For sure, and I have said as much myself several times in previous posts.
The whole purpose on building a test rig was for me to do a few trials with knots I was interested in and provide some feedback to the forum about whether that knot might show promise in other applications.
The 3mm braid I am using is ‘stiff’ and getting the nub to dress well is somewhat of a challenge before I even start loading it. I don’t know much about ropes and knotting is a new hobby for me, however from what I have read, tying a larger diameter ‘static’ rope (say 11mm) used in caving/rescue is at least a little bit like my trial rope. I suspect a larger diameter rope would actually be easier to handle than the material I am trialling with. Untying loaded 3mm rope isn’t much fun. The rope diameter is small enough that it makes just about any knot a little challenging to tie, dress properly and then untie after load.
Be a little kind please xarax It seems my photography skills are inadequate and now my testing methods are too. I have already done more testing on this new knot than 99% of other new knots get. And if I report that the knot shows stability and was easy to untie, then rather than negating that maybe consider those findings as sign of promise
Yes, I tried my best to dress it well, I tugged on everything and got my glasses out to see if the nub looked reasonable 8) .The material I’m using (quite good quality for what it is I think; blind cord; starter cord) tends to want to spring apart. I actually don’t mind this in terms of trialling since if the trial still goes well it gives me even a little more confidence that the knot might be useful in ‘real life’ applications with larger material.
The other thing I tried to do was cross the legs. To me there was a possibility of setting the legs in a way that would resist end-2-end loading. That was really hard to do in my material, it just wants to spring open. Also, white cord is hard to see when all together in the nub, so seeing the legs were where I wanted them was a bit tricky. Anyway, if the knot still holds after less than optimal dressing, then that is another good sign.
I am only doing home trials and the rig I designed and built just won’t do large diameter ropes. As I said before, perhaps consider my results based on small diameter rope as a promising sign if I say the results were good. In most cases ‘good’ will only mean the knot was stable, or broke at a given percentage of breakload in my material. If that isn’t enough for you, please refrain from giving me more negative comments about the results I do give. I am not building a Test Facility that will handle larger ropes safely just because you see fit to criticize what I have already done.
As for photography, I am tying knots as a hobby, not taking photos. As many posters don’t go to the trouble of providing images, those that do so need not be chastised by you for not meeting your exacting standards. The advice you gave me more recently is far more helpful than telling me firstly that I “deliberately blurred” my pictures. As it turns out I think I will shortly buy a short length of good rope material and try to improve my photos at least a little.
Sincerity and telling the truth are fine qualities. Though, perhaps if you cannot be kind you can try diplomacy instead? It may achieve wonders 8)
I will give xarax some unsolicited advice: Don’t give unsolicited advice and be careful with the word “should”. The first rule can be broken, but only with sufficient understanding first of why it exists.
Xarax’s photography tips for that matter seem to be targeted specifically toward smart phone cameras. Some of it is far from ideal advice for any real camera and applies to conditions where a smart phone isn’t going to work amazingly anyway. However, I was glad he (mobius) took them and they were certainly useful enough to me.
I should have looked back at your original message, however “you blurred the pictures as much as you could” means pretty much the same thing as if you had actually said I “deliberately blurred” them. The quote might be wrong, however that is not STUPID, that is just a mistake. So instead of admitting that your actions were wrong in the first place (regardless of trying to hide behind the smiley’s) you escalate the situation by accusing me of lying.
Somewhere along the line this type of ridiculous behavior has to stop xarax. We are “off topic” and more posts will be deleted. Say whatever you like now I suppose, by the time I get up in morning there will be a bunch more posts missing from this thread, and I won’t have to suffer reading more insults from you.
Maybe I should make a new thread, but it strikes me that there are obviously two more Butterfly family loops, which are nearly identical to each other (as identical as the asymmetry in the ABL.
Those loops make a loop from one of the traditional eye legs with one of the traditional parent legs.
It strikes me that one of the biggest weaknesses of this knot part is that it capsizes when the ends comming out together are loaded. Ie, ring loaded for ABL and end-to-end for MBL. This other form probably could not do that since it would require pulling one eye leg and one parent leg at the same time, probably without pulling the other eye leg (maybe unproven, but seems probable that pulling all three could prevent the capsizing.
I haven’t tied it yet and it somehow seems mechanically a bit ugly maybe, but well something to try anyway. It can’t be all bad. This knot part never is all bad.
So I just tied one. Use the tie in the end method, but just tie the second half of the knot with the end that is normally the standing end.
It’s cute. There are two very different ways it can be loaded depending which end you load. Others can argue about if those loadings are different knots or knot.
I need a designation for which of the two nearly identical versions I tied. It’s not TIB though, so maybe not so interesting.
One can make a like-butterfly knot where one side will
take a fig.8 vice overhand form --and thus the rotation of U-turns’ nipping will go in the same direction;
loading this qua eyeknot w/overhand having the S.Part
should be more resistant to jamming.
It strikes me that one of the biggest weaknesses of this knot part is that it capsizes when the ends comming out together are loaded. Ie, ring loaded for ABL and end-to-end for MBL.
Actually, one could see this as not so much a weakness,
but a reassurance --i.e., that it capsizes into a secure,
well-known form. But I recall devising a abseil-ropes-joining
end-2-end knot that [u]could[/u] do this and found by chance
that it could also/otherwise *partially capsize* --i.e., one side
giving way prior the other (think : different rope qualities)
and ... pffffffwooosh, the knot was untied !! (Alpineer was
happy to learn of my experience prior to maybe using the
knot.)
Yeah, you’re right, it is a little boring. I agree that this knot is ultimately secure anyway you tie it. This is more than a secure knot. It’s a secure topology and THAT is largely what has made the name of the ABL well known.
There had been comments earlier though about not liking a form that will give a little surprise under load. I think this form won’t, ring loaded or end-to-end loaded or either end loaded. That’s all I can say for it though. It’s not high praise.
Oh, now you worry me : what made the name popular
is more myth and fancy, IMO. And as I further think about
the “partially capsizing” abseil-ropes-joiner I had, IIRC it
was supposedly also of a “secure topology” (a brain-warping
term) --that of Ashley’s #1452 I think (!). Not sure
if I can find the thread here (or knot sketches within my
reach at my “here”). And, for reference knot-#s out of [u]ABoK, “lanyard knot” #781 or thereabouts is the
pre-capsized version, to be loaded making it an “offset”
knot like the infamous “EDK” (offset water knot)
–prior to possible capsizing, that is!
.:. Be careful when you count your chickens! :o
It seems my photography skills are inadequate and now my testing methods are too. I have already done more testing on this new knot than 99% of other new knots get. And if I report that the knot shows stability and was easy to untie, then rather than negating that maybe consider those findings as sign of promise 
