Part 3 of 3
I am confident in stating that the collar on the same side as the force generat[ion]
is more vulnerable to jamming.
In all instances where I was eventually able to loosen jammed knots with tools,
I could only succeed by starting to loosen the knot on the side opposite from the force generating machine.
Very interesting. I guess it makes sense in that it is
on the force-generation side that the knot (anchored
on the opposite end) is *urged* to move, and this
requires the drawn force-side SPart to deliver ... into
the knot, and it gets a head start on tightening?
IIRC, there were some Tom Moyer test results that
showed a similar bias on what broke (maybe it was
fig.8 eye knots on both ends?).
And would it be aggravated by loading rate --i.e.,
a lesser force generated in a drop test giving the
same level of jamming as a greater slow-pull force?
(And maybe a greater bias, to boot : i.e., that in this
conjecture the forced parts get tighter quicker AND
the opposite members get tighter slower (than in the
slower-loading case) ?! )
Btw, I've tried to avoid "taking
sides" in this
discussion, seeing it not so much
per side but of the
force-generating SPart (and whichever side it goes to).
(In a
squaReef knot, e.g., the *collar* is *before*
the respective SPart and not *behind* as in #1425.)
Thanks,
--dl*
====