Ok, we are definitely veering off course now and if anyone wants to continue diverging, I will lock the thread.
This will be unfortunate because the topic is supposed to lead to a discussion about increasing clarity on knotting terminology concerning the phrase ?ring loading?.
In my own opinion, this term has been a bit muddy and and possibly only recognized by more familiar knot tying enthusiasts. I personally don?t see any reason not to discuss potentially better descriptors or nomenclature for this eye loading profile.
Please, get back on topic and perhaps offer some possibilities.
Thanks to the moderator for calling out inappropriate behavior, and I doubt whether any apologies will be forthcoming.
To reinforce; this thread is about attempting to more accurately define the directions of loading on the fixed eye of a knot.
I realized that the term ‘ring loading’ is actually ill-defined - that is, it does not actually define the direction of loading with a degree of precision - while in the process of drafting a paper about #1053 Butterfly.
I felt that ‘ring loading’ (as a concept) left too many gaps in the way in which a fixed eye could be loaded.
The ‘Mobius’ Butterfly is an interesting example - and I have attached an image which attempts to draw out the limitations of the default term ring loading.
I accept and understand that some resist any notion of change - and to challenge long-held beliefs or notions of understanding is to invite ridicule.
Nevertheless, the attached image speaks for itself - and it ought to be reasonably obvious that a fixed eye can be loaded in a variety of different directions.
I have already conducted some field evaluation of the Mobius Butterfly as an improvised floating rigging plate.
Due to the unique geometry of this particular corresponding eye knot (from its parent #1053 Butterfly), it remains stable and secure in circumferential loading, longitudinal cross-loading and also radial cross-loading. Interestingly, it is rock solid in a radial cross-loading because the eye legs now mimic through-loading of the parent #1053 Butterfly.
I have to thank Xarax for drawing my attention to the Mobius Butterfly - and the fact that it is TIB and EEL.
This is laughable --THIS forum originating the
term “ring loading”. It is a German term (i.e.,
a German equivalent to it), translated into the
lingua franca of our world, and used among
rockclimbers and then from them outwards
as folks become aware (and in need).
And the point of it all is regarding the stability
of an eye knot to endure such loading qua e2e
knot (which is what obtains in your needless
variety of so applying force to the ring).
I, for one, do not think that bettering an understanding of a term is unwanted.
Just because some fairly experienced knot tyers grasp its meaning, it is still vague. IMO
As an experiment, one that I have done since the introduction of this thread, I asked a number of people to give a go to defining the term ?ring loading?.
The subject group included age groups, young, middle and advanced, professors, students, some family members (even some Very closely related to a knot tying enthusiast), an engineer, doctor, construction worker, etc., etc. About 30 people, some of them almost weirded out strangers.
Not once did any of them mention a loaded rope profile and when I followed this with asking about a ring loaded rope, the answer was ?many rings on a rope?.
Most just said, ?Rings loaded onto something.? Or gave the multi-yard stare.
So, if no one wants to participate, please, lets not laugh at another?s desire for clarity.
Positive input is helpful.
SS
The term is rockclimbing jargon, for Pete’s sake.
Shall we ask your sample group about “flash, redpoint …,
whipper, bombproof, belay, free-solo, dyno, layback, pitch”
and the rest of the array of climbing-specific terms?!
The idea was to see if the term had any meaning to Anybody.
And, when mentioned >> "'I followed this with asking about a ring loaded rope, the answer was “many rings on a rope”.
So, I’ll conduct another pop quiz when I meet up with some friends who climb and get their input.
You do know that some, maybe most rock climbers don’t even know or care about those super cool terms. They just climb and enjoy.
Or they use rope for other purposes, such as rescue, construction, etc.
I personally don’t see any reason not to further the knowledge base with term clarifying. I am not saying to get rid of the term.
I personally don’t see any reason not to further the knowledge base
with term clarifying.
But that is not what is threatened to happen.
Rather, the term is amply well perspicuous
–it is the loading of the eye knot qua end-2-end
joint–, yet A_S wants to split this case into some
myriad things irrelevant to the use and all still
of same knot loading.
yet A_S [b]wants [/b]to split this case into some
myriad things [b]irrelevant [/b]to the use and all still
of same knot loading.
?
I didn't know that 'agent_smith' wants to do this?
Rather, it [i]appears [/i]that Dan Lehman wants to assert his notional understanding of the definition of ring loading?
In the first instance, what is a ‘ring’?
Most people would define a ‘ring’ as being circular.
In other posts about the historical source of ring loading…
I have been professionally involved with climbing, vertical rescue and rope access for all of my adult life.
I have never come across the term ring loading until visiting this forum.
Dan, your posts have a tendency to contain language that is belligerent where you encounter a viewpoint that does not align with your notional understanding or personal paradigms.
The simple truth is that a fixed eye of a knot can be loaded in a number of directions.
Why don’t you post an image or drawing explaining how you would prefer to define each of the possible loading profiles?
I have already done this - refer to my Butterfly knot images.
Ring Loading is a clear expression. Thank you, Agent Smith, for providing this topic. Thank you for sharing your difficulty finding definition of this important concept. It is understandable that you would have no good experience with this term as it seems to be an idiom only common in American English. I have been familiar with this term for decades, as it has been used in the entertainment industry. Others in the forum have caught on to the meaning and you should as well, once you have been shown correct usage.
The paradigm case for this term is that of a fixed loop that is trusted for a load all in line with the standing line, but then this same fixed loop is seen as capable of slipping or breaking with the addition of a significant transverse load.
In the event production industry, the use of knots is widespread. For the most part, there are expectations that commonly shared knots will be used. For example, all sandbags hoisted overhead on hand lines shall be tied with the bowline knot. If an object taken out overhead cannot use the bowline, such as when taking out a service cable, then the clove hitch is likely used. When neither a fixed loop or a hitch is suitable, such as with a box shape, this is when one might see someone attempt something nonstandard like wrapping the loop of a bowline knot around such an object. The cordage will ?ring? around the box, perhaps even crossing itself to make a ?box wrap.? This is a real time problem that invites the succinct warning, ?You are going to ring load that knot.? The warning is that the knot may slip or break because of the added transverse tension and that there is a risk of a catastrophic failure. The expression is a fair warning and serves the purpose exactly.
The usage then extends away from cordage ringing an object to other cases, never leaving the primary condition of a fixed loop that can fail with transverse tension. Consider a heavy object to be hauled out, a breasting line to be attached which will be used to pull the object out of the plumb line. If the heavy object is hauled out on a bowline knot and the breast line is attached through the fixed loop, then there is the possibility of a transverse tension on the loop. Again, the warning is that the knot may be ring loaded and catastrophic failure could be the consequence.
Agent Smith, your attempts to understand this concept by looking for a knot tied around a circular object are too narrowly focused in asking for some specific shape to provide the important condition and your objections are not well placed for not seeing the central issue, that of a knot that is otherwise trusted but not when a transverse load is added.
Consider the many knots that may be cinched around circular objects. These knots are called hitches. If they may fail, they are not said to be ring loaded as you define the term. They are called unsecure hitches.
Agent Smith, you are critical of our fellow forum members who find the expression ?ring loading? unproblematic. They share the use of the expression with purpose but you somehow think they don?t or shouldn?t Perhaps this common use of language that is accepted by an entire industry and several forum members is unacceptable to you because you have a more exacting analysis.
To this exacting purpose, Agent Smith, you bring vocabulary from hydraulics into the discussion. The terms that you list, longitudinal load, radial load, circumferential load, these are the mutually orthogonal vectors of cylindrical coordinates. Since each of the three illustrations from you, for the three vector directions, point in just one direction, outward, I am not sure you have the concept. You say that these are further considerations that need to be included to understand ?ring loading? or similar phenomena. It could be asked, why bring in hydraulics? Why not analyze knots and rigging for the tensile structures that they are?
It is surprising, as you present yourself as a professional in the use of rigging, that from your opening statement of your thread, you show an inexplicable view of how forces work in knots. You open this topic by saying that ring loading should not be understood on the model of a bend which is pulled apart by a load because in the model of ring loading, as you say, the load is diminished to one half for each leg of the fixed loop. But your assumption is only suitable for the simple case where the load on the fixed loop is hanging down, in one direction, where there is no deflection, where there is no ring loading! If there is any deflection, such as in any bridle, then the load in each leg is more than half the load. Indeed, if the bridle is shallow or if the fixed loop is ring loaded, then the tension in each leg can greatly exceed the weight of the object to be hoisted. This phenomenon situates both the relevance and the significance of the term, ?ring loading,? in the avoidance of catastrophic failure. This is so fundamental to industrial rigging that it calls into question your experience. Have you never installed a rigging point across a span? If you had, you should have felt the transverse component of the load. You would have known how dramatically this force increases with the shallowness of the bridle. This would have figured into your calculations of a safe working load. It is the same phenomenon within a ring loaded knot.
Agent Smith, thank you again for this important topic and thank you for all of your work in and out of this forum. I am glad to be able to contrast my views on knots with your views. I welcome a reply to this or any of my remarks.
I have read your post and some of the language is taking on the character of a personal nature.
I cannot understand why comments of a personal nature are warranted.
All I am doing is presenting information in an attempt to draw well considered discussion without resorting to personal attacks.
A forum moderator has already issued some warnings to keep the discussion polite and non belligerent.
I have extracted passages from your narrative that I believe are unnecessary and might attract the attention of a forum moderator.
I have formed a view that the following comments are of a personal nature and/or taking on a character that is borderline offensive:
Thank you for sharing [i][b]your difficulty[/b][/i] finding definition of this important concept. It is understandable [i][b]that you would have no good experience with this term[/b][/i] as it seems to be an idiom only common in American English.
I have no such 'difficulty'.
I am simply interested in discussing various loading profiles on the eye of a fixed eye knot.
Anything beyond that basic framework is extrapolation.
Others in the forum have caught on to the meaning and [i][b]you should as well, once you have been shown correct usage.[/b][/i]
Have they? Okay - this suggests I am deficient, or not grasping commonly understood concepts? This is borderline offensive.
It is surprising, as you present yourself as a professional in the use of rigging, that from your opening statement of your thread, you show an inexplicable view of how forces work in knots.
This comment is completely unnecessary and borderline offensive.
Agent Smith, you are critical of our fellow forum members who find the expression ?ring loading? unproblematic.
No - I'm not.
I am simply discussing loading profiles on the eye of a fixed eye knot.
If you re-read all of the previous posts, you will see that I am not the protagonist - you have misunderstood my intent.
This is so fundamental to industrial rigging that it calls into question your experience.
This comment is unnecessary and borderline offensive.
Have you never installed a rigging point across a span? If you had, you should have felt the transverse component of the load. You would have known how dramatically this force increases with the shallowness of the bridle. This would have figured into your calculations of a safe working load.
This comment is unnecessary and borderline offensive.
It suggests that I am lacking or deficient in some way - and/or don't measure up to industry standards.
…
Where do we go from here?
Is it possible to enter into a discussion in a way that avoids comments of a personal nature?
Why engage in such behavior?
What motivates you to engage in such behavior?
EDIT NOTE:
On a positive note, I had been in various discussions about terminology to describe the possible directions of loading on the eye of a fixed eye knot:
For example:
Axial loading (the eye is loaded along the direction of the SPart)
Transverse loading (the eye is loaded perpendicular to the SPart)
Circumferential loading (hoop stress - the eye is expanded in multiple outward directions
I think that the term ?Ring Loading? is a very specialized term that only a few rope users grasp the meaning of. Yes, some users of cord may have enjoyed the tag over the years in a small circle of common users.
That said, I believe that there is a opportunity to discuss a more in depth explanation to understand and clarify loading profiles of a eye loop.
In agent-smith?s defense; he brings a lot of work to his discussions/contributions and asks only for considered responses/contributions. And I believe his experience and professional rope employment.
To bring counterpoints is welcome, but without the denigrating remarks (is expected).
So, back on topic, for example; if you have a loop (not ring) that has three different loads applied to it, in different directions, is this ring loading? Will the loaded loop resemble a ring?
Loop loading seems to be more clear and I believe that the common person would be inclined to understand this term more readily.
In my opinion, more specificity is welcomed for this discussion.
Thanks to the moderator (again) for calling out bad behavior.
Given the purpose of this section of the IGKT forum (which is to discuss knotting concepts and explorations) - it is puzzling why some individuals choose to engage in belligerent behavior.
I do have faith in the human race - but, the underlying motivations of these individuals calls my faith into question.
Anyhow, I have attached yet another diagram illustrating 3 different loading profiles on the eye of a fixed eye knot.
The timing of this is interesting because I had been in various discussions about appropriate terminology to describe these loading profiles.
My original thoughts centered on ‘cross-loading’ - and thus ‘radial cross-loading’ and longitudinal cross-loading’ grew from that concept.
Recently, I went back to the drawing board and thought that axial and transverse could also be appropriate.
In any case, the complexities of the English language and engineering terms which guide my thoughts.
The attached image clearly shows the different directions a fixed eye can be loaded.
Obviously, all 3 cant be ‘ring loading’ - because each is loaded in a different way.
Furthermore, what is the precise definition of ‘ring loading’ - and if there is a precise definition, how does that definition apply to each of the loading directions I have shown?
Informed and considered replies are always welcome - but bad behavior and offensive replies will be called out.
No, you have a specious image, and,
“specious reasoning, however fair,
is like missing a link in a chain of thought
and praxis seeks to pull the chain taut
it becomes apparent what isn’t there!”
I.p., your image with 4 biners connected
to an eye is speciously set to render that
eye round: LOAD the biners and you will
see ring-loading on the KNOT as the eye
legs running to the knot are pulled in opposition
to each other (as you show in another image),
and matters little about there being additional
points of contact with the eye --the relation of
load to knot is the critical point.
As I said many posts back:
Others know exactly what is
meant, which you show as “l.cross-loading” --i.e.,
loading the eye qua ring such that the knot is
loaded qua end-2-end joint.
In reply to Dan:
Thanks for your comment in relation to my imagined specious reasoning.
There isn’t anything of a specious nature here - its simply discussion and I am simply presenting information to show various loading profiles.
I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the circumferential loading profile in comparison to the transverse loading profile.
Note that these are just working titles - as I had previously advanced terms such as ‘cross-loading’ (with radial and longitudinal directions).
With regard to my image of circumferential loading - I simply set the photo showing only 4 loading directions on the fixed eye.
I could just as easily showed 8 or more loading directions - which does indeed expand the eye outwards.
Consider that one of the multiple loading directions could also be ‘downwards’ in the axial / longitudinal direction.
These multiple loading points are different to the photo which shows only a transverse / radial loading direction.
The ‘transverse’ loading profile isolates all load from the SParts.
However, with multiple loading directions within the fixed eye (to induce circumferential loading) - partial loading occurs on the SParts (ie the SParts are not isolated).
Do I really need to take a photo with 8 or more loading directions within the fixed eye to demonstrate this?
Circumferential loading on a fixed eye emulates a rigging plate - which enable multiple connections and multiple loading directions.
What I point to as specious is the image of the eye
with all the loadings WHEN THE POINT of the term
“ring-loading” --the point from those coining it–
relates simply to the loading of the eye legs in
opposition to each other, hence, qua ends-joint
–which is a straight line through the knot,
irrespective of what occurs farther out : the knot
feels the leg-vs-leg spread of loading. A paradigm
situation might be belaying from one’s tie-in eye
vs. belay loop. (A rumored case was an injured
climber being helicopter-hoisted by a connection
into his tie-in bowline --not good.)
To this, if one really wishes to complicate things,
one might try including 3-way loading --i.e., keeping
some SPart loading along with eye loading;
and this then is going to change angles,
likely to be seen as going from some rather
extreme, “a different animal” state to what
might be more accepted as within-possible-range
of eye spread (say, angle range 40..90deg?)
Just as one might prefer to separate degree
of jamming at within-safe-working-load forces
from that coming only at higher, nigh rupture
forces.
A separate but worthy area of investigation is the
handling of varied-direction/-state forces upon
mid-line eye knots :: it’s all well and good that
some testing is done on some state of the butterfly, e.g., loaded eye-vs-a-SPart
(pick one ; but know that it’s an asymmetric knot
and the one is a bit different from the other!),
AND THEN loaded through, end-2-end.
The first loading can be seen as a particular
(maybe not so good…) setting of the knot
for its next loading.
Going from A-loading to B-loading might work,
but not so much so going from B-loading back to A’s.
(To this thinking should come some notes about
when such variance is expected, or at least possible;
there might be cases where loading falls only within
some limited variance where problems won’t arise.)
WHEN THE POINT of the term
"ring-loading" --the point from those coining it--
relates simply to the loading of the eye legs in
opposition to each other, hence, qua ends-joint
--which is a straight line through the knot,
The POINT of my starting this thread topic was simply to elicit informed discussion about the vagaries of the term ‘ring’ loading - particularly within the broader context of the different loading directions on a fixed eye. The term ring implies a circle or something that is round.
I mean, what is the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘ring’?
Now - there is nothing offensive or belligerent in wanting to elicit discussion about the term ‘ring’ loading. I noted that there was no body of research or other technical papers exploring the concept of ‘ring’ loading. It s highly likely that this is the only topic thread on the internet where the term ‘ring’ loading is being discussed.
Dan - you may find comfort in visualizing a transverse/radial loading direction on a fixed eye - that forces the 2 eye legs into 180 degrees opposition. And thats fine, you are perfectly entitled to your own opinions and conceptualizations.
I however, am of the view that the term ‘ring’ loading is not the best descriptor for your conceptualized loading direction (which is a transverse direction).
As stated, what is a ‘ring’ and what is its commonly understood shape?
In my view, the term ‘ring’ loading is more akin to circumferential loading (hoop stress) where the eye of a fixed eye knot is expanded outwardly in all directions.
There is nothing offensive with holding a view that ‘ring’ loading is not the best use of the English language.
At present, I am leaning more towards the term ‘transverse’ loading (superseding my earlier term ‘cross-loading’ in the radial direction).
Transverse loading isolates all load from the SPart.
There is also axial loading (which is aligned longitudinally with respect to the SPart). Axial loading induces force on the SPart.
Transverse loading of a fixed eye isolates load from the SPart.
And then there is circumferential loading - which expands the fixed eye. Circumferential loading does not fully isolate load from the SPart).
Dan, you may dislike these terms - and that’s your prerogative.
Knotting terminology has its roots from ancient sailing times and has evolved through several important books eg Ashley Book of Knots (ABoK), The Art of Knotting and Splicing, etc.
It is now 2020 and I think it is time to revisit some of these long held beliefs and concepts of terminology.
The term ring loading is absent from ABoK, and other noteworthy books. Then again, many of our more modern knotting concepts are missing from these previous publications (because the world has advanced somewhat). I think the term ‘ring’ loading likely has its roots in this IGKT forum - and propagated (somewhat).
EDIT NOTE:
An image of circumferential loading is attached.
Thank you for starting this thread. It has merit, both in reaffirming what the majority of contributors understand by this term, plus it gives us the opportunity to dispel muddled and/or erroneous concepts.
So, my opinion on the term ‘Ring Loading’, pertaining to fixed loop knots, and one which I have found no reason to modify, is as follows:-
Ring loading is a simple and well understood term which has a single variable aspect.
There are not ‘classes’ of Ring Loading, but there are degrees of Ring Loading.
Fixed Loop knots are cordage Force Machines which transpose and translate forces between the loop legs and the primary load bearing SP.
Ring Loading is defined by the angle subtended by the two loop legs.
When the loop legs are parallel, the subtended angle is zero and there is no, ie. 0% Ring Loading.
When the loop legs are diametrically opposite, the subtended angle is 180 degrees and the knot is experiencing 100%, i.e. fully Ring Loaded.
When the loop legs subtend and angle of 120 degrees, both loop legs and the SP are potentially subjected to equal tension loads.
At subtended angles above 120 degrees, the forces required in the loop legs needed to balance the SP load, rise exponentially to multiples of the applied SP load.
All knots respond to applied forces, some are capable of resisting change, while some are liable to capsize. By way of example, THE Bowline is reasonably stable to low levels of Ring Loading ( ca 20 degrees and less), but is at high risk of failure at high levels, while other knots such as the Carrick Loop retain their stable structure.
All loop knots can experience Ring Loading (an angle subtended by the loop legs). To factor this into our knot usage, we need to be cognisant of the impact of divergent force vectors and be familiar with the response our knot structures have to applied loads.
As a footnote - it does not matter how a force has become originated in a cord, it only matters to the knot what the force and its vector are - AS THEY ENTER THE KNOT.
I hope that you can now agree that Ring Loading is neither ‘Ill defined’ nor ‘vague’, and that the concensus of opinions are in agreement and at odds with your posted contentions.
Ring loading is a simple and well understood term which has a single variable aspect.
I personally disagree. And there is no ill will, no angst and no belligerence in the concept of disagreement.
Its simply that I hold a different view to you (and I am entitled to hold different views).
There are not 'classes' of Ring Loading, but there are degrees of Ring Loading.
I respectfully disagree - and the purpose of starting this discussion topic was to elicit informed discussion.
When the loop legs are parallel, the subtended angle is zero and there is no, ie. 0% Ring Loading
And here I prefer the term 'eye legs' - because only a loop can have a particular chirality (left-handed or right-handed) - the fixed eye of a knot does not have chirality (eg the eye of #1047 F8 has no chirality). Again - this is my theoretical view...
In any case, this type of loading profile has never actually been described in technical detail by knot book authors.
I had advanced the term 'axial loading' (and earlier - longitudinal loading).
In advancing such a term - it is simply discussion - it is not belligerent or offensive. The whole point of this section of the IGKT forum is to engage in technical discussions about theoretical knotting concepts (without fear or favor).
When the loop legs are diametrically opposite, the subtended angle is 180 degrees and the knot is experiencing 100%, i.e. fully Ring Loaded.
And here I would respectfully disagree in the application of therm 'ring' (which - in the ordinary dictionary meaning means a circle - or round).
I prefer to conceptualize this type of loading as [i]transverse loading [/i](and my earlier term was cross-loading in the radial direction).
All loop knots can experience Ring Loading (an angle subtended by the loop legs).
I would re-word this is follows:
The eye of a fixed eye knot can be loaded in a number of different directions as follows:
[ ] axial loading
[ ] transverse loading
[ ] circumferential loading
Again - in conceptualizing the loading profiles in this way - it is not an example of a mental deficit or a lack of professionalism or any form of belligerence. It is simply a discussion and an expression of views in accordance with the spirit of this section of the IGKT forum.
I hope that you can now agree that Ring Loading is neither 'Ill defined' nor 'vague', and that the concensus of opinions are in agreement and at odds with your posted contentions.
I would like to express to you that I disagree - and that it is okay for me to disagree.
There is also an underlying tone in your narrative which does not accord with the spirit of this section of the IGKT forum.
For example, using sentence structure such as 'consensus of opinion' and... 'at odds with your posted contentions' - is using what I call 'social proof' to back your contention'.
The reference to 'consensus of opinions' isn't necessary.
You could simply state - my personal view is.... (enter your view).
And nothing is at ‘odds’ - its just discussion.
Keep in mind what the purpose of the IGKT is.
I will have more working photos of various loading profiles on the eye of a fixed eye knot at some stage…
Mark, I totally applaud your right to hold a view different from mine (and from the majority of other posters) - indeed, sometimes the lone voice can even be right…
Equally, I fully support your desire to elicit informed discussion, as indeed do I.
When the loop legs are parallel, the subtended angle is zero and there is no, ie. 0% Ring Loading
And here I prefer the term 'eye legs' - because only a loop can have a particular chirality (left-handed or right-handed) - the fixed eye of a knot does not have chirality (eg the eye of #1047 F8 has no chirality). Again - this is my theoretical view...
In any case, this type of loading profile has never actually been described in technical detail by knot book authors.
I had advanced the term 'axial loading' (and earlier - longitudinal loading).
In advancing such a term - it is simply discussion - it is not belligerent or offensive. The whole point of this section of the IGKT forum is to engage in technical discussions about theoretical knotting concepts (without fear or favor).
Yes, we have had this discussion at length before and I understand that you prefer to rename the loop as an Eye, equally, you will remember from our many discussions that my preference is to call a loop a loop. However, it is my hope that you will be able to focus on the issue here as per your original post, of Ring Loading, and can perhaps put to one side what we each personally choose to call a loop in order to be able to concentrate on the aspect of exactly what is ‘Ring Loading’.
I fully respect that the views you are promulgating are not intended to be " belligerent or offensive", and I equally expect that my own opposing views are not taken by your good self as being either belligerent or offensive.
As you know from our previous discussions, I never step beyond discussion about theoretical knotting concepts, and rely on you to execute our discussions without fear or favor in both directions.
When the loop legs are diametrically opposite, the subtended angle is 180 degrees and the knot is experiencing 100%, i.e. fully Ring Loaded.
And here I would respectfully disagree in the application of therm 'ring' (which - in the ordinary dictionary meaning means a circle - or round).
I prefer to conceptualize this type of loading as transverse loading (and my earlier term was cross-loading in the radial direction).
Yes, I have read, as you previously posted, your preferred terminology. However, simply restating it does not offer me any reason to change from my preferred use of the term ‘ring’. It is usual in discussion to offer alternative perspectives in order to sway a contra opinion, I am afraid a simple dictionary definition has no relevance to this highly specialised process and has not swayed my opinion.
All loop knots can experience Ring Loading (an angle subtended by the loop legs).
I would re-word this is follows:
The eye of a fixed eye knot can be loaded in a number of different directions as follows:
[ ] axial loading
[ ] transverse loading
[ ] circumferential loading
Again - in conceptualizing the loading profiles in this way - it is not an example of a mental deficit or a lack of professionalism or any form of belligerence. It is simply a discussion and an expression of views in accordance with the spirit of this section of the IGKT forum.
Of course, you have already stated exactly this before, and although simply restating your opinion does not offer any meat to this discussion, I do not take this to be a form of mental deficit or any form of belligerence. As you say, this is a discussion and expression of views, which I respect and encourage your contribution to its furtherance.
I hope that you can now agree that Ring Loading is neither 'Ill defined' nor 'vague', and that the concensus of opinions are in agreement and at odds with your posted contentions.
I would like to express to you that I disagree - and that it is okay for me to disagree.
There is also an underlying tone in your narrative which does not accord with the spirit of this section of the IGKT forum.
For example, using sentence structure such as 'consensus of opinion' and... 'at odds with your posted contentions' - is using what I call 'social proof' to back your contention'.
The reference to 'consensus of opinions' isn't necessary.
You could simply state - my personal view is.... (enter your view).
I fully respect your right to disagree - it is after all the purpose of this forum to post and share opposing opinions. However, as to your objection to my using the term ‘consensus of opinion’, I am offering it as a means of furthering discussion by offering it as a fact that at the current progression of this discussion, the majority of opinions posted are at odds with the opinion you are offering for discussion. When only opinion is available and in the absence of facts, then I see no problem with reminding ourselves that your narrative does not meld with the numerous opinions held in contradiction to your own.
However, as I have previously stated, I find no problem with you holding a lone opinion, as sometimes the lone voice is the only one seeing the truth for what it is. But in this instance, I think it is going to take a little more than simple repetition to sway others opinions and I look forward to following your further constructive discussions on this interesting subject.
Keep in mind what the purpose of the IGKT is.
I do not believe that we are discussing the purpose of the IGKT. However, as one of the founders who pushed for the creation of this discussion board, I remain fully cognisant of its purpose, which I am certain we will all keep in mind.
