Derek,
Your “Obit” has to be one of the funniest things I have seen lately. I Laughed Out Loud!!! As SS said, “You have talent!”
Somehow in the “challenge” the situation has moved significantly from what I thought was the
issue, hinging on a loose interpretation of “binding the hands with a Constrictor”–which I interpret
to mean the binding of the two hands with a single knot so named,
and not, as Derek’s challenge has it, simply incorporating said knot in a compound-knot binding,
where the C. actually only surrounds a single wrist!
For Derek’s sleight of hand here in conducting his defence, I hear the sound of one hand clapping. 
We are well beyond the OP question, and more nearly back to some earlier topic regarding how
to bind an escapologist.
Bring the ends together diagonally between the wrists and finish them with a rethreaded strangle encompassing the first diagonal cord.
Apparently you intend for the tied-with-double-cord (the two ends) Strangle knot to serve qua friction hitch?!
I doubt that one could not simply pull the bound two unknotted ends (of 1st-tied C.) through this Strangle (I saw no
indication of these ends being knotted to effect a Grapevine-like bend). Incidentally, the Constrictors in the case
of such pulling apart are then operating qua sling-shortener (i.e., a known structure to shorten a loop-sling); the
knot wouldn’t be further tightened in this loading.
As for attributes re the Constrictor’s efficacy,
I don’t think that springiness/softness of the objects is such a help–it makes for less resistance
against the entangled ends. Moreover, this and friction in any of the materials involved will work
to reduce the transmission of force to tension the overwrap which is afterall much of what distinguishes
the C. from a simple Overhand knotting. (It seems like a can’t-win situation: with a slick material one
is able to put great tension all around, but then it takes more pressure to secure the slick ends; with
a frictive one, tensioning is frustrated, but the friction also frustrates slipping out.) It is easy to see
in Double versions (#1252-3) of the knot that there’s a challenge to getting equal tension to
the middle wrap (middle at point opposite the overhand, atop which are just two wraps)–and this
in nylon mason line around nylon rope/cord.
As for those elaborate Constrictor-freeing precautions of a separate cord for making a gap for
a knife/scissors, geeesh, it would be simpler to cut the overwrap, as previously pointed out,
or to pull up one end sharply and cut it at the knot, then pull the other to spill the knot.
–dl*
Yo Jimmy and Scott, thank you both. Yes, Scott, there is so much wrong in the world today that the ‘saga’ could run to many episodes, but perhaps enough is enough for one day, I don’t want to upset the Elves.
As for Liminal, I guess he/she is off doing what students are renown for doing, and has given up getting any sense out of us lot.
Dan, although I never made any mention about binding both hands together in my Constrictor warnings, I have to admit to taking liberties in choosing the nature of the cord for the challenge. Modern plastic baler ‘twine’ is a rather special material. It has a reasonably low frictional aspect, so it can pull up well, but its structure is so poorly formed, that once you have run a number of strands together as in the constrictor or better still, the strangle, it is impossible to identify the parts of the knot, especially if you deliberately untwist the cord a little as you make the knots. Once you have dressed and hard set a rethreaded strangle in this stuff, you are going to die of old age before you manage to unpick it.
Perhaps we could start The Knotmeister Challenge for our major meetings. Any thoughts what it might entail?
Derek
But did you presume that the rest of us had in mind individually Constrictoring wrists,
vs. the more immediate/natural binding hands together with a single knot?
I have to admit to taking liberties in choosing the nature of the cord for the challenge. Modern plastic baler 'twine' is a rather special material. It has a reasonably low frictional aspect, ... Once you have dressed and hard set a rethreaded strangle in this stuff, you are going to die of old age before you manage to unpick it.
But I must not follow your case, and you’ve not answered my if-so mistaken thinking,
that your (“rethreaded”–as opposed to what?) Strangle was formed in one wrist’s
Constrictor’s two ends around the other’s two (and that not otherwise tied off, say
with a Half-Hitch in the other two ends then jammed in opposition to the Strangle).
“reasonably low frictional content” is what I was guessing would enable the unknotted
pair of ends to be pulled free through the even hard-set Strangle around them.
As for this twine: is it of flat, split-film, fibrillated material, in a very elongated twist?
I find such stuff[*] quite useful qua WHIPPING material, for esp. small cords, as it
is flat an let’s one play with series of wraps & HHitches (my beloved ComFish.
“Reverse Groundline H.”, and variations on that theme, in sequence), having
rather impressive strength at such small quantities, and bulking little on overwraps
given the flatness.
–dl*
[*] By “such stuff”, I mean the fibres of said twine, variously separated by particular
width for the job, with quite thin/fine material able to do work on small cords.
Hi,
Hope you all had a good Christmas. Thanks for all the very informative replies, apologies for the lack of reply on my part.
I am in the process of finishing the script, and am still deciding on the part discussed. Any more thoughts or ideas will be greatly appreciated, though you have helped me so much already, many thanks, I shall keep checking back and will post with more specific detail to let you know when all is finished.
Cheers,
Hi Dan, no I made no such presumption, it has been fairly clear that most folks have fallen into the trap of attempting to bind the wrists “with a single knot”, while those involved in restraint by profession always contain each wrist separately. See the ‘Handcuff knot’ attached.
As to the challenge, it is a single piece of cord, not a piece for each wrist.
Middle the cord, form a constrictor and place it over one wrist, take one end, form a second constrictor and place it over the second wrist - the cord going diagonally between the wrists and the knots on the outsides of the wrists and a gap of ca 3" between the wrists. Use one of the ends and form a strangle around the diagonal connecting cord, the use the second end and rethread the strangle, then draw the strangle hard tight. There are no unknotted ends to ‘slip out’.
It is important for comfort that the wrists are spaced away from one another, remember, restraint is not about torture.
Derek
But you did respond to my challenge to the Constrictor’s efficacy qua handcuff binder
–where I meant that the C. alone did the work, not two C.s in some tandem structure–
with your challenge which involved the latter, compound case, as though you had
somehow answered my assertion of insecurity with it!?
it has been fairly clear that most folks have fallen into the trap of attempting to bind the wrists "with a single knot", while those involved in restraint by profession always contain each wrist separately. See the 'Handcuff knot' attached.
We didn’t fall into a trap here, but answered the OP, seeking a binding by an unskilled person
that could be defeated and derided by a skilled victim.
Re the Handcuff knot (this, or the easier, Fireman’s chair? variant), it needs something further to secure it
–tying off ends w/Overhand crossing to make a pseudo Reef knot finish, to which it then could also be
vulnerable to standard Reed capsizing and loosening. Re “torture”, I think that one is better off with both
wrists bound/lashed than with a tight Handcuff knot’s single-strand wrapping; but I see your point in the
challenge you describe, in which tightness of the particular links isn’t needed–just a certain proximity
to preclude some wrist movement and finger use (which the lashing only does by being rather tight).
Middle the cord, form a constrictor and place it over one wrist, ... There are no unknotted ends to 'slip out'.
Okay, now I understand. Tying that Strangle is gratuitously tedious, and I don’t see how even the initial
Strangle (which is later be doubled with other end) can be tied to a “diagonal” line at all easily with but
a scant 3 inches to work with–and not sure it is necessary, either; the diagonality of the connecting
lines between C.s the key aspect in preventing rotation of the wrists.
–dl*
Agreed, and this tie off is potentially a weak point for attack if the hands can be brought to the front. Ashley suggests simply hitching the ends to the loops which would be OK if the individual were under constant surveillance. What would you suggest might withstand several hours of attention?
Tying that Strangle is gratuitously tedious, and I don't see how even the initial Strangle (which is later be doubled with other end) can be tied to a "diagonal" line at all easily with but a scant 3 inches to work with--and not sure it is necessary, either; the diagonality of the connecting lines between C.s the key aspect in preventing rotation of the wrists.
Again agreed, but this was only a mental exercise… wasn’t it?
Derek