Hi Dan, the idea to use the knot reversely is interesting.
It followed from an old design goal to bend the rope's
entry into the knot gradually, and in this case
realized by a helical flow (and so with an extra turn
or two, one has a longer helix to use, graduating
the angle over its length). Here, then, the closure
comes with inserting the now-tails straight out
through these helixes.
Your suggestion that it depends on the settling of the knot whether it tends to jam or not is correct. I usually make the knot relatively tight because I dont want the knot to get loose under intermittent load.
And this is a good rationale for the summarily dismissed
(by author/inventor Ashley in his book)
#1425 : it can
be set with the tail wraps snugged up well, to prevent
unloaded loosening (to give "slack security"), and yet
these wraps can be fairly confidently worked back &
forth to bring material from the S.Parts into the knot
so to loosen it --hardly so easy an untying as afforded
by
#1408/1452/zeppelin, but in many instances, one
will much prefer to have the slack-security at this small
cost of untying time. Of course, if needing assured easy
untying, the loose setting as noted previously will work
for
#1425.And concerning your ...
It [viz. squaREef knot] was wrongly recommended to join ropes of indentical diameter,
otherwise the Sheet bend should be used.
, please note that vice either end-2-end knot,
the
"double Lapp bend" should be preferred, in many
cases, at least. It, too, offers "slack-security" while affording
fairly easy untying. (I might have to retreat on this with
some strong loads & materials, but so far, I think that it's
fairly true --and I'll note that I've found
sheet bends in ropes
that were jammed. Out
in the wild, one can find things that
knot books don't recognize as part of reality (alas) !)
And "What is ... ?" :: the
Lapp bend could simply be named
"reverse sheet bend" (reverse of the "same side" version --i.e.,
tails/S.Parts resp. of each end joined are on same side of axis
of tension), and the "double/treble/..." versions simply make
the
necessary for slack-security additional, repeated turn
& wrap of the "hitching (to bight/U shaped other end)" line's
tucking down through the U/bight part --done once in the
Lapp, turned & repeated in the multi-Lapps,
giving the sort of security seen in e.g. the
blood & dbl.fisherman's
knots. As the held-tight S.Part (of hitching line) runs straight
through these tight wraps, there is the possibility to pry some
of it back out by pulling apart the U-part's ends (S.Part & tail) ::
one gets just s short pull --as then the pulling angle becomes
a right-angle and no longer directly pulls S.Part through the
wraps--, but it suffices to work the knot loose, backing out
some of that formerly nipped-hard U-part tail, and then
easily UNwrapping those hitching tucks.
Btw, it is commonplace for "knot tyers in the Know" to decry
the use of the
"squaREef" knot qua "bend"/end-2-end knot
--to even deny that it IS that type of knot!! This smacks of
simplistic parroting of Ashley, which runs (surprisingly?!)
without confirmation in cited problems from other sources
(but, oh, so much echoing of the assertion), and in unseemly
contradiction to some citable official knot-use documents
(though one merchant-marine (UK) knot tyer advised me
that though it might be so in print and on a qualification
test, it had no import in the practice! --do as is better,
not as is written! ?!).
I have found
in the wild a beautifully so-joined pair
of like ropes, and the beauty was that of a most slim,
material-efficient knotting,
notably with tails tucked
through the lay of these laid ropes --so, yes, the
decried dubious knot with a securing structure. But,
it is at least worth keeping this in mind --seizing tails
is not unheard of! Otherwise, the knot is also of great
benefit to many quick-tie, practical duties, which do not
well fit the description of using a "binder", but in fact
an end-2-end knot (yes, even tying shoes).
--dl*
====