Documenting Actual Knotting --state of the practice

[Dan_Lehman]

I just got another knots book, and I must say that in alllll of the
books purporting to address the topic, there is one heck of a lot
of plain lousy reporting.  It seems that the main resource for
knots-book authors is the set of prior knots books (no matter
how lame).
  (I have yet to really understand how a sheepshank
was important, but a great many books include it; I really don't
understand that need to "shorten a rope"; and the notion of
protecting a damaged spot is so darn lame ::  why put it
in part of the structure where there is ANY tension, vs. at
the bight ends of it where there is NONE/zero !!  But every
book that shows this use puts it where . . . other books do.)

Some decade-plus ago, I drafted a Template for Documenting
Historical & Current Practices of Knots & Cordage Usage.
Gee, perhaps something will come of this, if it's not kept
*secret* in some file of mine (which I might not find)!

So, voici --a draft, an idea for doing things better.
(I give the drafted outline of the documentation with my
effort to apply it for some commercial fishing with which
I've some acquaintance (alas, not so easily of late). )

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TEMPLATE FOR DOCUMENTING THE HISTORY AND CURRENT PRACTICES
OF KNOTS & CORDAGE USAGE.

     [2004-02-24, tweaked a bit 2017-12]

Example (commericial fishing(longline(whelk/conch)
 & (longline(crab))
 & (longline(lobster))
 

summary overview of the cordage use / application

   --general description of application

   --scope of observations (what is the basis for information?!!)

   --cordage structures
 
      __material(s)

      __knot(s)

       o- tying needs (speed, security, re-use/untiability)

       o- forces

       o- conditions (weather/UV/material disturbances)
 
   --skills learned how?  (hearsay, hand-me-down training)
 
   --regulatory requirements (e.g. groundline issue re whales)
 

The commercial whelk fisher uses traps (pots).  These traps are
set in waters <depth, current> either singly or in sets (defined
to be traps that are connected to the same line for retrieval).
Rope is used to retrieve the trap; either a single line is tied
to the trap and a buoy, or either of the surface & submerged
entities is tied to a long retrieval line with connecting lines
(gangions).  E.g., often the case is that a line is attached to
a buoy and then tied to a bridle rope which in turn is tied to
the trap.  In the case of sets of traps, a longline will be used
and connecting lines (gangions) will usually join the pot bridles
to the longline/groundline.

Additionally, the whelk traps themselves contain some rigging:
plastic-coated wire or vinyl mesh is used in conjunction with
a slice from a plastic drum; the mesh forms the bottom and part
of the open top.  Heavy nylon monofilament line is generally used
to secure the mesh to the drum slice, reeved through holes punched
in the latter, and tied off with a form of trucker's hitch and
half hitches.  Similar (sometimes heavier!) line is used to make
an impediment for whelk escape, tied around the open rim of the
drum with about a 1.5" gap; this line is reeved through small
plastic tubes which keep it away from the drum rim at points of
attachment.  (The whelks climb up the drum and fall into the
trap in search of the bait, but cannot crawl out because of this
line (sometimes strips of wire mesh) impediment.)
 
-----------------------------X(30)---------------X(50)---------------X

Whelk pots sometimes have weights inside, such as cement poured
around the bottom rim of the pot, which might also help secure
the bottom mesh.  Bait of horseshoe crab (an environmental issue)
or other fish is secured by bungee cords to the bottom mesh, or
by other means.  Pots can be manufactured commerially, but often
are hand-made, sometimes by the fisherman, using slices of large
(40-60gal.) plastic drums; sometimes the pot is altered from the
natural roundness of the drum slice into a more retangular shape.

A round conch-pot bridle typically comprises two short lines,
one about twice the length of the shorter one; the longer line
forms two of the three legs and the eye for attachment for the
gangion, and the shorter forms the third leg, and is tied into
the eye.  Some pots have a bridle at one end instead of around
the upper rim, and in this case a single line is used, like the
longer of the two lines. The bridle is secured to the drum sides
with Overhand, Dble.Overhand, Fig.8 stoppers (the line being
inserted through a made for this), or by a Clove Hitch finished
with a Half-Hitch and hog rings (metal rings "stapled" around
the rope & standing part).  In the case of the third leg line,
it is tied directly to the loopknot's eye with a clove hitch etc.,
or the end is stoppered and put between the eye's legs, narrowed
by a hog ring, or the end might be reeved through the lay (for
laid rope) other two legs near the loopknot, and then tucked
back through itself and stapled.
 

Example (longline(lobster))

(rope type, knots used, expected duration of knot,

 whether it's to be untied, how the knot's tied)
 

summary overview of the cordage use / application
 

   --general description of application

"Trawls" (long groundline-connected sets of traps) are laid in bay and ocean
waters ranging from <> to <> fathoms.  A trawl can be a mile long; it comprises
usually two buoys (a "highriser" metal-winged buoy detectable by radar, and a
dayglo large plastic ball float), and an end line from them down to an anchor
weight, a groundline from that anchor point running the length of the trawl,
with gangions tied to the groundline and to the bridles of each trap (or "pot").
A long groundline can be composed of several lines--e.g. 4-5 1,800' spools--,
each from 5/8" to 3/4" dia. and of a (usually medium or soft) laid construction
polypropylene, co-polymer, or poly-Dac.  The endline might be simply part of the
groundline running from the nearest pot to the surface buoys, or it might be a
distinct line, chosen for particular qualities.  The gangions are from 5/16" to
7/16" dia. of similar construction & material.  The bridles are similar to the
gangions (in general, but not necessarily per trawl).
 

Thus, knots are employed:  to join groundline segments to form a longer line;
to secure lines to buoys and pots, and these in turn to gangions, and them to
the endline or groundline.
 

   --CORDAGE STRUCTURES
 
      __MATERIAL(S)

7/16"-5/8" laid PP, CoExtruded Olefins groundline;

5/16"-7/16" laid PP, Polycombo, CoEx gangion & bridles;

60-100# nylon monofilament;

small braided cord;

shock cord;
 

      __KNOT(S)
 
Fisherman's Knot;
Clove Hitch & HH, end secured;
Overhand eyeknot;
Single & Dbl. Becket Hitch, end secured;
Truckers Hitch;
Half-hitches;
Overhand Stopper;
Rolling Hitch & variants.
 

       o- TYING NEEDS (SPEED, SECURITY, RE-USE/UNTIABILITY)
 
I believe that there is seldom a need for speed in some real-time situation.
Otherwise, tying efficiency is a general desideratum in reducing production
and maintenance work.  The knots in use are quickly tied.  There is some
indication that the becket hitches of gangions might be untied rather than
cut away.  Many knots have their ends stapled with hog rings, and sometimes
the ends are tucked into the lay of the rope's SPart or into the groundline
(for a gangion hitch to it).  Old bridles are just chopped (and this might
often include the gangion's becket hitch).
 
       o- FORCES

Lobster pots are made of wooden slats or plastic-coated wire mesh, and weighted
with bricks or other material; they can weigh 30# going out, and of course more
with lobsters.  The groundline is hauled in by a mechanical hauler, and this in
conjunction with boat movement can haul pots into rocks with considerable force
on the pot, and a risk of abrasion & strain on the lines.

       o- CONDITIONS (WEATHER/UV/MATERIAL DISTURBANCES)

Lobster pots set at sea are unlikely to have significant forces from the
current upon them, but storms can wreck a trawl--a storm can entangle several
trawls set nearby, even rendering them irretrievable.  (Here it's a question
of to what the endline attaches at the ocean floor--a pot, or an anchor!?)
 
   --SKILLS LEARNED HOW?  (HEARSAY, HAND-ME-DOWN TRAINING, LITERATURE)
 
 Most skills are likely acquired through experience as an apprentice and then a
full operator.  (Beachcombed remnant materials suggest that a range of knots
is used, and in some cases the user isn't so well skilled in knotting.  I don't
know of any unifying store of tackling knowledge.)
 

   --REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

     (E.G., GROUNDLINE ISSUE RE RIGHT WHALES IN MASS.USA)

In some parts of the USA --i.p., Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts-- there are gear
requirements for the sake of protecting wildlife.  The right whale is vulnerable
to snagging floating groundlines when feeding, and so there have been require-
ments for special "weak links" that should break under such whale impact,
and groundlines that are "neutrally boyant" and that settle to the sea floor.
 

   --INFORMATION SOURCE(S)

     (USER ACCOUNT, HARD LITERATURE, E-LITERATURE, OBSERVATION)
 

I've used mostly on-line literature and observation,
with some personal contact with a lobsterman.

On-line sources include
 [Hmmmm, all but the last are NA in 2017]:

www.crewdog.net/lobsterpage/misc/credits.html
www.crewdog.net/lobsterpage/lbstrng/gear.html
home.tallships.ca/dPTranslations/dPlobsterpotsPh.html

www.mass.gov/marinefisheries

===========================================================================

[Dan_Lehman]

 >>> this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days. <<<

Maybe worse, it wasn't replied-to at all --standing even
now as the latest post in the thread.  While it IS something
knot tyers ought to be much concerned about, not merely
adventures from the Ivory Tower of Knotting Fancy.

so,  <<BUMP>>

We should expect to give decent review to the fields of
SAR, caving, rockclimbing, canyoneering --this set of
fields often overlapping w/practitioners & materials--,
aboriculture/treeclimbing, yachting, angling, & medicine.
But from what little I've observed of commercial fishing
and construction, there is much that isn't covered in the
readily available literature, to my awareness ("TMA" : is
this a plausibly oft'-needed expression?!).

I found this exercise humbling --show'd so much of what
I did NOT know.  <sigh>   

(A current "known unknown" for me :: Where/Why is a
mid-line, also "directional" eye knot needed?  What are
the expected loading circumstances?)


 

[SS369]

>>> this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days. <<<

(A current "known unknown" for me :: Where/Why is a
mid-line, also "directional" eye knot needed?  What are
the expected loading circumstances?)

Sorry for the lack of contribution Dan. At the time, and currently I don?t have anything to add. Do you?

As for your question quoted; The eye in a truckers hitch, the midline eye knot clip in point during Alpine treks, some knots to force multiply tension.

SS

[agent_smith]

I did note that in your original post your focus was on commercial fishing.
Also - which knot book was the cause of your 'call to action'?

I agree that a large percentage of knot books regurgitate inaccurate information - and indeed spread misinformation.

I see that in your most recent post you now bring to attention other fields of occupation.

Linking knots to a particular occupational stream is one possible pathway...and this has been done before (eg Budworh, Ashley).
Budworth and Toss have churned out a number of knot books - was it one of these authors you were originally referring to?
Or was it the 'infamous' Graumont and Hensel - 'Encyclopedia of Knots and Fancy Rope Work' ?

...

To my way of thinking, using 'occupations' as a method of classifying knots is not a particularly effective approach.

For example, SAR (rescue), climbing, canyoning, arborists, rope access, caving, are all using knots in life critical applications.
That is - knots in those activities are mission critical - with knot failure potentially leading to a catastrophic outcome (eg death or permanent injuries).
And this is distinct from say decorative knots - where knot failure would not be 'catastrophic'.

Some arborists like to think they invented all the knots known in the human race For example, some arborists claim that they exclusively invented and use slide and grip progression hitches (eg they ignore Dr Karl Prusik). It is true to state that arborists have taken a keener interest in slide and grip hitches, and experimented to find combinations of cord and host rope that maximize ease of use and efficiency. On the other hand, climbers have an unfortunate tendency to resist learning anything beyond a very narrow range of knots - often citing reasons such as "inability to perform partner checks" as the primary supporting argument against expanding their horizons.

In the case of commercial fishing - knot failure could lead to financial loss (eg the loss of a catch) - also relates to lost time (work hours,,, which comes back to financial loss).

Knots that are used in life critical applications are tied in a special class of rope - that conforms to a world standard (eg human rated EN 892, EN 1891, EN 564, NFPA, etc).
For example, rock climbers would never tie their knots in fishing line!

In the same way, decorative knots aren't tied with human rated EN892 ropes.
And commercial fisherman don't tie their knots in human rated 'EN' standard ropes.

I therefore think that the material that is used to tie knots is very relevant.
For example, a lot of noise has been made about tying life critical knots in 'dyneema' - and how it can slip and cause a knot to fail. And yet, commentators rarely state which types/brands of 'dyneema' allegedly cause such failures? For example. I use some dyneema cordage in white water kayaking - and the knots I've tied haven't 'failed'. This is because of the weave/design of the 'dyneema' cordage - its texture plays a role.

...

The definitions of knotting terms and the language used to describe certain components is also problematic. One only has to look within this forum to see some individuals who have difficulty in conceptualizing terms that deviate from the Ashley paradigm (eg loop knot versus eye knot - and the definition of a 'loop'). Indeed, the definition of what constitutes a 'Bowline' is still problematic.
The historical use of the term 'bend' is also problematic - where it has not been confined solely to the union of 2 different ropes (or 2 ends).

And then there is some aspects of geometry and the relationship between a 'bend' and its corresponding 'eye knots' - including how many possible eye knots can be derived from the parent 'bend'. The 'bend' is tied within a particular chiral orientation - and so any corresponding eye knots will also follow the same chiral orientation. But this should be declared.

...

Pinpointing the precise failure mechanism of a knot that has reached its MBS yield point is also elusive and speculative.
And so is knot testing - where the vast majority of knot testers seem to be fixated only on 'pull-it-till-it-breaks' mindset.
There appears to be no other way to conceptualize a knot other than by measuring its MBS yield point (within the domain of knots used in life critical applications).

...

KNOT TESTING
And one of your favorite topics Dan - the realm of 'offset rope joining knots' in life critical applications (eg rappelling to get back down to safe ground).
How much misinformation is out there in the wild about the so called 'EDK'?
And to this day, there still is no peer reviewed body of test data that probes the effect of a simple rotation of the 'EDK' to enhance its resistance to capsizing.

And here's another perplexing matter - the issue of the effect of adding additional rope diameters inside the nipping loop of a 'Bowline'. We still don't have a peer reviewed body of test data that examines this issue.

[Dan_Lehman]

I did note that in your original post your focus was on commercial fishing.

Not really meant as a focus per se but rather it was my
moving myself to attempt the documentation task on some
knotting of which I has interest but for which there seems
to be scant documentation; so, I thought to give it a go ...
--and felt the effort as a humbling exercise, finding what I
did NOT know.  (And I also recognize that the scope of my
observations is rather small.)

Also - which knot book was the cause of your 'call to action'?
I agree that a large percentage of knot books regurgitate inaccurate information - and indeed spread misinformation.
I see that in your most recent post you now bring to attention other fields of occupation.
...Budworth and Toss have churned out a number of knot books - was it one of these authors you were originally referring to?
Or was it the 'infamous' Graumont and Hensel - 'Encyclopedia of Knots and Fancy Rope Work' ?

Looking back at the OP date --2017-12--, I'm at a loss.
I'd inherited 100 books, but that was in February.  I guess
I might've just posed that opening line, but it doesn't seem
I'd do that vs. straightaway whatever.
Yes, Geoffrey looks to have the record several times over
on knots-books publishing --repeatedly, of Knotting 101.
The late Brion, RIP, was much for flair of presentation,
but not so good on accuracy.
And Hensel & Gretel stand as an undeniable monument
to knotting ignorance :: there is just no way around seeing
that so long-lived book as bloody lousy --yet I seem to have
taken some decade(s) to awaken to the extent that it is!
--at least, with regard to practical knots.
(It gives some mysterious hints of things mostly accidentally
which can somewhat inform a knots historian.)

To my way of thinking, using 'occupations' as a method of classifying knots is not a particularly effective approach.

My point is less about "classifying knots"
than about understanding practical knotting,
of understanding the knotting component of
various activities.  Where the tying method and
material(s) come to serve some actual purpose.

For example, SAR (rescue), climbing, canyoning, arborists,
rope access, caving, are all using knots in life critical applications.
That is - knots in those activities are mission critical ...

And how do these applications need/use a mid-line EK
--"directional" or otherwise?
I've seen documentation about "Intelocked Long-tail Bowlines"
for SAR : made above a litter to connect main haul line and
belay line to that and to each others, each providing a long
tail that ... can attach to a litter attendant?!
(Toss "river rescue" into this group, and you bring in some
ropes that might've served there first and then got adapted
--or maybe not-- to another watery application, canyoneering.)

In the case of commercial fishing, knot failure could lead to financial loss
(eg the loss of a catch), also relates to lost time (work hours,,,
which comes back to financial loss).

Yeah, though I never asked outright, I suspect that
the lobster fishers I met preferred that when their longlines
where hauled up that the lobster pots came along, too!
(And if Mr.Imagreatknotinventer had insisted on trying
some new knot, and the pots did NOT come up, there
might be loss of life --think, "lobster bait"-- also!    )

... adding additional rope diameters inside the nipping loop of a 'Bowline'.
We still don't have a peer reviewed body of test data that examines this issue.

But we DO have various test results for a Fig.8
"bunny ears" which puts FOUR dia. in the U-turn
of the SPart to crunch on, to have as a heat sink,
to ... yield higher break loads --and yet there isn't
such a standout (sometimes weaker, but never
stronger by much, compared to single-eye Fig.8s)
!?!??!  (I find this hard to figure, but it's there.
Yes, I still want to see the issue focused on & tested,
but it just seems hard to tie the bunny ears and not
have ... a lot of material in the critical area!?)

--dl*
====

[KC]

i think Bunny 8's give softer, less immediate, buffered arc frictions before the most loaded major deformity;
working the 'problem' from either direction of Equal & Opposite pulls from SPart(s) or eye(s).
.
A HH (lengthwise or radial) based most loaded deformity is less organic-ly flowing, more immediate, sharp, abrupt handling of the fullest force volume, controlled by focused single rope2rope contact in this latter(HH), rather than several as in the former(8's) design.
.
Having a larger spar being dragged by a Killick of HH preceding running eye, i don't think changes the tensile efficiency of usable strength maintained, so don't look for more rope diams in HH capture to give this greater relief of loss either.
.
Classifying by the mechanics going in, is different than classifying by the utilities extruded out, or just the look.

[Dan_Lehman]

i think Bunny 8's give softer, less immediate, buffered ...

Whatever they do/don't, they don't seem to distinguish
themselves in test results.

Having a larger spar being dragged by a Killick of HH preceding running eye, i don't think changes the tensile efficiency of usable strength maintained, so don't look for more rope diams in HH capture to give this greater relief of loss either.
.

1) Don't call this "killick" : leave that for the close-spaced
(the POINT, I'm guessing, through lack of historical record)
structure intended for an anchor stone --which might be seen
as a cow h. with tail dogged for security--, where I surmise
that the natural-fibre rope was to bind to itself and so stay put.
That widely spaced thing for hauling trees is rightly seen as
TWO structures.

2) In the situation you describe, there is sharp bearing on
the SPart at its crossing point, and, yes, +/- diameters
doesn't affect that.  But in the knot, one ameliorates such
a hard bearing --indeed, just look at photos of in-use BWLs
and one sees only slight touching of parts at this X-ing point--
and stuffing more diameters is hoped to round it out and
graduate the bend (sometimes by "decreasing radius"
curvature).  So, well, To Be Studied.


Now, the big part of the OP was a Documentation form
intended to guide arboreal inhabitants such as yourself
to complete one for arborists!

(And to which extent of comparing cordage we need some
standard of assessing flexibility --yes, there are a couple/few
out there, which Agent_Smith likely knows pretty well.
I'm thinking of something readily done like bending from
flat surface over and edge; but this would give somewhat
misleading results for a "springy"-strong material that
nevertheless CAN be sharply bent pretty easily
--in contrast to those caving kernmantles that just
D O   N O T   W A N T   T O   B E N D   A T   A L L ! ! !

(-;

[KC]

Whatever they do/don't, they don't seem to distinguish
themselves in test results.

i mean(t) fig8 vs. HH structure, only with Bunny Ears as the example as used before, sorry.
>>fig.8 buffers loading to the most drastic arc with pre-fixing bends, and softer/less immediate arc(h)ing vs. HH.
.

1) Don't call this "killick" : leave that for the close-spaced
(the POINT, I'm guessing, through lack of historical record)
structure intended for an anchor stone --which might be seen
as a cow h. with tail dogged for security--, where I surmise
that the natural-fibre rope was to bind to itself and so stay put.
That widely spaced thing for hauling trees is rightly seen as
TWO structures.

2) In the situation you describe, there is sharp bearing on
the SPart at its crossing point, and, yes, +/1 diameters
doesn't affect that.  But in the knot, one ameliorates such
a hard bearing --indeed, just look at photos of in-use BWLs
and one sees only slight touching of parts at this X-ing point--
and stuffing more diameters is hoped to round it out and
graduate the bend (sometimes by "decreasing radius"
curvature).  So, well, To Be Studied

In a HH lengthwise as pre-fix to whatever running eye of Bowline, spliced eye, or loosely/temp eye 'splice' of Timber etc. or even then Clove etc. w/o eye.  Whatever finalizing cleanup as 2nd grip on host/load.
>>when the 'Nipping Loop' sits 90degrees to the input outputs/ does not roll out of HH dutifully made to be just a 360 like Sheepshank
The major force line runs from input to output as most loaded deformity, skipping around the Nipping Loop of now secondary/byproduct
>>that in dragging feels like HH is carrying 70% of the Load, and the final cleanup is at fuller power, to only 30% of need??
The principle really shines, when see just a Running Bowline or Timber or other free ranging/running eye pull just the correct piece and whammo that log is throwing from side to side like dragging a very dangerous, furious wildcat trying to get collar off as also drags forward with truck.  From the sideways /right angle pull to close to off balanced etc. center of gravity, but completely goes from wild cat; BOOM to purring kitten with a HH pre-fix !
Very strong, dramatic example of clean inline force mechanic, 2Dforce angles (grip 1D around host and then another 1D after 90 to SPart) differences illuminated.  Pull types separate neatly into ABoK Chapter_21:Right Angle Pulls(1D pull to me) vs. Chapter_22:Lengthwise Pulls(2D pull to me)
.
The HH pass of force from input hook  90 to output hook 90 within HH is the most loaded deformity(thereby dictating strength),
>>not the Nipping Loop that is being enlarged to soften the impact of deformation, that is the secondary path to me.
(unless rolls out to a 360 flattened to then yes in the force line, cuz not 90'd out of to cross axis of other 1D domain).
.
And Yes, agree, historically in ABoK; Killick/Killeg is shown as name for a right angle pull on HH + Timber to grab anchor stone in Lesson#271.  i tend toward conventional naming of today's terms here carrying that to Lesson#1733.  But another fave point is revealed also.  #271 HH pre-fix Timber is pulled at right angle so is a 1D pull to me, but has enough architecture to take a 2D pull away from knot lengthwise that can now avail self to.  Unlike lone Timber, that has structure for 1D /right angle pull only, not the 2D/  lengthwise pull.  To me chapter_21 starts out with simplest base HH and then pretty immediately goes to Timber(loose ey6e splice to me, especially when pictured in 3 strand) after HH types.  To then 1st thing in chapter_22 rule that lone Timber out for lengthwise pull.
.
Similarly Constrictor, Groundline and (fave)Bag when used as Round Binding knots, change force pattern thru the available structure/architecture when used as Hitches.  #271 to #1733 is usage change, but the available architecture can acquiesce/dance either way.  1D #273 is just a simpler pull on a more extensive architecture able to take 2D pull.
.
i don't think Cow imagery here is correct 2 ways tho,
A>want running eye/noose not Bitter End and the HH pre-fix as like another noose, of 2nd choking grab
B>then both those to pull sideways towards each other thru spacing would not give to Cow.
.

(And to which extent of comparing cordage we need some
standard of assessing flexibility --yes, there are a couple/few
out there, which Agent_Smith likely knows pretty well.
I'm thinking of something readily done like bending from
flat surface over and edge; but this would give somewhat
misleading results for a "springy"-strong material that
nevertheless CAN be sharply bent pretty easily
--in contrast to those caving kernmantles that just
D O   N O T   W A N T   T O   B E N D   A T   A L L ! ! !

The stiffer the material/even cordage, the more it can be leveraged against it's own internal structure by any expressed cross-axis cross axis pulls.  Also can tend to spring open more than seat in some knots like unloaded Bowline.

[agent_smith]

To Dan:

Maybe worse, it wasn't replied-to at all --standing even
now as the latest post in the thread.

To be honest and truthful, I think it is unclear as to precisely what you are requiring?
That is, perhaps you need to clarify what type of replies (or contributions) you are seeking?

Your opening statement from your original post states:

I just got another knots book, and I must say that in alllll of the
books purporting to address the topic, there is one heck of a lot
of plain lousy reporting.  It seems that the main resource for
knots-book authors is the set of prior knots books (no matter
how lame).

So this provides some context and background info...
And I concur 100% - this does appear to be the paradigm.
There are one or two exceptions - eg Harry Asher? He tried to advance a new approach.
C L Day has reasonable productions, but he too draws on the existing histories.

So, voici --a draft, an idea for doing things better.
(I give the drafted outline of the documentation with my
effort to apply it for some commercial fishing with which
I've some acquaintance (alas, not so easily of late). )

Ok - you are providing a draft template of how to present information/technical content.
Are you wanting others to contribute - and follow your template?
Is there an expectation of certain types of content and timelines for completion?

My point is less about "classifying knots"
than about understanding practical knotting,
of understanding the knotting component of
various activities.  Where the tying method and
material(s) come to serve some actual purpose.

'Application' - is this the key underlying concept?
Are you seeking deeper meaning behind the application of knots within various activities?

Now, the big part of the OP was a Documentation form
intended to guide arboreal inhabitants such as yourself
to complete one for arborists!

Ok - you are attempting to provide a documentation template?
And this will provide guidance for continued development?

...

Looking at KC's replies, it seems we are experiencing what I refer to as 'Thread Drift' (or 'topic drift').
What are you hoping to achieve from this topic thread?
Some additional clarity would be beneficial...

EDIT NOTE:
Why Knot?: How to Tie More Than Sixty Ingenious, Useful, Beautiful, Lifesaving, and Secure Knots!
Link: https://www.amazon.com.au/Why-Knot-Philippe-Petit/dp/1419706764
Author: Philippe Petit

Do you have a copy of this book?

[KC]

Sorry is not clear with quotes etc., actually thought i was specifically referring to previous post.
But in any case, all things i presented are linked just as a single piece of rope to me; looking again at deeper pivotal levels of what commands them to then find them related.
How can you know all of something by just looking at half of it?
Or even then w/o looking at when that factor is removed to weigh and measure by?
These are all detective's clues to me, pieces of a puzzle, no single one complete.

[Dan_Lehman]

There are one or two exceptions - eg Harry Asher? He tried to advance a new approach.
C L Day has reasonable productions, but he too draws on the existing histories.

It is Charles WARNER who offers A Fresh Approach to Knotting
but Asher did also seek to venture away from pure mainstream.
My take is that many parochial works are better done,
as actual practitioners produce them; but these folks often
lack the broader-knots view to put things into perspective.
(And we'd thus read "strangle knot" instead of
"half a double fisherman's" !    )
CLDay's books make interesting reading together :
i.e., his early, pre-ABoK Sailors' Knots giving his own
test results showing carrick bend to be weaker than
reef & sheet bend & esp. fish.,knot; then comes later
book w/o hint of this! ??

So, voici --a draft, an idea for doing things better.
(I give the drafted outline of the documentation with my
effort to apply it for some commercial fishing with which
I've some acquaintance (alas, not so easily of late). )

Ok - you are providing a draft template of how to present information/technical content.
Are you wanting others to contribute - and follow your template?
Is there an expectation of certain types of content and timelines for completion?

YES, and i.p. I expect arborist (& rec. tree climber),
rockclimber, caver, canyoneer, & SAR/fire-rescue
applications should be fairly quickly roughed out, at least.

'Application' - is this the key underlying concept?
Are you seeking deeper meaning behind the application of knots within various activities?

With regard, e.g., to rockclimbing,
I'd see some description of the expected materials
and applications.  I think we'd see --if taking a historical
AND current look-- some knots that WERE but are no longer
used (BWL on a coil around climber; etrier construction;
and maybe w/sewn slings even a lessening of how many
are using grapevine- & water-knot-bent runners?).

Which latter things were mostly PRE-tied; in contrast,
the bending of line to harness is per-climb, and of line
to 2nd or haul line for double-line abseil, also done &
undone.

Arborists use gripping knots on same-sized but more
flexible climbing rope than do climbers; and arborists
and also cavers more depend on such knots, yes?
(Checking some arborist books --the one(s) by Jeff
Jepson are good
 (Treeclimber's Companion ; Knots at Work)
--
I don't see much on bending big lines together,
where in some on-line chatter there is praise of
Thrun's Bend (but by "zeppelin" name).
(Ha, there are several books that decry use of some
joint knots for heavy loading but then give no alternative!)

And so on.

Ok - you are attempting to provide a documentation template?
And this will provide guidance for continued development?

That is the goal.  (And in trying to use ... there might be
amendments, adjustments.  But in any case, better understandings!

And I might get my answer to the need/use of a mid-line eye knot.

--dl*
====

ps:

EDIT NOTE:
Why Knot?: How to Tie More Than Sixty Ingenious, Useful, Beautiful, Lifesaving, and Secure Knots!
Link: https://www.amazon.com.au/Why-Knot-Philippe-Petit/dp/1419706764
Author: Philippe Petit

Do you have a copy of this book?

No, I do not.  Just scanned Amazon.com reviews,
incl. one w/short video of contents, so I've a little
idea of what's there.  It certainly looks worth checking
into, to see if Philippe does a better presentation job!

Most recently, Ham GERBER's cute little book about
making adventures in knotting :: yes, goes away from
same ol' same ol' ; but it's more spirit and some fun,
and quite brief --nice to see, though.

--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

per KC:

Sorry is not clear with quotes etc., actually thought i was specifically referring to previous post.

?
Strange. Why type the word "sorry"?
You just need to read the original posters content more carefully - and try to respond in a way that addresses his concept.
This topic post was started by Dan - not by you (ie not 'KC').

How can you know all of something by just looking at half of it?
Or even then w/o looking at when that factor is removed to weigh and measure by?
These are all detective's clues to me, pieces of a puzzle, no single one complete.

?
More strange and odd comments that are far removed from the original posters questions and requests.
Do you actually understand what Dan is requesting - or are you attempting to start your own topic thread?
I'm confused...

...................................................

To Dan:
With regard to your request for others to make a contribution with content supplied in accordance with your template...
I don't think I have the time to do so in the manner in which you request.
I can say that I have already authored a study guide for knots used in life critical applications (eg rock climbing).
It contains historical information and also detailed information on applications.
Go here and download it if you haven't already done so: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #1 in the table).
So from your requested 'rock climbing' point-of-view, that document should address most of your questions/requests.

As for your second query re need/use of mid-line eye knots...
In the narrow context of life critical applications, #1053 Butterfly is the popular choice.
[ ] originally popular as an attachment point for a third climber in the middle of a party of 3 (eg for glacier crossing).
This is likely where the pre-fix 'Alpine' originated.
[ ] it is still used to this day for attaching a third and even fourth climber in a group - for glacier / snow travel
(I personally don't like to use the Butterfly in this manner - because it requires a connector (ie carabiner) - which can easily be vulnerable to misalignment).
[ ] Butterfly is also extensively used by rope access operators (including myself) to build load sharing anchor systems (where it is tied 'mid-line')..
[ ] Butterfly is also used for performing a knot bypass procedure (ie 'SRT' rope work).
[ ] Butterfly is also used to temporarily isolate a damaged section of rope (this has saved me a few times over the past 30 years).
[ ] Butterfly can also be used to create an attachment point for a belay device - with the eye being adjustable up/down - to fine tune the position of the belay device (within the broader application of setting up a 'top-managed' belay system for a novice abseiler).

One can also use a directional F8 (#1058) - although I personally prefer #1053 Butterfly because it can be loaded in any direction.
Even a humble #1009 can be used as a mid-line eye - and indeed some emergency service personnel use it to build a load sharing anchor system using wired nuts on a rock ledge after being winched down from a chopper to reach a patient (easier for them to tie than trying to remember a Butterfly).

I think you already know all of this anyway - and therefore your question is a little puzzling to me (because you already knew the answers!)...

As for hemp / sisal rope use in mountaineering:
As you know, technology is always advancing.
The model T ford was great in its day. But nobody drives that vehicle anymore.
Electric cars are really starting to have an impact on the entire car industry.. I think the days of internal combustion engines are numbered...
For the same reasons, climbers don't use vegetable fibre ropes anymore - and EN892 put a stop to that rope material (vegetable fibre ropes wont pass the EN892 standard).
Nylon is a superior material - best usually wins in the long term.

As for tying a rope directly around your waist - once commercial safety harnesses were invented and used - it was realized that a fall was now survivable - not to mention more comfortable! The harness distributes force more evenly around the body.
Full body harnesses are the general requirement for industrial height safety applications.

I would comment that people still abseil with just a rope wrapped around their body!
It is a viable technique for short descents - a harness is not needed, just wrap the rope around your body ('Dulfersitz').

EDIT NOTE:
I had hoped that you also had a copy of Philippe Petit's knot book (so you could perhaps recommend it!).
It does seem interesting and might in fact address some of your questions?

[KC]

More strange and odd comments that are far removed from the original posters questions and requests.
Do you actually understand what Dan is requesting - or are you attempting to start your own topic thread?
I'm confused...

Once again, i was replying to the precise and exact post was quoting the one just preceding, meaning just before.
Not exactly to the OP , but in the flow of conversation with the OP-er.

Strange. Why type the word "sorry"?

Because you seem offended by my efforts (as well as others) in your self appointed, pious position is why.
That i know you have run people off with.  i know because i have been one of them more than once, and have contacted others that drifted away. 
.
And sorry once again, but the above is long overdue as politely choked back for years.
Please take this as constructive criticism; because you are a great contributor, but can we do that without all the caustics please?
Thank-you in advance for your co-operation on this and continuing contributions.

[Dan_Lehman]

i think Bunny 8's give softer, less immediate, buffered arc frictions

This (to paraphrase FCBrown's knotty humor) almost sounds kinky!   

But, to the POINT of this thread,
I'd think that a treespyder's climbing & cutting & ...
would give plenty of fuel for flushing out an ARBORIST
flavor of cordage usage --materials & knots & reason d'etres!
So, do consider :

TEMPLATE FOR DOCUMENTING THE HISTORY AND CURRENT PRACTICES
OF KNOTS & CORDAGE USAGE.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for the idea of "considering obtaining a copy of Philippe Petit's knot book"
I've just had one in hand in a library, and did a quick perusal.
IMO, ack, it smacks of too many other "knots" books,
with PP's research being less of what I'm nudging Spydey for
--actual factuals-- and more of extant knots books.
Consider this great line, which to my awareness arose
first in a Maria Constantino (once 'Costantino')
book, mistaking what had been read in a --one of the
gazillion-- Budworth book : "The Double Bowline is
75% stronger than ... " !!!  --clearly showing that
math sensitivity wasn't high in either author's mind
(1.75 x 60% = 105% --yes, 60% is a lowish value, even!)
And there are other things, but once an author reveals
this much inattention (to be polite), how much of other
things will you trust?!)
[edit : he gives a tugboat BWL vice supposed Angler's/Perfection Loop
 --how could he botch that?!]


--dl*
====

[James Petersen]

...
I had hoped that you also had a copy of Philippe Petit's knot book (so you could perhaps recommend it!).
It does seem interesting and might in fact address some of your questions?

If you want a peek at the book, you might try libgen.is and search for "philippe petit".

JP