Need assistance with these Eye knots (History)

[Dan_Lehman]

   I had said enough against the mediocre, to say the least, quick8 and Lehman8 knots

Actually, less than "the least", as much and of
course good can be said of them --and has been.

In an attempt to balance my somewhat harsh attitude, I have tied
the knot shown in the attached pictures, also based on a "closed", fig.8 knot ... .
The idea was to "hang" the returning eyeleg from the oblique segment of the fig.8,
and then to secure it by passing the Tail End in between the two eyelegs,
which squeeze it from both sides - because the eyelegs themselves, in their turn,
are squeezed by the powerful Standing Part s first curve / lower collar of the fig.8.
 Of course, loyal to my recent TIB-mania, I had made it TIB.
  In memoriam of the quick8 and the Lehman8 knots - Amen.   

Now, for this, you can talk about "mediocre", though
it is worse than that, really : giving the tail (re-entering
eye leg) the path you do here, you avoid getting the
sure nip of the S.Part at its 2nd tuck, which is key in
letting the quick8 serve qua "adjustable eye knot".

Similarly deficient is your re-tucking of the tail between
the eye legs --which misses the re-tucked quick8's nice
binding of the S.Part (over which its re-tucking passes)
to make that knot slack-secure.

Moreover, this imitation knot looks vulnerable to
ring-loading failure, although I've not seen it in the small
and not-so-like-kernmantle cords I've played with --but
that simple turn of the tail and other aspects lead towards
suspicion that the vulnerability exists.

As for TIB, there are variations of the Lehman8 that can
be tied qua directional eyeknots (IIRC, in one of these,
at least, the overhand part is loaded sort "in reverse":
what is the tail of the Lehman8 continues with the
part it's *twinning* to form the eye,
so what had been its (overhand's) contribution to the eye
now is the end-2-end opposition to the S.Part.
(There are various ways to orient the parts,
e.g. to give that opposed-to-S.Part overhand part
a broader turn vs. the sharper one of the Lehman8.)

... W H I C H , yes, points to this "directional" variation
being a form of the more commonly known re-tucking
of the plain ol' fig.8 eyeknot
--dl*
====

[xarax]

   Now, for this, you can talk about "mediocre", though it is worse than that, really

   You would nt expect me to dedicate anything really great to your mediocre knots, would you ? 
   And, of course, you had not TRIED this knot, to compare it to yours, under heavy loading... We have to wait Alan Lee to do this, I am afraid - but till then, do not be so quickLehman in trying to imagine out possible disadvantages...

   I would love to SEE a TIB Lehman8 eyeknot - and not just try to IMAGINE it based on your hand-weaving "descriptions". As you know, I am ready to accept even a not-so-great eyeknot, if it is TIB - as I did with your most simple TIB bowline, which, although as a bowline it is nothing special, the fact that it is the simplest possible TIB bowline, and it can be tied in-the-bight by the simple "haltering the collar" method ( as shown in the attached picture...), makes it "notable".

P.S. I see that you are interested in a such a detailed examination of a knot ( which is not completely wrong, although it is biased...), only if it questions the supposed "greatness" of a knot yourself had tied...  ( although the knot presented in my previous post was not meant to do this, and it is not an "imitation" of anything - if I had to compare your quick8 eyeknot to another, "similar" knot, I would had compared it to David Poston s fig-8-knot-based loop, or even to the recent fig-8 knot adjustable loop tied by Alan Lee (1)).
   However, I am afraid I had tied some dozens of knots which do not question anything tied by you, simply because there was nothing there to question...     

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5383.msg36402#msg36402

[alpineer]

This Tresse coiled S.Part bowline is a nice, easy to remember, and easily tiable in-the bight and in-the-end TIB loop ( it ibecomes TIB, when the Tail End is re-tucked through the collar, everything else remaining the same ).  Personally, I prefer it from the similar Barrel bowline, because it does not have this very sharp turn at the first curve of its returning eyeleg.

Two more for perusal, Your Critiqueness.

[xarax]

   Nice, sharp ( better : most sharp, or : as sharp as possible...) one-rope-diameter returning(second) eyeleg s first curve, in both of them ! ( Oh, my neck ! ) 
   And, of course, I see no Munter-ed any-thing - what you insist to call "Munter hitch", is only a humble crossing knot ( in this case, a multi-wrap crossing knot ).
   Why dont you see how smoother / gentler / wider is the corresponding curve at your other cow, the Tresse coiled S.Part bowline ( shown in the attached picture ), I can not understand...
   Regarding those two new loops, I think that the nipping loops of the first would grip/nip the legs of the collar more tightly=securily than the nipping loops of the second - I see no reason, in the case of the second loop, for the interposition in between the legs of its collar and the rims of its nipping loops of this oblique  element : lines which meet each other perpendicularly, are immobilized more effectively. This element, placed inside the "nipping tube",  does not work as a beneficial riding turn any more ( as it does in the first loop ), and it is not only separating the perpendicularly oriented legs and rims, but, because of its oblique orientation in relation to both of them, it helps the former slide through the later...

[alpineer]

What intrigued me about this knot was how the muntered twisted - same thing as - Crossing Part causes the continuation of the Standing Part to run on the outside of the nipping structure, whereas, with my other "cow" it runs on the inside. As for performance characteristics, I'll take empirical evidence over any conjecture.

[xarax]

   What intrigued me about the Tresse coiled S.Part bowline, is that this oblique riding turn, directly tensioned by the 50% of the load, works like the oblique riding turn of a multi-wrap Clove hitch ( without the danger of almost jamming a common Clove hitch tied around a compressible element runs - a multi-wrap Clove hitch can be untied instantly, although it becomes very tight ). It squeezes upon each other the adjacent wraps of the nipping loop, so, once they have been tightly closed around themselves and around the penetrating legs of the collar, they can not be  "un-winded" / loosened from their tight coiled position by themselves - so they "lock" : first they accumulate all the tension induced within them through the continuation of the Standing End, and then they keep their tight, secure grip on the legs of the collar they had obtained. So, this external riding turn not only makes the returning eyeleg s first curve smoother / wider, it also helps in the "locking" of the tension inside the "nipping tube" s coils.
   More about how a multi-wrap Clove hitch works, at :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4139.msg25019#msg25019

P.S. It also works fine with a 3-wrap nipping tube ( see the second attached picture ).

[alpineer]

Your terms "turn at the first curve of it's returning eyeleg" and "returning eyeleg's first curve" will confuse English speaking people. It's why I asked for clarification. A more accurate term would be "curve just prior to the lead under the collar".

[xarax]

  Your terms "turn at the first curve of it's returning eyeleg"...

   I had not written " it's ", I had written : " its " ! ( pronoun, the possessive form of "it" ).
   I was talking about the Tresse coiled S.Part bowline, and its returning eyeleg :
 " Personally, I prefer it from the similar Barrel bowline, because it does not have this very sharp turn at the first curve of its returning eyeleg." (sic)
   As you write it, it confuses even me ! 
   More on the point, I could also had written " its second eyeleg ", if the meaning of the "returning" is not so clear.
   The term "first curve" is already used for the first curve of the Standing Part - I had attempted to use it also for the first curve of the returning / second eyeleg...( And, to me, "lead" can not denote something that "returns" !  )

[alpineer]

Very good, sir. You have corrected me on my native language. If the term "lead" is not to your liking, or understanding, please try "the uppermost curve around the returning/second eyeleg". And have a look at this  https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-possessive.htm  Another of the British' divide and conquer strategies I suspect.    

[alpineer]

On the basis of one faux pas! And not one smiley!! A dastardly bit of brinksmanship on your part.

[xarax]

   FIRST, I had used THREE smileys, the one after the other ! If you can not see them, try the ophthalmologist used by Dan Lehman ! 
   SECOND, not only ONE faux pas ! TWO ! Because "lead" means :
 
   the first or foremost place; position in advance of others:    He took the lead in the race.

   and the returning eyeleg s first curve is NOT at the foremost place of the eye - the eye, as it is formed by the Working End, "starts" with the ongoing eyeleg s first curve !
   In that sense, we could use the term " eye s - eyeleg s last curve " - but I had followed the same nomenclature used for the Standing Part ( "the Standing Part s first curve" is a rather common term...), and the "first" also denotes the "more important / more stressed - less wide" curve.

[Dan_Lehman]

This Tresse Blood bowline is a nice, easy to remember, and easily tiable in-the bight and in-the-end TIB loop ( it ibecomes TIB, when the Tail End is re-tucked through the collar, everything else remaining the same ).  Personally, I prefer it from the similar Barrel bowline, because it does not have this very sharp turn at the first curve of its returning eyeleg.

Two more for perusal, your critiqueness.

Firstly, I do prefer to keep "blood" from further
spreading in the incorrect implications (of a helical
structure), though use here might not amount to
much threat on the broader scale!

I think that the version that has the real blood-knot
mechanics --i.e., of the S.Part running straight and then
wrapping back over itself-- is the one to pursue
(and hope that testing shows it to be decent),
for it has great slack-security, and with the sharp
bend in that "returning eye leg" which so bunches
up X.'s panties, loosening by accident is inhibited
--for rope doesn't *flow* around such a bend, and
it is otherwise simple to keep sharp (vs. a rounded
bend such as in the EBDB which can sympathetically
just expand if given half a chance (much to my chagrin,
seeing this in some springy-slick PP laid cord) --in its
intended kernmatle, though, it should be good).

(The sharply bent part wants to loosen like scissors
opening, and with parts impeding this movement,
it can't; whereas with the rounded turn, loosening
can come via material flowing into the turn and
simply expanding it (and so on to the rest of the
wraps).)

There might be some tricks one can do with the tail
vs. the S.Part to try to ameliorate the hard U-turn
in that, some sort of twisting of the tail ... ?!  Eh,
one fiddling turned sour ... :: better to look to just
positioning that tail to take brunt of the S.Part's
turning hard nip, and hope for other magic (wraps
tightening friction).

--dl*
====

[xarax]

with the rounded turn, loosening can come via material flowing into the turn and simply expanding it (and so on to the rest of the wraps).

   I suppose that one, at least, of the two ends of the "nipping" tube would be loaded at all times... The loosening of the returning eyeleg and of the "riding turn" obliquely running on top of the two (or three) wraps, will not loosen the wraps themselves ! And the loosening of the Standing End and of the first or even the second wrap, will be prevented by the action of the tensioned riding turn above them, which pushes the first and the last wrap towards each other ( so the whole nipping structure "locks", because of the friction forces between the rims of adjacent wraps ).

[Dan_Lehman]

I think that the version that has the real blood-knot
mechanics --i.e., of the S.Part running straight and then
wrapping back over itself-- is the one to pursue
(and hope that testing shows it to be decent),
for it has great slack-security, and with the sharp
bend in that "returning eye leg" which so bunches
up X.'s panties, loosening by accident is inhibited
--for rope doesn't *flow* around such a bend, and
it is otherwise simple to keep sharp (vs. a rounded
bend such as in the EBDB which can sympathetically
just expand if given half a chance (much to my chagrin,
seeing this in some springy-slick PP laid cord) --in its
intended kernmatle, though, it should be good).

OTOH, we must note that the angling knot --viz., blood knot--
is intended to be tied with considerably high setting load
(60%?) and lubricated monofilament nylon line ::
we should be chary of behavior of the similar structure (coil)
tied in kernmantle rope without such hard setting and subjected
to dynamic loading --think frictional heat!!
(And recall Dave Merchant's claim that the difference in strengths
between the material-simple overhand eyeknot vs. the more involved
fig.8 / 9 eye knots in comparing slow/dynamic loadings
--i.e., that there was less difference in dynamic loading--
was likely caused by the greater material movement of the
latter knots, so they lost more of their slow-pull advantage.

OTOH-2, that tightening comes with the benefit --but how much?--
of reducing peak impact force !?  Ah, the trade-off complications!
 

But I think that there needs to be some good drop-testing
on the locktight eye knots.  (Do we have something for the
entailing-two-strangle_knots grapevine --or the eye knot
similarly made, which also has a coil that should tighten?
NB : for the common testing of a round sling with 1 knotted
side & 1 pure, there is the aspect of unequal loading of the
two sides by virtue of knot compression feeding material out
into its side and the friction at *pins* at the ends delivering
load not enabling equalization of this added material,
so the "pure" (=unknotted) side in fact bears more load!


--dl*
====

[alpineer]

Scary, complex, interesting stuff. That's why I love empirical data, even bad data from badly devised and incompletely specified test experiments.