[ BROUGHT HERE FROM THE “Prusik Loops” THREAD WHERE WE’RE “OT” :-]
-
An analysis of available test reports should move one
to question more than quote them --YMMV, but as noted
previously, they tend to leave a lot of relevant factors
UNstated. -
The difference between materials --fine fish line and rope–
is huge, and one should suspect at best only some small
corresponding match of behavior in knots. -
re #2, the forces that are brought to setting the knots
for testing --in terms of relative-to-material-strength %–
differ greatly : angling knots are typically set to a significant
% of line strength, rope knots not.
My examination, as best I could do from pausing the videos,
of the Knot Wars testing showed those knots to be what
I’d call “spar hitches” --not ring ring hitches,
which is what I’d presumed !? I.e., the materials there
were considerably smaller in diameter than the tied-to
metal for the tests. (Thus, one changes what one looks
at, in the knot --more at how the hitch-part SPart is
received, than where it goes (“hitch-part SPart”
distinguishes from “noose” SPart : the line runs directly
to turn back around the hitched object, and then
hitches to itself, so to speak --the knotting
comes of line upon line, with only a turn on the object).
And the similarity between the Berkley Braid & strangle noose
is that they both u-turn, reach back far on their line,
and then overwrap back towards the object;
and they differ in that the BB does this with twinned
line around twin, and then just tucks the end out by
the object vs. running it up through the wraps.
But, because of the use of twin line, the BB will still
be turning around 2 diameters, as does the other.
(Frankly, I’d think that the BB would be suspect in thin
lines (“spar” vs. “ring” hitching), given the simple tuck
beside the object only!?)