NOOB - I invented... now what?

Practical Knots
101

As questions have been raised about the security of the knot, as well as the power advantage in tensioning, I think there is no reason for fear that it should fail. I have used it extensively since first knowing it, and it has not failed at any time. For security, at first I also tied with another string and a trucker’s hitch, to make sure that my load would not get away, and occasionally I still do. I also have a habit of making a half hitch with each end around the legs of the knot, but it’s more to spend the material and to make sure that any snagging of an end would not open the knot.

I also found a simple and convenient way to tie it under load, by simply half-hitching the first end around the centre of the middle bight, then following it in the opposite direction with the other end, whereupon I spill the so formed doubled half hitch into the TurrNip in the centre bight of the knot. Moslty when I tie down a load on the bicycle rack, I use the knot in the form of two splayed loops, and I regard it as still the same knot when tied in that way. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2262.0

And indeed the John Bauer aquarel shows the wolf tied up with bindings. I think Gleipnir is a good name for this knot.

102

Just some text from the Prose Edda, Gylfaginning chapter 34:

Everyone refused to place their hand in Fenrir’s mouth until T?r put out his right hand and placed it into the wolf’s jaws. When Fenrir kicked, Gleipnir caught tightly, and the more Fenrir struggled, the stronger the band grew. At this, everyone laughed, except T?r, who there lost his right hand. When the gods knew that Fenrir was fully bound, they took a cord called Gelgja hanging from Gleipnir, inserted the cord through a large stone slab called Gj?ll, and the gods fastened the stone slab deep into the ground. After, the gods took a great rock called Thviti, and thrust it even further into the ground as an anchoring peg.

This confirms the aquarel by John Bauer. The wolf was tied with a binder. They didn’t make an anchor before they were convinced the wolf was tightly bound.

103

I’ve been experimenting with this Gleipnir for awhile now. Overall, it’s pretty good. The best part is that it looks cool. However, for performance, I still prefer a few other knots instead. For example, where a Gleipnir is appropriate, I feel more comfortable with a Backhand Hitch plus Two Half Hitches. Another one I like better than the Gleipnir is Two Half Hitches Plus a Half Hitch Lock. (I really wish there was a shorter way of saying that!).

104

When I’m tying a Gleipnir, I’m always tying the Round Turn Gleipnir documented by Xarax. It uses just a little bit more rope than the original and isn’t much harder to tie. I haven’t tried the Backhand Hitch plus Two Half Hitches, but in most situations the Round Turn Gleipnir outperforms both Two Half Hitches Plus a Half Hitch Lock and Buntline Hitch Plus a Half Hitch Lock. I would compare the strength of the binder with Double Constrictor, but it uses less rope.

I use the Buntline/Half Hitch Plus a Half Hitch Lock when I don’t have a lot of rope, or when a simple and fast knot to tie is more important than binding strength :slight_smile:

105

OK…my experience is different than yours.

106

I only came across this the other day and already I’m using it in many varied applications. I think it’s remarkable to devise such an innovative application. One of the reasons I first started searching for knotting instructions online was to find those that would work well with the large supply of scrap wire lengths our department generates. Aside from various communications cabling, any number of computer wires from mice, old USB cables, flat phone cord, etc are avialable to play with. I usually start by doubling it into a loop with a figure 8 knot and adding the extra turn (surgeon’s knot?) when applicable. I started making these of lengths short and long to simplify tying down loads of expensive PC equipment on hand trucks with only a few bungee cords and/or carabiner clips, and when you have adequate slack, a simple half hitch ties it off. The short loops make hooking the axle or side rails with the bungee or clips so much easier. I made a pretty crude truck cargo netting out of line cable and hope to do even better on the next one (with a border made with thcker marterial).

I’ll post my questions elsewhere in the appropriate topic, but I’m looking for ways to recycle a lot of other thicknesses of scrap wire. Most of my approaches are hybrids utilizing several types of hardware. I wanted to bind thicker and shorter round three-pronged power cables to make three foot segments that could work as a barrier rope connecting posts on a path. I thought maybe I could weave the strands like a bridge cable but think that is probably impracticle for its length and diameter. I still want to use several for a thicker grip (like a velvet rope) and figure termination could be into the end of a conduit coupler of the type that has the screw and plate to reduce the interior diameter and grip the material. I could also bind the length with much thinner wire for looks and support but would be making it up as I go along and would also be lost as to how to terminate the ends. I was never a Boy Scout and have no familiarity with most knots but I’m picking up the easy and useful ones (which is why I’m so impressed with the Gleipnir). It was mentioned the amount of material used but I can see a number of ways around that (I’ll use it often for tree trimmings). I could use rope or wire to constrict the bundle, tie it off with cheap twine and a regular old knot (I found twine usually broke when trying to tighten it but worked great once the added tension was relaxed).

Hope to learn a lot here and welcome any suggestions or critiques. Will look for the right thread to expand further (Misc.?)

107

Am I the only one to have reached the conclusion that member [Inkanyezi] gone in reality discovered or rediscovered the Gleipnir but wisely disclosed under a pseudonym given the usual outpouring of vitriol that awaited him? The board is the poorer without his participation.

108

Hello swanoonie:
There is more than one casualty since this thread was born…
Notably, Xarax is MIA (or KIA depending on you point of view!) which is a significant loss, and so are his posts in this thread.
Some of the original photos of the ‘Gleipner’ are gone too - its not until well into this thread where you start to see some photos of a reasonable quality. Although - the resolution is still not exactly easy to unpick.

I also note this post which had a few barbs aimed in a certain direction…
At reply 91:
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.msg11955#msg11955

Its hard to know (with 100% certainty) who discovered what and at which date… new knot discoveries are always difficult to verify - one only has to look at the infamous #1425A Riggers bend which launched the IGKT and was later found to have been discoverer much earlier by Phil Smith.

I personally know that Xarax has done a great deal of work on hitches and its sub-class of ‘binders’ - and most of that work isn’t seen on this forum.
All sorts of mathematical model models have been looked at and theories proposed - but I find most of them to be lacking in one form or another.

…

As a side note - not directly related to your post or this thread (but nevertheless interesting):
There was a paper published recently on knots which alluded to the number of topological ‘crossings’ being an important determinant of a knots security/stability.
And yet, this does not satisfactorily explain how the Zeppelin bend works.
The number of topological crossings in a Zeppelin bend is 10 (jam resistant in through loading)
The number of topological crossings in a #1425A Riggers bend is 12 (jams)
The number of topological crossings in a #1053 derived Butterfly bend is 12 (jam resistant in through loading)

Charles Hamel (aka Nautile) wrote an interesting paper about a comparison of 4 bends…but reached no decisive conclusion as to why #1425A jams and Zeppelin bend does not (and is just as secure and stable). Topology (in my view) does not provide all the answers. Geometry (and not topology) appears to provide a better path to understanding.
Link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=2ahUKEwi5pOrxp4LnAhVyxzgGHbd5CVgQFjAMegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcharles.hamel.free.fr%2Fknots-and-cordages%2FPUBLICATIONS%2FBends-comparison-release-2013March9.fdp&usg=AOvVaw1GVt9A6DGCV53cWcyB61Iv (change to pdf).

And with the Gleipner binder hitch - I also think topology wont provide concrete answers either (as to exactly how it works). Perhaps a holistic view is key…?
I personally see all binders as using a progress capture mechanism - which allows them to progressively crush their (deformable) host object.
The Poldo tackle is another very interesting structure… Link: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5377.0
Also discussed in ‘Knotting Matters’ #41 (at page 18).

And then there is little paper from Thomas Evans which compares 3 ‘tackles’:
Link: http://itrsonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Evans.Truebe_A-comparison-of-the-Truckers-Hitch-Voodoo-and-Poldo_Paper.pdf

109

WABACH machine
Perhaps admin can help with MIA photos at least:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180313070619/http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iJjgtPnImOY/SpIo9oqm_-I/AAAAAAAAWyY/KBPegCYum74/Ic42/Floating%2520Constrictor.png

.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180313070623/http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VI_NYWkd9x8/SpIo-dIfkVI/AAAAAAAASlA/Lyzm6LQO-5g/Ic42/Floating%2520Constrictor%25203%2520Series.png

110

Hi, as a new member I feel lucky and impressed to witness the discovery (invention?) of a new knot. Detractors will say that some one out there had all ready invented it and it was only self discovered. If that is true who ever invented it earlier didn’t document it and name it such that was recognised and became commonly used.
I really like the physics of the Gleipnir: a marling twist cross tensioned to hold a bundle is a thing of beauty. The symetry and simplicity are really appealing. I do remember seeing the illustration in ABOK, years ago, of the sequence of marlings (a half hitch tied around a line under tension) used to hold a tow line around the axle of a vehicle, but I have never seen the element of cross tensioning till now. I have always tied my Sheepshanks with Marlinespike hitches because I respect Murphy as a force of nature and I know that, sure as the sun rises in the east, tension is never constant when it is expected to be. Cross tension, however, really is something that can be relied upon.
As to the naming of this new knot my vote is cast for Gleipnir.

Scorpion Regent

Ignorantia timoris, et estote filii fortitudinis discere.

111

Thank you for the sincere reply and the fascinating links, agent_smith. I’ll be fitting those into my reading.

112

Here’s a sort of footnote to this old thread,
worthwhile to remind us what can transpire,
and what can endure.

| The “Floating Constrictor Knot”,
| although it could also be called “Concave Constrictor Knot”.
| But if you want to throw “Dahm” in the front I won’t complain.

I think that while arguably generous
at least more accurate will be giving
credit to a sub-class we can entitle
“Dahm’s Floating Binders”
–underscoring the breadth/class,
not merely/only “constrictor” which we’ll
see as more nearly a particular shaping
or a known-entity-like-gripper (but which
quite canNOT “float” and work!).

The footnote is to show that the idea trickled
up sometime/someplace else from Mr. Dahm,
but didn’t have impetus there to be given
the promulgation which led to it claiming
a rightful place among knotted structures.
One might wonder about such things arising
w/o much notice, and what it takes to bring
notice/acceptance eventually.

(E.g., though many do know of the constrictor,
how many did so from it’s cryptic 1st appearance
in 1916 Ohrvall’s Om Knutar (verbal),
or 1931 presentations in a Finnish book and
in Lester Griswold’s Handicrafts --which
book Ashley cites & praises but makes no
peep about it revealing his constrictor
(some think that indeed it was from him
that James Drew contributed the knot to
this book --but (oddly?) then did NOT include
it a couple years later in his own, knots book!?).
I’ve not found the constrictor In The Wild.
)

–some old knots-notes papers out of my
clutter cache. (… trying to organize …)

Cheers,
(-;

ps :: OOOPS, I’ll leave this placeholder,
as I’ve forgotten to move an image copy
to my flash drive … (and otherwise I think
that those just done I did in a size too large
for IGKT).
.:. so, to return to edit or add to this post.

DONE, though, ugh, sorry for the resolution:
fascinating to contemplate the system’s
4-image-max and max 100kb each
but TOTAL max 1,024 --how to get past
4x100=400 to bust the Total !!

113

There’s a very good, very clear description and photo of what the Gleipnir is and how it’s tied here:

https://daveroot.neocities.org/knots/Knots_Miscellaneous.html#Gleipner

The sound file (earlier in this thread) of how to pronounce Gleipnir is a dead link.

My assumption (correct me if I’m wrong) is that the first sound is like the “gli” in “glide” and that the end is like “near” - with that ending being with a hard or soft “r” depending on which side of the Atlantic you’re on. So we end up with something like: GLYp-near

114

If the link in the previous post should go dead, as they have a habit of doing, essentially the same content is mirrored here:
https://www.southee.com/Knots/Knots_Miscellaneous.htm

With a .pdf download option.

And if you navigate up to the top there are numerous linked pages with other .pdfs, so a good resource for beginners.