Author Topic: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)  (Read 1494 times)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3754
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2019, 10:31:47 PM »
Quote
But it's interesting to wonder how you can conceive this
"*bowline*" as a theory and then would seek to prove that!
An example of which is that I theorize that all Bowlines are jam resistant.
...
:o

You manage to completely miss the point-blank point
--it's about definition!!
(There should be a trophy.)

 :(

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2019, 11:09:43 PM »
Quote
You manage to completely miss the point-blank point
--it's about definition!!
(There should be a trophy.)

Obfuscation comes to mind here....
At times, one needs to decode your writing because the underlying intent is oftentimes obscure.
You seek an explanation for how to prove a definition: Which is to seek the meaning of a word, text or concept.

In terms of 'Bowlines' - the title Bowline has a particular meaning to me - but which also has a different meaning to you.
I have attached meaning to how I conceive a nipping loop - of which you conceive is the sole determinant of whether or not an eye knot is to be regarded as a Bowline.

And so a definition, if it is to be applied to a 'Bowline' (for me) requires a set of explicit principles which describes its structure and geometry.
And I derive meaning through understanding.

Beyond that, feel free to seek meaning in your own definitions.
The trophy, if it is to awarded - should go to all who are willing to explore and understand knots and how they work.

tsik_lestat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2019, 05:18:06 PM »
There is a similar function knot with the initial one, with the only difference that the U turn component, which is formed by the on-going eye leg, exits from the other side, peprendicular to the bight structure of the virtual bowline, acting as an anti-blocking mechanism of the collar which clamps the two legs of the bight component (the extension of SE).

Therefore, when the nipping structure is maximally loaded at both ends, it retains its jam resistance, it is TIB, so the knot qualifies as a  `virtual bowline`.When it comes to ring loading applications, another anti-bowline is available, shown in fourth  image.

« Last Edit: July 16, 2019, 05:20:16 PM by tsik_lestat »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2019, 11:28:31 PM »
Thank you tsik_lestat for another interesting creation.

In my view, you are correct to tot title this creation as a 'virtual Bowline'.
With the term 'virtual' meaning that it is almost, but not quite (and having the appearance of...) fulfilling all of the criteria for 'Bowline'.

The principle reason being the geometry of the nipping loop - which is not a simple helical loop (per #1010) or double helical loop (per #1013).

However, as you correctly point out out - the nipping structure is 'TIB', loaded at both ends, and non-jamming.
There is also a clearly defined collar + 2 legs (which together are holistically a 'bight' component).

And so all the required components are present for title of 'Virtual Bowline'.

Another interesting thought experiment is how Ashley might perceive these types of eye knots - that is, how would he describe them (if he was alive today)?
In my view, all of the 'primary Bowlines' he depicts in his book have a nipping loop based on #1010 or #1013 and there is readily identifiable 'bight structure' which consists of the collar and its 2 leg components. This is where #1033 (Carrick loop) deviated from his concept of a 'bight structure' - and so he did not recognize it as deserving of the title 'Bowline'.
So - in my view, Ashley required both a nipping loop and a bight structure with each of the 'legs' of the bight entering the nipping loop from the same side.
In #1033, the legs of the collar enter the nipping loop from opposite sides. He also appears to 'confuse' #1033 with an eye knot derived from #1439 Carrick bend.
The word 'confuse' is not intended as derogatory or demeaning - as I note that experienced pilots can also get 'confused' and crash the plane. With confusion here taking on a meaning of disorientation, misdirection, distraction, etc. I dont think Ashley had a concept of the correspondence between end-to-end joining knots (ie bends) and 'eye knots' - where each 'bend' appears to have 4 corresponding eye knots. If he had a notional concept of the correspondence of bends such as #1439 with eye knots - he might not have given #1033 the title of 'Carrick loop'.

I note in your creation, that your nipping structure has Z chirality.
This leads me to believe that you are right-handed (is this correct?).
And this is one of the key elements of a nipping loop - that it will have a defined chirality (either S or Z).
Indeed, this is what differentiates a loop from an eye.
An 'eye' has no chirality...but, a loop does have chirality.
For example, the 'eye' of #1047 F8 is not a loop...it has no chirality.

Anyhow, back to your creation...
In its loose dressing state - your nipping structure can be observed as a 'loop' within a 'loop'.
Indeed, one can form a 'loop' (with Z chirality in your case) and then simply induce another twist to form another loop inside the existing loop.
Both 'loops' have Z chirality in your nipping structure.

Quote
with the only difference that the U turn component, which is formed by the on-going eye leg
I believe this statement is technically inaccurate.
By definition, the ongoing (or outgoing) eye leg begins from the point where it exits the 'nipping structure'.
Also, the SPart transitions into the nipping structure at the point where there is an overlap of the SPart and the ongoing/outgoing eye leg.
Indeed, to form a 'loop' - it is created by an overlap of one rope segment riding over/under the other (which gives rise to S or Z chirality).
Your as described 'U turn' is simply existing within the nipping structure - and is a consequence of the 'loop within a loop' geometry.

Practical applications
In some quick and dirty slack shaking, flogging and cyclic loading tests, it seems that your creation is more secure than the #1010 Simple Bowline.
But, it is not inherently secure...but then again, I don't think your intention was to devise an eye knot that could be employed in life critical applications.
In terms of ease of tying, some may struggle...but, I find the easiest method is to form a loop - then induce a twist to form a loop inside a loop and then create the bight structure.
Might be interesting to experiment with a Z/S nipping structure (instead of Z/Z as you depict).
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 11:29:04 AM by agent_smith »

tsik_lestat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2019, 03:58:38 PM »
Hello agent_smith and thanks for feedback!!

Quote
In my view, you are correct to tot title this creation as a 'virtual Bowline'.
With the term 'virtual' meaning that it is almost, but not quite (and having the appearance of...) fulfilling all of the criteria for 'Bowline'.

Indeed, i had problems to classify various knot structures, but your clever concept of `virtual bowlines`, is more appropriate for nipping structures with geometry that deviates from the simple helical nipping loop, but retains the jam resistance property, serving me well enough, as it extends the scope of the bowline variable, including more structures that would fit in.

Quote
Another interesting thought experiment is how Ashley might perceive these types of eye knots - that is, how would he describe them (if he was alive today)?

I am not sure how Ashley would have categorised these types of eye knots, if he had come across with them.I believe he would have noticed/mentioned some of their good properties, or their potential use in practical applications.

Quote
I note in your creation, that your nipping structure has Z chirality.
This leads me to believe that you are right-handed (is this correct?).

Yes that is correct!! The orientation of my images and the chirality of the nipping component, has revealed my handedness!

Quote
In its loose dressing state - your nipping structure can be observed as a 'loop' within a 'loop'.
Indeed, one can form a 'loop' (with Z chirality in your case) and then simply induce another twist to form another loop inside the existing loop.
Both 'loops' have Z chirality in your nipping structure.

That sounds a bit more complicated than it really is,(reminding me a line from a known movie`a dream within a dream :)).Seriously now, i find your idea of nested loops depicting well enough the geometry of such nipping components. My way of formation of this nipping structure, involves two loops with Z chirality, placing the right over the left one, before stabilizing it with the bight structure. I guess you have already visualized the structure that corresponds to the S chirality, which produces almost the same results, with the difference that the SP and the on going eye leg, exit from the opposite sides. I think it is redundant to post further more images, since it is rather easy to tie the knot with the S chirality, when you have this instance presented here.

Quote
I believe this statement is technically inaccurate.
By definition, the ongoing (or outgoing) eye leg begins from the point where it exits the 'nipping structure'.

Technically, you are absolutely accurate, since the U turn component, is a consequence of the geometry of the nested loops, so i stand corrected.

Quote
In some quick and dirty slack shaking, flogging and cyclic loading tests, it seems that your creation is more secure than the #1010 Simple Bowline.
But, it is not inherently secure...but then again, I don't think your intention was to devise an eye knot that could be employed in life critical applications.

My first priorities when building a knot, are safety and jam resistance. Assuming that we have achieved the second condition, with the easy decompression of the front collar under heavy loading, due to the geometry of the nested loops, in my view, the existence of the two lines of defence against slippage, enhance the safety factor, and if i were to use this knot in a more critical application, i would tuck the WE back through the collar, to add a third level of constriction. But the question still stands!! Would i have to strangle the WE to the SPart? In other words, is this knot inherently secure? You claim that it is not, but i want to know which is the crucial factor that excludes it from being so. I have tied all the inherently secure bowlines depicted in your paper, which are based on a simple nipping component, and a more complex collar structure that secures and buries the tail. But what about the opposite, when it comes to a more complex nipping structure and a simplified collar structure, like the one presented here? I do not wish to add more complexity to the knot with extra tail maneuvers, but i can't help wοndering, if a direct first line of defence would enhance the safety factor, producing an inherently secure knot!!

Quote
Might be interesting to experiment with a Z/S nipping structure (instead of Z/Z as you depict).

That's a brilliant idea and i am already working on it!!! ;)








« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 08:45:43 AM by tsik_lestat »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2019, 01:35:27 PM »
Quote
Indeed, i had problems to classify various knot structures, but your clever concept of `virtual bowlines`, is more appropriate for nipping structures with geometry that deviates from the simple helical nipping loop, but retains the jam resistance property, serving me well enough, as it extends the scope of the bowline variable, including more structures that would fit in.

I would add that a qualifying requirement is that the nipping structure must also be 'TIB'.
The full suite of qualifying requirements for a nipping structure being:
[ ] TIB
[ ] loaded at both ends
[ ] jam resistant (although this requirement might be problematic with complex structures such as the #1188 Constrictor hitch).

Quote
But the question still stands!! Would i have to strangle the WE to the SPart? In other words, is this knot inherently secure? You claim that it is not, but i want to know which is the crucial factor that excludes it from being so. I have tied all the inherently secure bowlines depicted in your paper, which are based on a simple nipping component, and a more complex collar structure that secures and buries the tail. But what about the opposite, when it comes to a more complex nipping structure and a simplified collar structure, like the one presented here? I do not wish to add more complexity to the knot with extra tail maneuvers, but i can't help wοndering, if a direct first line of defence would enhance the safety factor, producing an inherently secure knot!!

If the bight structure is left in the standard form of #1010 (where the legs of the collar are straight and continue on to form a parallel bight structure) - retardation of tail slippage is reliant only on the nipping structure.
In my view, additional tail maneuvers are required to boost security.
Examples of such tail maneuvers are found in the EBSB Bowline, Lees Link Bowline and Scotts locked Bowline - all of which are inherently secure.

If further tail maneuvers are required to achieve security beyond the base knot form - for example, an additional strangle around the SPart, this implies the base structure is not secure.
For example, Lees link Bowline does not require further tail maneuvers to boost security - it is inherently secure in its native form.

I am of the view that a 'Bowline' with a parallel bight structure in the form of #1010 will (in all likelihood) not be inherently secure.

alanleeknots

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2019, 03:36:42 AM »
Quote
There is always the chance that someone might post a structure,(Alan Lee is a usual suspect), which could negate or expand all the known theory on bowlines, advancing new concepts and triggering similar discussions.

Hi All,  Too much time and energy for me to read what you guys wrote, I don't quite understand too.
           But I do look at your  Bowline_with_a_constrictor_ collar_structure_ loose  knot.
           I make a litter change on the tail,  seem like it look nicer this way, see if you like this way or not ?
           謝謝 alanleeknots.
           

tsik_lestat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #22 on: July 19, 2019, 02:40:46 PM »

If further tail maneuvers are required to achieve security beyond the base knot form - for example, an additional strangle around the SPart, this implies the base structure is not secure.

if i wanted to use an additional strangle around the SPart, i would not bother exploring more complex structures, I would use instead a simple standard 1010 bowline (or 1013 double), in TIB fashion, with the WE strangled to lock down the structure.


Examples of such tail maneuvers are found in the EBSB Bowline, Lees Link Bowline and Scotts locked Bowline - all of which are inherently secure.

By the way, i noticed that you have not declared the Ampersand bowline inherently secure!! Are you not satisfied with its locking mechanism which compresses the working end in a neat and effective way, or have you just encountered some vulnerabilities regarding safety?


Hi All,  Too much time and energy for me to read what you guys wrote, I don't quite understand too.
           But I do look at your  Bowline_with_a_constrictor_ collar_structure_ loose  knot.
           I make a litter change on the tail,  seem like it look nicer this way, see if you like this way or not ?
           謝謝 alanleeknots.

They say that an image is equal to thousand words, so you choose to speak through your work with fine quality images and videos of your enormous collection of knots and that's all-important.Thank you for your variation of this knot, looks nice with that slight difference of the tail arrangement, although, i believe it does not alter the overall functionality of the knot. What worries me most, is the constrictor even as a collar structure,which is a known jammer, and i would care for your opinion about if this knot would survive from jamming at maximal loads.

I was hoping to extract a comment from Mr Gommers, because the knot has some resemblance with his EBSB, without the yosemite finish, (also the primary bowline knot, has the WE outside the eye,unlike the EBSB). If it turns out that it does jam, it seems that i have found another bowline knot which is not jam resistant.  :o




tsik_lestat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2019, 02:44:54 PM »
Another virtual implementation of a bowline knot, is illustrated in the following images, along with the corresponding anti-bowline in the last picture, which i usually tend to visualize it, as an additional structure.

The nipping structure follows the Z/S chirality this time, as mentioned previously, from left to right accordingly, with two nested loops, where the left (Z), is placed twisted within the right (S), while the returning eye leg, forms the bight structure with the following pattern ~ down, up, down, up, through the two nested loops, from a conventional point of view, as shown in the first or second image, stabilizing the whole structure.

This time, the anti-blocking turn/mechanism,is the extension of the SP, which ensures the jam resistance of the knot, while the on going eye leg, tightens up the front collar and clamps the two legs of the bight component.

The TIB condition also stands in this nipping structure, and the TIB version of the knot is created if the WE is tucked back through the collar of the bowline, plus similar results could be achieved, using an S/Z nipping component.

Perhaps the knot does not win the beauty contest of knots, especially the TIB version, but it certainly does its job very well. :) :)

PS: The collar of the anti-bowline tightens up from the SP this time, while the U anti-blocking turn, is the extension of the on going eye leg (the opposite)

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2019, 01:54:16 AM »
Answering a previous post:
Quote
By the way, i noticed that you have not declared the Ampersand bowline inherently secure!! Are you not satisfied with its locking mechanism which compresses the working end in a neat and effective way, or have you just encountered some vulnerabilities regarding safety?
I do not regard the Ampersand Bowline as inherently secure.
It is obviously an improvement over the Simple (#1010) Bowline - but not an improvement to the point where it could be regarded as inherently secure.
And this is in no way intended to be disrespectful to Xarax... I would comment that he didn't specifically intend his Ampersand Bowline to be employed in life critical applications (eg as a tie-in knot for rock climbing). It is a fine creation, but it does not match the inherent security of (for example) Scott's locked Bowline or Lee's link Bowline or my EBSB Bowline.

Quote
The nipping structure follows the Z/S chirality this time, as mentioned previously, from left to right accordingly, with two nested loops, where the left (Z), is placed twisted within the right (S)

To be nit picky, your nipping structure is S/Z (not Z/S).
Also, Z is 'right' and S is 'left'.

...

Otherwise, nice effort - keep up the good work :)

EDIT: Improved attached image quality
« Last Edit: August 11, 2019, 02:02:28 AM by agent_smith »

tsik_lestat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2019, 06:58:25 PM »
Thank you agent_smith

Quote
I do not regard the Ampersand Bowline as inherently secure.
It is obviously an improvement over the Simple (#1010) Bowline - but not an improvement to the point where it could be regarded as inherently secure.
And this is in no way intended to be disrespectful to Xarax...

I do not think that a submission of opinion has anything to do with being disrespectful to anyone, if it is supported with valid arguments.Additionally, this very opinion always counts, especially when it comes from an experienced knot tyer and a professional user of knots employed in life critical applications (tie-in knots  for rock climbing).But, to be honest,your answer surprises me a little, i guess i am missing something here, maybe a view from a climber's perspective.

What i do know so far, from the co-creators of Ampersand Bowline, Xarax and Alan Lee, is that the knot has been load-tested extensively to near rupture forces by both of them, and it has been found to be a very secure, stable and jam resistant structure.Perhaps a comment of the original creators would enlighten the situation about the use of this particular knot in life critical applications, of course if they feel appropriate of doing so.

According to my point of view, i have tied the knot countless times and i think that the last tuck of the WE provides more than enough constriction with this squeezing effect from the nipping component with three rope diameters in it, resulting in a very stable supersafe TIB knot.

Furthermore, i have incorporated this technique in bowlines with less stable nipping structures, and found that it works fair well.In some cases , there is the possibility of extra-tucking the Ampersand, gaining further more security, although i believe it is not an essential move.I repeat this is purely my opinion.

Quote
To be nit picky, your nipping structure is S/Z (not Z/S).
Also, Z is 'right' and S is 'left'.

I have attached an image with the initial structure of the previous knot.The left loop (when you face the picture), is a Z loop and the right loop, is an S loop according to your theory, so i call it a Z/S structure.This is the image i was refering to in my previous reply, from left to right (the WE is at the right side when you face the picture). If you consider it from right to left, then it is an S/Z structure. I guess it is a matter of definition. :D








« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 08:05:01 PM by tsik_lestat »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2019, 12:04:23 AM »
The S/Z was in reference to your bottom image (anti version).
The top image is Z/S. I should have been more clear.

With regard to my statement that the Ampersand Bowline is not inherently secure...I stand by that comment.
For example, I would not use the Ampersand Bowline as a tie-in knot for climbing/mountaineering applications (which are life critical).

The Ampersand Bowline gradually works loose with cyclic / pulsing loading events in some EN892 'half' and 'single' ropes.
Your comment that the knot has been 'load tested' means what exactly?
The default 'pull-it-till-it-yields' type of test reveals nothing.
What matters most is the knots stability and security under cyclic/pulsing loading events, and slack shaking.
s stated, in some types of EN892 ropes - the Ampersand Bowline gradually works loose.
Because of this fact - it does not get over the finish line to be regarded as inherently security.

If you require further proof of this - I suggest you test it yourself with (for example) an Edelrid 'Corbie' 8.6mm EN892 certified climbing rope. Subject the knot to multiple vigorous cyclic / pulsing loading events - in conjunction with slack shaking and observe what happens...


tsik_lestat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2019, 03:46:53 PM »
Quote
Your comment that the knot has been 'load tested' means what exactly?
The default 'pull-it-till-it-yields' type of test reveals nothing.

Personally, i do not possess a tensile test rig device to perform the default 'pull it till it yields' type of test, hoping that i shall obtain  and set up one soon enough, because i think it is a very important test for an in depth analysis of a particular knot. And yes, i know/have seen, that pushing a knot to its limits, can reveal many things, such as the response of the knot to linear loading, tail slippage issues, jamming thresolds, how much deformation is induced and if the knot retains its initial shape, how easily it can be untied after rupture occurs e.t.c.

Quote
If you require further proof of this - I suggest you test it yourself with (for example) an Edelrid 'Corbie' 8.6mm EN892 certified climbing rope. Subject the knot to multiple vigorous cyclic / pulsing loading events - in conjunction with slack shaking and observe what happens...

The concept of cyclic/pulsing loading events in conjuction with slack shaking, sounds very important but a little ambiguous to me. I don't have a dynamic rope with these specifications, but if i had, i don't see how i could possibly replicate the failure mode of the Ampersand bowline that you have reported! However, if i ever get one of those, i shall certainly re-ask you about the specific parameters needed to run those cyclic/pulsing loading or slack shaking simulations and not only for the ampersand, but for other knots that i am interested in.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2019, 03:48:54 PM by tsik_lestat »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #28 on: August 16, 2019, 04:51:49 PM »
In relation to the typical mindset of pull-it-till-it-yields tests:
Quote
because i think it is a very important test for an in depth analysis of a particular knot
In my experience, the default mindset of pull-it-till-it-yields/breaks actually proves very little.
But if you wish to pursue this standard line of thinking - I would suggest that you would need a specific objective in mind.
Using a control - you could examine the effect of a change in geometry.
For example, you could pull #1010 till it yields say 5 times.
Then, repeat with #1010 Bowline but add 1 extra rope diameter inside the nipping loop (I suggest making it 'slipped' is the easiest method).
Pull it 5 times till it yields.
Compare results.

Quote
The concept of cyclic/pulsing loading events in conjunction with slack shaking, sounds very important but a little ambiguous to me.
How so?

I get the distinct impression that there is some underlying motive here - what is it I wonder?

If you are after a precise ISO definition of how to undertake cyclic load testing of a knot - you will be disappointed.
Same goes for slack shaking and flogging...there is no precise standard that I can point you toward for absolute precision.

Where does that leave you?

It seems that you may find some difficulty in conceptualizing some homebrew style tests of knots.
In my case, I have several different EN892 and EN1891 certified ropes - which presumably gives me a slight advantage in terms of testing with human rated fall-arrest ropes.
When I have tied the Ampersand Bowline (for example) in 8.5mm and 8.6mm EN892 rope, and then subjected it to vigorous slack shaking, I have found that the knot grdually works loose.

How do i define vigorous slack shaking?
Hold the knot in your hand and rapidly shake it about - back n forth, sideways and up and down.

How do i define cyclic loading (of an eye knot)?
Hold the eye in one hand and the SPart in the other - now subject the knot to repetitive pulses of tension followed by slack, followed by tension again (and so on).
Each pulse cycle is just a sudden burst of force using hand strength. You can try 2 to 3 pulses per second by hand...

After doing this for a period of about 1 minute, I find that the Ampersand Bowline begins to loosen.

Interestingly, when i perform the same type of homebrew tests using Scott's locked Bowline - it does not work loose.
What does this mean?

The same can be said of the EBSB Bowline - it does not work loose.

Now, again - would I use the Ampersand Bowline as a tie-in knot for rock climbing?
Answer = No.

...

I'm not sure how much more value I can add to this thread?

tsik_lestat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
Re: A round turn + U turn jam resistant TIB bowline(not double)
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2019, 09:07:36 PM »
Thanks for the suggestions in relation to the pull it till it breaks type of test, as well as for the definitions of cyclic loading and slack shaking and for the detailed guidelines of performing these tests. I appreciate all the usefull information that i can get and i tend to absorb it, since i am a newbie to all these. For some time time now, i thought that there was some sort of device generating such cyclic loading oscillations, and it's good to know that such tests can be performed only by hands.

Quote
How so?

I get the distinct impression that there is some underlying motive here - what is it I wonder?

I consider this comment unrelated to knotting!Since when does a query about a test procedure, which i totally ignore, conceal underlying motivation? If you don't approve the word 'ambiguous' replace it with the word 'unknown'. What is obvious to you, may not be for some others!Seek somewhere else for underlying motives, not in my replies, if you feel like doing so.

Quote
Now, again - would I use the Ampersand Bowline as a tie-in knot for rock climbing?
Answer = No.

Yes!I think we have finally got this after three iterations of this statement (or similar) needed in all of your very last three replies!You made your point crystal clear from the very beginning, since i raised my initial question and i do respect your opinion based on your subsequent well-documented replies.Have you sensed some weakness of understanding here and you keep looping this?That's somehow noticeable and worthy of query!

Quote
I'm not sure how much more value I can add to this thread?

Very or none!It depends on the nature of your comments!
« Last Edit: August 18, 2019, 09:45:47 PM by tsik_lestat »