively good results of this
tested orientation to challenge my notions of better
curvature and so on which I see for the "legs-crossed"
version (by either end loaded).
To Xarax, I still don't understand what HE thinks is
the difference, of the 1-dia vs. 2-dia curvatures, for
the shown-here orientation --both seem more of the
1-diameter U-turn, IMO.
To Knot_Rigger, thank you for quite some work!!(--as I've done similar or not even, and know it to
be a chore). You've "outdone yourself", and raised
the bar! That said, the black cord makes discerning
the details of the material difficult if not impossible.
We might need to ask you to report what your eyeballs
up close & personal see of the Real McCoy(s), if you
can abide such query.
I note that the
fig.8 eye knots seem to be loaded
in what I have called "the strong form" of what Xarax
in another thread posted a clear image of (well, w/o
indication of loading; but of the "perfect form" geometry)
in response to my remarking on two other images.
IMO, this orientation will benefit from hard loading
of the tails, in setting --something that might be not
practical in many cases, given strength of material
(i.e., that one cannot manually do "hard" for it).
My thought is that, in this orientation, the S.Part
bears
against its twin part (i.e., the tail) as it
flows into the knot and goes then to its U-turn
around the eye legs (which is where the break
appears, in your one case --or maybe we should
see that in-knot-broken-end as needing to be
strettttttched farther along, so nearer the entry!?).
There is more that we can wonder about, in the spirit
of pure testing, at least --vs. practical significance-- :
would it matter were the mid-line eye-knot first loaded
end-2-end / "through",
and then loaded qua eye knot?!
Essentially, what a hard setting by loading ends would
do!? --and vice versa : how the knot would perform
end-2-end after taking a hard eye load and whatever
distortions this might impart. We'd be concerned about
such things mostly (most reasonably) if there were some
practical circumstance in which these are loadings.
--dl*
====
