Page 203 - J. C. Turner - History and Science of Knots
P. 203

192                     History and Science of Knots


                         Table 7. KNOT STRENGTH EFFICIENCY IN FISHING LINE
                               Monofilament nylon line, diameter not stated

                     Knot and Ashley number [5] 1951 [7] 1981 [22] 1983 [11]

                     Bends
                     Blood Knot (based on #295) 79% 77% 80%
                     Water Knot (based on #290) 79% - 95%

                     Loops
                     Blood Bight (based on #521/1047)  80% 92% 80%
                     Perfection Loop (#286) 60% 60%


                     Hitches
                     Half Blood (based on #300) >80% 96% 80%
                     Two-circle Turle (based on #305)  80% 62%

              The ropes tested in Table 2 seem all to have been fairly close to 12 mm
          diameter, except for the flax cord used by Wright and Magowan [36], which
          was only 1/37 inch in diameter. They were using this cord as a model for
          the manila climbing rope used previously [2]. Knot strength efficiencies were
          higher in this cord than in any other in these tests. Wright and Magowan said
          the differences `may be explained in part by the differences in pliability and
          roughness, which would greatly affect the nip of the knot, and in part by the
          great difference in thickness, which may well tell in favour of cord'. They go on
          to say `in any case, the discrepancy must be due to some cause which affects
          all knots in common; in all probability, the relative position of the knots is
          unchanged'. In fact, by both the tests the Reef Knot had the lowest efficiency,
          but the other knots appear in different orders. No information is given on
          the size of the fishing lines in Table 7. The environmental and mechanical
          conditions (temperature, humidity, rate of elongation) used in the tests in
          Tables 2 to 7 are not, in general, described, so that their effects cannot be
          guessed. Table 3 shows the effect of wetting the rope on knot efficiency (I am
          uncertain of the identity of the knot); Day [16] stated that a Bowline was 50%
          stronger after soaking the 1 ands inch diameter manila rope.

              Conclusions
              Day [16] said that bends on average seem to be weaker than loops and
          nooses, which in turn are weaker than hitches; Chisnall [15] said that in general
          hitches were stronger than loops because in a hitch the standing part passes
   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208