Author Topic: Re: Three collar V. (virtual) bowlines or munter based bowlines  (Read 1327 times)

tsik_lestat

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
Re: Three collar V. (virtual) bowlines or munter based bowlines
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2020, 06:51:18 PM »
Hello agent_smith

Quote
1. Its TIB - which is nice (Xarax would be impressed too)

It is very hard to impress Xarax, he is able to decode a knot structure and analyze its components in just a quick peek. :D

He was already sounding concerns about the asymmetry of the SP continuations all along, in relation to this very knot structure, and he is often proved to be precise at his predictions.

Trully, i have recently been informed by Alan Lee, and i am spreading the word to you and apparently to the rest of the audience that follow this topic, that the knot jammed at around 60 % of MBS, therefore it fails to be characterised as a jam proof midline knot, according to your definitions.

However, i am curious of the jamming threshold, at which jamming was initiated, which profile has been tested (it was rather the inline loaded in some way), and how dit it go up to 50% MBS, in order to define its jam resistance. I understand jamming is not a linear process, thus it might occur to any loading phase!

Having been cautious of the sharp turn, it appears according to Alan Lee, that it was the weak link that triggered jamming, while the crossing knot collar did much better, (it didn't jam).

Based on that, it also appears that i was right to swap the SPs with the Eskimo variation.

Afterall, it was a good TIB exercise, that gave prominence to the versatility of a TIB knot and its various loading profiles.

Thanks for your feedback, and of course many thanks to Alan Lee for his time and effort.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2020, 01:04:58 AM by tsik_lestat »
Going knots

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
Re: Three collar V. (virtual) bowlines or munter based bowlines
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2020, 09:21:38 AM »
Quote
i have recently been informed by Alan Lee, and i am spreading the word to you and apparently to the rest of the audience that follow this topic, that the knot jammed at around 60 % of MBS, therefore it fails to be characterised as a jam proof midline knot, according to your definitions.
Can you please confirm in which loading profile the knot jammed? (I am unclear - so I am asking for clarification).
For example, did it jam when through loaded bi-axially from SPart-to-SPart?
Or did it jam in an eye loading profile?
If jamming occurred in an eye loading profile - in which direction?

tsik_lestat

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
Re: Three collar V. (virtual) bowlines or munter based bowlines
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2020, 04:45:25 PM »
Quote
i have recently been informed by Alan Lee, and i am spreading the word to you and apparently to the rest of the audience that follow this topic, that the knot jammed at around 60 % of MBS, therefore it fails to be characterised as a jam proof midline knot, according to your definitions.
Can you please confirm in which loading profile the knot jammed? (I am unclear - so I am asking for clarification).
For example, did it jam when through loaded bi-axially from SPart-to-SPart?
Or did it jam in an eye loading profile?
If jamming occurred in an eye loading profile - in which direction?

I have the impression that it was the inline profile tested by Alan Lee, but i'm also unclear as to how it was tested, SP to SP, or eye loaded and from which link?

I'm pretty sure Alan will provide a clarification note to enlighten us!

Now, back in the OP, i provide one last midline amendment, by making longer the continuation of the more complex previous munter link, in order to smooth the alleged sharpness, which is likely guilty of causing the jamming problems.

Hopefully it might work, but if not, i'm sure there will be found a way to enmesh crossing knot knotting modules for a fully jam proof, inline knot structure development.

The drill is known. Feed the large bight, down through the small one to form the knot, at first image.
Going knots

alanleeknots

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
Re: Three collar V. (virtual) bowlines or munter based bowlines
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2020, 09:35:38 AM »
@tsik_lestat,
             It was standing part to standing part at 50 % MBS just able to untie, at 6o % jam solid.
             with 1/4" soft rope can dress the nob tighter then climbing rope, I think for climbing rope
             will have lower number. have a quick test on the munter midline loop and it jam solid
             around 38 % MBS. I will gather more rope and test all of them. I am not young anymore
             need more  time to do the test. I am sure will have few good knots this time.