This is a key point, in that your “knots” clearly
here means “arrangement for cordage …” and
not the actual-factual material item tested.
My “… because the light is better” joke was to
note the folly of testing in something unlike what
will ultimately be of actual interest/use --and this
shows the importance of material (and forces).
It’s a matter debate how well attributes of the
latter can be carried by the former.
?!? No, quite right, but mitigated in degree; and w/o even adding the factor of usage & age to the so-spec'd whichever-brand vs. another ropes!although all EN564 rope may meet certain specifications, that doesn't mean all brands will be the same or even all samples from the same factory would be identical.Wrong.
... I cannot purchase your no name brand el cheapo cord here in Australia to precisely match ...Hmmm, could we devise some cordage-characteristic measures so that we could match (or come close to, or know some degree of the divergence from ...) the materials? --thinking of those bend/stiffness measures for climbing ropes, and ... how to gauge friction, or compressibility ?!
But before we (over-)worry about duplicating results
–something, btw, getting some bit of press for things
deemed more important (than knots) in science!–,
we can content ourselves with just decently presented
results.
(In certain cases, perhaps, we could even share some
not-too-heavy materials! Recently just harvested
some more venetian-blinds pull cord core&sheath,
adding to a growing stock of this fine cord (“fine”
in several senses, IMO!). For the first time, today
I separated core (gradual twist, I think) & mantle
in a line. )