I will tell it right from the beginning, and I will tell it once more at the end of my post :
Do NOT use a fixed loop ! Replace the fixed loop with some other structure - simplify the mechanism !
With such an absolute, strong assertion such as this, ::)
one must consider the source, and it can be a good
guide : .:. a fixed eyeknot is [i]just[/i] the simple answer
(or part of it) !! ;)
An overhand eyeknot is one that pretty reliably
stays (simply) tied in common materials. Make its
eye long enough to tie a 2nd, short-eye’d such knot
or perhaps the bulkier Ashley’s stopper --for it will
be qua stopper that this knot will serve, to secure
some simply formed gripping hitch around the
binding tail.
One might, e.g., bring the tail around the object,
then turn the stopper-tipped eyeknot’s eye around
this tail with a turn or two and then tuck the
stopper up through the eye legs, to lock it!
Draw the tail through this gripping hitch, as desired.
One might then turn the tail around the stopper,
jamming it between knot and pinching eye legs.
[#20140308a00:11 series]
QED
(Sorta similar, mid-line-stopper-mechanics thinking
had me implementing a cleat in cordage w/two
stoppers --and this got “too clever by half” quickly,
but it was fun! ;D )
DerekSmith, that larks foot version is very nice indeed, and a lot stronger. On the other hand the nipping loop has that satisfying pop-open gimmick, so I’m not prepared to give it up.
Looking back over the thread, I think there is a whole set of fine knots. And they have now gone into my “knotting toolbox”.
xarax, that ABoK 1669 was a nice find. It is interesting that knots, that are there in plain sight, can be so hard to find. The knotting world needs a set of systematic naming rules in the vein of the naming of molecules.
Still another variant. This one has in my opinion a nice combination of strength and simplicity. It is still a cam-action bender, but not so readily untied. The knot will hold in mid-air.
This is what you do: Prepare the doubled string nipping loop. Let the two working ends enter the loop from each side, and tie them into a half knot. Tighten.
This is a knot I wouldn’t teach to children.
The half knot part is essential for high strength. The mechanism is not so much nipping, but more like that of the lazy dog knot. Turns that immobilize a component of the knot, that would otherwise be weak or unstable.
In twisted rope it can be tied in four different ways. In non-twisted rope it can be tied in essentially two ways. I have just started experimenting, so I am still undecided about the best way. Though for twisted rope the half knot should probably follow the twisting. It seems that going against the twists introduces some roughness that interferes with tightening and loosening. The “nipping loop” turns should probably go against the half knot twists.
Adding an extra turn in the “nipping loop” makes the knot even stronger. The larks foot can be used instead of the “nipping loop”. But in my testing it didn’t improve strength in this knot, which I think is due to the change in the mechanism.
Evidently, you do not read the posts suggested to you as references, neither you just spear a quick glance at the pictures shown there. To abstain from too much reading of what has already be done may be beneficial for a novice knot tyer, indeed, because our imagination needs freedom to make its first steps - this novice knot tyer, for one, has read a handful only of books on knots, and he was even postponing the reading of Ashley s BoK for as long as he could. However, in this Forum, when one member presents a particular knot, I believe that it is always useful to read what other people have said about it, or about other, “similar” knots, because, even in the vast KnotLand, around a particular point / knot, and within the limited, by the requirement of “similarity”, range, there is always a limited area…
Now, this knot you have tied is a two-coil Gleipnir binder, with crossed tails - a common trick we use to increase the entanglement of the Tail Ends before they exit the knot s nub. We do not know the optimum number of coils the nipping tube of this knot should have : two coils seem better than one, because, although the total nipping force is spread over a larger area ( so the two rims of the double nipping loop can not 'bite" the Tail ends as hard and deep as in the case of the one rim of a single nipping loop ), the segment of the double helix those Tail Ends form, as they are twisted around each other, clearly needs this longer nipping tube. However, a very long nipping tube may be unstable, and, if it is pulled from the “wrong” end a little more, it can rotate, and release its grip. I have tried the two- and the three- coils, but I have not been able to decide which is the better solution… The recently tied Gleipnir-like hitch and binder with a Prussic knot as its nipping tube, go as far as to use four coils - it becomes rock-solid as a hitch, but it may be too unstable as a binder.
I ran into this old post and had to reply to this because I noticed something that’s just too funny. I don’t know if DerekSmith is still around, but anyway…
If you put a lark’s foot midline, run the working end around a structure and through the lark’s foot can anyone guess what you get???
take 5 seconds to think about it..
… and the answer is… a square knot (sort of, well topologically at least it is a square knot).
So if you have a fixed loop and put a larks foot “nip” in it and bring the rope back around “like a trucker’s hitch” you have.. a square knot with a backing knot on one side (whatever knot you used for the loop). Of course tying it this way let’s you use two hands to pull and even more importantly to secure the remaining free end, and this is mostly the real advantage that a trucker’s hitch buys over a square knot actually. If you tie it right you can get a similar mechanical advantage on the square knot, but only with one hand (and no feet) and it’s hard to lock it in.
I should say though, that it’s only sort of a square knot. Tightened in this manner you will usually end up with something which behaves much more like a taut line hitch than a square knot (well it’s a single/half prusik). As such, even without the backing knot/loop, it can be tightened down well, but even with the backing knot, it is also less secure than a properly dressed square knot.
So the question is, is a square knot still a square knot when it’s a cow hitch tied around the other end of the rope (but still used as a binding knot)?
oh and there’s a quick and dirty way to bypass tying the loop, just bring both ends of what would be the loop back around the object together and through the hitch. Then you have a double ring hitch used as a binder. You gain back ability to use two hands without tying a loop, but anyway, the cow hitch eats up all the mechanical advantage. As far I can tell you just get an intentionally insecure binding knot that’s pretty easy to tie and doesn’t get that tight, which is the same as a shoelace “bow” except the shoelace bow is pretty secure.
It is a bit of a job telling from the top photo, but to me it does not look as though the ends approach from opposite directions as they would in hte Gleipnir.
Appearances are deceptive !
No, they do - as you point out, in a Gleipnir, we have a mid-air nipping structure ( be it a single, double or even triple nipping turn - as here ()-, but also a single or double overhand knot (1), or even a Clove or a Constrictor hitch, or a Prusik (2) )()
AND we have two penetrating this structure Tail Ends, entering/exiting to/from it, from opposite directions (0).
numbers, and see which end is connected with which, and where it goes.
I have marked the ends of the lines shown in the picture of the loose knot with numbers, so it will be easy to follow the
(*) More than three turns make the nipping “tube” too long - and the knot unstable : http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4821.msg31429#msg31429
(*) Perhaps the root of the misunderstanding was this word, “approaching”. It does not matter how the ends travel outside the nipping structure ( which in this case, is a three turn coil ), and from which direction they “approach” it. The only thing that matters is how they travel inside it. If they travel pointing towards opposite directions, the binder is Gleipnir-like.
In the picture of the binder you had cited, the Tail ends which penetrate the nipping structure and they are locked, and immobilized, by its gripping, travel inside the nub towards opposite directions.
Hi Constant, I hope you had your tongue in cheek as you wrote that, You know I hate overcomplicated knots lol.
I thought that your dismissal of my comment was made without giving any substantiation, so I took the OP image into Photoshop and lightened it a little so as to be able to peek into the shadowed area - adjusted image attached.
I hope that even you can agree that this is in fact NOT a Gleipnir because the coil is a turn in the end of a bight and the tensioning ends both come from the same side instead of from opposite directions.
This is made all the clearer by the OP tying the OH crossing of the ends to the side of the nipping coil, so you can see the appearances are not as misleading as you suggested.
I am talking about the PENETRATING the “nipping tube” ends, not about the ends of the nipping tube ! I am talking about the Tail Ends, the ends that are secured inside the mid-air nipping structure, not the ends which are joined with the ends of the nipping structure itself. It is the way THOSE ends, the ends which enter into / exit from the “nipping tube”, which should come there from opposite sides = opposite sides of the “nipping tube” ( the 0 to -1, and the 3 to 4, NOT the 1 to 2, in the picture ) - and so travel inside this nipping tube pointing towards different directions. That is what matters, and what is the reason of the success of the Gleipnir, because it makes the whole mechanism well-balanced, and stable. Of course, as I said, if the nipping tube is too long it risks the danger of being rotated, turn towards one side, and release the end which enters into it by this side.
So, the appearances ARE misleading, indeed, for yet another reason !
You believe that what matters in a Gleipnir is the orientation of the ends of the coil/“nipping tube”, while the truth is that what matters is the orientation of the Tail Ends after they enter into / before they exit from this coil/“nipping tube”, the orientation the travel inside the nipping tube, and are secured there.
They should enter into / exit from the “coil” = “niping tube” = nipping structure, in general, from its opposite sides, and travel inside it pointing towards different directions.
Read again http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5014.0
P.S. Your picture shows a two-coil Gleipnir-like binder, not the three-coil ( three turns ) one I had posted, and you had asked me to comment on, at : http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2981.msg17791#msg17791
As I said, it remains to be proven if three coils are better ( or worse ! ) than two - and they make the nipping tube very long. That is a good thing, because it offers more length, so more inner space to the nipping tube, so the one Tail end can be twisted around the other, but it may also be a bad thing, because a too-long nipping tube may be unstable. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4821.msg31429#msg31429
The Gleipnir is a cord passed twice around the object to be constrained, then where the ends meet, a twist is put into the middle of the circumventing cord, and the ends coming to that twist from opposite directions, are passed through that twist from opposite sides.
The key advantage of the Gleipnir is that when the ends are hauled, the applied tension travels in opposite directions around the circumventing cord, tightening the tension evenly.
In the knot we see here, when tension is applied to -1 and 4, it is transferred to 0 and 3 and so travels in one direction around the object to be bound. Irrespective of the number of turns in the nipping coils and the presence or not of an OH in the bound ends, this is not a Gleipnir.
To use your numerated diagram. The Gleipnir would start with end at -1, enter the nipping coils and exit at 0. Then travel around the bound object, returning at 1 where it would then form the nipping coil(s), exiting at 3 to return at 2, pass through the coils and exit as the second end at 4.
Hauling on -1 and 4 would applly load out onto 0 and 2 - i.e. in opposite directions around the bundle.
This is, I feel, a matter of opinion based on perspective.
To a regular user of the Gleipnir (to which group I include myself), there are two aspects of the knot which are considerably more important and advantageous than the mid-air stability function.
The most important, as I have already stated, is that as tension is applied to the two ends, this is transmitted around the bound object in opposite directions. When you are drawing up a bundle of irregular objects (such as twigs or canes or poles), you need the forces to wrap around the bundle and bring its components closer together.
The second, and almost equally important aspect, is that as the ends are tensioned, the nipping loop turns and allows the tensioned cords to flow through it unhindered in a straight line. This means a) that all the force is going into tensioning the bunch and is not wasted on friction within the knot and b) it means that the cord is not being subjected to abrasion through repeated use and turning tight corners under tension, tightening / release etc.
The fact that on release of end tension, the Gleipnir nip rotates, immediately gripping the ends, is of course critical (it is after all - a knot…), but its ability to do this in free air is almost irrelevant. There are after all, a number of grip after tension knots which hold in free air (eg packers knot), but they do not have the two most valuable attributes discussed above.
Here the problem is caused by you jumping to a wrong conclusion.
You presumed that I was referring to OH stoppers in the cord ends - outside of the knot - I was not.
I was referring to the OH component created within the nipping coil(s), which the OP kindly demonstrated by moving the OH ‘wraps’ slightly above the coils for, I presume, the sake of clarity.
Irrespective of the presence or not of the OH component, the knot under consideration is not as you claimed a Gleipnir.
As to your use of the term ‘Gleipnir type’. I feel that defining a knot containing a ‘free air’ nipping coil as being a ‘Gleipnir type’ is too generalist to be of any meaningful value. After all, the Myrtle has two single turn enmeshed nipping coils and is ‘free air’ stable, but it has none of the important attributes of the Gleipnir, so it would be without value to call this a ‘Gleipnir type’.
This new group of knots we are discussing, certainly have an advantage over the Gleipnir, in that they can be produced simply by passing a bight around the bundle, forming a nipping loop and passing both ends through it.
It is a valuable knot, so surely it deserves a name of its own. Suggestions?
You mean, outside the nub of the knot, of course, because stoppers are parts of a knot.
OK, I have learned something, at last !
There is NO OH knot there, either !
The two ends are simply twisted around each other. No OH, in its topological or geometrical sense, is formed. Put on your glasses ! : :
and 2. are contradictory…
I have NOT defined a Gleipnir-like knot the way you say…
I had defined such a knot as having a mid-air nipping structure ( be it a single nipping turn, like in the original Gleipnir, all the way to the more and most tight nipping structures I had showed ), and as having its Tail Ends passing through it, entering into and exiting from opposite sides of it, and traveling towards opposite directions inside it.
Mind you that the orientation of the ends of this nipping structure, if they leave the nub towards the same direction, or towards different directions, is irrelevant ! They will make wraps around the hitched/bound object(s), the one clockwise and the other counter-clockwise, or both clockwise, or both counter-clockwise - it does not matter. Since they are tensioned, they keep the nipping structure tightly wrapped around the penetrating Tail Ends, gripping and immobilizing them - that is all we require from it - besides, of course, to be stable in its mid-air position, and not rotate and so straightening the L-shape of the one end, and releasing it.
What matters is the orientation of the Tail Ends, in the sense I had explained many times, and in the previous paragraph.
The Prusik-based Gleipnir-like binder shown in : http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4821.msg31447#msg31447
and in the attached picture, or all the other similar binders tied by dan Lehman, SS369, Luca and me, are such knots.
Hi Constant, it is not like you not to be able to understand what I have written.
This aspect, which I consider (as a user of the Gleipnir) to be its most valuable attribute, is probably worth my time explaining in greater detail, just in case other readers were also confused by my words. However, I would hope that you do not misconstrue a more detailed (and therefore simplistic) explanation to be in any way an attempt at sarcasm - that is not my intention and I would ask you to treat my response accordingly.
When I use the Gleipnir, I typically use a 1m to 2m length of cord. This piece of cord has two ‘ends’. These are the ‘ends’ I haul on to apply tension to the bundle I am compressing. I take hold of an end in each hand and pull the ends apart so the ends are in line with the cord travelling around the bundle, that is, I am pulling across the bundle.
As I do this, the Gleipnir nip rotates slightly so that the cords under tension by my hands pass through the nip in straight lines. They slide through the nip coil unmolested because my tensioned cords have all my applied force within them, but the nipping loop has very little tension in it because my applied force has largely been shed in the passage of the cord in its turn around the bundle.
As the bundle tightens, some force reaches the nipping loop, attempting to twist it (and my end lines) to 90 degrees across the binding cords. But of course, as the bundle tightens, so does the force I apply to continue to compress the bundle, so the tension in my ‘end lines’ is much greater than the nipping loop torsion, so keeps them straight as they pass through the nip coil.
This means that as I apply tension to the ‘ends’, it flows in a linear and unobstructed manner into the wraps around the bundle without having to fight its way through contortions within the knot.
Is this a clear enough explanation? Perhaps if I concentrate on each of the points you have contention with individually, untill they are resolved, then maybe I can work my way back to the rather simple statement I made at the beginning, that the knot in the image I reposted is not a Gleipnir as you had claimed.
OK, communication extablished - at last !
Now, go back to my ( edited ) replies, as I did to yours.
Re-phrase your question and comments in the context we are talking.
The knot shown in the pictures, a three-coil binder#35, IS a Gleipnir-like binder !
Ask dan Lehman about that ( since I had already expressed my view, “we” can be sure what “His” will be ! The exact opposite of mine! ( Good for you ! :))
