As this curve has to withstand the 50%, only, of the total load, I do not believe there will be any significant problem of strength. I just do not like sharp turns ! I like wide, smooth, gradual, gentle, feminine curves… 
I had said enough against the mediocre, to say the least, quick8 and Lehman8 knots - but I am not the kind of person who likes to bulldozer the past ! All knots tied by all knot tyers have their value, and their place in the history of knots, and even when their proud fathers are not yet prepared to simply let them go, I do not wish to be considered as someone who pushes them to do so… The only reason I feel a need to forget some knots, is that my memory can not remember many knots any more ( or, for that matter, many of any-things…), so I have to make room for the new ones, oftentimes by kicking some old ones out, in a not-so-polite way…
In an attempt to balance my somewhat harsh attitude, I have tied the knot shown in the attached pictures, also based on a “closed”, fig.8 knot tied on the Standing Part before the eye. The idea was to “hang” the returning eyeleg from the oblique segment of the fig.8, and then to secure it by passing the Tail End in between the two eyelegs, which squeeze it from both sides - because the eyelegs themselves, in their turn, are squeezed by the powerful Standing Part s first curve / lower collar of the fig.8. Of course, loyal to my recent TIB-mania, I had made it TIB.
In memoriam of the quick8 and the Lehman8 knots - Amen.
-
What is shown first --viz., the “barrel” version-- is
1a. - my Y2K knot (for IGKT), “locktight eyeknot” (one of…),
1b. - wrongly distinguished from “blood” courtesy of the
appallingly stupid promulgation of an in-tying-steps orientation
of internals that should not occur in the finished knot
(What Barnes called “out coil” vs “in coil”, the latter being the
intended, final orientation for the knot’s origin in nylon monofilament
fishline --what results from setting (lubricated, sometimes).) -
So, the “blood” version is badly named, propagating the
all-too-darn-common mistake noted above. (And, in the UK,
there is “larksfoot” to deal with, after some mis-translation
of French, 'tis suspected.) -
X.'s critique of the former, of its apparent tight S.Part U-turn,
also concerned and puzzled me : how could blood knots be SO
strong (the “100%” or is it “90%” knots)?! What Barnes found,
in loading, breaking, and doing post-mortem on such knots tied
in (then fairly new) nylon monofilament fishline was that
3a - the S.Part broke in the center of the nub where it crosses
against the tucked tails, and
3b - the tightness of wraps was such as to make compression
indentations on the S.Parts (maybe more on the continued
half of one S.Part rather than the just-entering-half of the
other (a diff. in tensions?)!? !! (And it puzzles me that so
much force that can do this has survived going around that
tight turn!)
(FYI, I had a knot break-tested in which a similar hard turn
manifested itself --wasn’t my plan, but … --, and it was the
strongest one, breaking in 2 of 3 strands!? Now, there was
some internal pressure too, but … .)
- I devised some variation in which the tail returns from
collaring the S.Part into the coil a little later so as to
accommodate really stiff rope. The hard turn of the exit
of the S.Part-side eye leg helps to prevent that from feeding
material into and so loosening the knot --it won’t flow
around such a bend. The coil compresses tightly, for slack
security, but the “back door” of the bowlinesque collar and
so on enables easy untying. (I might suspect that in the
case of a severe dynamic loading, there could be some
actual “welding” from frictional melting, as the coil gives
a lot of material to be drawn out in tightening! (Unless
one can preset it very tightly.)
Now, this can point to interesting challenges about defining
“strength” :: is it by dynamic loading, where the tightening
and that flow of material might reduce peak impact force?
–or might induce melting and breakage not seen in standard
loading? --or … <what we haven’t guessed!> ?
–dl*
First off, let me say there are so many breaking thoughts in your sentences that it’s hard at times to follow your lines without my brain being turned inside-out. :-\
Acknowledged, of course, although I prefer my name for it, whatever that name might be.
??? In kernmantle I have witnessed spontaneous orientations of both, probably because I form the nipping structure by making the two underhand coils in the same direction.
So, the real “blood” version is actually the “barrel” version? How do you describe the faux “blood” version? Shine yo’ light bro’, ‘cuz I wanna kno’.
You threw this in as an unrelated side note to help make your point??? It’s not helping. ;D
That’s not what I understood him to be referring to… see his cropping of my image with the big red arrow.
True. I was referring to this sharp turn at the turn of the upside “L”, where the returning eyeleg gets inside the nub. However, the issue with the Standing Part s first curve ( which lead dL to his infamous Leaman8, I believe ? ), may be more significant, regarding strength - because the Standing End bears the 100% of the total load, while the eyeleg bears only the 50%. I was talkinh only about the shapes of the curves I prefer, in all knots, not about strength, on which I know next to nothing.
One might thus conclude that it needs the exercise! ;D
(But often the inserts are put to shed light on a 2nd
aspect, to qualify and thus help focus on the point
–as words are often too blunt for precision, alas.)
[quote="Dan_Lehman post:83, topic:5694"] 2) So, the "blood" version is badly named, propagating the all-too-darn-common mistake noted above. [/quote] So, the real "blood" version is actually the "barrel" version? How do you describe the faux "blood" version? Shine yo' light bro', 'cuz I wanna kno'.There isn't a common name for what we might describe as a helix'd S.Part (aiming for gradual curvature, for me). FYI, the [i]dbl.bowline[/i] can take this form by pushing the 2nd/"dbl" turn of the S.Part forwards through the initial one (just as the Hedden hitch's coil-back part can see the S.Part sort of "cascade" around later turns vs. going straight to top of coil (well, you need more turns than the orig., brief Hedden to do this!).
But, to the point : blood knot has a history and that
history might show different tying steps but the finished
knot should have S.Parts running straight through the nub
to opposing ends, and then U-turning (sharply). Typical
of angling-knots images is little more than a cryptic squiggle
to show the finished knot, and the uniformed echoers of
such things see the clear, during-tying image and make
wrong deductions about that. (And some of those squiggle
makers might be as much in the dark about the result!)
[quote="Dan_Lehman post:83, topic:5694"] (And, in the UK, there is "larksfoot" to deal with, after some mis-translation of French, 'tis suspected.) [/quote] You threw this in as an unrelated side note to help make your point??? It's not helping. ;D?! I added a note about another mistaken naming; it wasn't intended to be greatly helpful directly, but to show how things get bent out of true in popular "literature".
[quote="Dan_Lehman post:83, topic:5694"] 3) X.'s critique of the former, of its apparent tight S.Part U-turn, also concerned and puzzled me [/quote] That's not what I understood him to be referring to... see his cropping of my image with the big red arrow.Okay, I see. Re the S.Part's turn, one can orient the tail so that the S.Part bites hardest into it and draws it around with force, rather than putting that force directly on the adjacent eye leg --and this might help!?
In heavy loading I’ve done, the ropes do show the
force at this point, so it’s a concern (yet to be given
some testing). (In some of your orientations, it looks
as though you too might mitigate this aspect.
(Orienting in anticipation of changes wrought via force
and elasticity and friction … can be tricky, and knots
that require such things for achieving their claims to
fame are by some measure dubious --but angling knots
do come with stated setting guidance, usually.)
–dl*
Thanks Dan. That’s what I needed to have confirmed.
So, correct me if I’m wrong… The first set of my four images show - albeit with fewer turns - the true “blood” form. The second set of images depict the topologically equivalent but geometrically bastardized “blood” form. And that same “blood” terminology applies to the single ended stopper knots, yes?
I’m lost on “four”, as you’ve two posts each showing four
images, then two more w/one each. In any case, where
the S.Part runs more or less straight through and then
turns and wraps back around itself (& other parts) is
“true blood” form. A grapevine knot could be said
to show this, though it has somewhat different internals.
–dl*
:o ;D
Edit: I’ll go with the term Coiled S.Part for the helix’d S.Part.
Bad grammar on my part. Alright then, try “my first of two sets of four images each” or “my first four of eight images”. Mr. x’s use of my images do not factor into the equation. Hope that finds you.
Actually, less than “the least”, as much and of
course good can be said of them --and has been.
In an attempt to balance my somewhat harsh attitude, I have tied the knot shown in the attached pictures, also based on a "closed", [i]fig.8[/i] knot ... . The idea was to "hang" the returning eyeleg from the oblique segment of the [i]fig.8[/i], and then to secure it by passing the Tail End in between the two eyelegs, which squeeze it from both sides - because the eyelegs themselves, in their turn, are squeezed by the powerful Standing Part s first curve / lower collar of the fig.8. Of course, loyal to my recent TIB-mania, I had made it TIB. [b][i]In memoriam[/i][/b] of the [i]quick8[/i] and the [i]Lehman8[/i] knots - Amen. :) :)Now, for this, you can talk about "mediocre", though it is worse than that, really : giving the tail (re-entering eye leg) the path you do here, you avoid getting the sure nip of the S.Part at its 2nd tuck, which is key in letting the [i]quick8[/i] serve qua "adjustable eye knot".
Similarly deficient is your re-tucking of the tail between
the eye legs --which misses the re-tucked quick8’s nice
binding of the S.Part (over which its re-tucking passes)
to make that knot slack-secure.
Moreover, this imitation knot looks vulnerable to
ring-loading failure, although I’ve not seen it in the small
and not-so-like-kernmantle cords I’ve played with --but
that simple turn of the tail and other aspects lead towards
suspicion that the vulnerability exists.
As for TIB, there are variations of the Lehman8 that can
be tied qua directional eyeknots (IIRC, in one of these,
at least, the overhand part is loaded sort “in reverse”:
what is the tail of the Lehman8 continues with the
part it’s twinning to form the eye,
so what had been its (overhand’s) contribution to the eye
now is the end-2-end opposition to the S.Part.
(There are various ways to orient the parts,
e.g. to give that opposed-to-S.Part overhand part
a broader turn vs. the sharper one of the Lehman8.)
… W H I C H , yes, points to this “directional” variation
being a form of the more commonly known re-tucking
of the plain ol’ fig.8 eyeknot
–dl*
You would nt expect me to dedicate anything really great to your mediocre knots, would you ?
And, of course, you had not TRIED this knot, to compare it to yours, under heavy loading… We have to wait Alan Lee to do this, I am afraid - but till then, do not be so quickLehman in trying to imagine out possible disadvantages…
I would love to SEE a TIB Lehman8 eyeknot - and not just try to IMAGINE it based on your hand-weaving “descriptions”. As you know, I am ready to accept even a not-so-great eyeknot, if it is TIB - as I did with your most simple TIB bowline, which, although as a bowline it is nothing special, the fact that it is the simplest possible TIB bowline, and it can be tied in-the-bight by the simple “haltering the collar” method ( as shown in the attached picture…), makes it “notable”.
P.S. I see that you are interested in a such a detailed examination of a knot ( which is not completely wrong, although it is biased…), only if it questions the supposed “greatness” of a knot yourself had tied… ( although the knot presented in my previous post was not meant to do this, and it is not an “imitation” of anything - if I had to compare your quick8 eyeknot to another, “similar” knot, I would had compared it to David Poston s fig-8-knot-based loop, or even to the recent fig-8 knot adjustable loop tied by Alan Lee (1)).
However, I am afraid I had tied some dozens of knots which do not question anything tied by you, simply because there was nothing there to question…
Two more for perusal, Your Critiqueness.
Nice, sharp ( better : most sharp, or : as sharp as possible…) one-rope-diameter returning(second) eyeleg s first curve, in both of them ! ( Oh, my neck ! )
And, of course, I see no Munter-ed any-thing - what you insist to call “Munter hitch”, is only a humble crossing knot ( in this case, a multi-wrap crossing knot ).
Why dont you see how smoother / gentler / wider is the corresponding curve at your other cow, the Tresse coiled S.Part bowline ( shown in the attached picture ), I can not understand…
Regarding those two new loops, I think that the nipping loops of the first would grip/nip the legs of the collar more tightly=securily than the nipping loops of the second - I see no reason, in the case of the second loop, for the interposition in between the legs of its collar and the rims of its nipping loops of this oblique element : lines which meet each other perpendicularly, are immobilized more effectively. This element, placed inside the “nipping tube”, does not work as a beneficial riding turn any more ( as it does in the first loop ), and it is not only separating the perpendicularly oriented legs and rims, but, because of its oblique orientation in relation to both of them, it helps the former slide through the later…
What intrigued me about this knot was how the muntered twisted - same thing as - Crossing Part causes the continuation of the Standing Part to run on the outside of the nipping structure, whereas, with my other “cow” it runs on the inside. As for performance characteristics, I’ll take empirical evidence over any conjecture.
What intrigued me about the Tresse coiled S.Part bowline, is that this oblique riding turn, directly tensioned by the 50% of the load, works like the oblique riding turn of a multi-wrap Clove hitch ( without the danger of almost jamming a common Clove hitch tied around a compressible element runs - a multi-wrap Clove hitch can be untied instantly, although it becomes very tight ). It squeezes upon each other the adjacent wraps of the nipping loop, so, once they have been tightly closed around themselves and around the penetrating legs of the collar, they can not be “un-winded” / loosened from their tight coiled position by themselves - so they “lock” : first they accumulate all the tension induced within them through the continuation of the Standing End, and then they keep their tight, secure grip on the legs of the collar they had obtained. So, this external riding turn not only makes the returning eyeleg s first curve smoother / wider, it also helps in the “locking” of the tension inside the “nipping tube” s coils.
More about how a multi-wrap Clove hitch works, at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4139.msg25019#msg25019
P.S. It also works fine with a 3-wrap nipping tube ( see the second attached picture ).
Your terms “turn at the first curve of it’s returning eyeleg” and “returning eyeleg’s first curve” will confuse English speaking people. It’s why I asked for clarification. A more accurate term would be “curve just prior to the lead under the collar”.
I had not written " it’s ", I had written : " its " ! ( pronoun, the possessive form of “it” ).
I was talking about the Tresse coiled S.Part bowline, and its returning eyeleg :
" Personally, I prefer it from the similar Barrel bowline, because it does not have this very sharp turn at the first curve of its returning eyeleg." (sic)
As you write it, it confuses even me !
More on the point, I could also had written " its second eyeleg ", if the meaning of the “returning” is not so clear.
The term “first curve” is already used for the first curve of the Standing Part - I had attempted to use it also for the first curve of the returning / second eyeleg…( And, to me, “lead” can not denote something that “returns” ! )
Very good, sir. ;D ;D ;D You have corrected me on my native language. If the term “lead” is not to your liking, or understanding, please try “the uppermost curve around the returning/second eyeleg”. And have a look at this https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-possessive.htm Another of the British’ divide and conquer strategies I suspect. 
On the basis of one faux pas! And not one smiley!! A dastardly bit of brinksmanship on your part.