Fair enough, and I suspected this --though it goes against
those assertions of surety w/the knot, eh! :
but the assertions about
no-rotation somehow differs in choking effect from "rotation"
version is confused :: both have the choking that is cited,
No - they actually don’t. The bottom image on page 14 is rotated and has a choking effect with the blue rope.
The upper image is in a neutral state - at the midpoint.
I tried very hard to capture the upper image at its midpoint (neutral rotation) but its really difficult to convey the concept.
Hmmm, (a) try again, and aim for seeing the tops of BOTH
ends adjacent at the top (at present, the blue is less so);
AND (b) show rotation in the other direction as well (which
is what makes “midpoint” just that.
Taking a looking-down-upon-knot-set-upon-table persective
would clearly show tails swinging from roughly right-angle on
one side, aligned, and right-angle to opposite side triad.
(Again, my surmise is that the midpoint orientation might
be least stable; but I have no good testing done, to support
or contradict this --just some casual observation.)
While my initial reaction to the so-called "EDK-backed EDK"
was unfavorable and like that expressed in this draft paper,
I've come 'round to realizing that in fact this arguably
needlessly bulky knot has much to recommend it in
terms of NOT needing the "IMPORTANT!" tying points
given for my once favored variations of the EDK/OOB/OWK
of how to position different diameter/nature ropes and so on
At the loads … in a properly dressed #1410
//
However, I take your point re the ‘important tying/dressing points’ - in that the backed up #1410 theoretically mitigates such issues- albeit at the penalty of increased footprint.
The offset double overhand bend (see page 18) in my view would be preferable to a backed up #1410.
The latter knot is NOT one so easily tied under duress,
with frozen ropes, etc.; that is the entire point of the
seemingly gratuitously bulky/wasteful double-knotting.
As for “footprint”, I doubt that it makes much difference
the way things are --one shouldn’t be pulling through
an ring, and pulling into a “V” even would see the
back-up half just bobbing atop the other, not adding
bulk of any significance to it at the rub points.
.:. It’s not just the additional knotting/material of
the EDK-backed-EDK, but the WAY that material comes
–i.e., as a stopper structure to be jammed into the
base knot. (Even the variation where one only ties off the
choking strand’s tail will have less bulk to jam, and
of course necessitates making the correct choice of tail.)
The tying action is so direct & simple : Do what you just did, again.
In cases WITHOUT duress … , one is certainly happily advised
to make those helpful discriminations & tying correctnesses.
–dl*
who’s excellent commentary was largely ignored.
