What IS, for slack-security, then?
Another way to ask the question is: ...
The question was asked point on. If one is going to address
concerns about security --relative security of various structures--,
how so?
We've not heard details of what has been casually called "flogging",
but my current surmise is that it's a not-so-hard flipping about of
a knotted structure, to see what the hoped-to-be-fairly varied
jostling/pressing/shaking can induce. Rockclimbing can foresee
(for some climbs, and not for others!) instances of "between-a-rock=
and-a-soft-place (= body) rubbing, with some risk there of snagging
on a nubbin/flake. (DAV or UIAA Pitt Schubert (& Heinz) have that
case of the water-knot being pulled open upon a rock point impaling
the exterior strand to hold it while the knot position moves, pulling
out the tail (seems to need more movment than should come, IMO).)
Some movement/shaking might get a bit of *push* if the eye's
legs don't quickly equalize (i.e., rather than rotation, one leg
takes minor compressive/pushing force).
Recall how surprised I was to --by chance (<-why was it not
foreseen & deliberate?!)-- weakly cyclically stress an
OWKand see bit-by-bit slippage-out of the exterior/choking strand !!
(something your favored added tuck precludes)
Flogging is not a test method that is exactly repeatable by others.
How do you define the tempo and strike angle, velocity and impact force
of the flogging so it can be reproduced? In all the published test data
I have seen, flogging doesn't appear in the data sets. I wonder why?
And what does? (nothing)
It's not so formal a thing to expect some close match of results;
and one might benefit from the very lack of exactly repeatable
movements --i.e., get a broader coverage of the possibilities.
(I read e.g. the not in the Dave Richards testing of 3 kernmantle
ropes that he made a point of being the sole knot tyer, for some
presumed like tying
(note that this actually presumes that his tying is all so exact,
itself --he might not know how he is differing
(just as Evans Starzinger I think had no idea that
in his testing of fig.8 eyeknots he'd loaded variously
both tails (weak & strong form, as I call 'em) !)
).
TO WHICH I thought "so, your results only apply to YOU,
and not the rest of us, then?!
)
Rather, I think that a batch of folks trying to "shake out"
security aspects, and having variance in methods, could
do well. Some structures might survive and others fail
and then maybe, yes, some mixed results. We expect
to have not quite exact materials, after all. And we want
broader than just-THIS-rope-&-movement indications.
(And I expect to regard results, even if nicely tabulated
*per flog*, in more of a good / okay / poor sort of rating.)
The
bowline has long pleased marine folks (though
now some books hint --well, heck, even Ashley carried
such a hint and offered that tucking...-- of a need for
additional measures. But were the sailor clan to deal
with climbing rope (& flogging), they'd see a problem
new to them, but right before their eyes.
--dl*
====