Making Rope - Medieval to Edwardian technique 

The joys of being online: "Sisal, with the botanical name Agave sisalana, is a species of Agave native to southern Mexico but widely cultivated and naturalized in many other countries. It yields a stiff fibre used in making various products. The sisal fibre is traditionally used for rope and twine, and has many other uses, including: paper, cloth, wall coverings, carpets, and dartboards." Who knew dartboards came from cacti?

+archanth Interesting irony in a cactus dartboard...

They were planning on a fishing trip--the piscine, not the pestilential variety--as I recall.

archanth haha I was kidding :)

lol

LOL you're pretty much everywhere on RU-vid aren't you?

***** Haha I think this rope making video is cool :)

Look for the "rope strength" link in the "about" section below the video.

ooh ouch, just did the math dyneema is 18 times stronger than that rope, probably 18 times more money too tho lol.

yeah, advancement of technology is such a bad thing. why would anybody want a more efficient, cost effective method of making rope.

john papple The problem is that any new technologist who specializes, for example, in rope making, will only be able to work and produce ropes (and rope is just an example could be anything else) with his modern machines and technologies. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing this techniques and it took us 2-3 generations to forget everything that we knew and to rely completely on new machines and equipment. A quote from Gandhi: "The expert knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing."

Actually, we learned it in elementary school (Austria) (I went genius and used an battery drill because we used our hands in school.)

artiyom It's kind of ironic really, the new technology killing it is also preserving it. The technique will never die so long as we have it online, via video or picture, people can do it themselves.

+artiyom Normally I'd agree with you, but this same method is still used today. The only difference is that a machine does it.

+David Chambers Yes and no. Check the National Archives: "The successful exploitation of child labour was vital to Britain's economic success in the 19th century. In 1821, approximately 49% of the workforce was under 20. In rural areas, children as young as five or six joined women in 'agricultural gangs' that worked in fields often a long way from their homes. Although a law against the employment of children as chimney sweeps was passed as early as 1788, young people - because of their size and agility - were still used in this role for much of the 19th century. It was also during this period that people started to recognise the importance of education for children (only a minority, mostly from the wealthy ruling class, had any kind of formal schooling at the beginning of the century). Under the Factory Act, textile factories were ordered to provide at least two hours of education daily for children under the age of 13. Towards the end of the 19th century attitudes towards children shifted further. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) was founded in 1889; and earlier, in 1870, the Education Act had brought huge changes. The Act put in place the building blocks for a free and compulsory education system. Gradually, every child in Britain was introduced to schooling. By the late 19th century, children's lives were beginning to be transformed. They were going to school instead of work, and being treated as children instead of 'little adults'. With the protection of the law, many could now avoid the exploitation of their childhood and gain an education. The case of Martha Appleton in 1859 highlights the terrible working conditions thousands of children across Britain endured every day in the 19th century. As a 13-year-old textile worker in Wigan, Martha was employed as a 'scavenger', picking up loose cotton from beneath machinery. On one particular day, Martha fainted and caught her left hand in an unguarded machine. In the accident, all her fingers were severed. Martha lost her job because she was no longer able to work efficiently. Changes came in 1833 when the *Factory Act* was passed. The Act not only created the post of factory inspector, but also made it illegal for textile factories to employ children less than 9 years of age. The Act came at a time when reformers like Richard Oastler were publicising the terrible working conditions of children, comparing the plight of child labourers to that of slaves. The timing was significant: slavery was abolished in the British empire in 1833-4. Further *legislation limiting child labour in factories* was introduced in *1844, 1847, 1850, 1853 and 1867*. After 1867 no factory or workshop could employ any child under the age of 8, and employees aged between 8 and 13 were to receive at least 10 hours of education per week. But such legislation was not foolproof. Inspectors often found it difficult to discover the exact age of young people employed in factories, and reports showed that factory owners did not always provide the hours set aside by law for education." Poverty creates desperation, and greed encourages exploitation. Love costs. Parents in the "developing" world *still* send their children to work, and still sell their children into prostitution.