Thanks to Scott’s reminder, I put in a recent whipping
using the Common Whipping, with a single (what-I’ll-call)
interrupter --i.e., one pass of the whipping at the mid-way
point through the u-fold, to prevent pulling out the
later tucked end (the u-fold will pull only into this “i…”).
There are various combinations of techniques. In addition
to what I just described (using an “interrupter”), if one is
game for some brief laying of the 3-strand rope, one can
try taking a mid-way wrap through the lay, as a means
to preventing the whipping from sliding off. !? (I’ve not
yet tried this; I can see that getting this buried part to lie
proximate to other turns might be a challenge.)
So, waxed twine. I have used tea-bag strings, and rice-bag
strings (once I figure out how to unto them! --new, La Qilla
basmati awairs opening, but it might not have a string binding).
I wondered why polyester vs. nylon? Doing some searching,
I find little information. My thought comes from what I’ve
heard re conditioning a kermantle rope pre-use.
Repeated wetting will gradually reduce the length of the rope (sometimes by more than 10%),
So, my thinking runs “Use nylon for whipping (and some
other binding tasks) as it will tighten your work when wet!”
(I’ve seen lots of commercial-marine gear with what I call
a “Reverse Groundline Hitch” (shown in ABoK as a miller’s
knot, and at 3794/5 in its use to bind lines; surely, though,
Ashley shows it put on in the wrong direction, which will
require much care & working --rather, it goes on as a pair
of opposing HHitches, each locking the other!). And once
I watched a rigger building a net putting in the RGH with
just some mild tugs to set it ; yet what I’d seen in used
nets was quite snug & tight.)
But I found in a com.fish.gear store not nylon but
“polyester flat braid”. The flat aspect --a sort of
rectangular cross section-- accommodates the
crossings of the RGH nicely, reducing bulk ; it can
be simulated by pairing (non-flat) cords which
give a 2:1 cross section of sorts.
–dl*
/====