More stuff thrown by one who himself cannot bother to describe his own trials
I do not WANT to describe my own "trials" - because such "
trials" ( like the ones performed by mobius, for example ), which are nothing but
incompletely and/or
wrongly and
falsely performed
tests, do not tell ( and do not
prove, of course ) any-thing about knots ! At most, they only provide incomplete and/or wrong / false indications/hints, which can be "explained" in any way one wishes ! They can easily be misleading, and
conceal, unintentionally or intentionally, rather than
reveal, the shortcomings of knots. Do I have to "describe" how I know that the
Zeppelin bend is a much more easy to untie knot, after even moderate loading, than the so-called
"Zeppelin loop" - as mobius
, who performed such
"trials", claims
? And even if I "describe" one comparative "trial" of those two knots, on a 3mm line, under a 100kg load, with
any result whatsoever, would this tell or prove anything ? Or would it only enhance any erroneous
prejudices/
beliefs one may have about those two knots, and so feed one more
knot myth ? On the other hand, would it be difficult for anybody who would wish to cast doubts or even ridicule and dismiss beforehand those "trials", to do it ?
Noope - I am afraid I happen to have higher standards about what a scientific experiment, a "test", is, or should be ! Especially a test which involves complex phenomena, in this demanding field of material science (1).
If I were able to perform scientifically sound
tests, I would first had tested some knots tied by myself, which, IMHO, are i
nteresting, or even
good - and not the
worst knots tied by Dan Lehman, which, IMHO, are
mediocre, at best ! Myself, I do not expect anybody else to test the knots I happen to tie - especially if this "else" does not
bother to say a f.. word on 99% of them ( and, for the remaining 1%, he only boasts that he, too, had tied them, long before me
).
So, yes, I would nt "
bother" to describe "
trials" on mediocre knots, which are not tried even by the knot tyers who had tied them in the first place !
1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_science Are you telling me that, if you can untie without much difficulty a knot tied on a thin 3mm cord, tensioned by 100kg, you will be able to untie the same knot, tied on a 9-12.5 mm rope, when it will be tensioned by 850 -1900 kg ? ... [some deleted]
In fact, yes, sometimes the smaller material is more of a challenge to loosen than the larger, as the larger gives fingers purchase;
So, you are telling that the fact that the
Lehman8 eyeknot can be untied easily after it is tied on
3mm cord, and it is tensioned by
100kg, proves that it can also be untied easily after it will be tied on a 9-12.5 mm rope, and it will be tensioned by, say, 1400 kg... ( because that ( 9-12.5 mm) is the size used in climbing and rescue, which are the applications the
Lehman8 was supposed to be
designed for...)
OK. Tell it to Beal, to include your suggestion in its brochures
.
Their inclusion is because they are state-of-the-practice, standard knots.
The bowline is not unknown, but in many such user-areas, unchosen; the knots Beal gives are commonly used.
The state-of-practice,
standard knots are NOT meant to also represent the
standards regarding the easiness of their untiability ! "I" know that the
fig.8 and the
fig.9 knots are commonly used ( although "you" do not know that I know it...
) - but that DOES NOT mean that they are used
because they are easy to untie ! This DOES NOT mean that they set the
standards of easily untied knots ! The fact that the bowline is un-chosen, DOES NOT mean that it is un-chosen because it is difficult to untie !