If you are going to test some knots and them publish those tests to the world - the tester should do 'his' homework first.
Doing one's homework might be what you should ascribe
to knot-book authors, too : what they do is parrot prior
books, sometimes to the degree of copying text/images!!
What counts as "homework"?
If you are going to test #1415 Double Fishermans,
why not at least make an attempt to tie it as per its correct geometry?
Whose idea of "correct" is this? IF they scanned many sources
--and "many" here I think would be 4-5--,
they'd likely have found no more than one discordant version
of the Grapevine bend. Well, I don't know their source, but
maybe it was a "trusted" one, and ... so we got the discordant
version --and for us, maybe a bit of a boon because otherwise
I think that testing has deprived us of seeing that (to know
how snooty we should get over "proper" forms, e.g.!).
Same goes for #1431 Sheet bend.
I've been seeing that in some older mountaineering books
showing up opp-sided; and I recall a quite-aware Rob
Chisnall reporting quick'n'dirty testing of the knot versions
in KM arriving at a conclusion that the "bad/left-handed"
form was slightly better --or better in some ropes.
(IMO, it appears maybe better, in drawing up more
like the *rounded* geometry of the BWL, BUT THEN
I think when high forces, at least, come to play,
things go worse for it.
(It might be the better version to START with, and then
to add some securing extension to.)
They are effectively holding themselves out to possess a certain a level of expertise
-- but cant even tie their knot specimens correctly!
I concur in this. Recall the testing of a couple Fig.8
EKs with the guy claiming (a) that he'd tied them the
best that he could (we should hope not!) --though they
were differently loaded vis-a-vis interior/exterior S.Part--
and (b) that nevermind for the knots will "dress themselves"!
That was a set of bloopers at the comedy level!
With regard to my point that it wouldn't surprise me if they re-tied or fiddled with their knot specimens between the elapsed time of the opening sequence and the actual load test ...
I don't follow this, for had they done so, they MIGHT've
been able to rescue those capsizing
Thrun joints(aka Zep) !
I stand by that remark. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
You're beneath a lone tree in an electrical storm.
You deny them the wit to get things right, but posit
that by some assessment of what IS right they go
to shenanigans of faking their already lambasted results!
And all that aside,
there seemed to be IMO a LOT of rope movement
--gives me the willies!
Also, for the most part, we DO NOT SEE THE ACTUAL
KNOTTED GEOMETRY MEETING THE TEST (start) AND
NIGH RUPTURE (pre-break but close), ANYWHERE!!!
And we DO see both Dave Richards, under auspices
of Cordage Institute?, and CMC Rope Rescue having
Fig.8 EK in both reeved ("re-woven") and "in the bight"
tying forms, as though ... the knot will care!!
(In one rope of Richards's testing though avg. of the
two were close, one (re-threaded, IIRC) had double
or more the Stnd. Dev. !?)
.:. And where have WE gotten in typing into e-sharable
printed guidance HOW TO TEST KNOTS ?! --specifying
source work and showing photos of tied specimens at
start and under medium then high stress (and ruptured
knot, perhaps --sometimes revealing, sometimes blasted
out of sight). !?
--dl*
====