Author Topic: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)  (Read 924 times)

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2020, 12:13:37 AM »
Quote
I cannot at this time picture a scenario that uses the circumferential loading profile fully.
Some vertical rescue teams have used the eye of #1053 Butterfly as an improvised 'rigging plate'.

Some complex 3D rigging scenarios use whats known as a "floating rigging plate".

A #1053 derived Butterfly (mobius variant) would be suitable for such an application.
Previously, a regular #1053 Butterfly has been employed.

I think the derived Mobius Butterfly would be a better choice for employment as a 'floating rigging plate'.
Note: I'm using the term 'Mobius Butterfly' on account of Xarax stating that IGKT member 'Mobius' first presented it.

Anyhow, this would be the closest example of a circumferential loading profile.

And thank you for steering this topic back on course.
My original contention is that the term 'ring loading' is not well defined - as it does not specify the direction of force.
It is largely left to the imagination of others to choose a loading direction.
Historically, 'ring loading' was likely 'assumed' to have been longitudinal cross-loading of a fixed eye. All I am trying to do is define the various directions of loading - so it does not have to be 'assumed'.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1900
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2020, 12:43:42 AM »
Thanks Mark.

I had thought about a multiple clipping in scenario, but that didn't quite fulfill my thoughts.
 

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2020, 01:08:14 AM »
per Keystoner:
Quote
I posit that "ring loading" is exactly as you already *showed* in your tome and what you're now calling "longitudinal cross loading."
...
Bingo.

Quote
per Dan Lehman:
Quote
Only in your mind; others know exactly what is
meant,
Really!
I didn't know that you are in a position to speak for others?
I'll take that on notice.
Not speaking FOR them, but WITH/To them,
and understanding them in return.  We do not
stumble over "ring-loading" in the least; you,
however, are working overtime to try to do so
--take note of that!


Quote
It is possible to place a radial load on a fixed eye.
But the effect upon the knot is to load it
qua end-2-end joint, which IS the point (of the
definition).  We are concerned with the KNOT,
not the eye, per se.

Quote
I think ring loading is ill-defined.
I guess at this juncture, I should challenge you to find exiting engineering literature that defines ring loading? Good luck!
Why would we be looking there?  The term comes not
from the engineering world, but the rockclimbing one;
and we can see there clearly what is meant --meaning
is use.

--dl*
====

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2020, 01:32:59 AM »
per Dan Lehman:

Quote
Bingo
In this case, you missed your call out of 'bingo'!
I will be updating the alleged 'tome' that keystoner referred to.
The term 'ring' loading will take more of an anecdotal role - and be replaced with more specific directions of force.


Quote
We do not
stumble over "ring-loading" in the least; you,
however, are working overtime to try to do so
--take note of that!
I see that you are using "we" again.
Sorry Dan, I'll simply ignore your retort of 'take note of that' (there is nothing to take note of).

Quote
Not speaking FOR them, but WITH/To them,
and understanding them in return.
You are indeed a spokesperson. Very impressive...
While you are speaking WITH "them" - inform 'them' that agent_smith is simply looking at ways to define the direction of loading on a fixed eye.

Quote
We are concerned with the KNOT,
not the eye,
?
Although 'you' may be referring to 'we' and, you now appear to deflect the discussion to a knot...
I on the other hand am referring to direction of loading on a fixed eye.
It seems that 'we' are discussing two different topics.
[ ] I made it clear that I am discussing the direction of loading on the fixed eye of an eye knot
[ ] You (or the 'we') now appear to morph that discussion to a 'knot'?

Quote
Why would we be looking there?  The term comes not
from the engineering world, but the rockclimbing one;
?
Ring loading (of a fixed eye) does not come from any physics or engineering book because it doesn't exist.
And it doesn't (or rather didn't) come from the rock climbing world either... it came from this forum.
The only reason why a select few rock climbers might use that term (ie ring loading) is because it has filtered down via this forum.

Dan,
Not sure what your ultimate purpose is?
Maybe its as simple as defending your current understanding of ring loading and resisting any notional change of redefining it?
In my mind, ring loading a fixed eye of a knot is not well defined and could be arbitrary.
Assigning a direction to the force makes sense to me...


Keystoner

  • On Walkabout
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2020, 12:10:13 PM »
** Warning:  Thread drift ahead. **

Sorry Dan, I'll simply ignore your retort of 'take note of that' (there is nothing to take note of).

Since you're so concerned about clearly defining terms, let me suggest you study the definition of 'ignore,' since from my perspective, instead of ignoring Dan's retort, you did the exact opposite.  You felt the need to respond and let the entire forum know.  From my perspective you have an insecurity that causes an incessant need to get the last word.  See, you're the common denominator.  Every time there is anything contentious in this forum, you're involved.  It's getting old and boring and makes it no-fun to read threads you participate in.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1900
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2020, 01:16:50 PM »
Ok, we are definitely veering off course now and if anyone wants to continue diverging, I will lock the thread.

This will be unfortunate because the topic is supposed to lead to a discussion about increasing clarity on knotting terminology concerning the phrase ?ring loading?.

In my own opinion, this term has been a bit muddy and and possibly only recognized by more familiar knot tying enthusiasts. I personally don?t see any reason not to discuss potentially better descriptors or nomenclature for this eye loading profile.

Please, get back on topic and perhaps offer some possibilities.

Thank you, the Management.

SS
« Last Edit: August 27, 2020, 02:21:23 PM by SS369 »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2020, 11:20:08 PM »
Thanks to the moderator for calling out inappropriate behavior, and I doubt whether any apologies will be forthcoming.

To reinforce; this thread is about attempting to more accurately define the directions of loading on the fixed eye of a knot.
I realized that the term 'ring loading' is actually ill-defined - that is, it does not actually define the direction of loading with a degree of precision - while in the process of drafting a paper about #1053 Butterfly.
I felt that 'ring loading' (as a concept) left too many gaps in the way in which a fixed eye could be loaded.

The 'Mobius' Butterfly is an interesting example - and I have attached an image which attempts to draw out the limitations of the default term ring loading.

I accept and understand that some resist any notion of change - and to challenge long-held beliefs or notions of understanding is to invite ridicule.
Nevertheless, the attached image speaks for itself - and it ought to be reasonably obvious that a fixed eye can be loaded in a variety of different directions.

I have already conducted some field evaluation of the Mobius Butterfly as an improvised floating rigging plate.
Due to the unique geometry of this particular corresponding eye knot (from its parent #1053 Butterfly), it remains stable and secure in circumferential loading, longitudinal cross-loading and also radial cross-loading. Interestingly, it is rock solid in a radial cross-loading because the eye legs now mimic through-loading of the parent #1053 Butterfly.

I have to thank Xarax for drawing my attention to the Mobius Butterfly - and the fact that it is TIB and EEL.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2020, 12:28:52 AM »
Quote
Why would we be looking there?  The term comes not
from the engineering world, but the rockclimbing one;
?
Ring loading (of a fixed eye) does not come from any physics or engineering book because it doesn't exist.
And it doesn't (or rather didn't) come from the rock climbing world either... it came from this forum.
The only reason why a select few rock climbers might use that term (ie ring loading) is because it has filtered down via this forum.

Dan,
Not sure what your ultimate purpose is?
Maybe its as simple as defending your current understanding of ring loading and resisting any notional change of redefining it?
In my mind, ring loading a fixed eye of a knot is not well defined and could be arbitrary.
Assigning a direction to the force makes sense to me...

This is laughable --THIS forum originating the
term "ring loading".  It is a German term (i.e.,
a German equivalent to it), translated into the
lingua franca of our world, and used among
rockclimbers and then from them outwards
as folks become aware (and in need).

And the point of it all is regarding the stability
of an eye knot to endure such loading qua e2e
knot (which is what obtains in your needless
variety of so applying force to the ring).


--dl*
====

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1900
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2020, 02:25:56 PM »
I, for one, do not think that bettering an understanding of a term is unwanted.
Just because some fairly experienced knot tyers grasp its meaning, it is still vague. IMO

As an experiment, one that I have done since the introduction of this thread, I asked a number of people to give a go to defining the term ?ring loading?.

The subject group included age groups, young, middle and advanced, professors, students, some family members (even some Very closely related to a knot tying enthusiast), an engineer, doctor, construction worker, etc., etc.  About 30 people, some of them almost weirded out strangers.
Not once did any of them mention a loaded rope profile and when I followed this with asking about a ring loaded rope, the answer was ?many rings on a rope?.
Most just said, ?Rings loaded onto something.? Or gave the multi-yard stare. 😳

So, if no one wants to participate, please, lets not laugh at another?s desire for clarity.
Positive input is helpful.
SS

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2020, 01:10:26 AM »

As an experiment, one that I have done since the introduction of this thread, I asked a number of people to give a go to defining the term "ring loading".

The subject group included age groups, young, middle and advanced, professors, students, some family members (even some Very closely related to a knot tying enthusiast), an engineer, doctor, construction worker, etc., etc.  About 30 people, some of them almost weirded out strangers.
Not once did any of them mention a loaded rope profile and when I followed this with asking about a ring loaded rope, the answer was "many rings on a rope".
Most just said, "Rings loaded onto something." Or gave the multi-yard stare. 😳

The term is rockclimbing jargon, for Pete's sake.
Shall we ask your sample group about "flash, redpoint ...,
whipper, bombproof, belay, free-solo, dyno, layback, pitch"
and the rest of the array of climbing-specific terms?!

 ???

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1900
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2020, 03:35:35 AM »
Perhaps Pete had too much Sake.  ;)

The idea was to see if the term had any meaning to Anybody.
And, when mentioned >>  "'I followed this with asking about a ring loaded rope, the answer was "many rings on a rope".
So, I'll conduct another pop quiz when I meet up with some friends who climb and get their input.
You do know that some, maybe most rock climbers don't even know or care about those super cool terms. They just climb and enjoy.
Or they use rope for other purposes, such as rescue, construction, etc.

I personally don't see any reason not to further the knowledge base with term clarifying. I am not saying to get rid of the term.
 :)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2020, 10:08:55 PM »
> I personally don't see any reason not to further the knowledge base
> with term clarifying.

But that is not what is threatened to happen.
Rather, the term is amply well perspicuous
--it is the loading of the eye knot qua end-2-end
joint--, yet A_S wants to split this case into some
myriad things irrelevant to the use and all still
of same knot loading.

--dl*
====

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Ring loading is ill-defined (vague)
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2020, 10:46:08 PM »
Quote
yet A_S wants to split this case into some
myriad things irrelevant to the use and all still
of same knot loading.
?
I didn't know that 'agent_smith' wants to do this?
Rather, it appears that Dan Lehman wants to assert his notional understanding of the definition of ring loading?

In the first instance, what is a 'ring'?
Most people would define a 'ring' as being circular.

In other posts about the historical source of ring loading...
I have been professionally involved with climbing, vertical rescue and rope access for all of my adult life.
I have never come across the term ring loading until visiting this forum.

Dan, your posts have a tendency to contain language that is belligerent where you encounter a viewpoint that does not align with your notional understanding or personal paradigms.

The simple truth is that a fixed eye of a knot can be loaded in a number of directions.
Why don't you post an image or drawing explaining how you would prefer to define each of the possible loading profiles?
I have already done this - refer to my Butterfly knot images.