They are the same.
(Maybe they’ll be next up for someone to do for the sloooooooowly progressing ongoing
work on an Improved Index for [u]ABOK !) --there are many duplicates in the book
(which is one count against the simplistic counting the last image # as the total # of contained knots!).)
I
e.g., it's pretty easy to see that it won't hold in some common materials and loads (something one should be chary of just from visual examination of the knot).Are you 100% sure about this? Can you give me example materials to try, and an experiment to see that it may not be as strong as I thought. Maybe the knot is more secure than it appears…
Well, you quoted one respondent citing a common material in which it didn’t work.
I’d say that most any stiffer material (and he cited one that is usually rather flexible
and compressible), or firm material, it should be easy to demonstrate slippage.
You might be surprised to realize that there are several loopknots corresponding to the Rosendahl's Zep. bend.Would these be as effective as the Zep in most or all departments though?
No. I just found a directional/inline corresponding loopknot, btw..
The F. is compactly solid, round; the RZ. is more open, flat (the "flat" aspect presents a great face for dragging over a surface, with collar-away).Maybe this is easier to discern visually without the need for testing, but has the Zep ever been tested in a real life commercial fishing scenario?
The fact that it isn’t more popular in other industries and for general use could indicate that maybe it could be appropriate (though not ideal) for the job.
I doubt it. I do think that the Alaskan crabbers could come to like it.
–dl*
ps: SquareRigger, what needs looking to is the “two”, not the “too”. Two is too close to zilch! Rattle Seattle!
(And maybe some clever/adjacent location of some respective “booths” would facilitate exchange?)
Congrats & best wishes on your mastering those loosEnds. (Better roll than to grapple with them, IMO.) :