rope clamp, friction hitch from bight, named pallastek

[bepal]

rope clamp, friction hitch from bight, named pallastek

Dear Reader
My Name is Bernd living in Germany.
History:
I use many years the cow-hitch and bend it from a bight like kite-surfer to with. By the time see and learn the prusik
and was impressed. Once a time i thought whats happen bending a non-symmetric prusik
and was i get was this stich (see picture). I use it six jears now and does not find it as well known communicated.

Its like a half prusik combined with a half cow-stich. You lay/bend it from a bight (or in a endless loop like maritim D-loops)

• no endparts where needed -
  with one finger a double turn and with the thumb only one turn an dress it an store it on the thumb (with execises in less than 2 seconds).
  After that you shift it over one or more ropes/cables and pull the two parts simultanously apart.
  I tye both Endparts together with overhand knot to get symmetric tension on both endparts- but its not nessesary needed.
  Normaly it dress itself like a prusik. In this view its a 3/4 Prusik.
  Searching in Knot compendians i find the Magnum Stitch (ABOK #1736 )
  wich is in the first view nearly identic

But it has other physics (means in Form, Power and pull direction angle) and useability and applications.

versus Form:
Magnus_hitch use one rope/line as staying end (versus double lines from a bight)
Magnus_hitch get its friction pull the staying line in 90 degree
(versus <= 90 to = 90 degree by pull both lines in direction to the one tourn likely a curryclamp or swabish_hitch )
Magnus_hitch use one tension part and one loose part (versus two tension-parts like prusik )
Magnus_hitch has eventually need to secure the loose part (versus havn’t a loose part )
Magnus_hitch can only carry a load for one line. (versus two thinner lines can be thinner in cramped conditions but
by more securest stronger friction )
Magnus_hitch is disable to form with a endless D-loop rope cause you can’t get a knot in a loop
Magnus_hitch is more complicated and needs more Time and Attention to build (versus forms it nearly itself like a prusik)

versus Application:
Best application is to put the Stek over the own endparts give two adjustable loops
can get more than one Stitch in a endless loop and can quickly bridging or enforce a damaged rope part
can carry bundles of things is self pinching and not self-opened (some bindings was in the same condition after a couple of jears)
knot the free ends together to have a balanced tension point or a handy ?bight to carry or take it on a wall mounted hook.
easy to tighten it by move the free parts apart or if the end together tyed you pull simply on both parts
Its like a instant Stich you can use everywhere.

versus build:
you can use but not need a rope end part
you normaly take the middle a bight of a rope or bundle
you can build it in air with fingers and motions or
put three loops on a table and pick the rings with one finger like a asynchron Prusik
with exercise build in less then 3 seconds, normaly needs about 10 sec

See my Website with short videos
http://www.pallastek.de

[eric22]

bepal,
Here is a screenshot picture of you work, no sure how is your set up and what you trying to do, so I
have no comment on your work. If for general use and the standard parts are free to tie any where,
Bowline on a bight is good enough to do the job ( see second picture).
Here is a video “TIB Prusik loop tie to ring” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE-ZrKTTa2g
tying the last step of the knot, I keep turning the knot inside out, this way make life easy.
謝謝 alanleeknots

---

[Keystoner]

Bernd, thanks and nice work on your website. That appears to be a very versatile knot. As you mentioned, it appears to have elements of a Cow Hitch and Prusik. I think it has elements of a Taut Line as well.

[bepal]

@alanleeknots
Many thanks for your response.
I also find the inside-out an excellent property of this type of knots.

You address the aspect of the clamping effect of the Prusik. This sticks in both directions.
I guess it was due to the symmetry and the simple bond, not to make a job clamping in both directions
at the same Knot, which of course can also be desired.

In certain applications, clamping in the opposite direction is not necessary or is a hindrance.
When climbing the rope, moving the Prusik up with one hand is not easy possible also
when sailing use it as an improvised rope clamp.
In this respect, the Prusik sometimes performs twice, which, however, can not be desired.

With this knot presented, the position of the individual turn must be observed -
the clamping effect is good when pulling both parts towards the single turn.

In the opposite direction it is easier to move because the second clamping element is missing (more similar to “swabish hitch”).
In the case of a loop, it can be used as not opening (strangulating) or as not closing (plus adjustable) tool.
In mostly cases i use the strangling form as a sustainable reusable and easy to open cable tie.
When connecting two ropes with an endless loop (D-loop), it must be tyed twice as a not opening (strangulating) form.
Best regards
Bernd

[agent_smith]

Wie Gehts Bepal?
Thanks for posting here…

I read your post but am not 100% certain if your presentation is a claim of originality?
That is, are you making a claim that you invented this particular hitch?

Claims of originality are tricky…and often turn out to be re-discoveries of someone else’s creation.

With that said…

The image you posted in your original (initial) post is actually one of the steps for tying a ‘Purcell’.

The Purcell has been known and used since the 1970’s - its an asymmetric slide and grip hitch.
Its often employed as an adjustable ‘lanyard’ in fall protection systems.
However, it is intended for use only as a ‘restraint’ system, and not for ‘fall-arrest’.

See my attached image for reference.
In tying a ‘Purcell’ - hundreds (thousands) of people would have reached your presentation as part of the tying process.
However, the Purcell has one more turn and pass-through, which creates an odd number of ‘coils’ (5).
Your presentation has 3 coils in an asymmetric arrangement.
The Purcell is also ‘asymmetric’.

---

[Dan_Lehman]

@bepal post:4

With this knot presented, the position of the individual turn must be observed -
the clamping effect is good when pulling both parts towards the single turn.

In the opposite direction it …

… does not hold (if both ends are loaded),
which is a fault coming in the 2nd Edition
of On Rope --though I’ve not seen anyone point
this out, but me (even though others have
recommended this book, in arborist area,
where the Schwabisch hitch is known and so
the wrong-way presentation of the 2nd edition
should’ve been an egregious error noted).

Bob Thrun’s “Prusiking” article mentioned this
knot.

–dl*

[eric22]

bepal, Here is a screenshot picture of you work, no sure how is your set up and what you trying to do, so I have no comment on your work

I don't want to comment because 50% load on the knot again 100% load on standing part, I believe it will slip. So today I have a few quick test, it slip bad. no sure how many more wraps can we add to the knot to stop the slipping, 謝謝 alanleeknots

[eric22]

Hi All, Here is another way to tie TIB Purcell knot 3 coils and 5 coils.
Hope you like it. 謝謝 alanleeknots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9OLfYDGQ2s

[bepal]

thank you very much for your time and research

@alanleeknots
try again - pull simultanously with both ends to the side with the one coil and
use a thinner line to grep a thicker rope or a bundle of two ropes than you must
get a instantly heavy blocking.
Use lines thinner 10 mm.
Thiker ropes may not bend enough.

On the question whether I claim discovery:
In fact, I find it very unlikely that this very simple hitch in the course of the use of ropes in the last 80000 years of mankind hasn’t already been used, it’s certainly not one of my inventions.
However, there are no practical applications, (e.g. as tautline hitch, “reusable instant CableTie”) published available.
( Thrun’s hint should come closest to this and probably has it rated for vertical applications. )

By the way: is it possible to get a picture of Thrun’s illustration ?
1998 issue of Arborist News , (1973, p. 5)

So far i state:
The geometric form is mentioned,

• with abok, however, with the same geometry and not as knot but only as arbitrary
  Reinforcement to be added in a given lashing function .

• And not In its lashing function described by me and as an adjustable double loop
  (adjustable double Bowline, Softshakle, tautline etc.).
  The knot seams is apparently not detected.

• One coil is contained as a basic element in most simple Knots.
  In Purcell (1970) the Prusik is already known as the name for double twist with endless
  line (4 turns) ove a rope has been known.

Matter of one Coil
A - From the point of view of Prusik users Purcell is a Prusik with an additional
upper turn and therefore asymmetrical, but is specified with its own name.
B - From the point of view of Swabich users Purcell is also a Swabish Hitch with a lower turn more
and as asymmetrical as Swabish Hitch in principle.
but is specified under the name Purcell.
C - If a Knot is not specified with an identifier, it can alternatively be specified based on the
Prusik “point of view” as type Prusik in variant plus/minus one coil

• in the Swabich “point of view” as type Swabish in variant plus/minus one coil
  can be described.

In this manner the hitch to be discussed here would be after procedure
A as Prusik minus one lower turn or by procedure and after procedure
B as Swabish stitch minus one upper turn.
So I think also one coil manners to see another but not a new Knot;

Also as various descriptions according to type A and type B suggest, an additional coil influences
very strong the mode of action e.g. to increased safety or increased or reduced friction
and may have developed into a name specification with a group of coils.

As In Dan_Lehman’s post mentioned sources i read:
" Thrun illustrated a “Prusik knot with an odd number of coils” (1973, p. 5), and his
description of how to tie, use, and adjust this knot agrees perfectly
with the Schwabisch.
In On Rope, Smith and Padgett show a Prusik tied with three,
four, and five coils, "

The consideration of the characteristics of the variants of Prusik and asymmetrical Swabish hitch
seems to play in the vertical environment where a hanging rope is found
and high safety is needed; additional coils should bring advantages, while the
friction nodes (Tautline Hitch ) in a non-vertical environment can manage with fewer turns
can.

A specification or description by name as a node seems to be open
til yet although there is a high practical and daily variety of uses as
http://www.pallastek.de want to show.
The knot to be discussed here, with quickly laid turns, is excellently suited
for countless applications in workshop, household, outdoor and maritime environments.
And contrary to the statement of Thrun the knot can not only produced with a line Part
but rather, for example, from a cove or sling and stick it onto objects/bundles or
use it as a terminal node on a tautline by inside-out conversion
and use it as an instant cabletie that ties as fast as a shoelace.
Examples See website above.

Best regards
Bernd

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[bepal]

@alanleeknots
see your 3coil Swabish hitch TiB today on youtube, please use for this Knot
firm material-lines - weak one will slip.

[Dan_Lehman]

@bepal post:9

As In Dan_Lehman’s post mentioned sources i read:
" Thrun illustrated a “Prusik knot with an odd number of coils” (1973, p. 5), and his
description of how to tie, use, and adjust this knot agrees perfectly
with the Schwabisch.
In On Rope, Smith and Padgett show a Prusik tied with three,
four, and five coils, " …

Again, just to be sure people know ::
in the FIRST/original version of On Rope, the hitch
is correctly shown (w/variety of coils --as though
readers NEED to see what each looks like ??);
but in [color=red]On Rope II, the hitches are presented
upside-down (with a change in text to match),
AND THIS IS WRONG!

–dl*

[eric22]

@bepal,
I only understand simple English, when using words to describe the function of knots, little hard for me to understand .
I only respond to the picture knots.
Here is your picture knot , in the case it will not hold and it will slip with light load. 謝謝 alanleeknots

[eric22]

Hi All,

Hi All, Here is another way to tie TIB Purcell knot 3 coils and 5 coils.
Hope you like it. 謝謝 alanleeknots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9OLfYDGQ2s

      Have some free time, check on youtube see if anyone have tie the same way that I have, so far I think I am safe.
      Here are some of them below, they are fine too.  謝謝 alanleeknots
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8js8e5BqM0
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGXvOS2M7GM&t=343s
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLNn5Ewouqg

[Dan_Lehman]

@alanleeknots post:12

          I only respond to the picture knots.
          Here is your picture knot  , in the case it will not hold and it will slip with light load.   謝謝 alanleeknots

Yes and no, Alan : the OP shows the hitch pulled
in the correct & opposite direction to what you
show --essentially, the differences between the
original & revised editions of On Rope.

(If one has multiple turns in both halves,
then that’s another thing to consider :: IMO,
I’m coming to the opinion that in COIL-TO
coils --the Rolling hitch, e.g.; the near side
of a Prusik h.; the Hedden & NOT Klemheist–
there is quicker diminishing effect than with
COIL-AWAY coils, where “Chinese finger trap”
mechanics can be well spread over multiple
coils; vs. the coil-to which need to tighten
in place, so to speak, by flow of tension
across so much friction.)

–dl*

[agent_smith]

Hello bepal,

I am finding the translation (at times) difficult to follow.

On the question whether I claim discovery: In fact, I find it very unlikely that this very simple hitch in the course of the use of ropes in the last 80000 years of mankind hasn't already been used, it's certainly not one of my inventions. However, there are no practical applications, (e.g. as tautline hitch, "reusable instant CableTie") published available.

The reason I asked this basic question is because you posted in the section titled: New knot investigations. Clearly and obviously, if a person posts in this section, it is strongly implied that the person is making a claim of originality.

Matter of one Coil A - From the point of view of Prusik users Purcell is a Prusik with an additional upper turn and therefore asymmetrical, but is specified with its own name. B - From the point of view of Swabich users Purcell is also a Swabish Hitch with a lower turn more and as asymmetrical as Swabish Hitch in principle. but is specified under the name Purcell. C - If a Knot is not specified with an identifier, it can alternatively be specified based on the Prusik "point of view" as type Prusik in variant plus/minus one coil - in the Swabich "point of view" as type Swabish in variant plus/minus one coil can be described.

I disagree with the underlying concepts advanced by bepal.

1. In the first instance, all of these knot structures are properly classified as; “Slide and grip hitches”.
   The term ‘Prusik’ is simply one type of slide and grip hitch.
   And the 'Swabisch is another type of slide and grip hitch, and so on.
   There is a significant number of different types of slide and grip hitches - all having different geometries.

In the case of the Purcell, it is in fact configured as a 'Noose hitch".
That is, the Hitch component is tied around its own SPart (standing part).
In doing so, it creates an adjustable ‘eye’ (it is not a fixed eye).

I see that some (on the internet) describe a ‘Swabisch’ as a ‘Swabisch prusik’ (which is incorrect).
To do so is an oxymoron.
More correct is to say; “Swabisch slide and grip hitch”.

2. The ‘Swabisch hitch’ has a different geometry.
   It does not take the form of a noose hitch.
   Also, it is formed from a linear length or cord - not from a round sling.
   Furthermore, the geometry of the turns/coils is different to the Purcell (yes, both employ 5 turns/coils but, in a different geometry).

Arborists tend to use slide and grip hitches that are formed from linear lengths of cord - rather than a round sling.
And this is a crucial concept for the ‘Swabisch slide and grip hitch’.
Case in point: I would challenge you to tie a ‘Swabisch slide and grip hitch’ using a round sling (not a linear length of cord) - and tie it on a fixed rope without access to either end of that fixed rope (ie you are cheating if you try to install the Swabisch by sliding it up from one end of the fixed rope).
In contrast, a #1763 Prusik hitch can be tied on a fixed rope without access to either end of that rope.
A Purcell, in its originally conceived form, is not attached to a fixed rope…it is intended to be a ‘noose’ - with an adjustable eye. And indeed, the originator conceived the Purcell as a fall-arrest device which in my personal view is a risky proposition. I refer you to Richard Delaney’s tests of the Purcell which demonstrate that it fails when used in the way Reed Thorne (USA) intended. Reed Thorne has some great ideas…but, his concept of using a Purcell as a fall-arrest device is dangerous. Richard Delaney (Rope test lab) has videos demonstrating the failure mode.

In contrast, climbers/mountaineers tend to use slide and grip hitches that are formed from a round sling.
An example of which is the #1763 Prusik hitch (named after its inventor) - the Prusik hitch is formed from a round sling.

Topologically and geometrically, the Swabisch and the Purcell are different types of ‘slide and grip hitches’.

[agent_smith]

Hello KC,

Thank you for your reply.

However, the majority of your post has nothing to do with the OP’s proposition and line of thought.
While it is of interest to note how Arborist’s climb and use their ‘saddle’ (which is a fancy word for ‘harness’) - it is morphing into something of a different character.

A few points I would like to reiterate and amplify:

1. The Swabisch, Prusik, Blakes, Purcell, Klemheist, French Prusik (Machard), etc etc,… are all classified as ‘Slide and Grip Hitches’.
   All of them require a ‘host’, without which, the slide and grip hitch would lose structural integrity and collapse.

2. The ‘Swabisch’ hitch cannot be formed on a ‘host’ if tied using a round sling (without access to either end of the ‘host’).

3. The ‘Prusik’ hitch (#1763) can be formed on a ‘host’ using a round sling - at any point on the host (without access to either end).

4. The ‘Prusik’ hitch is symmetric… while the ‘Swabisch’ hitch is asymmetric.

5. I made the point that Arborists tend to use slide and grip hitches that are tied from an open ended (linear) length of cord.
   Note the word ‘tend’ - which means having a tendency. This does not mean that Arborists never tie a slide and grip hitch from a round sling. It means they simply have a tendency to do so. In contrast, mountaineers/climbers have a tendency to tie slide and grip hitches from a round sling (eg #1763 Prusik hitch).

6. There is a mind boggling variety of slide and grip hitches - all having different geometries - with different gripping+releasing characteristics.
   All were invented to satisfy a need - and to boost performance in a given application.

7. Slide and grip hitches can be categorized into the following general types:
   Dual-leg loaded: formed from a round sling (this is the type that is most often employed by mountaineers/climbers)
   Dual leg loaded: formed from an open ended linear length of cord
   Single-leg loaded: formed from an open ended linear length of cord

In addition, geometries can include a ‘noose hitch’ - eg the ‘Purcell’ (which has an adjustable eye)
In contrast, the ‘Swabisch’ hitch is not a noose and it does not have an adjustable eye.

The host of a ‘Purcell’ is its own SPart (standing part).

8. bepal made his original post in the ‘New knot investigations’ section.
   A reasonable person would therefore conclude that he is making a claim of originality.
   Otherwise, why post in ‘new knot investigations’?
   I pointed out that his original presentation is simply the first stage of tying a ‘Purcell’ - one more turn/coil creates the Purcell.
   I know that many operators have experimented with this 3 coil partial Purcell and found the 5 turn/coil version to be more reliable (in employment as an adjustable eye / noose).

…

per KC:

Arbos don't always climb on an SRT(Single Rope Technique) system. Can tie static/termination to saddle, rope feeds up over redirect back(limb or pulley) and returns to saddle But not to termination, but to a friction hitch 'dynamic' connection . >>Called Doubled Rope Technique (DdRT) and is a deceptively generous change in mechanix Single length fall below climber but dual leg support above climber in same continuous rope >>this affords 2/1 - friction over own self in lift (like 'dumb waiter') >>as the friction hitch itself is only half loaded This also means climber better be able to pick up free end of line and touch chest >>or can run off of end of life line column, as needs 2 lengths of line to descend into, that become supports! This also affords being able to DESCEND on a friction hitch w/o change over >>as if the dynamic leg was failing when Prusik pulled down on, and the static leg is stiffer/takes load >>allowing friction hitch to slide Placed on SRT w/o other helper static support leg, same setup locks tight to host lifeline mount/can't descend. . Arbos may use open end Taut Line or Blake's/Prolaska friction hitch of same diameter as host line >>as perhaps is leg of host line of long Bitter End from saddle static termination left for such purpose /make friction hitch back to main section But as go to dual leg support friction hitch (Prusik etc.) go for for smaller diameter friction hitch than host line grabbed >>i think this works because dual leg friction hitch is only half loaded per host lifeline grabbed >>so hitch is trying to grab more rigid lifeline >>dropping diameter of friction hitch; can make it more rigid as same force packed in smaller diameter >>is now set to compete/impress host line grabbed better by this mechanic . Using the all-in-one/starter kit of tying termination to saddle and leaving ~1.5' BE/tail Then serving the long end of termination over re-direct back to connect friction hitch to >>doesn't afford disconnect to avert the many obstacles/branches w/o retie separate friction hitch/not all-in-one affords working each end of support to saddle (static and live) separately >> not in closed loop that makes obstacle impassable w/o reTie.

While interesting, all of the above belongs in a new topic thread - titled; “Arborist climbing techniques”

[KC1]

Very sorry,my bad as have never been on another forum where that was such a rule, focus; let alone critique.
.
But i do try to show the pivotal principles, when they are amplified most cleanly to catch best view of as a harvest of occurance;
to then be familiar enough to then sift out of many things lurks in. This is just one of those views.
.
This folded configuration as a recursive mechanic from 1x to 2x can give some counter-intuitive differences that should be observed in talking of them, but also; those same mechanix appear in other places too. Sometimes hidden in tight microcosm of a knot, but same principle to already know/trust inside.
.
i think most readers hear when see Arborist friction hitch are not aware of the unique mechanix if friction hitch is not sole support, and it is a game changer in some ways to it’s success and even subject matter .
.
The prospect of rope tension as key factor not only by force but also hardness/rigidity imbued, prevails thru all knots, to me this 1(single) or 2(open or closed loop) legged friction hitch is KEY time to show this, and it’s (cord diameter)mods to correct; to perhaps then see rigidity factor in ALL knots/nips.

[agent_smith]

per KC:

Very sorry,my bad as have never been on another forum where that was such a rule, focus; let alone critique.

? I am not a moderator and I do not make the rules. All I can give you is my personal perspective. Your posts are interesting but, you have a tendency to drift into subject material that is completely off-topic. In most forums, it is an implied (or assumed) rule that posters try to directly answer the OP's question or add discussion that contributes and clarifies salient points.

bepal posted an image of an asymmetric slide and grip hitch - in this section (which is new knot investigations).
This strongly suggests that he is making a claim of originality (otherwise, why post in this particular section?).
bepal could have made a mistake - in that he accidentally posted in this section?
Maybe he meant to post in 'Knotting Concepts and Explorations"?

bepal then posted further information in relation to the ‘swabisch’ slide and grip hitch and drew comparisons between it and other structures such as the Purcell and #1763 Prusik hitch.
He appears to be using some type of translator program - which (at times) makes the English translation a little ‘clunky’.

Dan Lehman than pointed out the inconsistencies with ‘On Rope’ publication - with 1st Ed showing one geometry and 2nd Ed showing something else.
This was in relation to the ability of the hitch to firmly grip its ‘host’ (when loaded in a particular relative direction).

bepal (I think) was trying to advance that his presentation grips effectively when loaded in one direction, but releases and slides relatively easy when pushed in the opposite direction (with the proposition that this is a factor related to its geometry).

After all that discussion, KC then posted information about Arborists ‘saddles’ (a harness), SRT and DdRT, all in one starter kits, re-directs, obstacles and branches in a tree, support to saddles (static and live)… all of which (in my view) is drifting into Arborist climbing techniques and PPE.

Anyhow, thanks for your insight KC