Hey all, I came across this hitch but I don’t know its name. If someone here does know it’s name, please reply. I’m anxious to know.
https://picasaweb.google.com/105523941642200034030/October292012#5804817469753382066
Essentially you create a round-turn. Then bring the working end over the top of the standing part and then back under the middle of the round-turn.
The link quoted doesn’t work for me at least.
Barry
+1 re URL,
and the words don’t work for me, either --try to refine your
verbal description (you might put things in terms of the
positions on a clock, or degrees of a circle --“round turn”
is ambiguous).
Okay, try this link to view the knot. https://picasaweb.google.com/105523941642200034030/October292012#5804817469753382066
It’s pretty simple and should be easy to tie based off of the picture.
You’re not having much luck here, I’m afraid. Picasa comes up with “Sorry, page not found” - the latest link is an https address indicating a secure site which might be the problem? Have a look at this knot and see if it resembles what you’re trying to describe: http://www.animatedknots.com/anchor/index.php
Barry
No, It’s not the Anchor bend. I’ll keep trying to figure out how to upload a picture. I don’t exactly know how to describe it all that well.
Under “Attachments and other options” below your posting field, you can expand things to see the Attach option.
Create a round-turn going counter clockwise up the pole so that the w/e is on top, the cord wraps entirely around the pole*, and both ends are parallel with each other pointing away from the pole. Then take the w/e over and around the s/p and underneath it so that the w/e is now pointing against the round-turn but held by the s/p. Tuck the w/e under the elbow of the round turn and pull tight.
It isn’t a very strong knot overall. It is similar to the timber hitch in the sense that it holds well when pulled parallel with the pole but slips when pulled outward from it.
*It doesn’t have to be a pole. I’m just using that as an example.
Does this help at all?
-Carson
You’re working towards it, with separation of tying steps,
but these descriptions aren’t the best help.
Firstly, please orient the object (pole) for us : is it horizontal
or vertical, or do we have the perspective of looking at its
round cross-section (which nicely fits a clock’s positioning).
“up the pole” isn’t much help w/o knowing this.
BUT, I surmise that you want a vertical pole (for which the
notions of “clockwise” are problematic). In any case, making
a “round turn” to end up pointing the same direction and
parallel to the SPart pretty much describes one state.
SO, LET ME TRY : :
My take is that if we look at the pole IN CROSS-SECTION
from one end --pole thus coming-at / going-away from us–
we see the line enter from our left to run tangent at 6:00,
make a full anti-clockwise wrap AND THEN a half wrap
to exit tangent at 12:00 pointing leftwards,
with the wraps going away from us/view, out the pole.
Now, bring the w-end down (still anti-clockwise) to leave the
pole tangent at, say, 9:00,
cross behind the SPart and turn around it moving rightwards
and tucking between the SPart and object, now being --on a
little pull-setting-- roughly tangent to 6:00 and pointing rightwards.
Here, you make some tuck under an “elbow” (? huh :o )
of the 2nd wrap (i.e., not the SPart’s initial wrap).
What I really don’t understand is your assertion that this hitch
(of course, I might be mistaken re it) works qua friction hitch
but not otherwise
It is similar to the [i]timber hitch[/i] in the sense that it holds well [u]when pulled parallel[/u] with the pole but slips when pulled outward from it.
AND, it should be noted that the timber hitch is just
the opposite of this --intended only to be pulled away from
(perpendicular to) hitched object, not parallel to it!
(Yes, on some rough stuff, such as, well, “timber”, it can
work; it’s usually guarded in such cases, though, with a
half-hitch/nipping turn (and mis-named “Killick hitch”).)
Okay Carson, back to you --your turn.
I think that there are elements in this hitch reminding the beautiful, clever Andalusian hitch presented just a few days ago :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4069
See the video at :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShFA4CMyhNA&list=UUILfSVV5Dr_qk5i2snM6uJw&index=1&feature=plcp
There are many 2-wrap hitches - many more than we really need - but this one stands out, I believe - because it is very firm, can be tightened by pulling either the standing end or the tail against the pole, and it is tiable in the bight ( it can used in place of the pile hitch with a knot tied in the bight of a line, around an accesible end of a pole ).
Also, see a nice classification of the simple hitches, following the citation, and the colored lines, at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1411.msg9764#msg9764
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1411.o;attach=527
I was able to open the picture and get it down under 100kB. So as a public service, here it is. 
If that IS it, Mike, then the description is wrong in its finish.
It could’ve been simply illustrated verbally by saying that
“it is like the anchor bend but with the tail tucked out
to the side rather than purely parallel along the pole”.
One could say that this hitch is a “minimal ProhGrip/Blake’s hitch”.
I have fiddled this as the hitch to use in the compound, noose-hitch
structure vice the strangle hitch ; the anchor bend sometimes
seems to not set all so well, but this variation of it does.
Sorry Dan for my confusing instructions. I know the basic and general knotting terms, but when it comes down to describing a knot without a visual aid, I kind of get stumped. But I’m working on fixing that. Thanks for the tips.
Thanks Mike! And yes, that is the picture.
So does this knot have an official name? Or is it just considered to be a variation of the Anchor Bend?
-Carson
There are no “official names” for knots ( unfortunately…). After thousands of years, knot tyers have not been able to agree on names - not that they have agreed on anything else !
There are knots that are known by two, three or even more names. We solve the problem of translation with reference to the number the knot has been labelled with at our holy book, the ABoK. If the knot is not in the ABoK, it is condemned to have many names - or none at all.
Tie all the hitches in the reference mentioned in my previous post, and decide by yourself to which well known knot what you show resembles more, in its form as well as in its mechanism. Then, you can either call it with a compound name having the name of this knot as an ingredient, or go all the way and name it with a new name. My personal opinion is that we should restrict ourselves from using new names, if a compound name would be sufficient to indicate the form or the mechanism of the knot. We have already too many knots, and too many names - let us restrain ourselves from making this already big number bigger…