Improving Single-Loop Hitch Strength

In this posting I do three things: endorse detailed research into knot strength, describe what might be a new hitch, and describe modifications to two kinds of noose.

Let me jump into the middle of things. I think that the question of knot strength is interesting on its own. I also think that it is prudent to know the strongest knots (knots which weaken rope least) in case of, for example, unexpected natural disasters where the strength of available rope may be unknown. (It is easier to always carry around knowledge than it is suitable ropes.) I want to be prepared in this large sense and so want to include knowledge of the strongest knots.

Unfortunately, scientific research on knot strength apparently has been too spotty to generate a robust consensus. Furthermore, when a hypothesis emerges which several experts agree is plausible – e.g., the one about the importance of the first curve severity in determining knot strength – it appears to be largely ignored. Why is there no research comparing, say, the strength of plain butterfly-bends to ones with the tail ends tucked through the center (once; twice), to determine how much the reductions in first curve severity increase strength? Wouldn’t it encourage new approaches to knots if we discovered that, say, adding one rope diameter to the first curve can increase knot strength 10%?

My main purpose is to urge this kind of research.

My second purpose is to run a little with the mentioned hypothesis, speculatively anticipating the research. I’ve been interested in single-loop hitches which begin with a half-hitch first curve. The simplest way to reduce the severity of the first curve here is to turn the tail one or more times around the first curve – but the results are usually clumsy (the tail-turns aren’t held firmly in place, or conflict with the need to tug on the tail for adjustments, etc.).

My idea (which might be a new hitch – I don’t have Ashley, et al., to check) is this:

(a) loop the object, make three half-hitches on the standing: 1, 2, 3.
(b) spread open 1 a bit, push 1 over 2, so 1 now encircles the rope between 2 and 3.
(c) thread the tail through 1.
(d) center and tighten 1 between 2 and 3; tug the tail to tighten 2 and 3.

This expands the first curve from 1 diameter to 4 dia. It seems stable and stronger (on my 10mm climbing rope), and has a certain knotty attractiveness. What do you think? (If it is not new, what is it called? If it is indeed new and merits a name, I welcome suggestions!)

Another idea originated with a look at the “running knot” or “lasso”, where a fixed knot can in effect be strengthened by taking a reduced load from one leg of the loop rather than directly. I found lassos ungainly in practice, at least with climbing rope around smallish objects. But the lasso idea led me to examine the famous knot which doesn’t require the lasso’s sub-loop – namely: the “noose”.

If a noose is a ‘hitch’ (in that it takes the load from one leg of a loop and grips the object), isn’t the Gallows Noose one of the strongest single-loop hitches? I tried to address the tight first curve by (a) tying the knot with four wraps, instead of the usual three, and (b) turning the tail twice around the first curve (the wrap furthest from the loop). The wrap holds the tail-turns firmly in place. The result looks a bit peculiar, but successfully reduces the severity of the first curve. (It also makes the knot much easier to untie, which might recommend it to the grapevine bend for its jamming problems). Is it stronger?

Finally, I examined a ‘noose’ tied “underhand” with an “Uni” knot, modified by using only four-wraps, placing the last half of the fourth wrap over the first three wraps, and then adding one turn with the tail around the curve. The resulting first curve is much less severe than the modified Gallows-style’s curve, and there is no jamming problem, but the wraps don’t add supporting strength as they do in the Gallows-style. (It looks ok with my climbing rope, but I might be missing something. Why is the Uni only discussed as a fishing knot? Perhaps its general fortunes will improve with interest in less severe first curves.)

Is the modified Uni stronger than the modified Gallows? Is either one stronger than my ‘maybe-new’ hitch above? (Its first curve is only slightly more severe than the Uni’s, and much less severe than the Gallows’s.)

Moreover, what single-loop hitches have (or can be aptly modified to have) less severe first curves (and so perhaps be stronger) than these three knots?

Thanks in advance for your comments. (I’ll try to be responsive, but I only have access to the web once a week via public computers…)

This might be of interest
http://www.fishingkites.co.nz/fishingknots/spectra_fishing_line.html

Bear in mind that Kiwis call an overhand a granny (perplexing I know)

Interesting that the spectra to dacron knot shown in the video is also used with tubular climbing tape to make a sling where it is known as a “beer knot” (as it’s better than a water knot and beer is better than water!).

Barry

Not so fast : that thing with the Spectra-into-Dacron is not quite
the same, as the two run together on one side of the overhand
(“granny”), not the inner being terminated within the polyester sleeve.
Their explanation begs some questions, too, aside from the whole
thing leaving me skeptical.
And aside from this enterprise of kite fishing astounding me!
–even in Force 7-9(?) “gusting to 80knots”?!!

:o

This sounds a bit like wanting to ensure that at least one
of your multiplicands is non-zero --as though that in any
way guarantees a non-zero result with unknown others! :wink:

I challenge the thinking of strongest knot with consideration
of how different knots work in different circumstances of material
and loading. The presumption of one-size-fits-all I think will run
into trouble.

In your proposed hitch, you state that a design goal was to
broaden the diameter of the knot’s first turn (I regard you as
describing a noose-hitch, where the knot component hitches
to the SPart of the overall structure); but do you know that THIS is
what the structure needs? --i.e., that a sharper turn results in a
break of that part?

With a Strangle-noose hitch (“Poacher’s noose”?) of 8mm caving rope
on a 'biner, it was the noose’s SPart that broke at entry, where the
tight 1-diameter turn of the Strangle knot tightened around it,
not the tightly turned part itself. (But maybe a broader turn would
be easier on the noose’s SPart, as well?)

.:. Yes, the knotting research has not gone very far, oddly.

–dl*

A clear summary of the importance of the first curve severity in determining knot strength can be found at:
http://allaboutknots.blogspot.com/2010/11/knot-strength-structures-that-make.html

I apologize for my confused use of names. I have since managed to borrow ABOK. The two nooses which seem to be very strong are:
Scaffold Noose (ABOK#1120) which is tied overhand (I called it “Gallows”); and
Gallows Noose (ABOK#1121) which is tied ‘underhand’ (I called it “Uni”).
I should now ask, before wondering about my modifications, if anyone has experience about which of the two nooses is stronger? I have just asked this question on the newer topic about ‘Favorite Nooses’, so that might be the best place to respond.

I have been unable to find my ‘maybe-new’ hitch in Ashley. This doesn’t surprise me. Although my idea is simple and (I think) clever, it makes the knot ‘bulkier’, something Ashley disliked, and here would find pointless. But he was not looking for ways to reduce first curve severity. I was. (This supports my thought that confirmation of the hypothesis [that reductions in first curve severity increases knot strength] will encourage some new approaches to knots.)

I really would like feedback on my ‘maybe-new’ hitch. Try it and see – it is very easy to make! (It may be one of those rare knots where verbal directions are clearer than photos). Here is the simple procedure again:

(a) loop the object, make three half-hitches on the standing: 1, 2, 3.
(b) spread open 1 a bit, push 1 over 2, so 1 now encircles the rope between 2 and 3.
(c) thread the tail through 1.
(d) center and tighten 1 between 2 and 3; tug the tail to tighten 2 and 3.

Thank you very much for your comments. Again, I apologize for my slow response-time.

Wrong : this is one person’s theory devoid of either information to
support its formation (induction) or findings after the fact to confirm it.
In fact, there are assertions quite contrary to evidence, here --to wit:

[in re the [i]bowline[/i] ]X [i]The Entry Point,[/i] where the standing part merges with the stem and the rope curves as it enters the knot, is the place where a Bowline usually breaks under excessive load. Virtually 100% of the load falls on this point. The severity of this first curve determines the strength of the knot.

Rather, bowlines have been shown to break in their nipping turn;
the point “X” is generally not much deflected.
“The owl of Minerva flies only after dusk.”

Scaffold Noose (ABOK#1120) which is tied overhand (I called it "Gallows"); and Gallows Noose (ABOK#1121) which is tied 'underhand' (I called it "Uni"). I should now ask, before wondering about my modifications, if anyone has experience about which of the two nooses is stronger? I have just asked this question on the newer topic about 'Favorite Nooses', so that might be the best place to respond.

But note that Ashley finds then to be the same,
so are you thinking that there’s a structural difference
(and there could be --by dressing),
or that torsional differences will arise from one tying vs. other?
(I find it hard to achieve the geometry of 1120 via the tying of
1121 and loading tail & noose-eye, in some monofilament,
though I think the transformation is expected.)

–dl*

ABOK 1120 and 1121 are, Ashley says, the same knot tied differently. What does that mean? The different ways of tying amount to very different structural differences. E.g., the wraps are supportive in one but not in the other, one has a tight first curve, the other has a much less sever one.

The first curve hypothesis is plausible to me and others. I pointed out that research was needed, and reasonably asked why there isn’t any.

Here is a drawing of my ‘maybe-new’ hitch (sorry I don’t have a camera). The drawing makes it easier to see how the hitch expands the first curve from a half-hitch’s 1 rope diameter to 4 rope diameters (though my simple procedure is the best way to tie it). It is slightly bulkier and harder to tie than many related hitches. Its interest lies in its plausible greater strength (awaiting research on the importance of the first curve severity in determining knot strength).

Your comments would be welcome.


Maybe New Hitch.gif

Don’t be sorry. Diagrams are better than photos. Much clearer.

The first curve is where the standing part first starts to touch the knot. This is where the load starts to dissipate to the other parts of the knot. Therefore, I don’t think you need to resort to something this difficult.

No, what Ashley means --reading with the arrowed tying, dressing movement–,
is that from the differently formed start one rotates the top turn around until
the prior structure is achieved (which is something that is supposed to happen
with the Uni on setting, in monofil).

–dl*

[edited w/real computer after composing on an iPad in store --geesh]-:

roo wrote: “The first curve is where the standing part first starts to touch the knot. This is where the load starts to dissipate to the other parts of the knot. Therefore, I don’t think you need to resort to something this difficult.”<<

Identifying “first curve” with “first starts to touch” doesn’t seem right. Isn’t the curved rope after the touch a crucial determinant of a knot’s strength? If the first touch is only thing that matters here, then all knots are the same in this regard, and the notion of reducing first curve severity in order to strengthen a knot is pointless. Isn’t the actual curved rope the place where the strands of the rope are differentially stressed, eventually leading to the break – and so, where a less severe curve will produce less differential stress? Or is this mere (implausible) speculation?

Thank you for your comments.

Dan_Lehman wrote: “No, what Ashley means --reading with the arrowed tying, dressing movement–, is that from the differently formed start one rotates the top turn around until the prior structure is achieved (which is something that is supposed to happen with the Uni on setting, in monofil).”<<

I’m puzzled to think of ABOK#1121 as merely an alternate way of tying ABOK#1120, a feat you said is “hard to achieve”, and I found to be impossible on my climbing rope (frankly, I don’t see how it is done). (Ashley did not restrict his remark to fishing or monofil). Perhaps Ashley was being witty in seeing a possibility of conversion and calling them the “same”. In any case, in unconverted practice the two knots are treated separately, and can be compared to each other with regard to strength – which was my original question.

Here is my drawing of the two nooses, which might make it easier to see how differently each handles loading stress.

I might be able conduct some testing here - since I AM looking for a little inspiration to set me off again…

I have this weekend off and I have a load cell and other test equipment at my disposal.

Dan Lehman, Galilnoks (jeesh, I nearly typed goldinoks!), Derek… xarax, any suggestions/comments on how to set up some tests in order to produce scientifically valid results (ie results that could be reproduced by other testers)?

I do have an interest in noose type knots/hitches - particularly in comparison to ABoK #409. Test data by Collin O’neill (University of California 25 July 2000) using 8.0mm diameter cord was interesting and could serve as base-line data for further testing…

I’m sure Dan will request little cotton tracer threads to be woven at strategic intervals in the knot structure which will enable detailed analysis post break! God I hate weaving those damn tracer threads…

Mark

In (1), I asked the question :
Is the gripping force of the nooses nubs directly proportional to the number of their wraps/coils ? ( as one might have expected…) In other words, what number of wraps is the optimum for each type of noose ? I guess that, for each type of noose knot, there would be a certain number, after which the addition of even more wraps would not be worth the added trouble. Is there a point in this question ?

  1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2780.msg16911#msg16911

Please read carefully.
Ashley says that the knots are the same; you have tried to
make this into something beyond the obvious meaning.
He gives AN ARROW to show the movement one makes
given that “Uni” form in order to obtain the other form.
You can see this in your own (nice!) drawings by going
in reverse, from your finished #1120 (bottom) knot, by
pushing coils starting with the red=>yellow turn rightwards
back around/over the knot to the right end,
ultimately leaving the blue tail adjacent to the red turn,
as shown for #1121.
And this I said was done by one in dressing the knot.
(Ashley doesn’t seem top know about nylon --it was invented
as a material only circa 1935, and although Barnes reports
using monofil in '39, well, much of ABOK might’ve already
been pretty well cast.)

What I said about transformations in monofil --highlighted in blue–
was that this seemingly is supposed to occur by prescribed setting
of the knot, pulling on both ends. That you tested this in 10mm?
kernmantle rope and came up short is no surprise; BUT you can
see a similar transformation by tying a multiple overhand (tuck
& tuck again & tuck yet again), where the wraps/twists of the
ends forming what Harry Asher named “the spine” opposite the “belly”
will throw off their twists into the belly, reducing to a single twist,
all the rest now overwraps above this --the strangle form, as you
nicely illustrate.

In any case, in unconverted practice the two knots are treated separately, and can be compared to each other with regard to strength -- which was my original question.

I don’t know about this “unconverted practice”, but do suspect that
there are some not-so-fully/well-converted results, which leads to the
divergent opinions about the Uni knot. Typical illustrations are crystal
clear on the formation initially, then go indiscernibly squiggly about
the result of setting --but SELDOM show the clear surrounding pat
that you put so well, which is what a simply tightened knot of the
exploded form should yield (non-monofil)! (Some show what seems
to be a sort of not-absorbed/-surrounded simple overhand structure
at one end, as though the transformation was only partial, and the
artist pretty accurate!?)

A similar problem exists in presentations of the blood knot, where
often the --what Barnes calls-- outcoil tying is done (wrapping
each end away from knot center, then reaching back to tuck the
ends, vs. tying incoil towards this tuck); in monofilament line,
where the knot is born & used, an incoil knot results, inevitably;
but in more frictive, larger stuff, one is likely to get an incomplete
transformation or none at all. The Net is terrific at parroting nonsense!

Beyond this issue of correctness, yes, your query about effects
of structure --no matter how got or why-- should advance some
understanding. Ring diameter & nature in this noose hitch needs
to be considered; Agent_Smith echoed my note about the one
hitch being tested in 8mm kernmantle (I think you can Google
that name, and a caving host holds the results).

–dl*