Wasn’t able to view the images in full scale (I tried only chrome). It just started loading forever.
That’s a bit odd and unfortunate. I tried the link myself and I was able to get full scale images, which you really need to have in order to do the test. I use Firefox, but it shouldn’t make any difference. If you right click on an image do you see an option in the context menu to view full scale?
It worked fine for me Linux/Firefox
I was stumped by question # 4. I had never heartd of a figure-of-nine knot let alone a figure-of-ten.
That brings up a a question
Is the correct term figure-of-eight knot or figure eight knot? Does the figure-of-eight term have snob appeal? 
Cheers. Tony
Figure-of-eight is the formal term, so in that sense would be correct. But I don’t think there’s any snob appeal associated with it.
That’s an understatement : in the grapevine images,
I’d say that many of them satisfy the question --it’s
a dubious determinant to lean so hard on slight
differences in bulges and so on (they are not exploded).
Also, it’s arguable about excluding the “wrong” orientation
of the opposed overhands, though I concur in choosing
the common, “concordant” (C.Warner’s term) one.
Btw, I was especially pleased to see the one trick “fig.8”
(rightmost, IIRC), in which one line makes not that but
an overhand --and the structure is asymmetric,
so one should wonder about which loading gets what
behavior pluses/minuses! (I myself have long thought
that that knot makes a good legend-buster about how
the intended knot is so readily recognizable : I surmise
that one could present that bogus knot to many who
assert this characteristic and prove them wrong!)