i always looked at Palomar as ...
Firstly, on >>looking<<, note that the knot is shown
in different orientations by various authors : Sosin &
(Lefty) Kreh pointed out that the bight end being
brought around the contained hook to the knot
should NOT be taken all the way back beyond it
--which puts it as a collar, making a
pile-hitch noose.
- Budworth seems to have had this latter formation
in most (but not first) of his many books;
- Pawson OTOH, is balanced via his earlier (1998) Handbook...
and later (2001) Pocket Guide to ... this by showing the bight
finishing around the hook in the latter or just past it but not
past the knot collaring the ends (as does Budworth); but his
tying instruction in the former doesn't include setting with
the "tag" end --thought the step's image shows this--
and wouldn't naturally lead to the pretty image of a tied knot
- Sosin & Kreh's 1972 edition says to be "careful that the loop
[bight] slips past the eye of the hook" in setting (though the
photo of finished knot looks rather ugly in the bulge this
just-past-hook_eye bight-wrap looks), their 1991 2nd edition
lacks such advice although its tiny image of a tied knot matches
--one must scrutinize w/knowing eyes though to realize ... --;
- Peter Owen's (for L.L. Bean) Outdoor Knots Handbook gives
the just-past-hook_eye image --should one be attentive to
heed this, as verbally "seat the knot correctly" is typically
unhelpful, lacking specifics re "correctly";
- Geoff Wilson's Encyclopedia of Fishing Knots & Rigs has
only an image that suggests the NOT-past-hook_eye form,
and no verbal guidance other than to "pull tag end and leader"
--which is no assurance of a particular form, depending on
circumstances of line & object;
BUT
- in his Guide to Rigging Braid, Dacron, and Gelspun Lines,
in presenting the triple palomar --where one makes
a trio of turns of the bight through the hook_eye--,
he does expressly advise to be "sure the loop in the doubled
line continues to ride up over the eye of the hook and does
not slip down and bind on the shank below the eye" --the
most specific guidance I've seen
Because by passing byte thru eye of hook, we are providing 4 potential legs of support,
But in order to realize that potential, one must somehow
split the load on the S.Part onto these other legs --an
eye knot does this, but at the cost of the friction/etc.
within the knot, the bending (or gripping) of the S.Part.
How does a
pile-hitch noose --or whatever that the
particularly tied "palomar knot" becomes-- achieve this?
MY SURMISE is that, for
fishing knots in light-for-humans line,
the
setting by loading "tag end" and so on can impart to
the structure some curvatures
at a relatively high forcewhich thus persist at expected load ranges; whereas with
rope being so much stronger than human effort can likewise
set, the relatively high-vs-setting forces that come in
normal (and testing's much higher) loading enable the
S.Part to easily push aside such apparent deflections ... .
Rope e.g., visibly diminishes in diameter in many materials
under strong load --I recall remarking at this as mooring
lines for the CapeMay-Lewes ferry were mechanically tightened!
I hope that folks take from the above examples just how
poor is the state of knotting literature --how very much
the literature is lamely a matter of weak-to-strong copying
of others, errors & all; of how lacking is guidance and one
must presume understanding --all the "set properly" without
a hint of what that might be, and so on. Typical of angling
knots literature is step-wise tying instructions accompanied
by diagrams that culminate in an indiscernible squiggle for
the completed knot --the author & illustrator likely had no
clue as to what should result : that might never have been
fully understood (though maybe in some cases would be
the probable result of tying just-so in just-this) ! !?
i've also always thought that working a RT over hook(after BIGHT thru eye/wow sounds painful!);
then work around S.Part could also be better, but 'rules' mite change in monofil for this;
or it might have enough of same type of support effect going on;
as to not be significant 'upgrade' to RT.
Oh, you're right. And Wilson's latter book (w/"gelspun") doesn't
present the (plain ol')
palomar but the triple, as noted, so
you get that splurge --though here I must caution that for some
(many?) line & eye combinations, there isn't adequate room
for 3x2 = SIX diameters (which would maybe occupy, in clock
terms of a noon-centered attachment side, an arc of the
ring from 10:30 .. 1:30, or wider, or have to double upon
itself --line upon line-- in some hard-to-specify-reliably way!?
As for the regular knot, Wilson has appendix testing report
that gives it "76%" where top knots show "130%" or so
--of
rated/nominal tensile strength (which he remarks shows
that the line is way underrated (which is done so the maker
can advertise high strength when knotted --what a joke!))
THIS is the state of the art for knotting, folks.
Open your eyes/mind!
--dl*
====