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)
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.
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).
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.
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!?
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!
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?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*
====
