If more credibility is not accorded to a greater level of rigour, then what is the value of that additional imposition?
I thought that with this long discussion, I had already explained why?
I think it is important to identify which class of tester you identify with because this then sets the level of expectation of scientific rigour.
Examples are Mobius, Alan Lee and NautiKnots.
NautiKnots had a long argument for scientific rigour - with lengthy discussions about accuracy, repeatability, and the need for statistically valid sample gathering. He emphasised the need to consult with external institutions such as the cordage institute and the IEEE. He became irritated when I advanced that the cordage institute and IEEE are not experts in
knots and
knot tying.
I had advanced (for example) that the cordage institute is not going to be helpful in devising knot tests that examine aspects
not related to pure MBS yield (ie pull-it-till-it-breaks default mentality). Examples include things like assessing different knot geometries, dressing states, and knot security and stability. Their expertise is linked to cord/rope
manufacturing standards and MBS break testing of rope manufactured material (not knots per se).
For a hobbyist/enthusiast tester who wants to examine something like jamming and stability in a particular knot geometry, I dont see how contacting the cordage institute is going to make any revolutionary breakthroughs in experimental design. Given that a hobbyist/enthusiast tester likely has non existent funds, non existent test bed (eg a 10 ton ram) and likely a non existent calibrated load cell, measurement accuracy will not fall within the reliability standards of a professional test lab. Photographs of any real quality are also likely to be non-existent - and a typed report with a conclusion is also likely to be absent.
The things that NautiKnots was arguing for - are likely beyond the reach of your typical hobbyist/enthusiast tester.
And
Mobius insisted that he is not a backyard tester (ie a better definition I now use is
hobbyist/enthusiast tester) and indeed insisted on identifying as a 'knot trialer' (and
not a knot tester). Presumably, this insistence was related to the type of 'rig' that he uses to apply force and, to avoid being held to the same standards as semi-professional testers and professional test labs. The point being that Mobius didn't want to identify as being in a class of tester where the bar is set at level where expectations of quality and accuracy are in the domain of the professional lab (and therefore avoid drawing unwanted peer review criticism).
For me personally, I identify as a hobbyist/enthusiast tester (aka formerly a 'backyard' tester) - and my measurement accuracy is only as reliable as my eye watching a dimly lit LCD screen while cranking a lever. My mathematical skills are poor and I dont have sophisticated instruments and software to aid in capturing data.
I do know how to use my el cheapo compact digital camera - which is simply aided by placing a white screen behind the knot so you have a uniform plain white background - and voila - you can get reasonable images. I am also working on my own, with very limited spare time and I dont have an engineering degree (which is likely a common theme with all hobbyist/enthusiast knot testers).
But, I seem to have struck a nerve, if I have then I apologise, it was not my intention.
You have absolutely nothing to apologise for! And you have struck
no nerve.
That's the problem with typed words instead of the traditional face-to-face conversation. You are reading what I type - but, you place your own interpretation on it.
I have direct first-hand experience with all 3 classes of testers, and can see the limitations for each class. These limitations are financial, time, reputation and equipment resources related.
A hobbyist/enthusiast tester will be restricted by access to funds, free time, and equipment resources.
In contrast, a professional test lab is usually well funded, has allocated time, high precision equipment and likely an established reputation.
...
Derek, my original questions was in relation to what can the IGKT do to establish robust knot testing guidelines.
You have attempted to answer this question.
In my experience on this IGKT forum, I have a feeling that there is going to be spinning wheels for quite some time. I dont think we will find 1st gear to get moving in the short term (and maybe not even the long term).
I think this will come down to the motivation of
individuals - who are willing to make a difference (but will draw inevitable attention, both positive and negative).
