Cool, can you explain the name?
The small knot form reminded me of a little gnat. Also, I see a “g” shape the tying process.
The Gnat does fill a niche. I imagine tying a Gnat in many applications I would otherwise tie a Slipped Buntline, but want something smaller. While a Slipped Buntline is not big, a Gnat is a little smaller and does not require a slip. Actually, the Gnat seems to be actively opposed to the idea of a slip.
It is not like a Marlinspike Hitch. But you do not care.
When I try to explain what I think, I do not do it for one person, that may decide to care, or not care about something he does not know…I do it because I write what I believe it is true, for any present or future reader.
I know that there are many people who care only to learn the multiplication table by heart. So they believe they will learn how to multiply, and they even believe they will learn what multiplication is… and what mathematics is. Some of them will even go as far as to believe that parroting the multiplication table makes them great mathematicians ! 
I try to understand things, knots, whatever, and when I believe I have understood something, I believe I have a duty to share my thoughts. I have tried all the possible arrangements of an overhand knot, a figure 8 knot, a Constrictor and a Strangle knot around the standing part, and I believe I know the advantages and the shortcomings of each solution. Whoever wishes to care about my experience, may learn something, or think about something else, and discuss it with me, so I will also learn something new. Whoever does not care, will not bother about anything, and “will live with this”, proud and happy !
( Off topic post, as an answer to an off topic post… :))
Yes, they are, in that material.
All this expounding about the structure of a knot
is wasted energy, here, and beside the point of practicality.
It points to an issue on the definition of “knot”,
with concerns I’ve mentioned before, about treating
knots as schemas for the formation of knottable
material, rather than as instances of something knotted.
The single most important factor is the structure, the geometry of the knot. This geometry remains (almost) the same, when the knots are tied with any of the usual ( not elastic ) materials. So, when we tie a knot with a very slippery material, like a non-coated spectra/dyneema, a monofilament fishing line, a dental floss thread, its structure remains the same.
It’s not so simple. Nor is friction the sole determinant of
behavior --vs. flexibility, cross-section stability, & springyness,
e.g.. I recall the EBDB looking worse in one springy slick
soft-laid PP cord and a Janus bowline seeming more secure,
which was contrary to behavior I found in other materials. The
PP could too well simply loosen and enlarge rounded loops (of
the EBDB), but didn’t so well enlarge the sharply elliptical
collars of the Janus bwl (where it tried to simply open, as
legs of scissors, and was immediately impeded by the central
nipping turns).
If ... we can find a slippery enough material where both knots do slip, but the one slips less than the other ... , we can say that, tied on this X material, knot A slips more than knot B, so knot A is less secure than knot B. And this relation is going [NOT (you meant to say!)] to be reversed with any other material Z, because it is the structure of the knot that is the single most important factor that dictates security, and this structure will not change significantly when the knot will be tied with this Z material. So, the relation will [u]not[/u] be reversed.
And this conjecture about the inviolability of the significance
of structure is just that, and something I think I’ve seen
hints of contradiction for.
At this point in our understanding, it’s hardly worth going
all keystoke krazy over. (And, with the conjecture, can one ever
make a conclusion?)
This goes too far. One can have constraints on the domain
of knottable media one is concerned about; it will be hoped
that such constraints are kept in mind if media outside of
the domain should ever be the focus of knotting.
As for squeezing around the object,
note that this won’t happen for other than ring
hitches –spar and beyond will tend to produce
choker-hitch sorts of openings on the side where
the noose SPart is, with quite a gap between where
the material hitches to itself. Hence my suggestion
for friction hitches (forming the noose --though being
lousy for cinching to the object w/o assistance),
which can be set snug to the object.
–dl*
You’re viewing the Gnat Hitch as an Overhand? Do you also view a Half Hitch as an Overhand? Sure, there happens to be an overhand in there. However, the money is not in the overhand portion. For the Gnat, the money is in the part that resembles a Marlinspike. You’re coming at this from a bizarre angle with all this talk about Overhands, monofilament, etc.
It is really amusing what you try to pull out of your magic sleeve, to defend something that can not be rationally defended ( and which happened, just happened, to be something said against what I have said.. :)) Dan Lehman, you are such a good knot tier, and such a lousy lawyer…
So, a thief knot is a safe, secure, knot ! Because it can be tied with a material with which it will not slip! So, we can not say that a thief knot slips, but only that “a thief knot not-knotted on this material, may slip” :). We can not say that any knot is slippery or not, because with some materials it will slip, and with some others it will not. There are no general characteristics of knots : All knots are equal in the Dan Lehman s Land of knots ! A “materialistic” approach, indeed !
Gentlemen, do not talk about knots, they exist only in my imagination, they do not have structure, because they are not real : There are only things knotted on a specific material … so we can not say “an overhand knot”, because there is not such a thing. There is no structure of a knot, topology, geometry, lengthrope, etc. Oouaou ! What a relaxing simplification of the Word is this…We have managed to get rid of so many things with this "knotting material"invention, there are so fewer invariable qualities in nature, our life has suddently became so much easier…
That is why I said [i]“usual”/i, [i]“non elastic”/i material. To speak about an (almost) same geometrical structure, when a knot is tied on different materials, we should pre-suppose that the material will keep, more or less, its circular cross section and will not flatten out completely, It will not be springy, etc. Read my lips, when I was trying to spell out the simple thing I said above. When we use webbing or springy materials, we are talking about different things, that is obvious, and evident too, even to me !
Well, “I” have not ! And this is exactly what I have said, again and again, repeatedly :
If you point out to me two “knotted materials” tied on the same material, with the same structure, where the A “knotted material” slips and the B “knotted material” does not, and then two other “knotted materials”, tied on another material, with the “same structure” as before ( If I can say this…PLEASE, allow me to say this, just for once, for the last time, to describe what I mean…), where now the “knotting material” A will not slip, and now the “knotting material” B will slip, Iff you point me this situation, then, and only then, you would be able to start to argue on what I have said. I have seen , ( and you, as a knot tier, you have also seen, of course, but, as a lawer, you are trying hard to hide the crux of the matter…) that the relation “a knot A will slip, more than a knot B”, or the relation “a knot A is more secure and safe than the knot B”, is a relation independent of the material used . It depends mainly upon the geometrical structures of the knots - and those things do not change… and that is why they are called "structures’, for Kant Land s god sake !
I tried to say one obvious, self evident thing, that an overhand knot tied around a tensioned, aligned standing part would be not such a good solution… because the overhand knot will run the danger to be untied quite easily, the structure of the overhand not is not secure and safe enough, and we would probably need something more convoluted, like a fig. 8 knot. I have also pointed out that I have tried all the possible configurations of overhand knots tied around the standing part of such hitches-nooses, and I have even given references and PICTURES of three such knots…which, of course, no participant on this discussion had ever seen, or tied or tried…And what do I listen ? That I can not speak of “knots”, in general, because there are only “knotted materials”, so the overhand knotted material, tied with/on the Titanic s mooring line, will not slip, is secure and safe ! Asta la vista, my dear Dan Lehman, I have hijacked this thread too much. The hitch presented is not bad, the ones I have also presented with pictures are not bad, but we better tie a "Buntline extinguisher " Constrictor-around-the-standing-part, or a Double overhand, Strangle neck instead.
Try, just try, to be a little dubious about your understanding of what I have said and my "bizzare"angle… “All this talk" about Overhands, monofolament, etc.”, might be, just might be, not such a nonsense you think it is. I have tried to answered to your questions, but you do not care, and you do not bother to try… Asta la vista, my dear knot4u, I am sure you will manage to understand something more in the future.
(There are no apostrophes in X’s land of keystroke kraziness!)
Did you miss the point about knot ?
If one finds a material in which the thief knot works well,
what is the point to decrying its use there --perhaps by urging
further searching …-- where is suited?
[quote="Dan_Lehman post:25, topic:4307"]It’s not so simple. Nor is friction the sole determinant of behavior
–vs. flexibility, cross-section stability, & springyness, e.g..
[/quote]
That is why I said [i]“usual”/i, [i]“non elastic”/i material.
Hmmm, now X. becomes aware of material, though he seems
to want it only with “general” characteristics, not liable to unsettle
a structured perspective!
[quote="Dan_Lehman post:25, topic:4307"]And this conjecture about the inviolability of the significance of structure
is just that, and something I think I’ve seen hints of contradiction for.
[/quote]
Well, “I” have not ! And this is exactly what I have said, again and again, repeatedly :
… so much so as to ignore that I have pointed to one
case where security was reversed. Or that it seems to have
been (security vs. shaking loose), which is enough for me to
put doubt into such a broad generalization, knowing how
diverse knottable media is.
Xarax, you have gone gung-ho here (maybe “oauauao”, whatever
that new utterance is, too) over something that is conjecture on
your part, and not wise, in light of how diverse knottable media
is. Here is a simple case that I hope sheds some light on the
variability of security:
bowlines have been --and continue to be-- used for ages
in maritime use, without further precaution, for the most part;
their users laugh at suggestions that the knot will slip;
the knots can hold through to rupture, in testing;
but rockclimbers know to beware the bowline, because of
some well-publicized cases where it has slipped in the
sense of coming loose.
Now, I submit that if one put a shake test on a bowline
tied in some flexible, 12-strand HMPE (non-coated [and by this
I mean “not coated with urethane or other like treatment”,
and NOT “unsheathed” --but, yes, it IS unsheathed/pure]),
the knot will do better than one tied in springy slick PP, or
smooth-slick-&-firmish kernmantle;
BUT, put to the test machine (same knots exactly!),
the not-shaken-loose(now) latter knots (knots as knotted
material) will hold to break,
whereas that in HMPE will slip out, spill.
Yes, this is different than your Knot-A & Knot-B scenario;
but it shows the vagaries of knot behavior, and in has specific
aptness to the OP who wants security, entirely.
Please don’t read me as dismissing structure as important.
But we might come to --with improved, intelligent testing
and demonstration thereof of knot behavior across materials–
see some structures as preferable where materials are very
flexible, say, and other structures good in different cases
(and be less likely to try to find some universally best
structure).
–dl*
For a reply to this stroke of genius (or else :)), see (1)
Yeah, sometimes users may not even want a slipped end around that could get accidentally tripped, so that consideration helped drive the search.
Just a little note:
If you ringload the Gnat Hitch (which you might do with a noose), it turns into a fixed loop. The fixed loop reminds of the Eskimo Bowline, but the working end and standing part are switched.
In my brief testing, the knot holds well and doesn’t slip. It doesn’t compete with knots such as Carrick Bend, Timber Hitch and Bowline when it comes to ease of untying, but it seems to untie much easier than Two Half Hitches and the Alpine Butterfly Loop.
I tried to simulate this, but it seems to just allow the “noose” to open if the standing part is not loaded and something tries to expand the noose.
Did you set the knot form first?
I do not think that you should describe what you did as “ring loading”.
Anyway, this “Hrungnir loading”, turns the elementary overhand hitch of Reply#2 into a Sheet bend.
I’m becoming a little disappointed in the hitch’s jamming on smaller diameter objects after hard strain as I’m getting more into wet testing.
It’s too bad, because I’m pleased with the simplicity and security of the hitch.
I thought ringloading was pulling the legs of the loop (spread the loop).
I’ve made a diagram of what I did. The Gnat Hitch to the left and the resulting knot after pulling the legs of the loop (spreading it) to the right.
I tightened the knot before pulling the legs.
Try this one out. I was playing with the Blimp Knot and tried using it for a noose. It seems to meet your requirements for non jamming and easy to untie.
http://webpages.charter.net/mkenimer/Blimp3.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/mkenimer/Blimp4.jpg
Pull the part with the blue dot back out to form the loop.
Well I’ll be… That’s the Gnat Hitch.
Well I’ll be darn, your right…lol I didn’t even notice that. After reading your reply I tied the Gnat hitch and was able to get it to turn into a Blimp Knot after messin with it for a minute.
This is the “Hrungnir operation” I was taliking about at Reply#34…
See, at the attached pictures, how the same operation transforms the elementary Overhand knot hitch shown at Reply#3, into the Sheet bend.
( Am I allowed to describe this knot as a Sheet bend, when I denied this description for the bowline components, as Derek Smith proposed ? I think I am, because here the third limb of the knot that is loaded, is the second of the link which has not crossed legs ( the “white” link), so the loading of the knot ( as well as its form) resembles the loading of the Sheet bend, indeed.