Hello 'NYtarzan' (nice name by the way),
'Radnor' does not appear to have been active in recent times...
But he did post an image in reply #3 and the basic concept is derived from his reply #5.
Some commentary: (not directed at 'NYtarzan')
The discussion re the various loading profiles came at a time when some concepts were still evolving and a work-in-progress.
Harry Asher broke some new ground with his discussions on loop chirality and also the fact that all 'bends' have corresponding eye knots (4 in fact - within a chiral domain).
However, Asher did not fully explore and flesh out his ideas... but he steered the ship on the right heading.
The attempts to assign different names to the 'Reever' based on choice of SParts reminds me of #1411 F8 bend (refer image below).
The same concept applies - in that there is a choice of loading profiles.
But does that choice disturb the title of the 'bend'?
Topologically, they are all the same knot.
In my view, regardless of which combination of SParts are chosen - it is still a #1411 F8 bend (the title of the knot does not change).
Does that analogy also apply to the 'Reever bend'? That is, do we set aside the Reever as being 'special' in some way - and that choice of SParts does disturb the title?
In my view, this line of thinking has historical roots - where Asher was likely first to bring it to peoples attention - and in more recent times, knot tyers may still be influenced by past thinking?
All knots have mirror versions - should we assign different names to the mirror versions?
That is, take any knot and hold it adjacent to a plane mirror.
The reflected image will be the inverse - but it is still the same knot.
I would also comment that there is no peer reviewed testing using the scientific method (with a 'control') of the various loading profiles of either the 'Reever' or #1411 F8 bend.
And the discussion re 'dyneema' always appears to invoke cord of an extremely slippery nature.
And yet, I can go into my local boating hardware and purchase 'dyneema' cord - which has a core + sheath design and does not slip.
Probably need to properly specify exactly what type/model of 'dyneema' is being imagined - instead of just saying 'dyneema'.
I would also comment that testing a knots MBS yield strength is mostly irrelevant.
Unless the t4ester is specifically investigating a geometric change in a knot relative to a 'control'.
In life critical applications, the properties of security, stability and jam resistance are of greater importance.