Knotting has always had naming problems that has always been 'cursed' with/at!
>>To me, the induced/imposed/initial force(s) are totally contained in the NECESSARY arcs(bind) or not(hitch termination or bend coupling ) in USAGE.
>>And that force is either focused linear or diffused radial
.
Anything ever stated is from some perspective, even if not formally benchmarked, is a comparison;
to something else, either physical or expectation etc.
>>Especially as try to 'grow' a uniform language across geographies and experiences.
>>and then too, hopefully matching the world around , that in fact permeates thru the subject in wider perspective.
For knotting, hopefully IGKT is or will be the place looked to for that sorting and defining.
i have problems with some of the names too, yet not the effort.
My first intro to term 'ring loading' too was in perspective of the simpler Bowline (in forums) ,
>>i say ring loading as convention, but to me implies round/radial loading when we oft mean linear lateral (to SPart) loading contained in eye
Such as errantly in standard Bowline or adjusted in anti-Bowline/Alaskan or as i first learned 'jacked' (to the side)
so as then model forward from that Bowline lesson as benchmark;
of one 'axial' of SPart to opposing end of eye vs. Butter Fly of 3 points of possible pull in normal usages.
.
That is for forces perpendicular, not inline to the 'proposed' SPart.
>>and as we change the direction to 'opposite geometry' (not direction) in Bowline, thus need to change flow of the locking mechanism.
By 'opposite geometry' i mean from benchmarked location (SPart in this instance) cosine and sine vals swap places.
>>Of the 0-90degree range median of 45degrees, if we go up/down 15 we have 30 and 60 degrees, equidistant from median.
>>and the sine of 30 = cosine of 60, and vice versa (median 45 is only point w/o this swap available)
When go up/down 45 from 45 median , we have extremes of 0 and 90, who's cosine and sine and sine swap, with greatest amplitude possible (Zer0 and Full 100%)
thus ANY time, in linear force, we mechanically go thru that 90 degree change from force input, STOP
>>and reconsider build, many times to reset to perhaps opposite strategy(like turning lock of Bowline also 90 to match.. ) .
In Bowline, that presents as 'cross-loading'/ring loading/lateral loading from given perspective of SPart,
>>pulls the lock of the controlling hitch more open than closed in standard Bowline
>>thus , then simply change lock direction to capitalize on the new force direction
>>allowing lock to keep performing as intended
This cross-loading/ring loading across, does contain, w/o SPart it's own Equal and Opposite pulls
>>whereby, what once was SPart doesn't have to be loaded, and in fact if not (while 'ring' is)
>>SPart converts in function to Bitter End (opposite mechanic of sorts)
The re-orientated lock of the hitch, still empowered by pulls in rope, now pulls closed not open
>>note in normal Bowline pulls, SPart and farthest reach of eye are the E/O paira
Also, in that usage, have external force as a primary, but in 'ring loading' primary force is contained, but can be linear or radial input.
.
Bowline , is simpler model of this, as then step up to B'Fly with definitions to test if they persist at this level.
>>perhaps some points must be re-defined, to then carry back somewhat to Bowline for consistency , before going on past B'Fly.
>>B'Fly to me is inline/longitudinal is loaded SPart to SPart, then eye can get linear pull parallel to major axis of SParts
>>or laterally /perpendicular to SPart axial
>>or unloaded
Loading 1 End as SPart just to eye is quite different, leaving 2nd (formally) SPart, now as a Bitter End.
The 'Loading Profiles on #1053 Butterfly Knot' pic of now consistently familiar blue rope (blue fave color, ty):i think in terms of mostly hitch(termination) and bend(coupling) forms of linear imposed input (SPart)
>>that is radially controlled, (whereby typical Binding is radial imposed force, radially controlled by contrast)
Thus, where show 'circumferential' loading, i would say radial >> but honestly "i" know what you mean/what is in a name?
>>except, outside of the small pond of knotting, terminology is either focused/linear or diffused/radial loading in physical forces
>>to invite more serious disciplines, and consistent/comparable verbiage i think we should go w/bigger sea terms
>>i do think that such loading should be to crossed not parallel leads to eye (as pictured) as most 'relaxed' form in B'Fly
>>as work other pulls on same, would cross if stiffness of rope lent to crossing as more relaxed than parallel
Also to me, a line starts at a point and goes on in linear direction
>>was actually taught both directions as in keeping w/Ancient Greek terms and writings
>>but to me, and elsewheres both directions is one loaded axis/axial only
>>these terms then give differences to line of 1 direction, and axial of competing directions as needed terms.
>>so sorry, tri-axial to my perspective, is less than accurate, but between us, i now know what you mean.
>>to me, in this pic, i see both SParts loaded to 1 axis, that eye is pulled laterally across perpendicular to main longitudinal. axis
Eye loading could mean any load pull in eye, vs. not/unloaded as to isolate weak point out of system (not pictured).
>>tho the same form when tying, completely different mechanical route of force thru to me
>>i see end to end loading as B'Fly primary construction, eye as lesser if any/ incidental
>>but in this pic route force from only 1 end thru that locking side to eye
>>other lock and end to me morphs into Bitter End works, backing up the primary anchored end to eye pulls
Longitudinal /axailly w/SParts is as stated to perspective of 'SParts', but NOT the locking mechanism
>>per locking mechanism of B'Fly, would think this is lateral not longitudinal , but depends on benchmark perspective fair enough.
>>BUT if ends not loaded, are they SParts?
Same analysis to last pic 'radial across' if ends unloaded, are they SParts?
>>per locking mechanism works, that converts from the end to end single axial to 90 degrees to feed into eye
>>this is more of a proper, linear pull
>>and can not visualize usage of pull arrows here, w/o dropping eye thru hole and knot works as shoulders to wide to pass
i hate picking apart every piece so against another fine presentation and effort
>>but these are my honest gut reactions and reasonings to things i have tried to name w/consistencies to broader perspectives and fields
Also, if loading alone or primarily
>>NOT a devil's advocate countering test (that sometimes i do , do; especially internally against own self).
Son w/masters in engineering is not here @4am to ask at this moment, but thru many conversations, starting with questions he carried to instructors in school for me/us etc., i think he would agree with terms as i've presented to be consistent with bigger surrounding sea of usages...
Initials in rope, is good and discreet tracer, and also gives tell if blatantly removed, and w/2nd initials not just clip-able from end.
(see missing in last pic of set 'radial cross')