Smoothing overhand's jamming function

kost_greg · 20 March 2021 18:26

This is an approach, within the frameworks of overhand’s vice/virtue concept, where the normal overhand’s topology, breaks down into two components, a crossing knot and a nipping turn (first image).

The nipping turn (loop), can be handled, as if it was a nipping loop of an Eskimo bowline, while its tail, is tucked under the Spart and back through the collar to avoid slippage and enhance stability and security.

This two collar, overhand based, pseudo Eskimo non-pet configuration (second, third image), features three access points to interface with its nub, during decompression, two collars and a nipping turn, which can’t block for two reasons…

It is not directly connected with SP, as in conventional nipping loops, which means less nipping action.
50 % of its on-going eye leg continuation loading, is not alleged to induce irreversible locking, while being under constriction at the same time, by Sp’s perpendicular loading.

enhaut · 23 March 2021 18:23

The principal virtue of this overhand based nipping loop is, in the form you presented, a non-jamming stubbornness. Which is a surprising quality, don’t you think?

Of course I don?t have machinery at hand for testing adequately but I would be very curious of its jamming profile.

The whole concept is rich and declinable in other structures. In my view it belongs to the marlinspike structure family.
But one can change opinion if correctly shown.

You tied it with the tail exiting inside the eye?.
I tried the contrary (outside exit) since it is easily feasible, dit you tried it, if so does this affect the structure?
For my part I thought that the outside solution made a more compact form, maybe I am wrong.

This knot could replace or be used instead of the traditional anchor knot.

jr.

kost_greg · 25 March 2021 17:04

Hello Enhaut, i think it is a great quality, provided that you have to perform some easy transformation to the basic overhand structure, in order to bring it in the form presented previously, or in the form illustrated at this reply (first image).

My poor tests indicate that the jamming profile is fairly good, but more work needs to be done in that sector.

One might wonder if the security profile is adequate, with just a crossing knot collar component, having no additional tail maneuvers. I’d answer, that it is this very nipping component that ensures the appropriate safety and security levels of this knot.

Another, of the same technique topology, is listed below. The nipping turn (loop), is linked directly with SP now, which means more nipping action that may enhance security on one hand, but may trigger nipping loop’s janmming on the other. However, the two collars are always there to de-stress the nub from all accumulated tension, plus the resulting final product is TIB and EEL (second third image).

Note, that i have used your proposed solution of forming the pseudo bowline collar this time, which i think does not affect the overall functionality.

Using it as an anchor knot sounds good, even if it requires a bit of extra rope, but as a reward, its nub can be loosened rather easily.

kost_greg · 19 May 2021 14:06

                               [size=14pt] [u][i]Experimental Zeppelin-like eyeknots[/i][/u][/size]

I seriously doubt if someone has formed the Zeppelin eyeknot like so, using original post’s overhand configuration, as it requires a bit of extra rope, along with some difficulty to form on stiff material, but it works better with small diameter, more prone to jamming, softer cordage.

That said, some quick tests showed that its anti-jamming system worked just fine, even with heavy loading, with the Sparts operating as anti-blocking hinges when perfusing through the overhand’s nipping turns.

The corresponding bend does not appear to be very stable to me, therefore i have ommited it.

kost_greg · 19 May 2021 15:31

On seconds thoughts, i think i will remove the collar component’s extra complexity, forming just a simple overhand, but i am going to keep the jamming protection in the nipping system.

Note, how the the tug end is being nipped by both Sparts and overhand’s nipping turn. This overall constriction, also elliminates the danger of the tail being sucked up by Spart’s brute shear force.

In my view, this is a neat, very secure, stable, jam proof structure. The only aesthetic problem i see, is the collar component’s slack when the knot is heavily loaded.

kost_greg · 25 January 2022 16:09

                                                            Overhand link bowline

A quick description of the following bowline knot …

The returning eye leg structure, breaks down into two collar components, an overhand collar, tied around and front of the nipping loop, and a classical bight collar that captures the SP.

Only one leg of both collars passes through the nipping loop, while their other one, is the bridge (link), which connects these two components, outside of the nipping loop.

Why is this a hard case to induce jamming?

The returning eye leg strain, as the most likely jamming component, does not appear to vanquish the nipping loop’s constriction power, which blocks most of the tension to diffuse to the next collar stage.
Even if we assume that all this tension might diffuse to the next levels at extreme loadings, the final WE tucking, down through the overhand collar, acts like a second level protection hinge, by blocking the other overhand’s end to lock(the bridge).

It seems like a 1010, bowline upgrade, in all its properties, resistance to slack shaking/cycling loading/jamming, along with security enhancement.

The TIB enthousiasts, might form a second eye by following through the first eye and its continuation (nipping loop, SPart, /last image).

kost_greg · 30 January 2022 22:05

                   Slipped overhand, TIB, adjustable, end of line or inline?

At first, i shall describe an “in the end” tying method, which is exactly the way i tied it in the first place, considering that i had to deal with an end termination loop.

Pick one of the previously mentioned , overhand configurations. It really doesn’t matter which, as long as the SPart, is always designated to be the nipping turn continuation segment.

Simply feed the WE, up through the crossing knot collar and down through the nipping turn. Loading the SPart, the adjustable eye leg is blocked, and there you have the adjustability feature, along with the tibness as an extra quality.

After a quick test and a discussion with Xarax, i realised that this is actually a midline form, of a couple of TIB nooses(flip a couple of collars to reveal them), and my first approach was rather a “tugboat” loading option, of a an inline eyeknot, in the end of the rope.

I recall that Enhaut, was the first to introduce the inline noose concept, which i had not then fully understood, but now i’m starting to appreciate his viewpoint.

Third image illustrates an “adjust and load” eye loading scenario of this eyeknot, tied in the middle of the rope.

Giving it some strain, no slippage of the adjustable part came to my attention, but it needs more thorough testing to confirm its stability (always test many times before use).

It also comes with a very easy TIB tying method and unties with just one pull.