It is the resistance of this pivot to shear forces, that ...
...Is no more "shear" than that of most(?) other knots,
I use this opportunity to show another interesting bend (see the attached picture),
that can be used when we want to connect two pieces of rope in a way that will allow
us to disconnect them easily, and then repeat the same cycle many times.
Yes, joining eyes with such inter-reeving is a nice solution;
I've played around with this in the same way --i.e., using
the eyeknots' tails--, and by using a separate rope for the
reeving. (IIRC, someone published something like this in
KMmany moons ago, and that inspired my search, later.)
BUT, trying this with some shopping-bag poly cord (the cheap
things put in clothing-store shopping bags, braided), I've had
the joint pull apart on me enough to lead me to want some
more reeving for any serious work. --making a "square" pass
with each tail (i.e., a turn around the other eye's legs) and
re-tucking should suffice, and double the diameters in compression.
Now, this bend works exactly in the same way as the Zeppelin bend, ...
Actually, if the
zeppelin is left a bit loose, there will be more
tension on the tails than in knots where those surrounding
bights/turns are interlocked (compressing the tails within);
this is readily seen in the
sheet bend as it shifts under load
(i.e., the "same-side" (tails/SParts) version; the opposite-side
version remains more *square*, and seems less secure).
- - - - - - -
I do not consider the Thief Knot "easy-to-tie" for the inexperienced knot tyer.
No, it takes some care in formation, unlike the lookalike
squaREef knot ; its "slippery nature" should be pretty quickly
apparent, upon trying to set the knot!
Those with experience are also likely aware that it is unwise to use a "binding knot" as a bend.
The
thief isn't a binder, for sure.
Thus, we have the "Reef Knot" or "Thief Knot" and not the "Reef Bend" or "Thief Bend".
Hardly. We have
"fisherman's knot" and that's one of the most
common end-2-end knots around. Let's not pretend that Ashley's
wish for "bend" use was or is as he desired. --or that the supposed
dangers of the
reef are a fact : that knot was for decades part
of some marine requirements, though I've heard rumor that it was
observed for a test and ignored in practice. I've not heard actual
reports of its supposed dangers (unlike, e.g., many reports of the
problem of bowlines loosening & failing).
Let's set aside rope size and type for a moment.
I don't know how you can dismiss the security issue of the bend falling to pieces
if either or both of the free ends are so much as touched.
The free ends get snagged, stepped on, and dragged on terrain in real life
Or, let's not : it might be in some case of hawser-joining that
such an easily untied and material-efficient joint is desired,
for some momentary use (hence the desire to un-tie). All
this fear of "falling to pieces ..." on mischief done behind one's
back, so to speak, is pretty much beside the point in such a
case (beyond SS369's rejoinder about how much more durable
his knots are than yours --maybe it's a question of the tyer?).
Now, I doubt that the
carrick bend will lose ground to this.
Also, note that this knot is --as is the
thief and it's more secure
cousin, the
fig.8-- *ambidextrous* (er, both-handed) : for
laid rope, this means that there is a form-wise asymmetry to
the knot; a weaker & stronger side, likely --from the one SPart
turning with, and the other against, the lay of the rope.
(In braided rope we may not care.)
Finally, as for jumping 5 stories and expecting some frictional
magic out of a slipping knot, well, you must be working with
some strange physics on that.
--dl*
====