Thanks for the reminder about the Oregon university’s studies of using HMPE
fibre ropes for logging–I owe them some thoughts, and esp. about “special” knots!
(They e.g. found a Bwl to slip if not stoppered; when stoppered, to break at 33%.)
Typically, their knot world is quite limited.
As for “kernmant ”, by demoncratic principles manifest via Google,
the former wins currently over 2-to-1 in citations. Taking a detour into AltaVista’s
Babelfish (not ‘Bable’) finds G (E-mantel) = “coat” and G (E-mantle) = “cover”,
and the full k. terms resp. as “kernmantel” (i.e., no change) & “core-cover”.
Interestingly, Merriam-Webster’s 9th Coll. (surely based on Web.3rd New Int.) gives
the derivation of “mantel” to an ancient ‘LE’ term, and that for “mantle” to an ‘EL’ one!
–perfect confusion!!! :
(which I’ll let sit and fester or simmer of blend, for a while)
Anyhow, yes, you’re do some off-line particular comments about some other document.
(which, quite sadly, begins with the obvious but oft’-parroted nonsense about [i]ABOK
containing some over 3,800 knots–not a good omen :-\ )
Dave Richards needs some innovative & insightful input, also on my to-do list. His hoped-for
testing of hi-mod ropes & knots has been delayed for personal reasons & general busyness,
but I think remains a hope. Here is a chance to get some real rope tested by those fancy
devices!
As for limiting the set of user knots in (name your application–climbing/caving/SAR are some),
while the stated advantage of manifesting the supposed “KISS” principle is given, I think
that this is to some significant extent specious: how can one know well a reasonable set
of knots but not understand and readily deal with others? --yes, it seems that it happens
regularly: users do their business well but with a few knots, and they do show bafflement
trying to step beyond this limited knot-world. --but it seems also reasonable to argue that
an understanding of a knot necessarily entails knowledge that will enable the person to
easily work with other knots and to handle new situations by modifying/adapting known
knots or knot components to solve the problem. I see this as using knotting skills
as opposed to merely indexing by problem into some set of knots to get a specific one.
The more rigidly defined an application, the more feasible some fixed set of knots will be.
But I’d really like to see better understanding than is currently exhibited. And with the
growing diversity of knottable media, this is probably a practical necessity, not a luxury.