I do not comment on them, and I do not have the incentive to do destructive physical testing.
Of course, if you can see it
only as a decorative knot, and you keep it in the box of your mind with the label "
decorative = danger", you do not have
any incentive to
see it as a stopper. And your analyses can not be but biased - you start from a wrong categorization, and you struggle to prove that it should be contained in it, and only in it.
The proof of this is that you did nt spell ONE word about the ONLY thing I noticed in this "bad" stopper, and which we do not see often : the many sharp U-turns. Somehow, you managed to remain silent about the ONLY thing that made me show this knot, the ONLY thing that places it in the context of the sequence of posts referring to similar stoppers., the ONLY thing I repeated almost a dozen times ! You said that that the
Whalers stopper is similar to the
Strangle, while, to my eyes, it differs as the day and the night !
Noope, my opinion is that you had not understood why I posted this knot ( even after I had tried to clarify it repeatedly, so
many times...), neither had you understood its general
pattern - which is completely different from the other simple stoppers we already know, and it is much more similar to the
Whalers and the
Double Torus stoppers. You had analysed it
too locally, I might say, and you missed its
global form, although I had pointed it out to you many times.
It happens - when we do not like something, because, in our minds, it belongs to a "bad" category, we can not see it objectively... It happens to me all the time. Anything somebody says about it, just offers you more "proofs" that you were right from the first instance...OK.
Destructive testing is the only thing we can do in Dyneema, because, as allene and estar reported (1)_, the knots tied on Dyneema slip at about the same percentage of MBS of the line in which they break.
You do not have the insensitive, or you do not want, or you do not like, or you simply can not do "destructive testing" - which is
required in this case. I do have the insensitive, and I do want, and I do like, but simply I , too, can not do this test - or, for that matter, any other tests...
- which places us in the same camp !
Welcome ! We can analyse this knot the next x years - but, by any imaginative way you kick a dead horse, it will not stand up on its feet and start running !
We just do NOT know if this, supposedly, "bad" stopper, slips more or less easily than any other stopper - just because we have not tested it - period.
1.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756is attempting to identify active components within a knot, attempt to determine their functionality, and from this, attempt to establish an understanding of how and why knots morph and perform the way that they do when loaded.
I do like this attempt, and I try to do something like this all the time - but nobody gives a dam about it, and probably for good reason !
The proof of the pudding is on the eating ! When you want to
prove something on practical knots - like your
claim that the Eternity knot makes a "bad" stopper - you have to prove it
by tests, not by analyses, however sophisticated they are. Practical knots are practical knots, they are not mathematical theorems, they just make or break - we can like them or knot, but if they do not slip or break as easily as other relatively as simple as them knots do, then analyses do not have any point.
Let me offer an example : I detest the Timber hitch, I consider it as one of the most dumb knots I have ever seen ! However, it works, and it works very well - and it is not ugly either. I will not start analysing it to prove my opinion - de gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.
If you require more of me than this, or you require me to structure my examinations to suit your agenda, then I am sorry but you will just have to put up with what I do, or if you prefer, simply ignore my posts.
That reminds me a comment about someone else, who was "
craving" for recognition !
Please, be advised that I will read every word you write, very carefully, regardless what you do with what I write.
I do not have an "agenta" to "suit", or a "purpose: to "serve", I am not "Chosen" KnotTyer, send from high above to defend something of the KnotLand here on Earth ! Knots exist by themselves, they do not need promotion or advertising !
I play with knots, I regard their properties like the properties of the triangles of Euclidean geometry, for example. An I do not "require" anything ! Where on earth do you find those "proper" words ? "
Require you to " ! To "
to suit your agenta" ! Who am I to require something from you or from anybody else ? If you believe that I am such an idiot, you would be delighted if I ignore your posts, indeed !
Do you have an anecdotal moment of knot tying madness from today that you would like to share with the forum readers?
In fact I do, but I can not tell it right now - I have first to finish the presentation of it, which "
requires" me to learn how to compose .pdf files with many pictures.
As hint, I will tell you only this : I had tied
49 stoppers, most of them ( exept 6 ) I had never tied again ! Does this tells you anything ? If you discover what had I tied, I will stop talking about the Eternity knot, till eternity itself finishes !
