The point of this thread, in the particular case of the loops, was exactly this :
We should not use in-line loops as EEL end-of-line loops, and vice versa,
because, most of the times, the knots will be forced to be transfigured, or badly deformed,
and they will "work" in a different way than before, and also they will "work" in a completely
different way if they are loaded by their one or by their other end.
And my point has been that ANY loop WILL get EE loaded as if end of line.
If loops are tied, they will get tugged to and fro, and if the parent lines are tensioned
between fixed objects, this tugging can and does relieve tension on one parent line
creating an end-of-line loading. This is (obvious) reality.
I apologize if I sound out-of-synch. w/discussion, as I've not read
allllll of the back'n'forth preceding, though did make some effort
to read the previous page where this seems articulated.
I take (and concur in) X.'s point to be that there are eyeknots
(I avoid "loop" --too overloaded in uses) that do NOT work well
EEL : e.g., the fairly well known
directional fig.8 --where this
aspect (limited loading profile) is hinted at by "directional",
meaning that one can load it only in one way, with one S.Part,
not EEL. X. notes that such a knot will be distorted (greatly)
if loaded the *wrong* way --by the end running parallel to
the eye in *through/end-2-end* loading.
And I don't see why Tex believes this to be a false circumstance?!
Consider one of the uses for such a "directional" eyeknot, setting
up a "Y hang" --i.e., a two-point anchor for a rappel line, which
is it seems common in caving. One makes such an eyeknot with
the tail tied to one anchor point and the eye directly or by some
connector cordage to the other. Loading will be on both tail and
eye in expected circumstances, usually balanced as best one can
(though I could see one maybe setting up with a bias, and the
2nd point being more purely "back-up"). If one anchor point
fails, then either the loading is end-2-end/through, or it is on
the eyeknot qua end-of-line eye, but never is the one anchor
point'd tail loaded in opposition to the eye --which would make
it
EEL. (When they are both loaded, they are in joint
opposition to the other "end".)
There are uses in SAR for such knots in attending to a litter/carrier,
I believe. Again, there is no real situation here in which the knot
would be
EEL.
- - - - - - - - - -
Also,
EEL doesn't ensure that the knot would behave well
in end-2-end/through loading. E.g., those
TIB bowlines --of
which the infamous
"Yosemite bowline" is like-- can do well
EEL, but not with ends loaded in opposition to each other.
(Interestingly, the
fig.8 eyeknot would seem to be like this too,
but in the CMC
3rd edition testing report it did
better in break
strength than the
directional fig.8 and close to the
butterfly (!!)
--resp., 65% vs. 59% & 69%. (Now, elsewhere, we learn of some
recidivism on some other test results, and in any case can wonder
about deformation, particular loading & dressing and so on ... .)
It has long bothered me that testing for the such various-loaded
knots doesn't match possible actual-factual loading --where it is
one way AND THEN another (and maybe back again), and the
first loading amounts to a hard setting!? I suspect that one
will have a spread of results. (With the
butterfly, my surmise
is that greater disparity (strength loss) will occur for through
loading after eye loading has made a hard set (as the latter
will more distort the geometry than the former; the unloaded
end's collar can collapse around it). )
A very important property of any PRACTICAL in-line loop
is how well it handles being (transformed to or otherwise) an end of line loop.
If it fails in this aspect, it is no practical inline loop at all.
Now, here I don't see a huge disagreement (though I could
imagine a case where only non-EOLine loading was needed),
but this isn't asserting
EEL, just through- & EOL-loading.
--dl*
====