Author Topic: Tail Stabilizer  (Read 319 times)

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 290
    • latest project
Tail Stabilizer
« on: January 13, 2020, 02:00:19 PM »
i look at the whole 'carriage assembly' of hitch in 3 main parts when forming/grooming/evaluating:
>>SPart and first half arc are most iron like parts of knot, and form Hook of SPart from outside feeding force to 1st host grab inside of knot
>>rest of knot carrying force is just now softer/less tensioned rope parts(per capstan math) strapping hook to host mount
>>ends off host mount with HH's etc. that to me are rear 'ballast' stabilizers for rest of carriage
.
i think it is best if rear stabilizer function doesn't ram rest of knot carriage from rear to deform
>>would be best when holds carriage square from this rear ballast, to forward service
>>this c/would affect knot efficiency/strength with less handicapping of rope from it's most premium/squared to target form
i think Ashley tried to show us that buried in all this knowledge seething from his pages:
pre-notes: i think the double bearing to spread out wear, is stronger on hook because hook is small host mount
>>per lesson#1794:".. If a spar is small a round turn is preferable to a single turn. It makes a stronger knot and dissipates the wear"
i don't think extra turn on hook for #1884 is the point, but rather illustrates needed reduction more
.
Tho not best example, perhaps best side by side:
i think the seized forms shown over and over in ABoK, possibly intented but not highlighted as so much as below:
>>serve a straight line of force into rear of knot squarely
>>and don't ram the knot carriage from rear to deform
>>possible extra support leg/force route
And this is preferable, even if only staves off part of the destabilizing/de-squaring of rear ram force
.
Here he says 'exceptionally strong' and calls this mod a 'Rolling Hitch' where i may not otherwise than his words;
>>but can see the Rolling Hitch function of floating away from and holding from the rear of carriage
And so note this could be done with binding tail of HH('s) to feed straight line to carriage squarely
>>but also, via well holding friction hitch (that he seems to almost mention here by name/not tho as i would have pictured in mind)
>>In either case, minimal disruption of SPart, as IBeam support to load force feeding into knot domain by this as well
(thus front loading and rear stabilizing ballast of carriage squared as best possible)
ALSO, this gives possible alternate force route, reducing loading thru SPart deformities as also possible efficiency/strength help!
.
In hitch/termination of force run; the host mount is usually strongest hardest surface, then the hook of SPart and 1st arc.
>>but in bend/pass-thru joint in force run, typically only rope, and the Equal/Opposite hooks off the SParts each side are the most rigid, iron like rope parts; that also link outside world and knot internals as force pass thru
>>rest of knot tot his model are just to bind and maintain the hook alignments/stabilities
.
i think a single Turn on hook would NOT be enough for this tho, and HH after should ram hook to Nip, not float Rolling Hitch style.
>>3arc RT, again is the answer here too, to reduce force, grip hook, then get stabilized possibly by this effect.
Specifically look at different sections as rope parts to different functions from the same generic rope substance
>>but in some ways like formed into separate devices from the generic rope pool, connected to form a component system.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2020, 02:52:02 PM by KC »
Rope-n-Saw Life
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~