HM Attachments

[Dan Lehman]

Originally Posted by davidsamuelson

Hi Jack,
I have finally taken a few pictures of my soft snap shackle idea; I have not tested it much so am waiting for you and all others participating in this forum to shoot it down. Any ideas on changes or improvements welcome.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
[Jack wrote]
I would like some fellow SparTalkiens to critique the halyard loop. It worked well until it didn't. it is a about half way thru the slide show.The knot slipped out of the loop

It might be instructive to hear the reasonings that led each knot-designer
to the structures each wrought.

It will also be instructive to view two videos of some Amsteel 3/16" line
tried with different bowlines; issues with the hi-mod fibre cordage are of
slipping and bending (strength).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFRQcExLA34
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy6Y2Xoo4Ak

Now, I'll guess that both inventors above want to somehow avoid "knots"
because of rumors of failure -- of rope slipping out, primarily. These rumors
have some truth, but are also of a limited domain of knots (as video-2 shows,
with a variation of the Water Bowline holding). Still, there is the issue of
knot strength (or why are you using hi-mod cordage?).

And one wants to be able to untie the attachments shown in this thread.

Critique of Jack's eye structure:
1) the loading is awkward at best on the material, pulling the core
up away from an enclosing cover;
2) the Dbl.Overhand (Strangle) stopper knot might not be all so secure
as some others (Ashley's Stopper (mis-named "Oysterman's" by him)
can show a general stopper-construction that could be more secure,
methinks :: effect a noose that nips the end).
3) it entails more splicing than seems worthwhile/necessary.

Critique of DS's eye structure:
4) this seems to address security but at the expense of strength
-- the tight bend in the S.Part spells weakness.
5) and I must invoke #2 here, also.
6) moreover, in this case, the stopper must be able to fit through
any tied-to opening (clew) ! (--in contrast to Jack's, which comes
after the small spliced eye & double-thick line goes through ...)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here's an idea that occurs to me, taking off on Jack's idea.

Make a small eye with the brummel-like back'n'forth tucking of the
end through the S.Part, leaving a long enough end to ...

tie off the eye after the eye is inserted between the one (or two?)
of the brummel tucks through the S.Part (which, yes, means that
these might need to be spaced by more than is usual, anticipating
this construction).

So, one reeves the doubled line of the small eye through the clew,
then tucks its end between the back'n'forth weavings of the S.Part
and end in the brummel'd part, and then
bring the extra-long tail through the eye,
around the S.Part,
back through the eye,
... and finish as seems appropriate. One might even tie a stopper
in the end (ensure then that the small eye isn't TOO small for that).

Loading will scissors-pinch the brummel'd part around the inserted
eye, which cannot pull out because of the reeved tail holding it
in place. There will be two thicknesses of line through the clew,
sharing load/chafe/abrasion (and needing room).

There is yet a question of the awkwardness of this loading
at the point of the brummel -- so best at least that it be not the
one farthest from eye but closer to eye so that some sharing of
force has begun between tail & S.Part by time this tucked eye-end
intrudes upon them. Maybe tucking twice mitigates this well!?

--dl*
====