KNOT TESTING GUIDELINES - is IGKT best positioned to set fundamental guidelines?

[Dan_Lehman]

As it currently stands, there is no consistent and coherent place
for people to post knot test reports within this forum.

I 100% believe that an wholly new and distinct category needs
to be created within this forum - titled "Knot test Reports (and peer review)".

At the moment, it is random and incoherent - exactly where does
a would-be knot tester currently search? The search function of this forum
is not exactly perfect - I just dont see how this will ever develop legs
and turn into something really useful unless a whole new category is created.

So, I guess Dan Lehman is not in favor
of creating a whole new category titled "Knot test reports"?

How many people do we need to make a giant leap forward for mankind and create a new forum topic/category?

You have my outline of a step --if not a giant leap-- forward
above, in which a thread carries a "sticky"/master OP
listing test reports, and follow-on posts to this thread would
be citations of other reports of possible interest which then
should be added by Modification to the OP master list.
Discussion of any given report(s) would come in separate
threads, and all of this under Practical Knots I suppose.

But you envision threads that themselves are reports and
which have follow-on posts of review/discussion, and all
of this wants a superstructure above *thread* which would
be a new (sub-)forum, with an obvious title, for recognition.
Oh, I get that (now); but, really, how many posts would actually
come to such a forum?  --Dave Richards, Tom Moyer, Yachting
Monthly, etc. test reports will continue to be of interest to us,
and continue to be made on their own terms and put in their
own ways (possibly in a mag.'s print pages un-URLinkable,
but amenable to someone's summarizing-reporting).

Still, as a conspicuous collection of testing discussion of
whatever sort, a concentrated presentation would help
--if we have a critical mass to constitute that.  Could it
be a forum-wise "child" forum to Practical Knots or some
other extant forum?  And a new forum could also carry as its
OP a listing as I envisioned, along with guidance on what is
expected or hoped-for in testing & reporting.

I think that it's possible to move thread from current to
new places if need be?  --otherwise, there is simple pasting
& replication/duplication to get the posts to the new spot,
should that become the way forward.


--dl*
====
ps : I'm still remiss in fully responding to the Yachting
mag. test report, and others.

[DerekSmith]

@ Dan

Could it be a forum-wise "child" forum to Practical Knots or some other extant forum?

I do not understand the suggestion that we need to 'fudge' or 'squeeze in' a child board into the existing structure.

SMF, the engine which runs this forum is hugely capable, it is used by companies with thousands of active posters and millions of posts.  Just take a look at the Bitcoin forum https://bitcointalk.org/  - it has five major boards and dozens of sub boards, allowing them to clearly lay out the various areas of interest for their members.

It is easy to add a new top level board (Reviews), and a couple of sub boards (Reports) (books and Publications) (IGKT Testing Guidelines) etc.  -  Run them for a couple of months and review their value, headings etc.  Easy to set up and if they cause a problem, ultra easy to take back down again.

OK, so there may only be a handful of posts, but if so, what is the harm?  And if it attracts some attention from the people who wrote the reports, and perhaps their followers, all the better - we will be doing what the IGKT is here for.

So how about it Dan - give it a try?

Derek

[agent_smith]

The key issue as i see it is that the IGKT can position itself as an easy to find/search one-stop-shop for knot testers, knot test reports and peer review of those reports.

As it currently stands, where exactly does a would-be knot tester post results and seek peer review? For the IGKT's part, it is an incoherent mess. It is not easy to search for, and find knot test report in one coherent place.

The default site to publish appears to be the ITRS  Link: http://itrsonline.org/

But peer review/discussion doesn't occur at the ITRS site.
Also, there appears to be a single-minded and nauseating default mind-set that MBS yield is THE defining factor for determining knot performance. That is, the default mind-set is 'Knot A' versus 'Knot B' in a pull-it-till-it-breaks contest - with the winner of the contest being declared 'superior'.

There are many people undertaking knot testing around the world...and where exactly do they go to publish their reports and to seek peer review of their reports? As stated, the ITRS is one place but, you dont receive advice and/or peer review feedback.

The IGKT has an opportunity to position itself as the world clearing house for all knot testers and test reports.
Its a case of... "If you build it, they will come".

So, because there is essentially no where to go at the present moment, knot testers continue to act in isolation and publish their findings as they see fit - right or ludicrously wrong - with no mechanism for any critical peer review. And so misinformation and sometimes disinformation continues to propagate.

As it currently stands, few see the IGKT as being a credible place to publish knot test reports and to seek expert peer review. For example, Richard Delaney, Grant Prattley, Tom Evans, etc, are semi-professional knot testers who continue to test and publish their results. These are the type of individuals whom the IGKT could have as a target market.

Over time, you begin to gain momentum and you reach a critical mass of knot testers. Word-of-mouth helps too.

I see this as such a critically important matter that it warrants creation of its own separate topic category. It should be easy for people around the world to search for and find knot test reports. The idea is that you make it EASY to find, dont bury it in-between or underneath something. Make it stand out like the proverbial!

I might also add that when members of the IGKT provide critical feedback, it should be done in a respectful manner - using science as voice. If we berate or scold the author of the test report - they will likely feel vilified and not return in the future. So we need to be careful to be constructive and not destructive in our criticisms of their reports.

The IGKT has a real opportunity to make a difference...I truly hope that the decision makers share this vision

PS I was thinking about Elon Musk and SpaceX and how they are changing the default mindset of access to space. The default mindset has been to build a rocket, use it once and then throw it away. Its like building a Boeing 747 jet, fly it once from point A to point B and then throw it away.  Elon Musk now has his 'block 5' Falcon 9 rocket which can be re-used 10 times with just inspections and maybe up to 100 times with some refurbishment. This is changing the paradigm - and shaking up the entire space industry (for the better). Elon is making a real difference...he has a vision and the will-power to see it through. It will revolutionize access to space and make human kind as a multi-planet species.

Obviously the IGKT is not Elon Musk, nor is it SpaceX. But, the IGKT is in a position to make a real difference!

[DerekSmith]

Excellent argument - well said.

Derek

[Harold Kahl]

I am going to invert the 'test rig' and also invert the knot to see if jamming is still occurring on the collar facing the force generating machine (per Derek's recommendation).

I'll go out on a limb and state that this additional test is pointless. Newton's laws have been pretty well tested, so we can categorically state that the force exerted by your hoist at one end is equal and opposite to the force exerted by the tree on the other end. It is about as useful as doing the tests under different phases of the moon.

[DerekSmith]

@Harold

I'll go out on a limb and state that this additional test is pointless. Newton's laws have been pretty well tested, so we can categorically state that the force exerted by your hoist at one end is equal and opposite to the force exerted by the tree on the other end. It is about as useful as doing the tests under different phases of the moon.

I have to agree with you Harold,  However, we have an unresolved situation, the knots always jam on one side of the test rig.  Do you have any ideas what might explain this or can you suggest a test to identify the cause?

Derek

[Harold Kahl]

@Harold

I'll go out on a limb and state that this additional test is pointless. Newton's laws have been pretty well tested, so we can categorically state that the force exerted by your hoist at one end is equal and opposite to the force exerted by the tree on the other end. It is about as useful as doing the tests under different phases of the moon.

I have to agree with you Harold,  However, we have an unresolved situation, the knots always jam on one side of the test rig.  Do you have any ideas what might explain this or can you suggest a test to identify the cause?

Derek

Reading through the thread, I noted 4 cases of jamming. I might have missed something, but if it was 4, then if there is a 50-50 probability in each case, it would be like flipping a coin 4 times and getting heads each time. That is 1 chance in 16, which is not entirely incredible.

[agent_smith]

In my case, the collar of the end-to-end joining knot always jammed on the side facing the force generating machine.
This occurred in 100% of the tests.

I used EN564 cordage and EN1891 type A ropes.

In terms of jamming, I modeled my definition as follows:
1. Initial/threshold jamming; and
2. Maximal jamming.

With initial/threshold jamming, it is not possible to untie the structure by hand. Tools are required.

With maximal jamming, not even tools will not loosen the knot structure.

I did not reach maximal jamming - because the peak load I achieved was 12kN.

I speculate that maximal jamming will occur beyond 15kN (in EN certified ropes).