schwabisch variants

[Knutern]

Hello forum. Here is two variants of the schwabisch friction hitch that I’ve found useful.

In the videos I used a wooden shaft just because that was what I had by hand and not being too dark or white (messing with camera auto light adjustment) for the video being somewhat clear to watch. But I found wood have this tendency of catching the cheap rope, and thus not being ideal to demonstrate what variant have more slip when loaded.
Both variants are seen somewhere in yt in the past, but I cannot find them again - I’m not the one inventing those variants.

schwabisch knot - variant with extra locking loop
Better than the regular variant because it have less tendency of loosening after multiple loading/unloading cycles.

https://youtu.be/oJxQ6ZajeLs

schwabisch knot - tighter variant
This variants can be dressed much tighter than the original variant, and when the pole is made from a more slippery material (not wood) then this variant will have less slip compared to the original variant and also the above variant.

https://youtu.be/QYcfI1gFUNE

[agent_smith]

Thanks for your videos.
The Schwabisch hitch is an asymmetric slide and grip hitch.
It is designed and intended for dual leg loading (not single leg loading).
The hitch is also intended to be tied with round profile ‘accessory cord’.
Unlike Karl Prusik’s ‘Prusik hitch’, the Schwabisch hitch is not ‘TIB’ (Tiable In the Bight).

In your video presentation, you appear to be using hollow braid - likely some type of shoe lace?
Also, you are applying single leg loading.

As with all slide and grip hitches (there are many different types) - performance is highly variable.
Variables include: (list is not exhaustive)
relative diameter ratio between host and hitch cord
frictive properties of the outer sheath (‘cover’) of the hitch cord
stiffness of the hitch cord

Additional turns (wraps) can be made - which increases the overall grip, although a balance has to be found (too many turns = too much grip).

I think what you are describing is the geometry of a Schwabisch but with single leg loading, and employing hollow core cordage.
Also, the wood ‘dowel’ (timber rod) presents an entirely different type of ‘host’.

It would be interesting to run further tests with a ‘host’ rope (instead of timber dowel) - eg EN1891 low stretch rope (or a similar arborist climbing rope), and a round profile accessory type cord (rather then hollow braid shoe lace). The Prohaska hitch (Blakes hitch) has single leg loading - so this would be reasonable to compare against (Then we might be able to compare apples with apples…).
Or, tie a regular Schwabisch hitch using EN1891 low stretch rope and round profile accessory cord - and then compare that to your variations.
Of course, you are intending a ‘single leg loading profile’ - so you would need to choose which ‘leg’ of the regular Schwabisch hitch to load.
The principle being that you need to use a ‘control’ when running tests - your test results being compared to a ‘control’.

Keep inventing

---

[Dan_Lehman]

@agent_smith post:2

Thanks for your videos.
The Schwabisch hitch is an asymmetric slide and grip hitch.
It is designed and intended for dual leg loading (not single leg loading)

1. Between “single-leg” & “dual-leg” loadings must come
   “equalized-legs” loading !? --by which I mean to point out
   that in the loading of a sling by its simply turning through
   a 'biner attachment, say, there can be some equalization
   of tension of the two legs; but if each it tied off, one could
   go slack while(st) the other takes (most of) the load!

2. Agent_Smith, you credit someone ca. 1998 with discovery of the knot;
   I might ask "Is this when this person read about the knot
   in On Rope, 1st edition 1987?!
   (The 2nd edition unfortunately flips the knot upside-down,
   changing some words to match; and in this orientation the
   knot might not grip much at all, the loaded single turn
   of the now away-from-attachment leg pressing upon
   the other leg’s coil and sliding it (as Ashley remarks
   is a way to adjust rolling hitch tension). )

–dl*

[agent_smith]

Dan - this might possibly ‘hijack’ the thread to a discussion away from the original topic?
I’ll proceed with this caution in mind…
This is also a knot geek forum, so on that basis I feel that I can provide a long discussion…

With regard to single leg loading versus dual leg loading, this was something that I had contemplated many years ago while trying to classify all knots, bends, and hitches.
As you know, this is not an easy task - and there are many factors to consider.

With specific regard to hitches: - and to give some background…
I had posited that all hitches require a ‘host’.
If the host is removed, the hitch loses structural integrity (and usually collapses).

I had posited quite some time ago that hitches could be categorised as follows:
slide and grip hitches
noose hitches
binder hitches
load control hitches
termination hitches (an example of which is the 'Tensionless hitch #2047)

Look - this is the best categorisation I have come up with, but I recognise there will always be edge cases which confound this categorisation.
To give context, I consider #206 Crossing hitch (ie Munter hitch / Backhanded hitch) to be a load control hitch.
I consider the classic Prusik hitch to be a slide and grip hitch.
And I consider the Constrictor hitch to be a binder hitch.

I consider the ‘Schwabisch hitch’ to be regarded as a ‘slide and grip hitch’.
I have always tried to attribute each ‘knot’ to an individual inventor/discoverer.
I think you have favoured this approach - given the research you had done with the ‘Zeppelin bend’, and with Heinz Prohaska’s so-called ‘Blakes hitch’ (which I think you like to refer to as ‘Prohgrip’, or something similar?).
All research I had done had always pointed to Bernd Strasser.
I actually wrote to him quite a few years ago and got a reply that he “does not reject the idea of the hitch being attributed to him.”
He basically said that it is possible that ancient sailors may have invented it much earlier - but he had no evidence as such.
I have lost the email communication from him unfortunately (am going off memory).

Back to dual versus single leg loading.
It does seem obvious that all slide and grip hitches have an intended loading profile (at least to me).
The Prohgrip’ (aka Blakes hitch) appears to be intended for single leg loading. I think this is undisputed?

It certainly appears to me that Karl Prusik intended his Prusik hitch to be dual leg loaded.
Although I have seen instances where the Prusik hitch has been single leg loaded (some refer to this as a ‘split tail’ configuration).
I have no test data comparing single leg loading to dual leg loading of a prusik hitch. Although I suspect dual leg loading to provide better grip.
I am of the view that Bernd Strasser intended his ‘Schwabisch hitch’ to be dual leg loaded.

Now, with regard to issue of ‘equalisation of loading across both legs’:
Perfect equalisation is possibly not immediately achievable.
After a period of loading, the hitch will have a tendency to settle into a state of equilibrium.
I see this as a form of ‘entropy’.
That is, all slide and grip hitches will have a tendency toward an entropic loading state, where forces will balance out across the hitch structure.
For example, I see this effect with the Machard (French prusik) - that with loading, both ‘legs’ tend toward a balanced loading state.
Note that a Machard hitch is more precisely classified as quad leg loading.

As discussed earlier, a Prusik hitch is intended for dual leg loading - again, the force propagation along each ‘leg’ will tend toward an entropic state over time.

Another way of classifying slide and grip hitches is in terms of:

1. Tiable In the Bight (TIB); and
2. Open or linear.

For example, a Schwabisch hitch is not ‘TIB’.
In fact, virtually all of the slide and grip hitches invented by tree climbing arborists are of the open/linear geometry.
In other words, these hitches are not ‘TIB’ - meaning that access to a free end is required to tie the hitch.
In contrast, slide and grip hitches invented or used by mountaineers/rock climbers are ‘TIB’.

EDIT:
An interesting web page on slide and grip hitches is here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/knots-mechanics-genealogy-climbing-hitches-arborists-based-restrepo

[KC1]

All these are variants of 4 full Rounds (360 degrees each) to host in different configs.
Linear rope parts are mostly force passers of about same cos:sine ratio, radial rope parts then the force manipulators give constant change to cos:sine mechanix offered to capitalize on..
.
Schwab is as a Prussic only a single lowerTurn for Half Hitch preceding the upper 3 instead of 2.
ABoK Lesson#480,#481 pg.77 shows another single leg pull slide grip/friction hitch we call ‘Taut Line’ (#480) and a reverse of the upper ‘staircase’ to resemble a single leg pull Prussic(#481), as notes are versions of Magnus, Camel and Safety-Belt Hitches.
.
The ‘Michoacan’ showed up at TreeBuzz years back, and can be seen as a both legs pulled ProGrip/Blake’s in lacing w/only 1 bottom ‘story’ of ‘staircase’, but changes the mechanics tho, yet to the same end. This can give greater seizing/harder to break free to slide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qPcToOKxMA

It has enough raw weight force feeding powering 4 full rounds, as one or in 2 segments.
.
i prefer a closed/sealed hitch for lifeline usage, but in single leg pulls for life usage (some call ‘open’/not closed hitch) always a stopper to partially compensate no sealed/positive closed ring. Also, the denser weight bending the tail some even feels more positive/less loosey in hand to me when grip Hitch to adjust, tail lacing thru fingers w/stopper. Have seen a number of tree climbers trim a Tautline of 2/2 to a faster 2/1 visual architecture. The crossed staircases may be of continuous/Clove-ish strategy or reverse directions/Cow-ish type strategy. Continuous, open Hitches tend to walk more towards Bitter End in repeated issues, the counter torque of Backhand/Cow type hitch seems to fight this, even in this position. Have seen ‘open’ 2/2 Prussic. Would seem then 3/1 open would work as well. These tree references are NOT to a single dropped line choked around a support limb, but more retrievable from front belt_D(s) to over support limb and then slide/grip hitch to saddle. This gives 2/1 of rope over person as load +/- support friction, depending on if descending, or pulling self up dumb-water style. Generally hitch works the same on the SRT or DdRT (single or Doubled Rope Technique). In this config, can descend as weight seems to autonomously go to the terminated leg of the 2/1 rather than friction /slide grip hitch; just like that side of rope was failing. This unloads the hitch, to slide to smooth, silent rappel when properly done. BUT need 2x as much rope under as length of drop, or the 2/1 effect runs you off Bitter End if don’t have good Stopper with some unloaded tail behind it. The ability to descend so easily, necessitates drilling out of self a normal reaction to grab hitch if get unsettled.. Tree folk not only set these up, but then run high speed chainsaw around and in between ropes w/o nicking them to shred your lifeline or rigging line(s)…at production pace daily.

[Dan_Lehman]

@agent_smith post:4

And I consider the Constrictor hitch to be a binder hitch.

But in this case, there is no load on ends (well, qua binder,
which is for me a distinction vs. hitch). --only later did I put
my notion to the question of Then, what of any ol’ knot with
no ends loaded?!

I have always tried to attribute each 'knot' to an individual inventor/discoverer. // All research I had done had always pointed to Bernd Strasser. /// ... but he had no evidence as such.

You have a date, and must confront --as I wrote & now quote:

you credit someone ca. 1998 with discovery of the knot;
I might ask "Is this when this person read about the knot
in On Rope, 1st edition 1987?!,
by which I point to the very knot published a decade prior
to your willing originater’s claim. (Mind :: OR 2nd edition
turned the knot upside-down --BOO!)

For example, a Schwabisch hitch is not 'TIB'.

But IT is, provided one can put the so-tied knot around its object.

–dl*

[Dan_Lehman]

@agent_smith post:4

EDIT:
An interesting web page on slide and grip hitches is here:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/knots-mechanics-genealogy-climbing-hitches-arborists-based-restrepo

Thanks for this. Great to see Brocky’s lovely sketches
writ large --he has a good eye & hand!

(-;

[agent_smith]

per Dan Lehman:

[b]You [/b]have a date, and must confront --as I wrote & now quote:

you credit someone ca. 1998 with discovery of the knot;
I might ask "Is this when this person read about the knot
in On Rope, 1st edition 1987?!,
by which I point to the very knot published a decade prior
to your willing originater’s claim. (Mind :: OR 2nd edition
turned the knot upside-down --BOO!)

I note that you like to use the word “Your/You” - which appears to be attributing the claim to me.

To be clear here:
I am not making any claims as to discovery.
The claim is made by Bernd Strasser (and a host others, who also attribute the discovery of the Schwabisch hitch to him).
I am merely the messenger, and simply reprinting what is already published by a number of people.
I accept that it can be argued that I am parroting information published by others.
It is possible that Bernd Strasser simply announced to others in the arborist industry of his use of the Schwabisch hitch on that date - but actually made the discovery much earlier?
Or, it may be that he got the idea from the author of the ‘On Rope’ book - and then claimed it as his own?

At pages 46-47 of ‘On Rope’ (1987), it is implied that Bob Thrun discovered the ‘Schwabisch hitch’ (identified as; 3 coil, 4 coil, and 5 coil Prusik knots; are illustrated).
It may very well be that Bob Thrun was the creator.
Or that Bernd Strasser also discovered it for himself around the same time but didn’t report it until 10 years or so later?
Cant ask Bob Thrun unfortunately, because he is no longer with us.
It seems odd to identify them as ‘Prusik knots’ (should be hitch not knot).
I would suggest that in those earlier days, the term ‘Prusik knot’ was used generically to describe any slide and grip hitch.

But in this case, there is no load on ends (well, qua binder, which is for me a distinction vs. *hitch*). --only later did I put my notion to the question of Then, what of any ol' knot with no ends loaded?!

With specific regard to a Constrictor hitch (and also a Clove hitch), they do in fact progressively tighten around their host. They key point is that when load is applied, a binder hitch grips, but does not easily relinquish or release its grip (grip is nominally retained). A Clove hitch is routinely loaded on only one rope segment (one leg) - eg climbers do this routinely. A Clove hitch will progressively tighten around its host carabiner even when only one 'leg' is loaded. And so will a Constrictor hitch. Obviously, if both projecting ends are loaded, the effect is magnified (particularly if both legs are pulled in 180 degree opposite directions). [u]Clarification[/u]: I would not use a 'Constrictor hitch' to ascend a fixed rope (ie to use it as a slide and grip hitch). It would be non-sensical to use a Constrictor hitch as a slide and grip hitch.

But IT is, provided one can put the so-tied knot around its object.

This is one of those edge cases where you are creating an artificial situation to supporting argument (a thought experiment). In my view, the key is to look at hitches within a particular practical use/functional category. In real world practical use, an arborist or rock climber would never try to pre-tie a [i]slide and grip hitch[/i] and then insert the host rope through its core. A slide and grip hitch is formed around the rope mid-point (ie no access to a free end of the host rope). Inserting a free end of a host rope through the core of a pre-formed slide and grip hitch is non-sensical (and would never happen in real world use). Therefore, I would never posit or claim that a Schwabisch hitch is 'TIB' - because it would make no logical sense. However, a Prusik hitch is 'TIB'. I do not require access to a free end to tie a Prusik hitch around the mid-point of a host rope. [u]NOTE[/u]: It is possible to pre-form a Schwabisch hitch from an endless sling/loop and then insert the free end of a host rope through its core. But, this (in my view) does not grant 'TIB' status to the Schwabisch hitch. Its actually a form of reverse engineering.

For me, all hitches require a host.
A hitch cannot function without a host.

Climbers will frequently pre-form a Clove hitch (‘TIB’) and then attach it to a carabiner (the carabiner is the host).
A Clove hitch can also be pre-formed, and then slipped over a post.
I do not need access to a free end to do this.
But, a Clove hitch is not a slide and grip hitch (ie it would not be practical to attempt to use a Clove hitch to ascend a fixed rope).
The concept of ‘TIB’ only has meaning when applied within a particular hitch category.
Again, a Clove hitch is regarded as ‘TIB’ - because it can be pre-formed without access to a free end and then slipped over a post.
But, in order to tie a Clove hitch around a mid-point of a host rope, you need access to a free end.

Image added (from ‘On Rope’ book)

---

[Dan_Lehman]

@agent_smith post:8

per Dan Lehman:

[b]You [/b]have a date, and must confront --as I wrote & now quote:

you credit someone ca. 1998 with discovery of the knot;
I might ask "Is this when this person read about the knot
in On Rope, 1st edition 1987?!,
by which I point to the very knot published a decade prior
to your willing originater’s claim. (Mind :: OR 2nd edition
turned the knot upside-down --BOO!)

I note that you like to use the word “Your/You” - which appears to be attributing the claim to me.

Nonsense : it appears and DOES attribute your words to you,
and those words echo someone’s claim with an associated date
that is quite publicly contradicted as being first/prior.

I am ... simply reprinting what is already published by a number of people.

I don't hold you as being that simple --elsewhere, you reach for solid ground, not hearsay (e.g., it took an e-mailed page copy from me w/Thrun's e2e bend Potomac Caver article to get that properly presented) --so why this, with such clear contradiction?

it can be argued that I am parroting information published by others.

It looks prima facie : how else could it be seen?

At pages 46-47 of 'On Rope' (1987), it is implied that Bob Thrun discovered the 'Schwabisch hitch' (identified as; 3 coil, 4 coil, and 5 coil Prusik knots; are illustrated). It may very well be that Bob Thrun was the creator.

No, and no :: Bob commented on **imbalanced** such coil-gripping versions, of which perhaps only those with minimal 1 (more like 1/2, actually) coil/turn are shown --but could have had 2 even 3 but then having more (resp. 3, 4, ...(4+n)) opp-hand coils ; to which Bob opined that it was in the coil-away (typically "upper") coils that the gripping was achieved. (This is pretty much obvious in the case(s) here seen --that single HH/turn just doesn't grip--; but w/multiple, gripping can come from both ends, though one need beware the pushing-against effect of the coil-away strand bearing into & pushing the coil-to and making it slide until coil-away gets some Chinese-finger-trap bite. --and in the case of the OR 2nd Ed. upside-down knots, that won't happen! --one must hope that SOME grip, and then maybe tipping balance in favor of additional tightening vs. being pushed to slide, the bassackwards hitch will hold.)

Can't ask Bob Thrun unfortunately, because he is no longer with us.

But his book Prusiking is 1971 --Strasser's modesty is taken back much longer, thus (and Bob was commenting on known things, not introducing novelties).

Image added (from 'On Rope' book)

OR >>1st Edition<<

(-;

[agent_smith]

Nonsense : it appears and DOES attribute your words to you, and those words echo someone's claim with an associated date that is quite publicly contradicted as being *first/prior*.

I call nonsense on this. I am not making a claim - I am reporting what has been openly published by others on the internet. Bernd Strasser is openly associated with the Schwabisch hitch. The question you need to ask - instead of attempting to denigrate - is whether the claim is true (or not). You found an illustration in a book (On Rope) - and you want to use that as hard evidence against Bernd Strasser's attribution. It [i]almost [/i]crosses the threshold of accusing someone of a crime!

I don't hold you as being that simple --elsewhere, you reach for solid ground, not hearsay

Errrm, thanks for not holding me out as being "simple".

It looks prima facie : how else could it be seen?]

Yep - I'm guilty. I am guilty of parroting information widely published on the internet. If I am to be judged guilty of parroting information from the internet - what is the punishment? What punishment would be befitting of this crime?

Quote At pages 46-47 of 'On Rope' (1987), it is [i]implied [/i]that Bob Thrun discovered the 'Schwabisch hitch' (identified as; 3 coil, 4 coil, and 5 coil Prusik knots; all are illustrated). It may very well be that Bob Thrun was the creator.

No, and no :: Bob commented on **imbalanced** such coil-gripping versions,

No and No. It is implied in the book (On Rope) and page 46, that the "three, four, and five coil hitches - are "After Thrun". The words "after Thrun" are printed. I guess it depends on how you wish to interpret the construction of these words (ie "after Thrun").

The words “after Thrun” may also be a reference to his ‘Prusiking’ book (which is out-of-print).
I dont have a copy of Thrun’s Prusiking book.

…

At least Allen Padgett (in his Book ‘On Rope’) acknowledges the concept of tying a slide and grip hitch with access to a free end versus no access to a free end.
Which I refer to as ‘TIB’ - Tiable In the Bight.
That is, a Schwabisch is not ‘TIB’ because it cannot be formed around the mid-point of a host rope unless you have access to a free end.
(NOTE: Pre-forming the geometry of a Schwabisch hitch in your hand - and then inserting the end of a host rope through the core of the hitch is an artificial construct - that is simply not a real-world practical tying method).

…

Source of irritation
To summarise, your source of irritation is the claim from several sources on the internet that the Schwabisch hitch is attributed to Bernd Strasser.
Your irritation is then aimed at me for parroting what is openly published by many in the arborist industry.
I am happy to be the source of your irritation

Guilty verdict
Yes, I hereby declare my guilt.
I am guilty of parroting the claims about Bernd Strasser from the arborist industry - and I am guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bernd Strasser himself does not appear to object to his own name being associated with the ‘Schwabisch hitch’.
Perhaps he is also guilty?

Alternative history - sowing the seeds of doubt:
Is it possible that Bernd Strasser made the discovery before Bob Thrun or others?
We have clear images published in Allen Padgett’s book from 1987 - but what if Bernd Strasser actually made his discovery earlier, and then brought it to the attention of USA tree climbers.
Bernd is German - and he travelled to the USA to compete in tree climbing competitions.
In his visits to the USA, I would surmise that he showed US tree climbers the ‘Schwabisch hitch’.
It got noticed, people liked it, and then it got mentioned in an April 1998 publication of ‘Arborist News’.
This does not mean he discovered the hitch in 1998.
It just means it finally got revealed to the USA in 1998.

This reminds me of the history of ‘Blakes hitch’ and the ‘Munter hitch’.
Werner Munter did not discover the Munter hitch - he simply brought it to the attention of US climbers in the 1970’s.
But, we know that it was already used as a load control belay hitch by Italians in the 1950’s.
And, the Munter hitch was published by Ashley in 1944 - but not identified as a load control hitch.
NOTE: I define a ‘load control hitch’ as a structure where the rope flows around its host, and yet maintains its geometric form.

EDIT NOTE:
With further regard to granting ‘TIB’ status to the Schwabisch hitch:
In my view, a slide and grip hitch can be declared ‘TIB’ if it can be formed around the mid-point of a host rope (without access to an end).
That is, the hitch can be tied without access to a free end.
And herein is the key underlying concept:
There must be no access to any free end - either from the hitching cord or the host rope.
Therefore, inserting a free end of a host rope through a pre-formed hitch is ‘cheating’ - because you are by definition accessing a free end.
It must all be accomplished without access to any free end.
I think this definition is workable and satisfactory - because it requires no access to any free end - of either the hitching cord or the host rope.
And since ‘TIB’ is generally understood to mean that a ‘knot’ can be tied and untied without access to an end - it seems logical.
Of course, this is my definition of a ‘TIB’ hitch. You may choose to disagree - and if you do, would be good to provide your coherent theory of an alternative view.

[eric22]

Hi all, Here I have information about about " Munter hitch "
Please see the links below. Thanks.
https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=5802.msg39310#msg39310

---

[agent_smith]

Thanks Alan,

I see that you have now added a screen grab image.
I also posted 2 images over at ‘Chit Chat’.
Link: https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=5802.msg49161#msg49161
It is indeed a ‘Munter hitch’ (after Werner Munter who introduced it the Americans in the 1970’s - although he himself was not the inventor of the belay method).
The earliest publication that I could find is from ‘Tom Bowling’ in the year 1890.
Although its not identified as a ‘load control hitch’ for use in mountaineering.

NOTE:
This might further divert from the original posters topic… (Schwabisch hitch).

Also, I think Dan hasn’t quite finished admonishing me for parroting information about Bernd Strasser and the Schwabisch hitch

[Dan_Lehman]

Lost post to Database_Error --whatever.

Attributing to Strasser, cited circa 1998 as knowing
the hitch, runs into overstrong contradiction by the
cited publications of On Rope (1st ed, 1987), and
Prusiking (1973, with a prior version 1967 --which
might’ve been well shorter). Consider this :
Bernd Strasser was born in 1965 ; he’d be only
8 --or 2-- when Bob was showing a “3-Coil Prusik”.

The term “after” refers to the knot-term adopted
by Bob (“x-coil”, vice “x-wrap” sometimes the
currency for Prusik hitches, from the wrapping of
a round sling).

–dl*

[agent_smith]

Revision to the history of the ‘Schwabisch hitch’

I’ve attached an excerpt from the On Rope book (from page 46).
See below.

While I am not disputing the claim against Bernd Strasser - it would be good to establish with more certainty the originator/creator of the slide and grip hitch.
I would point out that a 16 year old boy - [b]Serge Machard /b allegedly discovered the ‘Machard’ slide and grip hitch (aka ‘French Prusik’).
So it is possible for a very young person to make an important and practical discovery.
The more commonly used name ‘French Prusik’ likely arose due to its origin in France.
In a similar way, the ‘Italian hitch’ (Munter hitch) likely gets its name from the Italian origin and use of the hitch as a load control belay method.

I see the following printed words:
Commonly used are three, four and five coil (after Thrun) Prusik knots.

I do not have a copy of Bob Thrun’s book ‘Prusiking’ - and it would seem that it is necessary to have that book to fully interpret the meaning behind “after Thrun”.

Are you going to contact all of the people who associated Bernd Strasser with the ‘5 coil hitch’ (Schwabisch) and inform them of your historically conflicting information?

It would seem that Bob Thrun is quite the creative genius - because he also can claim invention of the Zeppelin bend.
There are many questions I would like to ask him - but I will have to wait until I too visit the pearly gates… (I’ll be looking for you Bob).

…

Off topic discussion
I am also wanting to dive deeper into the historical use by Chinese herbal gatherers of the Munter hitch (aka Crossing hitch, Backhanded hitch, Italian hitch).
If the Chinese use can be traced prior to the 1950’s, this would also re-write the history of the Munter hitch.
Note: I am speaking in terms of the use of the Munter hitch as a load control belay hitch.
Tom Bowling (1890) did not illustrate or identify the 'Backhanded hitch (Munter hitch) as a load control hitch in his book.
I am willing to surmise that Tom Bowling did not consider or contemplate such a use for the hitch.

---