Author Topic: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again  (Read 54890 times)

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2007, 03:30:45 PM »
Agent smith here again.


There are many issues at stake here.

In the first instance, we already know that there are many reports/publications out there in the public domain purporting to offer a new breakthrough or a new level of enlightenment about knots and knot behaviour under load.

Currently, the majority of these reports/publications appear to have been made in ignorance of the IGKT. This is not an ideal situation and additional efforts should be made to promote the IGKT in my view. Does the IGKT wish to increase its public/world profile - particularly to professional groups who rely on certain knots as part of their occupation?

The majority of vertical rescue teams and climbing instructor agencies seem to be unaware of the existence of the IGKT (at least in Australia).

There is an opportunity for IGKT to take a giant leap for mankind and publish some data in the public domain. It could then be available for reference by various interested user groups.

The data does not need to be prescriptive.

As for risk of litigation, I hear this all the time. Sometimes I wonder just who is driving the mindset and fear of litigation. Let's be clear on this, to succeed in a lawsuit in the 'tort' of negligence, four elements need to be proved:
1.   That there was a duty of care owed in the first place; and
2.   That the duty was breached; and
3.   That there was a proximate relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant; and
4.   That there were in fact damages.

If any of the above elements are missing, there is no case to answer.

Any time anyone publishes a book, it will of course be read by the public. Authors of ?how to climb? books like David Fasulo and John Long aren't in court every second day defending themselves from crazed litigants.

There are loads of knotting books on the shelves, on amazon and on ebay. So what. Are the authors being sued?

No one is suggesting that the IGKT should publish a report stating that when situation A arises, you must tie and apply knot B and then implement action C to save the patients life. There are too many variables to account for.

What the IGKT can do is publish useful information about a range of pre-existing and known knots that could serve as a reference point for various user groups who may choose to use such knots. It is easy to add a disclaimer to any information published.

Eg:

"Rock climbing, abseiling and vertical rescue is dangerous. The effects of gravity cannot be isolated and the user has an obligation to gain experience in the use of knots under the guidance of a trained and competent instructor. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the IGKT will not be liable for any injuries, death or disablement which could occur as a consequence of placing over reliance on knots and procedures published by the IGKT." Blah blah blah...

In the world of rock climbing, abseiling (rappelling to folks from the USA) and vertical rescue operations, there are only a limited range of knots/hitches that are used.

I already explained that such user groups do not try to memorise hundreds of knots. This would be absurd in the extreme.

In fact, based on my 24 years of continuous climbing and rescue experience, there appears to be about eleven (11) such knots/hitches which seem to be universally applied.

The figure 8 family of knots immediately spring to mind as some of them. There is also the clove hitch, the double fishermans, tape knot (ring bend or water knot to some folks), prusik hitch, etc to name a few.

I also already mentioned that the above user groups exclusively use 'kernmantel' rope. Yes, it is a German word and that?s how the 'Deutsche laute' (German people) spell it.

I had a look at the latest version of Life on a line (LOAL) on the web, and it makes some claims about various knots etc and, as far as I can determine, does so without any reference to the existence of the IGKT (correct me if I am wrong please). For instance, there are claims made about the 'figure of 9' knot, and a particular method of tying a figure 8 loop which is different from the form that Dan Lehman has published (ie the 'strong form').

These are just for starters.

It would be nice to hear some [official] commentary from the IGKT about these claims!

...

I agree that it is too simplistic to attempt to find the holy grail of knot breaking strengths. A range of values makes more sense. Comparisons of one form of the knot compared to another form shouldn't be all that difficult to achieve.

The 4 S's of:
1. Suitability to task
2. Stability (very important)
3. Security (very important)
4. Strength (not as important serials #2 and #3)
...should all be studied across the selected sample of knots (eg the 11 that I claim are most common across most user groups).

The last one (strength) could simply be a % reduction when compared to an unknotted rope. It could [as I stated] simply be expressed as range of % variables.

High quality photos of each knot ? which clearly depict the tying method ? can easily be achieved. Let's face it, the amount of compressive/pulling force a human can apply using hand strength alone is limited. It shouldn't be too insurmountable a task to tie a particular knot and then 'dress' it by applying only hand force for a test. This force can be specified if deemed necessary, eg knots are pre-loaded (conditioned) to a force of 0.2kN (20kg) to set and dress the knot to remove any gaps and slack? and so on. All this would have to be agreed upon.

Tails protruding from critical load bearing knots is another area of endless camp fire debate. In Australia, it is generally held to be 200mm. yet, in some publications (including LOAL) 300mm is specified. Again, there is no comment from the IGKT.

Once again, it's late and past my bed time.



Agent smith signing off...
« Last Edit: June 18, 2007, 03:37:46 PM by agent_smith »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2007, 09:34:51 PM »
As for risk of litigation, I hear this all the time. Sometimes I wonder just who is driving the mindset and fear of litigation.
...
Any time anyone publishes a book, it will of course be read by the public. Authors of ?how to climb? books like David Fasulo
and John Long aren't in court every second day defending themselves from crazed litigants.
There are loads of knotting books on the shelves, on amazon and on ebay. So what. Are the authors being sued?
Agreed, though I've wondered about some of those books being cited to e.g. a consumers-protection
organization for some blatantly incorrect presentations.  Your point is valid, IMHO.
(That said, I'm absolutely appalled to find that one (Federal?) judge's lawsuit against a drycleaning firm
over the LOSS OF A PAIR OF PANTS (not sure it was even permanent) for--get this-$$$ 54 MILLION (yes!!!)
has not been thrown out for absurdity; I find this horrible.  --underway, currently)

Quote
What the IGKT can do is publish useful information about a range of pre-existing and known knots
that could serve as a reference point for various user groups who may choose to use such knots.
Or about extant test reports and give each a critique from a common perspective of some checklist
of factors that should/could be considered.  This action could go hand-in-hand with developing such
a list, helping to articulate the factors by providing case examples.


Quote
I already explained that such user groups do not try to memorise hundreds of knots. This would be absurd in the extreme.
Yes, if that's the manner of knowledge.
But there is a rub to enforcement of the "KISS principle" and use of a small knot set:  ignorance of knotting.
To some sense, the more knots one knows (and there is depth to "knows"), the better one can undestand them
and other, "new" knots one might encounter.
SAR users have good reason for KISS, but there is still the problematic issue of knot selection and the risk
of excluding some knots that others use, and then of encountering difficulty in mixing with such users (and
maybe of encountering rigging of the party in need of rescue).

Quote
there appears to be about eleven (11) such knots/hitches which seem to be universally applied.
Which are (list please) ?

1.a  Fig.8 Loopknot (single eye)--tied w/end
  .b    <ditto> Tied Inthe Bight (TIB)
2.   Fig.8 Bend (Flemish bend)
3.  Fig.8 LK with "bunny ears" (typically only TIB)
4. Clove Hitch
5. Grapevine Bend (& Dbl.G. = Triple Fish.)
6. Water Knot for tape (asymmetric [this can be done w/symmetry!])
7. Prusik Hitch (4 & 6 turns)
9.

Quote
Yes, it is a German word and that?s how the 'Deutsche laute' (German people) spell it.
Pity, that, given the English words "mantle" vs. "mantel"--the former not latter is appropriate.
I think that the English Literature favors the former, now.  (I see Edelrid's site giving some history,
for which they're given creation credit.)  --and interesting to see that ca. 1975 the core was constituted
by only a couple/few braided parts, and not as today the many highyl laid components!?

Quote
I had a look at the latest version of Life on a line (LOAL) on the web,
I thought that the latest version was only available vie download fee?

[quoteFor instance, there are claims made about the 'figure of 9' knot, and a particular method of tying a figure 8 loop
which is different from the form that Dan Lehman has published (ie the 'strong form').[/quote]
As noted above.  Lehman's treatment is conjecture, based on one source's reported
test results--and then analysis of Why should this be the case?.  We can note that the
source's results--i.e., the basis for this conjecture--are not replicated by Lyon Equipment's
testing.  (Both sources are notable for at least recognizing and pretty well presenting the
difference in knot versions!)
Now, LoaL comes along with different recommendations & test results, but which
aren't presented (results) for consideration, and we can also wonder at the exact geometry
of their loaded knot which they advise against--i.e., perhaps it is Lehman's "Perfect Form"
loaded "Weak"?  --but they were mainly arguing not re strength but jamming!

Quote
The 4 S's of:
1. Suitability to task
2. Stability (very important)
3. Security (very important)
4. Strength (not as important serials #2 and #3)
...should all be studied across the selected sample of knots (eg the 11 that I claim are most common across most user groups).

The last one (strength) could simply be a % reduction when compared to an unknotted rope.
When I see similar things, I wonder How is "Suitablity..." defined such that it's not redundant
of all of the aspects listed after it?


Quote
Tails protruding from critical load bearing knots is another area of endless camp fire debate.
 In Australia, it is generally held to be 200mm. yet, in some publications (including LOAL) 300mm is specified.
One argument in favor of "back-up" knots ("safeties") is that they ensure adequate length of tails.
Although one can see next to no tail needed in some knots, in a break test. (not a recommendation)

----------------------
Let's start by listing test reports (maybe with some description)

www.hse.gov.uk/RESEARCH/crr_pdf/2001/crr01364.pdf  [tests of 1 climbing, 3 low-elong. ropes ...]
www.personal.strath.ac.uk/andrew.mclaren/KatherineMilne2004.pdf  [Fig.8 LK & Bwl in laid & dbl.braid yacht rope]
www.gudelius.de/spst.htm [offset bends:  fish+oh, grapevine, oob, in 8mm & 10mm climbing rope]
www.xmission.com/~tmoyer/testing/EDK.html [tests of offset bends variously dressed & set (Fig.8 & Overhand), also a grapevine]
www.xmission.com/~tmoyer/testing/High_Strength_Cord.pdf [incl. Fig.8 LK testing in hi-mod cored cord]
www.bwrs.org.au/bwr/research/index.html [and on this page are links to parts of a PDF report w/testing by David Drohan]

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: June 20, 2007, 04:39:56 PM by Dan_Lehman »

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
and so it ends
« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2007, 11:00:52 PM »
Hi Derek,

What a lovely little ditty!  Piece of string talking here (or was I one of the "Norns"?  Your suggestions (and right now I think that is what they are, not requirements), as much as we all care to read them, are maybe falling on ears that are tuned in part of the time and turned off part of the time.  It is not at all unusual to have no-body respond, perhaps even for months, but not because there is nothing going on!  More on that in a minute...  It may be because they are on vacation (holiday to you) it may be that they don't care, or it may be that they care, they want to help, but they do not see a way in which to help because what they read (not what you wrote) is not specific enough for them to fit into their own model view of the world of knotting and, because they have a lot of other stuff going on, they don't bother (thinking, perhaps that they will get to it later), and then there is another fire going on, and, and, and....  Perhaps you are reaching the wrong ears?  We all like it when things that we want to have happen, happen right away and that when we wish things would not move along so fast, they would just not happen.  So it is with the web-site - it doesn't say at the beginning that "We provide answers here" or "Ask for what you want and we'll provide it" ...it says "You can talk about anything in here" which is just a little different, at least that is what I have come to understand.

Because I resemble your remark about the Guild Mission, which I started, I can tell you that I decided to take the effort off-line, to where matters could be addressed through the Guild's own machinery, after having garnered a suitable amount of feedback and opinion.  Having done so, I can tell you that it is working its way through the machinery and should (the good Lord willing and the creek don't rise) soon be put to a vote of the membership.  That's my little story of glory and I wish it were the same for all the stories you have mentioned.  However, the reality is that this is a place to chat, not a place to resolve issues or to necessarily get policy or procedural matters sorted out or to be able to berate the Guild's leaders.  It is a place to chat, a place where someone is almost guaranteed, sometimes within minutes, to respond to your knotting question.  It is a place where we can get some sense of what it is that other people of a like mind like to do.  It is also a place where you can start the process of gathering information, opinions, feedback and so on, to enable you to then carry that particular torch to another place where you can conduct action.  But please do not let me burst your bubble - if you think you can get action here - lead on MacDuff, lead on - I am all for action, wherever I can get it!  Good ideas take time to gel in the minds of those who have no time to dwell.  Those who do dwell on the subject are sometimes passionate enough to do something else, in the right place, that will garner action.  But if their lives are anywhere as busy as mine, they will do nothing other than perhaps to ask "Whatever happened to such-and-such or to so-and-so" if there are bigger fires to put out or if there are more pressing matters than someone else's concerns - good ideas need an interested and passionate person to continue fanning the embers to ensure that plenty of oxygen reaches the right places.  Fuel has to be added sometimes and we need to put our action in where it will make the biggest and best difference.

And now, back to your regular programming.... ::)

SR

BTW - Can you make up some more ditties?  That was fun!   ;D

Stoatstail

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2007, 04:04:03 PM »

How can we promote the assessment of knot safety attributes without putting the Guild at risk of litigation?

As a non-knotologist and, up til now, site lurker, I would suggest that you could usefully apply the extensive experience in knot theory on this site to applications which have no safety connotations. The most obvious of these is angling where the debates on the holy grail of knot strengths in single strand and braided lines can become very intense indeed and are almost always based on inadequate data, poor physics and inadequate test methodology.

The erudite members of this site would doubtless have a valuable contribution to make and the assessment of knot safety attributes could spin off discussions in this area once a suitable disclaimer had been constructed.

 

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2007, 07:31:21 PM »
Hi Stoatstail,

Welcome to the Forum.  I do so dislike the term 'Lurker'.  I likewise often follow or read contributions on various forums and so I also have to share that epithet.  As I don't consider myself to be Lurking, I prefer the more appropriate terms Reader and Contributor, so welcome fellow Reader and now thank you for your first contribution.  Now you have 'Popped your cherry' hopefully you will feel like contributing more often.  Not many of us 'bite' and the posts are so much more vibrant with many posters.

Your proposal is excellent, and while it has some drawbacks, is an excellent starting point to trial testing schemes without running into litigation worries (real or imagined).

While you have been 'Reading' have you had any ideas that might flavor the pot?

Fishing knots might not be an ideal starting point, because wet monofilament has its own unique characteristics that are not expected to translate to string, braids or ropes.  Perhaps a better field might be stunt kite power lines.  They are braids, take intense forces, often to line breaking strain, yet are rarely involved in direct safety issues.

Stoatstail

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2007, 09:34:55 AM »
Derek

I dont think I look or behave like a "lurker" and I use it only in the context of forum postings, now I believe I am a "newbie" which is almost as bad, ho hum.

Angling knots and their relative strengths, wet or dry, are discussed internationally and there are thousands of them. If you wish to expand the public awareness of the IGKT you could not find a larger market begging for independant assessment of useful knots.

Incidentally braid is commonly used in saltwater game fishing, and the number of knot applications in kite flying will be relatively low compared to the many in use in angling.

If anyone wants to boost the profile of this organisation, properly test common knots on various types of commercially available monofilament line and make the results available to the editors of angling publications world wide. They will be published.     

 

Stoatstail

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2007, 12:47:28 PM »
I can sense immediately the distancing starting to happen from certain quarters, with mutterings of "We don't want the Forum overrun with fishermen",

This is not a valuable argument, you may as well say "we dont want the forum overrun with climbers or yachtsmen" The knots are used, end of story. Who uses them is hardly relevant when you are examining their physical or indeed theoretical characteristics. In any event, it is an international market and anglers are all knot tyers, why would you want to keep them out.

The current doyen of angling knotologists is a chap called Bill Nash in the USA. I have no doubt that Bill could make a very useful contribution to this forum and there could be no possible reason to exclude him solely on the basis that he is also an angler. A quick google,"Bill Nash, knots" will take you there, its very interesting......

Incidentally I am interested in knots from an entirely non angling professional perspective too, just in case anyone thinks I may be banging on too much about fishing. :)

 

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2007, 01:42:08 PM »
snip
This is not a valid argument, you may as well say "we dont want the forum overrun with climbers or yachtsmen"
snip

Hi Stoatstail,

I am sure that you appreciate that I would not support any move to restrict any knot using group from this forum and in fact have pushed on several occasions to improve the forum to attract as many other users as possible, covering all ages, interests and levels of proficiency.  Having said that, you wouldn't want your daughter to marry a climber or a yachtsman would you? so perhaps we should not encourage these types too much --   :'(

Your reference to Bill is great and I was interested to find a reference to a 100% strength knot http://members.aol.com/billsknots/loop100.htm and that Bill guaged this by the line breaking away from the knot.

Do you know Bill?  Could you introduce him to this thread?

Stoatstail

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2007, 02:08:29 PM »
I dont know Bill, but I have posted on the Dan Blanton site on the subject of 100% strength claims.

I'm sure we could get him interested.. :)

Willeke

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • knopen . ismijnhobby . nl
    • Willeke's knotted Ideas
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2007, 09:32:05 PM »
Stoatstail,
Welcome.
We would like all knot tyers to feel home here and I think there is room enough for a lot of fishermen.
If many come, we will find a way to handle that, without getting overrun.

Willeke (past moderator)
"Never underestimate what a simple person can do with clever tools,
nor what a clever person can do with simple tools." - Ian Fieggen

Writer of A booklet on lanyards, available from IGKT supplies.

WebAdmin

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2007, 10:44:07 PM »
There never has been, nor will there EVER be, any attempt to restrict the membership of this Forum.  Anyone who is genuinely interested in knots and knot-tying in any shape of form is welcome.

Lesley
WebAdmin

TheTreeSpyder

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2007, 03:20:36 AM »
Who else would have such a depth of feel for some of these things; than those that really test them at all angles etc. and/or putting everything on the line?   Also, a lot of these knots are from these fields.

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #27 on: July 03, 2007, 10:27:13 AM »
Who else would have such a depth of feel for some of these things; than those that really test them at all angles etc. and/or putting everything on the line?   Also, a lot of these knots are from these fields.

Hi KC,

Indeed, only those who trust their lives on rope and knots genuinely appreciate the need for a sound scientific understanding and assessment of knot performance and weakness.  If you are at sea, up a tree, down a hole or hanging off The Fin at Gib Torr you will tend to have developed a keen awareness of the need to understand the structures that may stand between you and death.  I dare say an angler who has just hooked a once in a lifetime catch is likely to offer up a similar prayer to the god of knots, that he has chosen his knot well and tied it correctly.

All these people who use knots for anything other than decorative purposes, know in their hearts that the IGKT is the RIGHT place, if not the ONLY place to take up this challenge and shape up projects which can then be handed to trusted testing facilities,  then review and pull together the reliable information they generate.

Nobody gives a fig for the knot that held a nasty slip from The Fin, or the knot that held through the fiercest storm or the knot that took the extreme load in a touch and go recovery mission or the knot that kept my bean canes firm and saved my crop.  Yet put a well tied MWK or TH on the coffee table and you can be assured of a WOW party stopper.  If you follow "Go on then -- show me a knot" with a perfectly set Strangle Loop (the bowstring loop), one of the strongest and most reliable knots I know, you are likely to be rewarded with a polite "Hmm, yes, thats nice".  But tie a few trick knots or a pretty button knot or a quick bracelet or flick the Jug Sling together and you might just get that Wow response.

Few would argue that the 'Fancy' knots are generally regarded (rightly or wrongly) as the pinnacle of our craft, and this tends to be borne out by the fact that the IGKT seems mostly to be populated by folks highly skilled in tying decorative structures.  But I would argue that the Birthright of knots is 'To Hold' and only secondarily 'To Adorn'.

Anyone who relies on knots will know that the fields of Knot Strength and Knot Reliability are a shambles.  The bedrock of our field is  littered with fragmented attempts to grasp the science at it's heart.  Today ONLY the IGKT can put that situation right and it might be done in one of three ways.

1. The members can form voluntary working groups to research and test.
2. The IGKT officials can promote formal research through recognised agencies and promote funding.
3. Both of the above can occur in synergistic support of one-another.

To make a situation change we have to ask -- What can I do?

Perhaps now is the time for us all to start posting what we feel we each can contibute, who can we influence, what skills do we have.

Any takers?

Derek

TheTreeSpyder

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #28 on: July 03, 2007, 02:56:44 PM »
You are talking about some very passionate groups of knotters that rely on these lacings with their lives and/or livelihoods.  "Build it and they will come.." and expand on it (over time).  To these peoples stopping by on their own searching journies; the guild and it's site are not what they expect and they are gone(okay, i can't do anything right!).  Just as any other group they have their own contribution and following; why lose any non-negative of those to the end/target cause.   Especially those so potentially potent.

i think the knot tests are important to show the patterns of design of what is greater and lessor to take to the field; so they are the beginning to cracking these codes/not the end.  To me, a 7,000 test line; that i try to have a 10/1 SWL (Safe Working Load) safety ratio maximum (to prevent overloading by miss-calculation, unexpected forces etc. and not run into numbers that dramatically (d)effect the cycles to failure against me); it doesn't matter about 3 or 8 % tensile strength differences.  Maybe i like a certain knot more, more sure about it's manufacture, it's smaller etc.  But, i do care about wide differences, and would like to make and deal with certain mechanical classes that are stronger as a group of knots similar in manufacture at key points, thus serve under the same forces; and set rigging etc. to these forms.  By staying within a similar mechanically alike class; i get faster at making all of them (once i force myself to see all of them as i make any of them); and investigate any to see all in these groups of mechanically similar lacings.

Also, we need to know which take dynamic forces better, and how knots differ in static and dynamic lines i think.   We drift into only static awareness; in a macho how much/ bigger-better mode; and forsake the whole elastic-forgiveness/deform but still hold part of the equation.  There should be more awareness and embracing that an elastic line/length of a weaker line can save the day compared to the same line 4x as strong/or with 4 supporting legs of same line.  with the higher tensile/support legs; there is more shock to the support and load under dynamic forces.  i think some knots operate similarly; and so dynamic consequence and the load's (especially live cargo) and support's ability to take the impacting/dynamic input forces not buffered by the receiving dynamic properties of the system, line and knot(?) too.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
Re: Knot breaking strengths and theories - again
« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2007, 07:09:03 PM »
Indeed, only those who trust their lives on rope and knots genuinely appreciate the need for a sound scientific
understanding and assessment of knot performance and weakness.  If you are at sea, up a tree, down a hole
or hanging off The Fin at Gib Torr you will tend to have developed a keen awareness of the need to understand
the structures that may stand between you and death.
In fact--readily ascertained by reading relevant forums' knots chatter, and reviewing their literature--,
these users typically have hardly much of a clue and surprisingly little care or sound understanding.
Dogma thrives.  That is why we find the state of the art/practice in an arguably deplorable state.

Quote
All these people who use knots for anything other than decorative purposes, know in their hearts that the IGKT
is the RIGHT place, if not the ONLY place to take up this challenge and shape up projects which can then be
handed to trusted testing facilities,  then review and pull together the reliable information they generate.
??? Most are ignorant of the IGKT's existence; and if they looked to it for answers, they'd be dismayed
at what they found.

Quote
Anyone who relies on knots will know that the fields of Knot Strength and Knot Reliability are a shambles.
The bedrock of our field is  littered with fragmented attempts to grasp the science at it's heart.
Hmmm, this assertion comes in contrast to the first, above.  Frankly, again, one should be rather surprised
at how little the user communities are re knots research, of how readily they accept summarily offered
figures of strength w/o critical consideration of the basis for any such assertion.

Quote
  Today ONLY the IGKT can put that situation right and it might be done in one of three ways.

1. The members can form voluntary working groups to research and test.
2. The IGKT officials can promote formal research through recognised agencies and promote funding.
3. Both of the above can occur in synergistic support of one-another.

To make a situation change we have to ask -- What can I do?
I made a reasonable suggestion for ready ways people could take a step to improving the state of the pratice
above:  "Let's start by listing test reports".  And I started.  Then came a gratuitous diversion into major whining,
which serves no purpose but to depress interest.  (This was briefly relocated to its own thread, where its lament
could be indulged, but apparently someone wants this whining to intrude where others are interested in another
topic and have to read it!  Heckuva way to (ab)use a forum!   >:(  )

Quote
Perhaps now is the time for us all to start posting what we feel we each can contibute, who can we influence, what skills do we have.
Or to follow up on 1) building the list of test reports, and 2) contributing to critiquing them as a means
to develop test guidelines that can be promulgated to those with the resources to do such testing (and as
a way to improve our understanding of the (limited) information that we are occasionally given.  In particular,
some of those testers might be interested to understand where they fall short of clarity, usefulness.  They
might even be willing to entertain some testing regimen suggested by the IGKT.  --or to reply to our critique
with insights that enhance our understanding.  Understanding is an iterative process of give'n'take.

Quote
Any takers?

... or givers.

--dl*
====