ek wrote:You think someone grabbing a carabiner and accidentally unclipping it is impossible?
Yes, practically. This is a far-fetched scenario, which, as I said, is likely
impossible--period--in many situations, where the drop is not near enough.
AND that a **tensionless** hitch, having no tension at this point,
needs no securing there. Now, I don't advocate taking things so far,
or always ensuring enough wraps for it (though OnRope1's
MythBusterre this aspect suggests that the usual course is to overwrap for a TH), but
it should be the case that considerable friction hence resistance is built
up and the wraps won't be pulled out.
These two situations should absolutely be equated--failure of the carabiner in either results in catastrophic anchor failure followed by serious injury or death.
Then you've seriously botched the TH in not wrapping enough!
knudeNoggin wrote:The friction in the loop knot finishing a tensionless hitch that has slipped (or been non-ideally rigged) is perpetual.
Well, let's leave at friction is what makes most knots work.
Citing rope-on-rope issues here is just plain silly, period.
Arborists will get noticeable wear in sliding on friction hitches,
slip-then-grip. But, here, no--NOT a valid consideration in the
deliberations on whether to tie off with the rope sans 'biner.
(Yes, you did try to diminish it, but needed some boost in that,
and would've been better off not mentioning it at all.)
But just because I disagree with you, does not make articulation of my ideas stupid or worthless.
Oh, goodness, no no no. That "rope-on-rope" tickled an old peeve about
some myths. There have been a good many things re cordage use that
get spoken enough times, or by authoritative-enough figures, that they
are swallowed hole, without thought. Rockclimbers have gone gung-ho
over the fabled "cordelette", nevermind that it wasn't tested; now, only
after one of its principal proponents has reviewed and actually tested it,
we can see that it was more a back-up than load-sharing/equalizing
anchor structure. And there was much hype about how Dyneema,
thin ("dental floss") webbing slings were very dangerous and would
cut through themselves if "girth hitched" (another knot-name issue),
and interpretations of one infamous John Sherman broken-sling
case were crazy, but fit the hype and ... have taken much shooting
in order to be (maybe not?) shot down (with a test report from
sling-maker Mammut (since good sense & analysis wasn't working)).
I am getting the sense from your post that you are developing some degree of antipathy toward me, which I hope is not the case, ...
Oh, please, no ... . The benefit of the Net is getting ideas to many
minds, and after some good shaking about, what remains ought to
be firm *stuff*--the weaknesses shaken out. Why, now that we know
your middle initial, and you make a BINGO! on an infamous knot,
you're gold! (But I have modifications to that knot, mind.)
I have, in a practice environment. It is hard. You have to hold up the tensionless hitch to prevent it from collapsing and unwrapping, while simultaneously tying a bend.
Well, here again it seems that this hitch just isn't given the wraps
it needs, if this is hard. If you have tied off with a slip-free hitch
(such as Highwayman's), you can join ends and then release, as
you note. And a hitch is more easily adjusted than esp. a Fig.8.
I am going to "fight" this, and argue that "on a bight" should mean the same thing as "in a bight", and that "with a bight" means something different.
Don't overlook "in
the bight", while you're at it. (And some popular
versions using "bite".) It is one major uphill battle to make headway in
knots nomenclature, and ...
any more than you telling me that I should remain silent because the Force is against me is an argument.
that wasn't an argument but wise counsel (or a threat!).
The bowline with a bight is tied with a bight as its tail, and is therefore
... already begging the question of good sense in nomenclature.
a two-loop, directional bowline that may be tied in mid-rope,
"directional" and "mid-rope" are synonymous--let's not loosen THIS nomenclature.
is non-jamming, but
... might be non-holding: beware trying the nip of multiple strands,
I've seen such things fail to hold. (In this case, it would be the non-eye
loading (end-2-end) that is suspect.)
... because it is tied with, but not on a bight.
Well,
partly "with", and I don't swear by Ashley, just use him as
both a good start and a commonly known one. Quite odd that he doesn't
show the 3-eye one, but ... .
"The figure-eight on a bight, ..." can be well seen as tying a Fig.8 with
a bight; it has this recognition, implicitly but with different diction,
when called "double Fig.8"--a use of "double" sometimes applied to
the offset bend (rope-joiner), with the Overhand. Naming's a mess.
Similarly, the overhand on a bight and figure-nine on a bight.
You'll do well to consider how DISsimilar these cases are to that of the BOAB:
that in these just-cited the entire named knot is tied <you-chose-preposition>
a bight in entirety, unlike the like-named Bowline (where the finish comes
not with "rabbit going around tree" but a clever, use the bight-end, "backflip"
to lock).
It's not clear to me whether or not you're criticizing the term "triple bowline on a bight," but I'll go ahead and defend it just in case.
I'm not sure I was, but I'm happy to oblige! --and I do
The "triple bowline on a bight" is a correct name for this knot (at least in the same sense that "bowline on a bight" is a correct name for the double-loop knot commonly used for Y-belays in caving that, like Ashley's "bowline with a bight", is tied with but not on a bight).
Whoa, WHAT? Check that: TB **on**... is correct because it is NOT tied **on**, but >>with<< ?!
I object to this use of "triple", more than "on"/"with"; and it's what I call "with"
--the full bowline, tied with a bight of rope, doubled throughout.
Both are made correct by widespread usage and acceptance,
Boo, I'm a pre- not de-scriptionist linguistically. (I have a Webster's 2nd to
restrain the (quite long overdue for revision) 3rd New.) The Net spreads
nonsense like wildfire.
and definition in works that are considered canonical. This is matter of correctness of language.
Do you tie any "Larksfeet"? --or "Larksheads"? (Or "Girth hitches"?)
it may even result from mistakes and poor thinking, but they have come into use. ... See Alpine Caving Techniques for the term "triple bowline on a bight."
I won't surrender to that. But knot naming is a very hard problem,
and there will be plenty of confusion throughout. One doesn't even
have to cross fields, but many do, and that only compounds confusion.
With a KISS, small set of knots, each field can have some pretty distinct
names; start crossing borders, and you end up in some conflict; and
consider the vast number of uncommon but workable knots, and you
are in no-person's-land.
But it's a very unique name--no other knot is called that.
Okay, now it's "<intensifier> unique", and oft' heard "more/extremely critical":
the modifiers just destroy the sense of the words, which are either/or & not
halfway. But that's an old battle beyond the caves & climbing & cordage.
Finally, I'm unclear about what you meant by the first "no" in "No, and no it should NOT."
That I didn't want to use that bowline, but a hitch.
But, yes, w/o ends (and that, for me, is "
in the bight").
And I wanted to swat that notion about there being no bunny-ears
Fig.9, but that can come later; there is more than one way to
do that, and I think another way avoids problems Merchant cites.
(For that matter, the Fig.9 itself can be drastically reoriented,
a la Ashley's #1425/525.)
*knudeNoggin*