But I do want to point out that there were two knots on the previous threadOh, goodness, two-per-minute via Xarax!* ;D Yes, I think I'd inklings of that, though got to the "coming back full circle" to an original suggestion.
(*One or more of what Xarax has newly posted under
the “Rectangular Bend” thread look to offer a way
of employing double nipping loops to lock the tails.
Some of the dressing & setting can be tricky.)
Yes, that’s my design goal, here. Among the
versions that might be devised are altering the
particular comings’n’goings / directions to try to
avoid sympathetic pulling on adjacent parts
that would aid their movement to slip. I was
working in a braided B&W line that made it esp.
hard to tell what was what (in contrast to the
clear images w/contrasting-colors rope shown
by Xarax, e.g. --though even then, it can be
difficult if the knot’s not “exploded” for view).
I think that one part has potential “assist” in
such adjacency, but the tails go opposite this.
But, yes, again, the thought was that in the
mere U-turns, although tails were trapped
–by virtue of both "U"s-- there was less
compressing about them than will come if the
binding is opposed "O"s that contract.
Also, there is a lot going on in the center so the standing ends come in and make a most gentle bend making a large full circle before they experience a sharp bend.Whereas I think that greatest strength in some materials might come from making compression against the S.Part over a broad area, off-loading force (so to speak) gradually, the slickness of HMPE suggests that it's a joke to try for this --or to of necessity use a huge quantity of rope & binding, as each part will do only so little, given slickness--; so, back to just going for a larger radius of bending.
It is really big though :-)At least until push comes to shove, at forces way higher than conventional materials experience. (It used to be said, by way of explaining why hi-mod cordage did poorly with knots in strength (this assumes that the knots hold, of course), that the material, the fibres, were "weak in compression". I suggested that this wasn't fair, and that the fibres sustained forces higher than conventional materials, [u]in absolute terms --force per diameter, i.e.--[/u], but that they were sooo much stronger in tension that the rupture forces worked out to a small percentage of that.)
Incidentally, eyeknots have seemed to be stronger
than end-2-end knots in some testings : e.g., there
was a fellow using a truck’s force to do A-vs-B testing
of end-2-end knots and he used fig.8 eyeknots (of
some orientation), and they never broke !!! (!?)
One way of mimicking the workings of an eyeknot,
where one might reason that the S.Part can be more
gently/carefully handled because the TWO eyelegs
oppose it and they can compromise as they need only
sustain 50% (together, 100%),
is to have each end begin an eyeknot and then reach
out to complete it in the other end’s beginning,
reciprocally. “Twin bowlines” as show in ABOK
is a paradigm of this. Oddly, in the aforementioned
testing, this structure was tested with fig.8 knots
and yet … the specimen-anchoring fig.8 knots
–and, IIRC, some other(!)-- survived, the “twin fig.8s”
end-2-end stucture being what brokef! That doesn’t
make good sense to me, beyond some statistical
anomaly, as such an end-2-end knot should have
the same behavior as the eyeknot!?
(I.e., the fig.8 eyeknots never broke and yet
some end-2-end knot was stronger than essentially
the same fig.8 tied in end-2-end function. One
could surmise that in end-2-end knotting there was
some imbalanced loading not found in the eyes.)