There is a particular feature with climbing ropes that facilitates shaking a jbit loose, and it is its resistance to very tight curvature. It is somewhat springy, and it does not easily nip or jam, so there might be a better chance to work any knot loose in that kind of rope, kernmantle, than anything used in boating.
Right on.
I tried it in some 6mm nylon climbing ("accessory") kernmantle
and it performed better in that --not only the aspect you state,
but also the smoothness of the mantle (vs. laid ropes, e.g.).
And, yes, the longer the tail, the more mass resists being
shaken up through the
turNip .
(I think I was wrong to so much try to over-counter-weight the
tail with the length of "*reach*" of the end from the eyeknot,
thinking then that that added span was mass to pull the entire
two loops around with, vs. the tail --no, the tail will have some
impetus to work out just in its short span, I believe, though upon
that there will be the draw of other parts to fully spill it.)
But, a hand moving laterally a little below the structure,
in my (and I suspect others') quick shake-test will achieve
an angle of shaking far greater than is achievable from
shaking 50m below, with the mass of 50m of rope
upon the structure, to boot! One can try to cast up
a big oscillation, but ... you'll need to have lived a
clean life for that to be blessed with success, methinks!
Andre, it would be foolish to think that you've not given
this some kind of
in situ testing : how far, how so
... " --do tell. Pure overhang I presume is most favorable
for working, versus any bit of *channel* rapping through
which would slap down any oscillation reaching it.
Or how far UP can one *throw* some kind of *roll*
in climbing rope?
Btw, re-reading, I see that you point to the "coil-to-ring span
over tail(-end) length" ratio; I think that i.p. it might be
much just the absolute distance of "coil" (
"turNip") from
the ring --i.e., putting the coil lower so that it gets more
shift in the shaking, irrespective of how much tail must
get shaken out!
I tested with rather SHORT span, so was biased against
the structure working (and the Sta-Set lacked that quality
of springy resistance to bending which Inkanyezi cited).
--dl*
====