Team,
I have been searching ABOK and any other references I can find to identify the name of this hitch to no avail. It is similar to ABOK 1919 and 1920, but not a match. I would describe it as a “similar to a bull hitch in function, but tied in the bight and closed with a carabiner around a fixed object such as a tree trunk”. I just recorded this video, however, as I post this, the video is currently unlisted, only visible to those who have the link. I can remove and re-record the video if I find out it has a formal name. By using it and the recently introduced JRB Hitch (in a nearby thread in this forum), I have an entirely new and unique tree/rope climbing method and have plans to get those instructions published. Thank you.
Hello and thanks for another interesting presentation.
The closest analog to your presentation that I can find is #1920 (‘Toggled bight’).
As with all claims of originality - only in the fullness of time will definite answers be forthcoming - so once again, need to be patient.
Commentary:
Not sure why you chose the name 'hunters hitch? If you are inferring a relationship to the #1425 Riggers bend (aka Hunters bend) - it has no geometric similarity.
A more appropriate name is perhaps a twisted toggled bight hitch?
EDIT NOTE: I see now that you might have intended a reference to [i]hunting /i. I would nevertheless avoid the use of ‘hunter’ due to possible confusion with Hunters bend.
The carabiner serves as a ‘toggle’.
Theoretically, a long length eye bolt could be employed as a toggle - and a pull cord attached to the eye of the bolt (obviously would need to be assessed to determine security).
Hopefully Xarax will have a look at your presentation and comment?
Hi JRB.
Thanks for this.
I would add another turn around the anchor and try this with a ?fiddlestick? for a remote release.
Most times when I climb, the descents are not terribly long and I generally rappel using my rope doubled. But, it does seem that I could use this with a single rope descent using a bight and tail long enough to tie it safely.
SS
Gentlemen, thank you for the prompt and informative responses. Some more info: Although we have a separate thread on the “JRB Hitch” which is a quick release hitch, it is not my intention for this hitch to be a quick release hitch. This hitch is intended to be tied in hand and released in hand. I realize another device such as a pin could be used for the toggle (and thanks for helping me with my vocabulary) but we already have a fiddlestick used with the Stone/Stein knot and frankly, it’s too complex a system and too easily released for any applications I want to be associated with. That’s what the JRB hitch was replacing and it’s performing great. I need both this hitch AND the JRB hitch to solve a problem (perhaps a challenge) I have been working on: How does a climber walk up to a tree with no available branches or crotches for tie in (using a throwball and conventional arborist methods) and simply attach to the trunk (somehow) and start rope climbing it (safely, tied in at all times) ? … And with one rope, using friction hitches and no mechanical devices, except carabiners? I have solved the problem, and I have two solutions. One of the solutions involves the use of this hitch and so I am trying to make sure that I introduce this hitch before I describe how to climb on it. I have learned to never underestimate how aggressive some climbers can be with their lives on the line and do everything possible to introduce information in a logical sequence and minimize the chances of anyone gambling with their lives based on the info in one video. When I demonstrate the method, knowledge of this hitch and other info will be a prerequisite before anyone attempts a climb.
As for my suggested name: Saddle Hunters are a growing breed of hunters who hunt their quarry, typically deer, from an elevated position in a tree, and wearing a saddle, which is similar to the seat/harness that an arborist wears. That is my audience and my original intention was to name it for them and give it to them. I am very familiar with Hunters/Riggers bend and why it has 2 names. (It’s also my favorite bend.) I had assumed the names were adequately different to distinguish but I heed your input. I need to think on that though…
I also am not implying anything about the security or efficiency/strength of this hitch. But I have tied and tested it and its variations extensively and found this one ideal. For maximum strength, I can show you the variations ASAP. My primary intention with this post was to simply find out if it has a name, and wound up on the same page of ABOK as Agent Smith, but found no matches .
Very nice, can it maintain a spread double bearing on host?
And yes can see is bends of toggled/done similar with hooks and links etc., but not open toggle pin/rather closed, but not for quick loaded release, only simple/positive release unloaded seems, with less rope on rope for controlling frictions thru arcs.
Strength/efficiency wise, i think the deformity given by carabiner pulls along more than shears across
most loaded point of initial deformity in SPart(Standing Part).
So across pull on most loaded ropePart , input force imposed against SPart ;
is more splice like/more legendary Cat’s Paw #1891/Bull Hitch like like along SPart properly thru 2dimensional along column grip, than
trying to break support column shearing across at Samson angle/lateral via 1dimensional pull more across column.
The Achille’s Heel of any linear support/column is cross-axis force 90degree across given column.
.
Simpler hook around SPart seats easier to host, but shears across SPart harder in trade.
More complex actual gripping around SPart(rather than hook slider) makes stronger as doesn’t seat as hard unless forced,
that then seeks to maintain that harsher deformity tho.
Seating to host of this part of mechanix is thus reciprocal of strength/efficiency; whether self slide up or hand forced,
the tighter seats this ropePart to host, the more must deform SPart destabilizing efficiency in trade.
Round Turn(RT) on host would give grip on host and then Saddle Hunter’s finish that doesn’t have to be seated as tight to host?
More wrap2/pull1 like only with (ends) close on SPart, rather than host, as might try same with Friction Hitch
that grips along rather than shears across SPart column of support against load imposed, make hitch side pull harder and allow self adjust.
More pointed ‘teepee’ (Tom Dunlap-ism) of joint is stronger, than flatter teepee in wrap2/pull1 etc.
i look at wrap2/pull1 as a 1 dimensional grip on host and wrap3/pull2 upgrades to can get 2 dimensional grip on host.
Then bends on/around SPart similar : 1 Turn is 1D PULL SHEAR ACROSS host/SPart,
Full wrap aRound upgrade is 1D GRIP ON host/SPart,
RT upgrade around SPart can give 2D GRIP ON host/SPart,
.
Especially for climbing believe in closed (both legs pulled) or
terminated/stopped run(on Bitter End leg).
Even if w/quick slipknot mechanical stop.
Probably as overkill, purist, religion tho..
.
Show @TB?
Seems title/knot name center mast gets obscured by youTube logo/play btn, might move title to left if easy play btn will be darker on some sites etc. obscuring immediate knot reference name.
Thank you for your reply. Full disclosure: although I am an engineer, most of my knotting experience is self-inflicted and so I am still learning some necessary terminology. Some of your reply seems to be observations and commentary rather than questions and so let’s start at the top: I have not done extensive testing of the hitch except to ascertain that it’s roughly the functional equivalent of a bull hitch, but formed with a mechanical toggle such that it can be tied in the bight. (If it needs a name and my suggestion is not ideal, perhaps we’ll refer to it as a ‘mechanical bull hitch’,). The limited amount of load testing I have done is on either strand or both strands and in the general direction demonstrated in the video. Loading both strands independently and varying the angle of pull is a reasonable expectation and to my initial and crude assessment, the hitch can sustain such a load. In fact, loading both strands in a spread fashion and taking the angle of the spread to a full 180 degrees seems to be the position in which the hitch cinches the most securely to the host object. It also puts a different set of forces on the toggle, and so it becomes essential that the toggle is indeed an object like a carabiner and that the device can sustain that type of force without sliding into the gate or other compromise.
Pls let me know if anything else was a question for me.
As for the layout of the YouTube video, to my knowledge the 16:9 thumbnail image and placement of the text in the center is fairly standard.
i am all self taught on this, but helped raise an engineer, sent many questions to school thru him over time to true imageries to hard core numbers; and show rope is just another material to build in, subject to same laws, not really special in that way.
Would have to heat metal to bend as rope, then cool to use.
Rope is opposite: form cold/unloaded >> heat/load to make rigid support(just enough to purpose); but just another material none the less.
To me this all pretty much sorts to: support geometry, controlling frictions, nips and grips to track thru gauntlets of understanding what is going on.
.
At one point had to stop looking at rope as unique complication w/o other parallels; and un-learn/start over. In reverse view i began to look at rope as simpler form to L-earn before more complicated rigid supports. Rope only loads on tension/not compression, and only along it’s linear length/not either of it’s cross axises, that in round rope are equal in deformity, no 3rd Dimension complications. Also, tension side force is self correcting/centering, compression is opposite, so rope work is always drawing to correct center with side forces as uses tension only. Rigid support is more tangible familiarity but then also more factors ! ABoK reflects on loading rope onto great ships; but in use a rope was then a line; to me a geometric support line/support column implied in the lingo.
.
Bull Hitch is very precise example here to me; as both exert not just a lateral pull shearing across SPart,
like with 1x180, but rather 2x180 to grip along SPart more properly like a splice, Bull Hitch, Cat’s Paw etc.
.
On host mount or SPart:
1x180 is a 1Dimensional pull, should be used at right angle only, on SPart will slide up to host for harshest shearing/Samson angle perpendicular to support across column of SPart
2x180 arcs add 1 Dimensional GRIP along SPart, can handle some 2D force of across and along SPart, to deform SPart less harshly.
3x180 arcs upgrade to 2Dimensional grip on SPart, so pulls more along SPart, than across even more
more 180s extend/add to the 2D framework
.
As these pull along rather than across SPart more to be stronger, then grip host less in trade.
Finite force volume, can grip SPart or host with as antagonistic reciprocals for the force volume usage to task (grip host or SPart as a host to that section of arcs).
The 1x180 1D pull, 2x180 1D grip, and 3x180 2D grip benchmarks function on host as well as SPart.
.
A rope tied to host that runs at right angle to host is 1D support inline across host.
A rope tied to host that runs parallel along of host is 2D support,
1D pulls across host as also 1D pulls along host too (lengthwise pull in ABoK chap_22).
Friction Hitches are part of this 2D, pull along host column , as also grip across that host column.
.
Geometry…literally at every angle that reflects in every facet of same lessons in this jewel.
Host shape is very important, as it lends that support shape to rope device/medium.
That is then forged rigid in usage/loading as a support architecture from rope path as a shape and and also shape lent by host that combine to be support architecture geometry of rope as loads against aggressive/imposed force input to passive/unenergized BUT responding rope, that seeks not to be fight aggressor, but rather just more passively just maintain it’s ground. Linear faces for host are not nearly as good as radial for this reason.
A 180arc is as great a miracle in rope tension arc as stone bridge compression arc !!!
Same arc shape lent to materials, just reverses direction to tension instead of compression flow thru material chosen.
Stone etc. only works well in compression, rope in tension; both use arc to do so.
linear angle in rigid to same support would have to use compression + tension
(stone tension tolerance ~10% of stone compression tolerance)
.
Youtube comment was just that saw presenting newer, enthusiastic form;
with title kinda obscured to “tying the sad hunter’s hitch” were convention seemed as cloak to obscure function.
Hello JRB (john),
Some quick comments:
- I suggest that you name your creation the “JRB toggle hitch” (or something along those lines)
- The ‘JRB toggle hitch’ is ‘EEL’ (either end loadable)
- It is TIB (tiable in the bight)
- It has a small footprint
- It is jam resistant.
With regard to your comment:
For maximum strength, I can show you the variations ASAP.The MBS yield (ie strength) of knot structure is irrelevant. There is no load that a single climber can generate that will ever reach the MBS yield point of your toggle hitch. Your principle concerns would be in relation to [i]stability [/i]and [i]security [/i](and resistance to jamming). Your presented security device is what I refer to as a [i]encapsulating (closed) toggle[/i]. This is in contrast to an open toggle (eg something like an eye bolt instead of a carabiner).
Any ‘load’ testing that you carry out should be; slack shaking and cyclic loading (as well as pulse/whiplash loading).
This is in contrast to the default mindset of ‘pull-it-till-it-breaks’ (which largely proves nothing).
The only reasons why someone would load test a knot to its MBS yield point is to measure things like jam resistance, and to assess certain geometries in terms of the effect it has (against a control).
Arbos. and many other rope disciplines do carry and study to carry more than 2xBodyweight , and then sometimes with high impact impact by design or fault that one would not put on a bod.
.
Daily taking some of these same principles from lifeline loads on 1/2" or so and going to 5/8,3/4 or even 1".
.
Then also dragging across ground, sometimes then hoisting or parbuckling large lengths 2’, 3’ in diameter to load on trailer etc.
.
Climbing gives feel of being that load and working the system; but questions wonder about in that saddle go far beyond saddle.
.
Even a tap is massive, from a ton of force.
Agent Smith, and team, I appreciate your input. In the first video, I simply wanted to introduce the basic hitch, fully expecting that it was already an explored path. Given the discussion and lack of such evidence, I just recorded another video where I demonstrate some of my own exploration on the hitch, with comparison to ABOK #1919 and 1920, the Toggled Hitch. I hope you can find time to view it and provide commentary. Like the first video, the video was created as ‘unlisted’, meaning that it can be publicly viewed by anyone with the link, but will not show up in searches or subscriptions. I might change the visibility later, after appropriate discussion.
Regarding naming, I am not in a rush to complete that exercise before I/we get some discussion. But given our separate thread on the “JRB Hitch” which is different entity, when it comes to potential names, I think that the suggestion of the “JRB Toggle Hitch” has the potential for greater confusion than the name I suggested: “Saddle Hunter’s Hitch”. After all, a search for “JRB Hitch” would turn up THIS hitch as well as the other one, and someone might be confused and try tying the wrong knot for their application. “Hunter’s Bend” and “Saddle Hunter’s Hitch” only have one word in common and less chance of confusion. The “Tether Hitch” or “Toggled Tether Hitch” would also be accurate possibilities.
Hello John,
I really like your contributions and enthusiasm.
You are motivated to keep expanding the envelope of knotting knowledge.
Quick bit of feedback with your video:
At 7:15: It is a 2:1 M.A. (not 3:1 M.A.).
All you have done is ‘redirected’ the hauling part through the carabiner.
Note that if you were suspended above the ground, you could ‘pump’ the redirected hauling part with your foot (climbers do this on big walls to haul their equipment).
The so called ‘Blakes hitch’ is functioning as a ‘PCD’ (progress capture device).
PCD is the correct technical term.
at 8:27: Now starting to become an analogue of a ‘cats paw’ ?
at 9:28: Now a ‘soft toggle’ (in contrast to a hard toggle) - and possibly described as a soft ‘slipped’ toggle?
Agent Smith, Thanks for the input, support, and ongoing knotting vocabulary lesson. I am having fun of course. I like to think of knots, rope systems, and climbing systems as “technology”, despite how that word has taken on new dimensions during our lifetime. I can only imagine and appreciate how much work Sir Ashley did to compile his book and how many additions we might get if a few more of us keep fiddling! His passion lives in us with certainty.
As for your comments, your are correct on all points:
-
As demonstrated it IS a 2:1 MA system (and I knew that) but I stated it incorrectly. Let me rephrase: it is a 2:1 MA system, HOWEVER, if a climber is the LOAD on the system and also the entity pulling force on the line, that climber will gain a 3:1 mechanical advantage. Specifically, (and neglecting friction), when the climber is at rest, half of the weight is absorbed by each side of the SHH. But, when the climber grips the slack working end, and puts more than 1/3 of body weight on it, leaving slightly less than 1/3 weight on the other lines, they begin to ascend. Also, in the video, if I were to have taken the pull line back down thru the lower carabiner (out of view until the end) and again through the top carabiner again, it would become 4:1 system, and 5:1 if I am the load. I realize that these ratios are theoretical and friction is real, but I have done some tests lifting some heavy objects. I also have some alternate riggings for the MA system, some which load the toggle, and some which do not.
-
I am familiar with the term “progress capture”, and agree it is more accurate, and I will try to steer my commentary in that direction in future communications. For example, the Garda Hitch is a device I use extensively, and believe it is properly described as a progress capture device, and I have used that term in my video on how to use it to build a foot loop for climbing (Incidentally, I introduced a simple knot in that video which is not in the book a variation of the bull hitch, tied in webbing). For whatever reason, the arborist community uses the “auto tending” term frequently, as that is where I picked it up.
-
Yes similar to Cat’s Paw, but clearly different. I don’t have any immediate plans to pursue that method to increase the security of the hitch, with preference to wrapping around both members (like ABOK #1920), but I also thought it was worthy of mention. After all, none of those variants are in ABOK.
-
“Soft toggle” sounds right, as does “slipped soft toggle”.
And so the only thing I believe we may disagree on is how much confusion I would get if I start calling it the Saddle Hunter’s Hitch. I asked the question to a large group of my peers in a discussion forum, and none thought it would be confused with Hunter’s Bend. The 3 variants I have immediate use for are:
The Saddle Hunter’s Hitch
The Saddle Hunter’s Hitch with remote release (uses a slipped soft toggle)
The Saddle Hunter’s Hitch with loaded toggle
IF the climber is own load/lifting self in bight from end then is 3/1 over own bodyWeight as extended dumbwaiter version.
are now playing with not just number of outputs divided by number of inputs for MA
but rather now adding shift of force between endpoint(s) and arc(s) for compound effect of that change type.
IF climber pulls on single end against another load in bight is 2/1; 2xEffort up to bodyWeight over load
BUT, if climber hangs on end and reaches over to closest leg of bight to load and pulls up on load :
2xBodyweight +
4xEffort
Against load.
If hold arm stiff to bight directly on load, and do leg lift into loop or cam on end as input instead of bend arm effort input
That is 4xLegLift + 2xBodyWeight - frictions - any indirectness of input or output to machine pivot(s)
ALSO lift hand on bight DIRECTLY to load that adds 2x pull right to load bight is raw/unfiltered/no preceding frictions of 2xLegLift !!
GAME CHANGER ALERT !
Just as climber can’t pull down against self to lift own self w/o lightening up load side to use that force then for pull
just as well can’t pull up on the leg to bight on load, w/o making self ‘heavier’ on end of line also !
tree DdRT is a 2/1 over self - friction therefore as opposed to SRT 1-1 w/o friction
.
Similarly can get 8x out of standard 5x compression jig, just as can extrude 4x from standard 3x compression jig
increase in ‘closing’ system is always 2x Greater End Potential - 2 when ‘close’ system thus to more efficient
AND instead of being 1xInput to 2x and 3x points for Trucker’s etc. (1 as output 1 as machine/pivot)
is now 1xInput to 4x and 4x points so can use as lift or compress jig equally.
the ‘closed’ system must now have equal force on ends, when before it could not in standard ‘open’ system.
GAME CHANGER ALERT !
The math is simply there to tap/conjure/extrude/allow/enforce hiding n plain sight like maple syrup !
use Equal & Opposite rule as a more then recursive input, conserving forces/to fold them more against target
( Topic: Conserving Pulley Forces for More Output /Link )
.
Friction Hitch progressive capture/comb/tender/grooming takes a makes Friction Hitch more like cam
1 way, w/1 less hand needed
.
Any single pull across SPart slides up closest to host for more grip, but then bends SPart as a support column more in trade.
This 180 Turn around SPart is a 1D pull lateral cross-axis ACROSS SPart as a support column
another 360 gives a 2D presents: 1D partially across SPart some of which is now converted to 1D along SPart
so now a 2D pull
Pull along SPart instead of across is more splice, Bull, Cat’s Paw, RT + fig8, rappel rack etc. like
TOTAL departure from single 180 hook around SPart shearing across harshest.
Note: only so much force and tensile, as gain back SPart pristine strength, lose some grip on host in trade
Thus fave lesson#1669 Fig8 after RT on SPart, shows RT on a SPart, then not a HH in worst nip lace now worser, but rather more fig.8(Lesson#1666) Nip style/strategy with 2 tucks that previously defines fig8 Timber-esque(Lesson#1668) . 1st tuck jsut a spacer to me, to place final tuck in harsher Nip zone.
Due to Turns on SPart, pulling farther away from host/more along SPart , Nip is much worser onload side of host, until the 180 opposing arc on opposite side of host.
.
The ONLY ropePart that gives COMPOUND nip or grip is the 180 arc form etc.
and real grip in opposing/antagonistic pairs
To the benchmark 1D cosine of linear run of line, ONLY cross-axis, lateral sine gives seating for potential frictions and grips.
A pure linear ropePart thus gives no rope control of friction, seating nor grip, just hold load @100% efficiency, pure cosine , no sine
Bent linear gives TRACE controlling frictions and in opposing pairs some grip, loss of some efficiency to gain other utilities
so cosine (efficiency)drops some, sine raises reciprocally
Even a 90 degree ropePart gives trace/nominal frictions, grips etc.
EXCEPT 180 arc compounds to use BOTH cosine(the major force that is holding load) and sine(deflected force) TOGETHER in seating to host for COMPOUND frictions and grips(when in opposing pairs, trace grip singly from sines of the opposing 90s in 180).
.
In the grab on host/been looking at grab on SPart;
i see double bearing for load wear /chafe division/sharing
but NOT 2D support structure against side force so much.
as holds load, but not grip host firm all around
especially in stringer position of more teepee/less flat across positioning of carabiner farther from host; especially on larger host.
KC, I read your post multiple times and also had it examined by some professional climbers for their input. I researched some of your other posts and comments in the forum and I understand that I am addressing someone more knowledgeable than myself in all matters knotting, and so I thank you for your time and your reply. I am well versed in rope (tree) climbing and mechanical advantage, for example in DdRT/MRS climbing, and I didn’t see anything you said that I disagreed with, but also confess that not all of it was clear to me, nor my peers. The use of phrases instead of sentences made it difficult to understand if there was anything specific that you were expecting a response on. If that is the case, please clarify. Or attach a photo or illustration if that helps. I look forward to doing some testing and sharing that information with you soon.
Hello John;
When I read these words:
>> GAME CHANGER ALERT ! The math is simply there to tap/conjure/extrude/allow/enforce hiding n plain sight like maple syrup !I noticed the shock headline: [b]GAME CHANGER ALERT[/b]... but then read that maple syrup is hiding in plain sight? The analogy of maple syrup remains elusive to me.
Also, the use of trigonometric functions to explain mechanical advantage is problematic and likely arbitrary.
Consider this remark:
To the benchmark 1D cosine of linear run of line, ONLY cross-axis, lateral sine gives seating for potential frictions and grips.I tried to visualize this concept to your setup as depicted in your video presentation... The remark; ONLY cross-axis and lateral sine... needs a reference frame from where the trigonometric functions can be assigned in the context of a mechanical advantage system. I wasn't sure what coordinate system applies and whether '1D' was a reference to one dimensional or one rope diameter?
and;
A pure linear ropePart thus gives no rope control of friction, seating nor grip, just hold load @100% efficiency, pure cosine , no sineAgain, its difficult to interpret this remark without a [i]reference frame[/i] from where each of the trigonometric functions can be assigned. The assumption is that the trig function of 'sine' is eliminated where there is a linear rope part under 100% load (assuming ideal efficiency with zero friction)? I assume KC is assigning coordinate direction based on 2 dimensional x/y axis graph - where the y axis is vertical and x axis is horizontal? Or is a 3 dimensional system with z axis also assigned?
…
John (JRB), please keep working on your hitch.
The fact that your hitch is 'EEL" (either end loadable) means that an unused leg can be employed in emergencies and/or for building a mechanical advantage system. The configuration of the M.A. system would be dependent on the amount of spare rope (and equipment) available, and the intended destination of the object to be lifted/moved.
Sorry am unclear. i did pound this stuff inside self, alone, quietly in trees (in earplugged silences of real focus) into just short hand bullet points; in own world and language stolen from many things, as eyes watched fingers dance out the form; as like both worker and harsh inspector in one; naming out points to groom to best model.
Things i bring back down to show tho, are what i L-earned to follow models of AND could not prove wrong as tested that direction much too trying to break own theories etc.
All tends to flood out the same bullet points type, as i unpack, decompress from inside and is so native to me, reads right…
So, started drawing; a long road in itself.
.
Cosine examination was meant for support vs controls model etc. not this part of what i wrote of compounding forces in pulley systems, simpler model of ROPE direction as benchmark cosine doesn’t cover all like FORCE direction as benchmark cosine model.
.
In all this i try to show the math is right there, like the maple coursing thru, each waiting to be tapped purpose-fully or breakout by any other means(accidental conjuring against self etc. included ) .
i try to watch those inside forces, squinting hard past chirality of skin etc. as visual guides but distracting eye from the force patterns within i try to chase.
Understanding forces are commanding serves as tying and grooming aid much better to me, actually; and more side benefits.
.
Years sitting in tree climber’s DdRT of 2/1 against own weight like dumbwaiter contemplating what was going and sifted out principle/keys to re-use equal and opposite force to double effort in a closed system, then also used bodyWeight as ballast not load, but rather bodyWeight against another load to lift/tighten, id’d simply needed class1 lever(pivot between input and output: pulley or seesaw) to capture the equal/opposite direction of effort to fold back again against target with raw effort itself and then add body weight to whichever side of that system that worked against target; so took theory to rolling levers/pulley system, then defined same to rigid lever /seesaw types, wheels/valves then back to pulley system compounding 3x on 2x to get 16x in EITHER lift up or compress down + compounded bodyweight ballasting. All by distilling out the root/pivotal force math and exploiting it as it funneled out from the simplest instance to other systems . In the end, really, really the only way to work when you can ! This is 1 example why so adamant about drilling to root principle then fanning out more fluently to where that power can be used. And so work other things the same way, drill to root cause and then command back out thru patterns and their compounding’s.
.
As i try to show to recursively use the same effort force w/o any more effort, by also inputting the Equal & Opposite of the force into the equation at potent position. This ‘simply’ fiddles with the rules like playful child to compounding the normal patterns against them own selves, as found in Chinese Windlass / differential . Showing these rules/principles are so pervasive; they trace around counter-intuitive turns in this recursion and maintain same consist rule even where would seem crazy. Kinda hard to disprove something so consistent when question it i have found!
This is the hidden prize, that was/is always there, strategically inventorying and collecting bodyweight, effort and Equal & Opposite of effort and focusing all against target.
i find that to be a GAME CHANGER, principle especially usable by climber helping to preTighten rig lines/take out slop (even as a 2xLegLift + bodyWeight pre tighten), and only person in that position to do so. This truly becomes like orchestration of martial arts move , more than just a slap across with force. Just by following the rules/patterns. Last pic shown in other post linked shows taking this to a round wheel etc. around central pivot as class1 effect even. i found so much, so many powerful working advantages on this chase, just performing the same single pivotal procedure, just cloaked in different forms/clothes ! A real pareto investment (because can pare to keys i think..)
.
Principle compounded thru standard pulley systems:
Hello KC,
Thank you for your post.
I would like to point out that I think you are diverting John’s (JRB) topic post away from his hitch.
You may well feel that your posts about mechanical advantage are advancing John’s hitch or making a contribution in some way.
Realistically, you should start a new topic post - and title it as ‘Mechanical advantage systems’. Although, pure M.A. systems are also moving away from the grass roots of why this forum exists - which is to discuss knots and the art of knotting. Unless of course you are discussing poldo tackles and other M.A. systems that require knots/hitches to function.
You should not take offense from my post - my words are not intended to cause harm or offense to you.
I know you are passionate about the things you write - and that’s a good thing.
It would be good if you could channel your passion in a way that more directly contributes to John’s hitch.
…
Very brief critique of your M.A. diagrams:
The M.A. systems depicted at reply #15 - specifically the 2 images in the top row - at right side:
I think there is a typo error. These systems (as configured) are 4:1 where you show a red hand.
Also, the diagram at top right with the pink rope - at the top of the system there is x5 multiplication of force (not x8).
These 2 M.A. systems are analogous to the ‘AZTEK’ from Rock Exotica in the USA.
The ‘AZTEK’ can be configured as 4:1 or 5:1 depending on orientation.
Link to AZTEK: https://www.rockexotica.com/aztek
Very sorry; just trying to keep up, but this is a passion.
This is all rope work to me, knot tying is just a set of rope mechanix,
all rope mechanix are different facetted examples of the same principles, all related examples of each other.
When i make a knot, i make a machine, just as these pulley systems; only they are dynamic/move like Trucker’s, Poldo, Parbuckle etc.
.
Very specifically, the whole definition of the last pic is that same pink rope of what trying to show as miracle game changer if can tap into the force pattern correctly… The 2nd hand of the DUAL INPUT can be another person added pull, but is just the E&O force ‘reflection’ instead !
The system with a 1 hand pull in normal use would yield 5xCompress down or 4xLift up up to limit of bodyweight w/o other pulls.
Bodyweight hang does this as input at blue hand hang, for all that hand could pull anyway.
from that HANGING position if pull with red hand upward, autonomously must now also pull down matching amount on blue hand as E&O/ adding even more to bodyweight input essentially. So for compression down, the blue hand is at 5x input position and the red hand as it 3x input position for 8xEffort part. Just as cant pull up on same point stand on a scale, w/o scale increasing weight shown…
To the left of that last pic in top row post#15 is red hand insertion point of force alone for 3xCompress / 4x lift that still pulls on system same in last pic in that row w/pink rope giving system standard 5xCompress down or 4xLift up for effort and bodyweight as input point.
Collectively 8xEffort compress or lift + Bodyweight x (5xCompress down or 4xLift up).
Just as can’t pull down on dynamic leg of DdRT to lift self w/o making self that much lighter autonomously for the 2/1 effect against own weight. Only here, make self heavier, not lighter as the secondary response from E&O. Other rope work just mechanical patters as well to me; or at least that is what i reach for.
.
Increasing the input from single hand pull, to this system w/leg lift as input rather than arm pull, and that leg force IMPACTED in hard + added nominal bodyweight into the larger multipliers for compress or lift is the way to go, if can orchestrate it !
This can make much work easier, as more powerfully asserting rescue as well; both with same effort input
Similarly see, simple reading correctly and then aligning to command as can rope parts to be best seen as simple patterns invoked, strung together as if in electrical schematic. Only rope is the separate utility parts and then fluidly linking device all in one. Physical space displacements and physical force displacements tracked/calc’d more by cosine, sine, frictions tools not volts, amps, resistances tools. But each just ported force thru specific utility principles/parts.
i kinda prefer not blindly setting of cosine/sine by vertical or horizontal tho in what we’s do; as too static/not lending to setup/scenario as cleanly , simply and fluidly. Cosine so common place to me if walking /driving forward and someone is in my way, i think in terms of they are in my cosine; then same with rope example it’s direction at any point as cosine in simpler model. To this model cosine is the work, and sine another co$t incurred to do same work; that can try to leverage a usable return utility from as well. Simply more deflection from pure align causes more work as less efficient, and also incurs sine. Kinda kid for mnemonic that cosine is to my cos(cause), and then sin(e) across also carried, that try to get return on also if can sometimes. Kinda even sounds political ! Or offer co(lum)sine (column of force or support response against) vs. sine as a reference mnemonic . Anyway, i set cosine as an initial benchmark specific to situation, at a Naturally occurring 1D reference of scenario, when can.
.
i try to find a 1Dimensional reference axis in model/event to benchmark simpler cosine from to start(rather than static vert/horiz strictly), then it’s non of sine is any other direction off that single dimension simple line/axis benchmarked. Breaking out to powerless outside own domain/dimension as intersects with another domain of a separate Dimension at 90 degrees influence across this benchmark line/cosine Zer0, but full sine in trade. Rope , just is no different(in this respect).
This cosine benchmark can be a linear force or linear support column against said force/load for the benchmark cosine; all the same, as are related to other just the same from either point of view, just do the easiest! This can be used as a parity/cross verification check to each other too.
.
Simpler by linear device model:
Cosine, is simplest force of 1D(imension); like rope study!
So pulls along this rope line length are along the cosine, supporting load directly; down length of line/internal rope pipe.
Pulls across/away from pure rope line then are sine, that may/if strong enough in correct direction allow seating to host yielding: friction, nips and in opposing multiples grips. opposing multiples would be sine vs. sine of opposing directions in ropeParts into host then, still more nominal effect.
So look at in this modelling : cosine as support and sine as tools to control (that support).
Separate utility functions support/control, empowered by separate sources: antagonists cosine and sine respectively.
This changes tho in magic of 180arc; then can use the major load imposed cosine AND the usual reflected lesser force sine for friction, nips, nominal grips(in extended force as cosine model) and in opposing multiples compounding grips as load controls. 180arc is a GAME CHANGER, even more so in multiples; especially the first 3x180 dimensionally on host.
.
Radial vs Linear in force, structure, path etc. ALWAYS matter. If the conducting/transferring device/medium is round and linear force input, must calc cosine by linear force input then in model i think, not so much set cosine benchmark by round device:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd4tY3brjT4
. url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd4tY3brjT4[/url]
A linear has angles of unequal forces, and so a singular , unique peak cosine; the round does not/has all equal force translation around(in force imposed or support against).
Would set Cosine to linear force direction; receiving coin on other side pure inline gets cosine 1.00x resultant force
if receiving coin is offset 6 degrees ( 1 minute on clock) from centerline of input cosine drop to ~.99x resultant potential on clock cosine quick calc try to show.
Get motion all the way around when touching other coin on opposing 180arc side of transfer coin; motion output reducing until Zer0 movement (from same input imposed/hit)only at 90 to either side of input force, @Zer0 cosine multiplier of the resultant force transfer potential…
Force pulse thru rope about same imagery; except using a tension only conductor/medium/device transferring the force volume pulse; and sine usable for or against as next step expansion of transfer principle to me.
Hello KC;
Which part of your post at reply #17 directly relates to John’s hitch?
This is not intended as an insult - it is simply a question!
For example:
i kinda prefer not blindly setting of cosine/sine by vertical or horizontal tho in what we's do; as too static/not lending to setup/scenario as cleanly , simply and fluidly. Cosine so common place to me if walking /driving forward and someone is in my way, i think in terms of they are in my cosine; then same with rope example it's direction at any point as cosine in simpler model.Your use of trigonometric functions to explain mechanical advantage is difficult to follow without a valid reference frame. I've never conceptualized an M.A. system in terms of driving and having someone get in my way - and then labeling that as 'cosine'. Also, I am struggling to understand how this narrative relates to John's hitch? John was simply pointing out that the unused leg of his hitch could be employed to build a simple M.A. system. John tried to keep his explanation simple and easy to understand... but did not detract from his main theme - which is the hitch.
As once again to me is all rope work science.
And was answering questions about our friend cosine in a previous post of yours i thought actually.
The Ancients tried to show cosine/sine as keys to all physical displacements of space or force, that this falls into.
Cosine is just a straight line, i just pick that reference from something in scenario : direction of travel, support column etc.
Rather than arbitrability picking something outside the scenario as cosine benchmark to judge all else by as classically done.
Driving, so much re-affirms these lessons in a common activity of force, travel and direction.
.
i really like the Saddle Hunter Hitch, but not the angle of pull asserted to it parallel to host/ down the trunk.
Hitch itself has plenty of 180arcs and then pulls along SPart with a 1D grip of opposing arcs, rather than shearing across the SPart with 1x180. i look at the arcs as presented on SPart as a linear list/gauntlet of arcs, as opposed to arcs usually radially listed on separate host. Linear list of arcs models most well in a rappel rack imagery, and pulls along rope like splice, not shears across like a hook at 90degrees pull across SPart etc.
.
BUT, the angle of pull on host is a different matter. There is not a strong seating to host on this side, just the double bearing on the reverse /off side. More Basket like than Choker like framework w/o the 4legs of support.
i characterize the difference by defining each has double bearing on host as ABoK speaks of. Giving 4 legs served from opposing/off side. Basket gets 4x1D supports without strong 1D grip(s) on host, Choker forsakes 2 support legs to Load for getting the seating on Load side to give 2x1D support and 2D grip on host from the 4 legs.
A Basket may jam into taking a 2D/lengthwise pull (1D grip across host + 1D pull along host);
But a choker more mechanically positively has the 2D framework to finesse more against the 2D pull mechanically , squarely.
Even with this ABoK warns not to expect the impossible at this WORST angle of pull with rope.
Saddle Hunter’s is more of a Basket, than a Choker grab on host in this view, and hopes for a mechanic won’t witness in ABoK chapter_22 dedicated to this worst angle of pull on host, even a rope column host for friction hitch. Workable as a jam more than a clean architecture in Basket kind of grip with lengthwise/2D pull to me.
Seek simply to have loading pull in same geometry dimension as opposing support response.
Basket of 4x1D support; when load pull is 2D/lengthwise does not present this basic architecture to command this level of support.
.
Saddle Hunter only gives 1 or 2 legs support of the 4 from double bearing/2 separate turns on host.
As uses the other 2 legs to secure to SPart, not for Load support nor host grip.
Would always want to use ROUND metal part here, many carabiner spines are more flat, re-apportioning metal from the side to the do not pull open axis.