Author Topic: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter  (Read 1328 times)

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« on: November 21, 2022, 09:45:57 PM »
This topic intends to offer a simplified method of cf measurement and will then attempt an analysis and breakdown of the Munter hitch as requested by Agent Smith.

Lowering Weight method for cf measurement.

Considerations:-

The method is based on the Capstan formulae and suffers the limitations this formulae faces when it meets the 'real world'.  Despite these limitations the method offers a rapid, simple and inexpensive means of determining cf for cordage on typical belay materials and a means of extrapolating this to simple cord vs cord systems.

Materials and equipment

A Luggage scale
This does not have to be highly accurate (all measurements are going to be comparative) but it should be reasonably linear.


Reference weights to measure linearity :  I happen to have a 2kg and a 1kg Instron reference weights, but so long as you have two weights the same (roughly 1kg) you will be able to check your scale linearity at 0kg, 1kg and 2kg.

A Carabiner  I used a DMM belay bina - ideally it should have a flat belay section to keep the coils from riding up the sides.

A Stand to hang the bina and scales (coathook on the back of a door is ideal)

Cordage  I used 550 nylon Para-cord

A Notepad to record results

A Calculator  that has the ln function (Natural log)and the pi constant.


Setup

Suspend the bina on the test stand so that it hangs ca 1m from the floor
Suspend the scales above the bina so that the attachment point is ca 20cm above the bina

Calibrate

Turn on the scale and check that they read zero
Hang the ca 1kg weight on the scale and record the result
repeat with the 2kg weight and record
hang both the two and the one kg weight on the scale and record the weight..

Check that the results are linear progressions i.e. multiples of x1, x2 and x3.  If the results are not linear by more than ca 20g, send the meter back to Amazon.  Today. most cheap load cells are amazingly accurate.


cf Measurement

Tie a 1m length of 550 Paracord to the scale load point  and tie the 2kg weight to the bottom of the cord.
Record the scale readout this will be the 0 turn value or Load input

Now make a single turn about the bina spar.  lift the weight and support the weight just below the scale.
Lower the weight so that the coils tighten on the spar but the weight is still held up from reaching the scale.
Check that the scale reads zero.
Gently lower the weight so that the scale starts to take the weight.  The cord will gently flow around the bina until the scale takes the weight.  Allow the weight to gently settle and for the slow creapage of load to stabilise.  The weight now displayed is the load out after one turn of cordage has stolen a proportion by friction.
Record the weight for 1 turn.

Lift the weight again and make a second turn around the bina.  Again, while supporting the cord below the scale, allow the weight to settle onto the coils on the bina. Make sure the coils do not overlap..  Now again, gently allow the load to slip the turns by gently lowering the weight onto the scale.  Again, wait for the the creep to settle and record the scale value for 2 turns.

Repeat this process for 3 and 4 turns.

Now do it all again and see how good your reproducibility is.  you should aim to eliminate variations until your results do not vary by more than ca 60g

Now for the calculator magic.
enter the T0 value and divide it by the T1 value.  This is the ratio of Lin to Lout.
Now press ln - this will give you the natural log of of the ratio.
Now divide this by pi and then by 2 (this is because there are 2 pi radians in a single full turn.
The result is the static coefficient of friction for your cord against your bina.
Record the result.

Clear the calculator and start again by diving T0 by the T2 value.
proceed as before ln, then divide by pi, but now because the test had 2 turns, there are 4 pi radians, so divide by 4.
Record the result of cf for a 2 turn capstan.

You should see where this is going, repeat for the 3T and 4T results but divide by 6 and 8 respectively.

The results should all be relatively similar.  My trials turned out to be between 0.082  and 0.09 but there were a few cranky results that turned out to be due to me letting the cords catch on the shelving or not letting the results settle.

Give it a try and share your results.

Next I will post an analysis of the values for the Munter

Derek
« Last Edit: November 21, 2022, 11:52:02 PM by DerekSmith »

mcjtom

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
    • Phototramp.com
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2022, 06:29:49 AM »
You may want to take a look at Richard Delaney's method of measuring the coefficient of friction (this paper, pp.: 83-88).  His method is a little more elaborate than both yours above and what I've done (which is similar to what you're doing, but uses a set of masses and regression rather than averaging) - likely leading to slightly better estimates of the kinetic friction coefficient. On p. 88 there is a list of FC's for a different combination of materials that he has obtained.

If there is a realistic estimate of the rope-on-rope friction, you could try this calculator to estimate/predict tension reduction by the Munter on a carabiner.  Be aware that in this calculator, which divides the Munter into a series of three friction sections along the rope entangled in it, the contact angles are 'baked-in' the way I thought was realistic for the rope-carabiner system (but they can be unbaked if you have a better idea). 

If the rope-on-rope friction coefficient is unknown, one can back calculate it if there is a set of tension measurements on the Munter - if you assume that rope-on-metal FC is accurate and applicable and that the contact angles between rope and carabiner and rope and rope used in the calculator are about right.  I estimated the rope-on-rope friction for a 3 mm polyester cord using this method to be some 0.4 as explained in this thread.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2022, 07:12:33 AM by mcjtom »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2022, 10:45:38 AM »
OK, time for some results:

First the linearity calibration

Reference wt       Display value
Nothing                  0 g
1kg ref                  980 g
2kg  ref                1980 g

Given that these cheap scales have a resolution of 20g, this is a very acceptable linearity.

First test using 550 Paracord  on 11mm Bina with 1kg weight

Number of round turns   holding weight   calculated cf
none                                980                     -
1 T                                   520                     0.101
2 T                                   280                     0.099
3 T                                   160                     0.096
4 T                                    80                      0.099

Second test 550 with 2kg weight
Number of round turns   holding weight   calculated cf
none                                1980                     -
1 T                                   1020                   0.106
2 T                                   620                     0.092
3 T                                   360                     0.090
4 T                                   200                     0.091

The cf values were a lot lower than my expectation of 0.3 to 0.4 for nylon against Al but were consisten enough to work with (I am begining to wonder if my 550 is really nylon !!)

550  Munter with 1kg
                                     holding weight      ln(load/holding)
                                        200                             1.589
                                        160                             1.812
                                        180                             1.695
                                      --------
                Average           180                             1.699           

  550  Munter with 2kg
                                     holding weight
                                        380                              1.651
                                        420                              1.551
                                        400                              1.599
                                       --------
                Average           400                              1.587

Don't worry about those  ln(load/holding) values, I will cover them in the next post.

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 462
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2022, 02:37:41 PM »
i think pulleys compound force potential, while this capstan effect compounds loss from that potential in pulley systems; at some point overtaking the pulley system increase.
.
i have more, but will wait.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2022, 10:12:40 PM »
Indeed KC, pulleys and friction are the beating heart of our knots.  Only by gaining an understanding of the role of these components can we aspire to gaining an understanding of these cord machines.

The common perception of a pulley is of a freely rotating means of diverting the flow of cord with as little frictional resistance as possible.  These have been at the heart of our great 'Force Amplifiers'.But I would argue that static pulleys play a significantly greater part in our use and operation of our 'Cord Machines'.  In contrast to the rotating pulleys, a static pulley frictionally restricts the movement of a cord while enabling its direction and the force it carries to a designated point within the knot.  These pulleys are principally load amplifying components within the knot.

This load amplification ability has two modes, namely 'Feed Forward' and 'Feedback' .  In the cases of the capstan and the Munter hitch, 'Feed Forward' is employed.  A small anchor force is applied to the anchor end, the static pulleys then direct the cord around the pulley surface, creating a 'Normal' force and through the cf, amplifying the small anchor force.  This increased force is fed into the next section of cord which in turn amplifies it further and again passes the increasing force further into the coil  Sufficient turns are employed to amplify the small anchor force to a level able to resist the intended load forces.

That is 'Feed Forward' amplification, but should the loaded SP be brought into contact with and across the anchor end, then it is capable of generating large 'Normal' forces and very high frictional effects.  This immediately elevates the anchor force, which is amplified through the coils giving a massive frictional resistance at the SP loaded end.  The loaded end can never escape this clamping, as any increase in SP force is always amplified to something well in excess of the feedback force.  We deliberately utilise this facility to 'Lock Off' a knot.  In the Munter for example, by passing the SP over the anchor end, the hitch becomes jammed.

The Munter can be release from its jam by taking the SP load away from the anchor end, but this effect of 'Feedback' lies at the heart of Jamming knots.  In these knots, when load is applied, the structure of the knot is such that feedback amplification is fed to the area of the WE but is in turn locked by another loaded part of the knot.  Constrictor and Strangle knots  have the structure that once loaded the amplified compression cannot be let off and the knot remains jammed solid.

One interesting thing about this progressive amplification is that it is not linear.  For example if a coil is able to amplify its anchor load by say a factor of 3, then a 1kg anchor load feeds a the next loop with an anchor load of three kg.. This loop then amplifies its load by x3 and passes on a new load of 9kg, the next one 27kg...  The first loop increase the load by an additional 2kg, the next loop by 6kg, the next by 18kg.  We can predict that the next would add on a further 54kg...it is an exponential amplification and that is why we need the magic of e to be able to predict what the various bits are doing.

Next post, lets take to pieces the figures we measured for the Munter.

Derek

NB  -  of course, all this discussion / explanation is completely wrong - you cannot generate or amplify a force simply by wrapping a cord around a pulley.  The reality is that the force applied by the SP load is progressively lost by friction to the static pulley - I just find it easier to envision the force of the anchor being amplified rather than the force of the load being lost  ==  same math, just easier to see in my ageing 'mind's eye'

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 462
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2022, 03:03:18 AM »
i see as same;
for me pulley and capstan are extreme outer benchmark examples of all arcs, that are the secret or ropework.
Loaded Knot parts, etc. in arc fall between these outer extremes factors of the powerband available to play with; and gets some of each characteristic from each parent extreme on this wide spectrum.
But they are as like 'antagonistic reciprocals' to each other along that shared line, where by gain of 1 dictates the loss of the other, then combined to the whole.  Much as cos/sine as opposing poles of the powerband, wave etc.; have to give up one to gain of other etc.
.
Only these things, can show as if open microscope to the same elemental functions hidden within the knot microcosm.
>>But of the same materials, forces, angles and laws etc.
Must make distinction of WORKiNG/loaded,  force bearing to apply theories we seek.
Also, Strangle, Constrictor, Groundline and fave Bag FAMILY/class , self locking descendant of the self-crossing Clove
>>are excellent examples of it is not the name, but USAGE of Radial Binding (radial force init against and from inside radial arc control w/o friction loss) vs. if SPart 'fed' of force init as linear from outside knot micorcosm powering same Constrictor now is conversion from linear to arc control at the capstan losses from the conversion, that Binding doesn't have.
>>But the loss is found in Hitches and Bends  of Linear force init thru SPart(s).
Type of force & DIRECTION, and if converted at trade off loss are organically pivotal factors;
>>that can ninja by if don't train to focus to them purposefully.
.
With cos benchmark as linear force direction, no cross axis resistance so DIRECTIONAL AXIS alignment i think, not necessarily what geometry shows as STRICT ALIGNMENT of RIGIDS that do have cross axis resistance  by extreme contrast.
.
To me simplest 2/1 pulley setup with imperfect legs/not parallel, gives cos+cos math; at losses from 2xPotential by deflection from apex direction as a simpler, arithmetic, scalar linear progression
But sweat/swig perpendicular at Achille's Heel of cos=0 of Samson angle across is a cos loss, but at more of a multiplying type math(than previous additive) to extrude force.
BUT, capstan math more as a cos+sine expressed in EXPONENTIAL math.
i guess these are more of my 'pivotal ninjas' that so unassumingly can sneak by the eye as so common in plain sight.
.
In modelling the Muenter, Backhand Turn forces would think would keep and eye on aspects given as in reverse of Dan (the man)Lehman's  Tumble Hitch.
.
As like Pulley theories must accommodate also Parbuckle as even sometimes better than pulley dragging load, and friction  byproduct turned from foe to friend as traction.  Better pulley affect without pulley, sling etc.!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 12:27:01 PM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

mcjtom

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
    • Phototramp.com
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2022, 10:04:52 AM »
I made a few changes to the Munter on a carabiner model the way I see it.  I think it may be sufficient to predict how the Munter will reduce the rope tension if the 2 coefficients of friction can be reasonably estimated for a particular setup, which I figured was the objective.  Whether it represents the reality sufficiently well needs to be verified.


p.s. Derek, is this model any close to what you want to accomplish?


Munter on a carabiner model/calculator
« Last Edit: November 23, 2022, 10:06:17 AM by mcjtom »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2022, 06:51:11 PM »
I made a few changes to the Munter on a carabiner model the way I see it.  I think it may be sufficient to predict how the Munter will reduce the rope tension if the 2 coefficients of friction can be reasonably estimated for a particular setup, which I figured was the objective.  Whether it represents the reality sufficiently well needs to be verified.


p.s. Derek, is this model any close to what you want to accomplish?


Hi mcjtom,

Nice model.  I wonder, would it be possible to include the angles of contact of cord with bina and cord with cord that you have used in the basic model?

Derek

mcjtom

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
    • Phototramp.com
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2022, 07:41:37 PM »
I've added another 'debug' sheet to the calculator (same link) which lets you experiment with contact angles.  The initial values are the angles I've used, but they can be changed to any other values.  The last angle is a small contact angle when the tail exits the carabiner vertically down, to which the brake hand angle is added.  I can probably explain the choices.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2022, 08:08:05 PM by mcjtom »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2022, 12:38:54 AM »
Right, on to the Munter...

First a recap of what we know already :--

1-  The cf of static friction for 550 paracord against DMM aluminium bina is about 0.1 / radian
2.  That the cf does not vary much with the number of turns involved (at least up to 4)
3.  That the cf did not vary significantly with loads of 1kg or 2kg.
4. We know that for the munter the ratio of load:holding for 1kg load was 5.44 giving a total coefficient of 1.7 and that for 2kg was 4.95 with a total coefficient of 1.60

Of note, the heavier load seemed to be more affected by the roughness of the 550 cord, a roughness which did not manifest in the cord on bina trials.

This all means that if we know the total cf for the knot / hitch and we know the contribution from one part of the hitch, then the difference must be the remaining part of the hitch...

So, for the Munter, I will work with the 1kg values as these were slightly more uniform
Total ratio load / holding = 980/180 = 5.4
therefore total cf = ln(5.4)  =  1.6  --  this is made up of all the 550 to bina segments and all the 550 to 550 contributions.

Determining the number of radians the cord had in contact with the bina and cord was not so easy..  I took the hitch under load of 1kg and marked the cord where it started and left contact with the bina.  It made contact in two places - first the main loop 33.1mm and then as it exited the collar for the holding end 3mm  Total bina contact 36.1mm.  The total circumference of the bina  was 47.6mm (360 degrees)
Therefore bina contact was (36.1 / 47,6) * 2 * pi = 4.77 radians
We know that the cf against bina is 0.1/radian, so total bina contact frictional effect = 0.1 * 4.77 = 0.477

Nearly there...

The measured total hitch frictional effect was 1.6, leaving 1.6 - 0.48  =  1.12 which had to be due to the cord on cord friction.  To determine the final step of cord to cord cf we need to identify the number of radians of cord to cord contact.  The obvious contact was in the neck of the collar as the load cord left the hitch and was clearly 180 degrees.  Less obvious is the fact that the load cord itself also had  its own contact with the collar of ca 90 degrees  total 270 degrees or 4.7 radians giving a cord to cord cf / radian of 1.12 / 4.7 = 0.238

The value of this knowledge means that we can now compute the load / tension profile of the cord throughout the whole of the hitch  -  now how cute is that...

Derek

Edit  dp in wrong place  -  total cf of Munter =1.6 not 0.16
« Last Edit: December 13, 2022, 03:38:46 PM by DerekSmith »

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 462
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2022, 04:39:31 AM »
All ways and always been a dream sir;
and heck, sometimes a nightmare too! *
.
There might be some good general info in this spreadsheet
as this has been quite a chase at different levels here for quite some time, and few views of theory here over range, especially to less familiars jumping in just at Muenter perhaps in these theories..
.
Have always thought this is good standard form i think, and stablest place for it for years now has been the wayback machine/web.archive.
The Mechanics of Friction in Rope Rescue -Stephen W. Attaway, Ph.D. International Technical Rescue Symposium (ITRS 99) spreadsheet aligned to it (just thru my own twisted prism).  But has been good friend, so much so as cause of many palmprints on forehead.
Dr. Attway's paper is also refenced in this later prize: Physics for Roping Technicians -Richard Delaney, RopeLab.
.
Linked spreadsheet has standard flat CoFs, and takes view of flat CoF xPI to give a radial CoF as like a new table of radial CoFs.
To then simplified imagery of more 'simply' the exponent is now radial CoF x #of arc180s applied to Euler's number/log of 1 to give the organic recursion factor that compounds.  Then as about any aspect of rope patterns that factor calculated xTension.  Same consistent form in that expression as cos xTension, sine xTension.
.
Not as precise (lots of rounding looking at all as arc180 strokes) as shown here so well for specific Muenter( i think of as Backhand Turn , at least as a base) geometry.
For with it am  more to the notion of a stroke as arc180, so counting strokes; 2 making a cycle in comparison to engine and wave forms.
>>Another key term from that world is 'displacement' everything displaces against space and or force type view.
Thus in simplest single uniform rope, no other rope part may displace against the SPart, if most evolved element is arc180, nothing displaces against Primary Arc either, for only SPart could, but can't logically cross, together they form the most rigid hook of Hitch or Bend, that rest of knot just has to keep this most rigid hook in place, that no other rope part may displace against.  It is like iron by comparison to the rest of rope, that is as lacing keeping the iron hook aligned in place model. **
.
Clip from chart to show pattern:

0.25 CoF for linear mating Aluminum/Nylon is as take from Dr. Attaway that seem to echo in other sources as well.




*
Another dream is as like 'nip meter' they literally use for laminate etc. presses to make sure even across on rollers, can be very pricey item, but key to even pressure verification and tuning art.
But how would it read nip at different points rope to host in HH or Anchor Hitch?
>>have always thought there is key data to what is going on right on these points.

Another dream that seems close is rope of sensors to read or color in response to tension changes degree by degree!
A key item is by extension that the rigidity of each rope crossing is organic rigidity xTension x'Footprint density' ; that decides which displaces/wins against the other in the crossing .  And if great enough to get locking trough in the lesser, giving more stable.  i try to imagine rope in color of degrading tension and rigidity form linear input to arc conversion and on to compounding.




**
Binding is radial internal force input into controlling arcs so is different than Hitch/Bend of Linear input force form external world into knot microcosm of controlling arcs/conversion now w/friction byproduct co$t of conversion that we exploit rather than lose by(as can). Linear focused to 1D Directional force is that much different from  Radial/dispersed force of no focused Direction by extreme contrast.  Always heard Direction was most important and that is most clearly shown in rope that has no cross axis resistance(flexibles class).  Picture Constrictor as Binding has even tension around to nips from no conversion radial force from even/undifferentiated swell to radial control, but load same Constrictor now as Hitch only with Linear input to the arcs instead gives the degrading frictions thru arcs to nip(s).
« Last Edit: November 24, 2022, 05:06:14 AM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2022, 01:33:57 AM »
Quote
You may want to take a look at Richard Delaney's method of measuring the coefficient of friction (this paper, pp.: 83-88).
I am referring to page 85 of Richard's paper (the diagram with a rope reeved through a Petzl ID device).

I also generally use this practical test rig setup - although where I differ from Richard is that I don't use metal carabiners to attach to the load cell.
I use hand tied knots attached directly to the load cell.
This eliminates extra mass from the system.

With regard to a #206 Crossing hitch (aka Munter hitch or Italian hitch) - holding power of this hitch is very much dependent on the relative angle of the free/unloaded unloaded rope as it enters the hitch.
Climbers vary the brake power of a Munter hitch by altering the relative position of their 'brake hand' (eg by raising or lowering their 'brake hand').
This increases or decreases the contact angle of the free/brake side of the rope on the carabiner (most carabiners have a radius of 5.0mm).
Maximum brake holding power is achieved when the free/brake end of the rope is parallel to the S.Part (ie the free/brake end of the rope follows the same trajectory as the S.Part - side-by-side).
In practical terms, the belay person raises his hand to increase brake holding power - and lowers his hand to decrease brake holding power.

mcjtom

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
    • Phototramp.com
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2022, 06:43:19 AM »
Quote
You may want to take a look at Richard Delaney's method of measuring the coefficient of friction (this paper, pp.: 83-88).
I am referring to page 85 of Richard's paper (the diagram with a rope reeved through a Petzl ID device).

I also generally use this practical test rig setup - although where I differ from Richard is that I don't use metal carabiners to attach to the load cell.
I use hand tied knots attached directly to the load cell.
This eliminates extra mass from the system.
I think that the main advantage of Delaney's method of measuring the rope on metal friction coefficient, over what Derek has done above or what I've done here, is that he's measuring sliding rather than static friction, the latter being usually slightly higher than the former.

In the model you can enter the angle of the braking hand to estimate tension reduction that the Munter provides.


There is a technical problem there as the angle of the working end first entering the 180 deg collar is self regulating and depends on both friction coefficients and 3 first contact angles (rope on rope, then rope on carabiner, then rope on rope).  It's solvable, but implicitly (try this working prototype).  I'll explain how it's supposed to work once the wrinkles are ironed out. 

One of the consequences is that using Derek's data and his method of estimating rope on rope friction coefficient indirectly from Munter tensions themselves, probably underestimates it by a factor of about two (need to confirm).

@Agent_Smith: as you have a tensioning rig, would you be willing to collaborate to validate this model (it would require just a few measurements of holding tension at different brake hand angles at first?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2022, 10:28:05 AM by mcjtom »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2022, 08:25:55 AM »
Quote
@Agent_Smith: as you have a tensioning rig, would you be willing to collaborate to validate this model (it would require just a few measurements of holding tension at different brake hand angles at first?

This reply is directed at "mcjtom" (more than anyone else):

My load cell finally arrived a few months ago (Linescale 3) but the initial released firmware had issues/bugs.
Latest firmware seems to have fixed the bugs but I need to spend some time making sure it properly zero's and that its calibration is accurate.
(John - saddle hunting and developer of various releasable hitches) might also own the new Linescale 3 - not sure if he has had same issues?

Anyhow, yes - I have been wanting to play around with the #206 Crossing hitch (aka 'Munter hitch'.. aka 'Italian hitch') for quite some time, but work and life pressures have prevented me from doing so.

I am only interested in testing the "Munter hitch" using human rated EN892 and EN1891 ropes.
I care little for testing done with anything else - and I don't care what arguments are tendered to the contrary.
Within the realm of vertical rescue / rope access / rock climbing / canyoning / caving / etc etc, I am of the view that if you going to the trouble of testing and publishing results to the world, you should test using PPE (ie rope + carabiner) that accurately reflects what those various user groups actually use at their various 'workplaces'.
But that's my personal view... and others may hold conflicting views, but I still don't care :)

Feedback on your web calculator:
With regard to your web based program / calculator that plots various values - it is not easily understandable to 'Joe average'.

If I had the computer software / programming skills and spare time (which I don't) - I would use a real image of a 'Munter hitch' and make the brake/free end of the rope movable with a mouse click/drag (ie, a visual  - graphical user interface - GUI).
As the brake/free end of the rope is 'dragged' (via mouse click) up/down, this should then show changing values. These 'values' need to be clear and easy to understand to the layperson - not a mathematician. If you are using various values - they need to be translated into a form that 'Joe Average' user can understand and relate to. Using terms like 'brake power' might have more meaning to 'Joe Average' user. That is, as Joe Average clicks and drags the brake/free end of the rope, 'brake power' is either increased or decreased correspondingly. The 'brake power' should be related back to the mathematical equation (ie Capstan equation) - because essentially what is happening in a 'Munter hitch' is that belay person is changing the contact angle of the brake/free end of the rope with respect to the carabiner (which has a nominal radius of 5.0mm).
I would also ensure that the program is reflecting real-world human rated 'EN' rope - including whether the rope is EN892 or EN1891.
EN892 rope is more supple/pliable and EN1891 is stiffer/rigid - and the weave density of the sheath ('jacket') of these ropes varies significantly.

I don't know whether you have the capability to add a 'GUI' of a #206 Crossing hitch (aka Munter hitch) - with a clickable brake/free end of the rope - which can be dragged by mouse clicks?
If you do, I would urge you to re-write your computer code so it is GUI with respect to a real Munter hitch image. And that the values shown are re-imagined into brake power which is linked to changing contact angle with respect to the carabiner.
Assumptions:
I assume here that the rope performing a U turn around its own S.Part is constant - it is 'rope-on-rope' frictional contact.
A belay person can't actually change that 'U turn' of the rope.
The belay person can only change the contact angle of the brake/free end of the rope with respect to the carabiner.
The belay person cannot change the contact angle of the rope-on-rope U turn.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2022, 01:22:25 PM by agent_smith »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4188
Re: Measuring cf and applying an analysis to the Munter
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2022, 11:39:46 PM »

I am only interested in testing the "Munter hitch" using human rated EN892 and EN1891 ropes.
I care little for testing done with anything else - and I don't care what arguments are tendered to the contrary.
Within the realm of vertical rescue / rope access / rock climbing / canyoning / caving / etc etc, I am of the view that if you going to the trouble of testing and publishing results to the world, you should test using PPE (ie rope + carabiner) that accurately reflects what those various user groups actually use at their various 'workplaces'.
But that's my personal view... and others may hold conflicting views, but I still don't care :)

Accepting this welcoming invitation to comment,
I think that you'd do well if your tested-rope collection
had some noticeable differences of:
1) firmness
2) sheath slickness (from new, to normal-used, to *hairy*)
3) diameter (as in your stated cordage you'll go from, what,
8.x to 11mm?

One does see remarks by climbers of differences one might
want to beware when using a new, slick rope in a belay or
abseil device.
(... musing about some sort of quick'n'dirty measure
 for bending resistance : hanging a weight on a U-fold
of rope, seeing how much the legs are drawn towards
each other?!)

The idea, of course, it to give some inkling of things
to take into consideration, of what various departures
from the selected norm will do.
--like we've been wondering about in e.g. stuffing
more diameters into a nipping loop (or whatever
U-turn of a knot) (and which the testing of the
bunny ears (2-eyed) Fig.8 has alas so far suggested
is mere pipe dreaming).


Thanks,
(-;