Also, though I do NOT support "bend" as Ashley wanted (and many
copy) but use "(ends) joint" for that, it is so far I think alone Brion
Toss in his Chapman's Guide to Knots (not Rigger's Apprentice)
that he wises up to "join two ends" and never mind how many ropes
--just one, if making a sling, e.g.-- are engaged! (--in which sling case
the definitions will have trouble with there being no "standing end"
in this case : both are "working"!).
i use Bend as you de-scribe as 'pirated parroting'; but please forgive w/o plank walking as is for clarity and consistency across the (p)ages and newbs.
But internally i see and describe to self either a termination or continuation of the rope force line in more precise speak.
>> and really go with rope was loaded on great ships, but were called a line in typical usage.
That is a line of force at the end of the day to me, that the unused rope loading onto great ship does not have, but only promises the capacity of. The geometry reigns all thru rope works (to include knotting) from there !
.
A base example to me is primary rope lessons w/Half Hitch(HH) as a termination of rope(Hitch type) force line or continuation of same as if a Bend type logic of the node(node: deformity swell in straight line run; as in plants)formed as pass-thru/continuation.
If take the nip point of continuation HH is like a dual shared termination to that single nip point from either input/output side. Each leg could be HH termination type w/o Bitter End.
From this view the continuation is a dual in/out terminating HHs, that forms single axis thru the force line.
The continuation line parts will be of greater tension than the 'sideline' ring formed, as it is not in this 'electric' linear path that the ends line up to. Until with too long a collar in Bowline as to allow the fault of Sheepshank and get the roll out of the continuous HH (90, 180, 90 degree geometry parts) to just a combined sum 360 that is now folded down into inline with the line of force, and so now tension increases thru the loop, where was lesser before. There is no 'shorter electrical path' to skip the loop with; now that loop is folded down into the linear of force. i find it much better to look at force as in more a liquidly flowing electrical sense thru rope pipeline as wire, and as such takes opportunities to pass from one rope part to another, even if partially, to leave then less behind of the finite source force.
.
A sling crosses a line to me here tho bro, to go from a linear to radial device...
Choked tho, i do see 2 SParts, as do in Girth Hitch. Difference is the SParts in sling are self adjusting set on a hook, girth does not have self adjusting SParts, so must manually set/guess this key point, then should only use at that angle for maximum sharing between the 2 SParts as legs of support. The sling by contrast is microscopically self balancing adjustment on the fly at many angles of pull but still 2 legs of support, sharing load evenly, as ports force as SPart(s) into the controlling arcs, as like gas hose into car to power/energize i always think. So to me, a SPart in 'Tensionless' Hitch and HH both start at load and end halfway around round host where the primary arc180 starts in both. To model have formed in head SPart is a linear, even if deformed in HH, as the pull of the load at one end of SPart and that entrance to arc180 as primary arc are in OPPOSING directions for that specific rope element. Does not need to be rigidly aligned , as no rigidity to the cross axis, so can be just DIRECTIONALLY opposing to qualify, is less efficient tho than 'Tensionless'.
.
An assertion sure to win the applause of "one hand clapping"!
Kinda an alma mater please(might explain a lot..
)
Of c(o)urse Dad artfully schooled in the sound of 1 hand slapping as well(he was 5th Chicago cop in the family, nicknamed by piers as the disciplinarian; witch too might explain a lot
) ..
.
Now, for those not so clever, what would it mean to have an
(implied...) UNI-directional load?
.:. No, there is one axis of tension with those S.Parts in
"through loading" (also called "cross loading" in reference
to eye knots just *randomly* (w/o special consideration/design)
and loading the tail-vs-S.Part).
Though, loading the eye ALSO ... and at some range of angles
to the S.Parts ... and all can assume various angles per forces,
but still will be a condition separating wheat from chaff vis-a-vis
"mid-line" eye knots
--as you note ("Not all knots can sustain this type of 'through loading' profile")
Can have uni-direction if want i guess of travel if no force against i guess...
but NOT force, that needs antagonistic twin, 'dueling' points.
To me can cross-load Bowline eye, to use as if Binder from internal force w/o SPart loaded.
>>but spread eye and as also hang from SPart is a bit outside as 2 separate handled forces, sharing a system.
Best clean simple view would be as separate function models.
Again, there is no sense to your implied 1-fewer-than-2 (uni- vs bi-axial);
there is a single axis of tension (and it has been argued that loading the
eye, e.g., brings in a SECOND axis ... though showing a trio of directions;
Hmmm, I'm more of a 3D person on this : blow apart the
union point and formerly attached pieces are going in THREE
directions, methinks).
Totally agree, 2 OPPOSING directions (compression or tension) constitute a loaded axis, can leverage a 3rd direction on separate axis, rooted from the resistance of the primary axis.
Working in dimensions, there is no Zer0 dimension point of force in my terms;
Must have at least 2 points of Equal (force) & Opposite (direction) here for force, so at least 1dimensional, no uni!
The line of the loaded axis in rope gives these competing, antagonistic, dueling twins.
This gets more complicated when not a flexible class like rope, but rather a rigid that has resistance on the cross axis AND can load in tension (as rope only does) or compression.
So, from that view, rope gives clearer lessons in these things; with less complications, but we tend to start with rigids in understanding, and then this simpler now seems a twist i think (psyche self is simpler and go on)!! It is rather counter intuitive to our initial L-earnings that rope works by rigidity against force, as it lays slack in your palm. But in use is a rigidity against (or for) physical and/or force displacement as any other structure ever. Rope is just easier to form for our repeated usages than other substances; but must follow the same rules of rigid architecture geometry along it's tensioned linear length.
.
Bi-axial in plants etc. is NOT a continuous line or plane , but rather separate parts, in separate, not continuous linear single dimension(s). Thus stem it self is not biaxial, but rather alternating parts to either side of stem dichotomy are biaxial. Even if somehow could find a straight line to the separate sides of stem, they would be fed separately, structured and therefore shear separately they are not a continuation of each other as in rope line.
.
i believe that rope can physically lace in 3Dimensions, but only handles force in 2dimesnions force wise, or forms another system.
i think this is as Ashley shows/represents in choice of right angle to host Hitch (1D hold host and load in 1 line))or lengthwise, 2 dimensions(hold host and hold load).
Simplest right angle Hitching example:primary dimension linear is the load force as standard, the 2nd deflected force overrun of byproduct side force not aligned properly to primary linear dimension(for accounting purposes). Would have to have cross-axis rigidity on the 2nd Dimension to need the 3rd Dimension deflections of force as in rigids. But rope as part of flexibles class definition does not have cross-axis(to the linear length) rigidity. Rope length in linears can be shown as cosine work, cross axis sine by product. Rigids could then have a byproduct(sine) of the byproduct(sine) as 1st sine is rigid; but not in rope/flexibles.
In flat rope/webbing do have a scrunch across width consideration of deformation, but is not a Native rigidity to then fight and have force byproduct to show. Round rope does not have this problem as the cross section profile across length is the ultimate equilateral(in 2D) of circle , where webbing has flat and wide. Radial or Linear again here is key.
.
Overhand Knot is Natively a 90degree architecture to me, thus wrenched full 90 degrees to linear flat is thus worst position of pull and then around 1 diameter, and so jams hardest and weakens that rope part in the chain the most; in a parent system that is as strong as that weakest link...
The interlaced Overhands to extrude BFly works in 90degree Overhand to each side of eye together as a 180 flat continuous line and does not shrink to own diameter. Similar view as HH termination or continuing model of shared terminating nip point; only here have input/output Overhands instead (seen best eye onloaded). But, inherits that it is still best if the eye part of each Overhand was pulled @90degrees if any, or jams more easily from the still errant angle of lengthwise pull on Overhand(s), but BFly so sturdy shines thru such usage in Trucker's making only harder untie, and probably weaker structurally for the violation from premium position. It kinda so good, can fool, but must follow same rules as then also stands as an example of.
.
Intertwined Overhands of BFly and Rigger's kinda overconcentrate force, unceasingly at high loading.(Zepp and faux form side by side SParts not intertwined, not over focused)
The BFly has a less rigid side of some relief to the overconcentration with both SParts to either front or back;
Rigger's has most rigid SPart(s) to either side as like front and back guards to the overconcentration w/o any softness/relief and jams by contrast i think.
Zepp gives the both side guards of rigid SParts as Rigger's, but is not over focused as a softener, so works super, but faux form has the same side by side but then the same open /soft side of no rigid SPart guard (both on other side), as like a double fault that fails as xTension is increased.
.
part segregation questions
produced eyes >>Will a doubled eye form hold 2x as much??
Linear length >>If unloaded dual eyes, is the linear itself stronger from the softer bends?
