Why would seeing a video of a thermal image showing the heat generated in a knot, of any kind be silly??
///
IMO, the changing from a biner to the large hook
did not influence this particular test indications
enough to call it "silly, deceptive, misleading".
Not what I said. The assertion that flipping a test
specimen upside-down w/o explicit notice of this,
and thereby potentially misleading an interested
viewer into believing that Knot_Upside broke and
Knot_Downside *won* when in fact it was that
Upside was Down
"is of no importance" --what you said--
is silly.
For those of us paying enough attention
--and I wonder if the test team had done so
(I'm guessing that they DID deliberately
load one and the other ends)--
to see that we had different knots under strain,
by the clear-cut indications of the knot deformations
early (prior to their becoming supertight bundles
less readily discerned of such details),
it is of much importance.
And, heck, if indeed they were knowingly putting
the two obvious --though seldom discussed-- loadings
of the common knot to test, point that out!
(Were it an accidental doing, one can of course
understand that it wasn't known/cited.)
Is there no merit or value to this?
To the thermal imaging, yes, it looks "cool"
--ah, the irony in that! Might we consider
then that there is potential advantage to
broad curvatures or --as CWarner put it--
extended/non-concentrated *nip* partly
for enabling heat to be distributed and
less weakening?!
(Is there some paradoxical aspect in that
where one has extended nip one also has
more cordage movement (and frictional heating)
--like a longer fall having more kinetic energy/force
but also more rope to absorb ... ?!)
It strikes me as though the heated parts
shown are not in (full) agreement with those
"strain"'d parts shown in the Science-pub'd
article, which all come at curvatures (and
which significance I'll suggest is more for
a single fibre than for a composite rope,
whose parts take various placements.
And, regardless, that *strain ain't everything*
re failure --to my seeing, breakage comes
on concave not convex side of curves.
So what that they edited the video.
I feel that they did not do it to push some hidden agenda.
Perhaps to better reveal what they wanted to show?
Yes, quite :: as I said, they likely saw by eye and
by thermal indications that the one knot was more
likely to fail --they got the Hot Knot, Scott-- and
so put it up where the lens aimed (better).
Really...