International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: Gleipnir on August 23, 2009, 07:58:52 PM

Title: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 23, 2009, 07:58:52 PM
Greetings all.

I am new here so allow me the indulgence of being the ultimate noob.  ;)

A few years ago I invented what I think may be a new knot.  While it may be technically possible to patent a knot, monetizing it would appear problematic.

I would however like to get "credit" as it were for it's invention/development/discovery or whatever.  Assuming of course that it is original.

OK.  Now feel free to laugh or poke fun.  My hide is fairly thick.

Thanks.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 24, 2009, 12:37:00 AM
While we are happy to hear that your hide is thick,
where's the knot?

... that you want to get "credit" for ?

What will this credit do for you, btw?!
(I have been in your position.)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 24, 2009, 01:03:50 AM
What will this credit do for you, btw?!
(I have been in your position.)

Benefits of credit?  Realistically nothing.  Trying to figure out the best way to describe.

I realize that claims of an original are numerous, I think I may have stumbled on one.

I have not been able to find its like in ABOK or anywhere else.  Yet it is so simple it looks like it can't possibly work, which is why I think it had not been discovered previously.

On the other hand I may be completely wrong.

There was a thread here about someone setting up a group to evaluate the claims of "NEW KNOT"  Anything ever come of that?

Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: roo on August 24, 2009, 01:32:14 AM
 Trying to figure out the best way to describe.

A small, clear diagram will do.  You can even upload such a .gif file to this forum under Additional Options when posting.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: alpineer on August 24, 2009, 05:19:16 AM
Hey Gleipnir,

No worries. You've come to a good place, I think. Could you send a jpeg of the knot flattened out so as to view all the "overs and unders"(i.e. crossings)?

Alpineer
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 24, 2009, 05:24:28 AM
Trying to figure out the best way to describe.
Half'n'half can help:  words'n'images (referred to).  "Form the left side as for Ashely's #nnnn,
and then bring the 2nd end in at ... ", and we should be able to figure it out, especially if
it's simple.  Which is not to say there might not be a false start with a question for some
ambiguity, but, hey, bits are cheap.  And maybe *I* will post some Is-This-It? photo to
reply to.

Quote
There was a thread here about someone setting up a group to evaluate the claims of "NEW KNOT"  Anything ever come of that?
You are here, with a gathered audience.  What might come afterwards,
we cannot know.

Cheers,
--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 24, 2009, 06:53:54 AM
The "Floating Constrictor Knot", although it could also be called "Concave Constrictor Knot".  But if you want to throw "Dahm" in the front I won't complain.

Please don't laugh too hard if this is really Boy Scouts 101.  And apologies for poor nomenclature and descriptive skills.

History
----------
The basic problem I faced was tying together (and compressing) bundles of sticks and branches for trash pickup.  Constrictor knots require that the knot lay across a convex surface which was generally not available with a bunch of sticks and branches.  The traditional constrictor knots have the bite pass over the knot and press down like another person's finger when tying a package.  I had no extra finger, and nothing to press against.  I needed a knot that would do it all for me.  The solution I found combines the double wrap 4 to 1 mechanical advantage of the traditional constrictor knots with the single loop free floating holding power of the Sheepshank.  

How to Form Knot
---------------------------
Here goes my attempt at a description.  Take the rope twice around object to be tied. In the middle of the bite pinch rope and twist 270 degrees forming a loop perpendicular to the rope, with its opening parallel to the rope.  (This loop is comparable to the loops in a Sheepshank.)  Pass both bitter ends through the loop going in opposite directions.  Hold bitter ends in both hands and pull tightly.  When pulling the bitter ends apart, the two sections of rope which circumscribe the object will close on object.  On releasing tension from the two bitter ends the knot or twisted loop will squeeze the bitter ends tightly and hold fast.  I know this sounds too simple to work.  But it does.

Modifications
-------------------
1.  Finishing - It is most secure under constant pressure but can be finished off with half hitches or square knot.
2.  Multiples - In more slippery material instead of a single loop make several in series.  Multiple twists on a single loop weakens the grip of the knot.  The loops series do not have to be twisted in the same direction sense they are independent.  I often grab the bite in both hands and twist in opposite directions.  
3.  Making Slippery - By doubling the bitter ends back on themselves prior to passing through, you can make the knot slippery, but this does not hold as securely because the tension and friction of the knot is no longer working on just the bitter ends but also the pass back.

Usage
---------
This knot can be used across a flat surface or in the open air such as when two pipes are separated and the knot is in the middle.  It can be used for lifting or for pulling two things together.  I have used this knot for fence pulling, carrying furniture on the top of the car, packages, carpets, etc.  

Tightening
---------------
It can be pulled tightly by a single person pulling the bitter ends in opposite directions, or by two people, or by using the stick under the feet technique (watch the chin if the rope breaks, Mag Lights hurt), or by hand with quick jerks, or my favorite is to wrap the bitter ends around separate weights or sticks and pull apart with strong sudden jerks.  If the rope is strong enough to handle  the last one, the result is a very tight constriction.

Type of Rope
-------------------
It can be tied in any rope twine or string I have found.  By increasing it to multiples loops in series, it can even work on glide dental floss.  I think for glide dental floss I used 5 or 6 loops in series.  The only problem I have found can be with some very rough cordage like manilla, or when the object being tied is sticky and does not let the rope slide easily across its surface.

Precursors
----------------
Although it is not how I discovered it, this knot is really an adaptation on the principle that underlies the Sheepshank.  But may be stronger than the Sheepshank because rather than having three sections of rope going through the twisted loop you only have two.  It appears to me that the sheep shank is a relatively unexplored area of knotting.

Mechanical Advantage
---------------------------------
I calculate the mechanical advantage at 4 to 1, (or maybe it's 2 to 1 not good at geometry).  For every 4 foot of rope that you pull through the knot, the constriction decreases by 1 feet.  You can make the knot extremely tight.  When tying lumber to the car on Home Depot runs the rope will generally dig into the wood if I am not careful.  Very little of the mechanical advantage is lost due to friction from the knot.

Breaking Strength
--------------------------
Contrary to knots in general I think in some sense due to the 4 to 1 mechanical advantage this knot is stronger than the rope itself.  If the bitter ends are pulled past breaking point, then one of the bitter ends tends to break outside the knot and the knot remains secure.  

To Untie
------------
Attacking the knot directly is useless. Grab the section of rope (pre-bitter end) before it passes through loop and pull apart.  

Pictures
------------
Single:
(http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186)
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186 (http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186)

3 in Series:
(http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962)
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962 (http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962)



Additional Notes
----------------------
1.  When made in slippery material in a series like picture 2 above, it is important that during tightening that the loops do not bunch together or else they will interfere with each other and the strength of the knot will be reduced considerably.


Patent Pending  ;)

Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 24, 2009, 08:01:16 AM
I think it's possible that you really found a new one. I haven't seen anything like it before, and due to its simplicity, it's unlikely that it is widely known, considering the bulk of publications on knots. Moreover, the knot also fulfills a real purpose. The drawback, compared to other methods for tying down a load maybe is the multiple passes, but for tying a bundle it's nifty. The more standard method of course is a fig 8 in one end and the other end rove through it. When tying down a load, a trucker's hitch is often the preferred method.

The knot has advantages over the fig 8 in end method, as contrary to the second, both ends may be pulled and the center of the rope remains fixed. Thus friction over the bundle will not introduce slack when drawing it tight.

On the basis of "first sighting", I won't hesitate branding it The Dahm Floating Constrictor.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 24, 2009, 08:32:27 AM
Truckers hitch offers a 2 to one mechanical advantage, it needs to be tied at the top, and I think needs to be tied off while maintaining tension (but I may be wrong).    Also because it has 360 degree turns under pressure there may be a greater chance of the rope cutting itself.

The passing twice around can be a hassle, but it does give you that 4 to 1 advantage.  Also it doesn't need to be tied off.

Oh and thanks for the vote of confidence in it being original.  I feel nervous like a father when his daughter goes to prom.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 24, 2009, 08:56:45 AM
Oh, I only mentioned the trucker's hitch, as it is a rather "standard" method for tying down a load; something that probably will remain unchanged even if better methods would be invented. The advantage of the trucker's is 3 to 1, although friction takes away lots of that advantage, and yes, it must be tied off under tension, but it is not difficult to do. My main objection against the trucker's hitch is that the overhand loop knot that is mostly used may jam, so it is not always easily undone. But it's a side-track from the issue of your knot, and it does not constitute any objection.

Of course it is also a matter of what you have at hand. In twine or lesser cordage, the trucker's hitch might not be applicable due to the drawbacks you mentioned, but the floating constrictor will work fine. One possible objection, when made with rope, is that you might not have one of the ends easily available. That however is a minor issue, as it works fine if you just pass a bight and leave the rest of the rope coil tied to the bundle or secure it otherwise in any convenient way.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 24, 2009, 03:13:40 PM
Sorry.  I didn't mean to sound defensive.  Although I am admittedly a little excited (or anxious) about how this will be received.

It does require a lot of material.  I have not tried tying when one end is not available.  I'll have to think about that one.

The Dahm Floating Constrictor Knot, I do like the ring of that.  Though I probably shouldn't get too used to it.  Someone will be along anytime to say, "Oh that knot is a standard in the Swiss Imperial Royal Navy."
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 24, 2009, 07:57:16 PM
"bitter end" :  please, let's leave this where it was found, at the bitts,
and not for some *absolute* "end"; "end" suffices w/o qualification.

"bite" => "bight"
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In short, yes, I've played around with this damn floating constrictor,
which to my mind came as a better Clove Hitch -- but then those
knots are just a tuck apart, aren't they.

I wonder in what you've tied this, for in some hardware-store common
solid-braid nylon (3/16" or about) around a 1" diameter PVC pipe,
the locking grip just isn't there -- it's easy to push apart the turns
opposite the knotted section and see it loosen.  This nipping loop
in the structure is tensioned only after a full turn around the object,
so that's a strike against its efficacy at providing sure nip.  The turn
could be a double turn, which I think will be better than the more
complicated additional two single loops of your variation.

As for mechanical advantage, in many common materials you'll find that
the usual Trucker's Hitch is around 1.5:1, way shy of the theoretical 3:1,
and friction as well as material resistance to bending eats up a great deal
of such supposed advantages in related structures; there is a thread about
that on this forum, in which I experimented with some various ropes and
barbell (dead) weights.  I really recommend that others employ such testing
to better appreciate the hype that books sell.
On the plus side, though, is that the same friction works mightily to arrest
whatever gain you get, to ease the tying off.  In the case of the Versatackle,
e.g., you get a pretty solid lock.

I like to think of such structures as "Paul Bunyan knots" :  i.e., ones in which
even mechanical disadvantage is overcome by simply being able to deliver
much more force than is needed in the finished binding, and where the
automatic locking is a key aspect.  -- where one can surge force
(vs. a steady application), and have that surge's effect held.

Quote
... because it (viz., Trucker's H.) has 360deg turns under tension ...
Huh?  I don't see this; the Trucker's H. has 180deg, "u-"turns, no roundturns.

As for the usual Overhand knot jamming, that can be alleviated by careful
orientation of the Overhand, or using a variation of Bowline (and getting
thereby double eyes through which to reeve the end, maybe lessening
abrasive wear on the rope).

As for
>>> and due to its simplicity, it's unlikely that it is widely known,
>>>  considering the bulk of publications on knots

I have my doubts:  maybe there are some small-press, esoteric publications
scratching reality and novelty, but most of what's come to my eyes has
been terribly redundant.  "Hansel&Gretel" e.g. have many Plates of
Sheepshanks, e.g. -- which won't be found in the Wild .  Yet
that nifty Reverse Groundline Hitch so common in commercial-fishing
knotting, does not show up in the books I've seen (other than by a
roundabout, not quite to-the-point, way, as some Miller's knot or
spar hitch).

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Perhaps a good thread to start is one entitled "Binders",
where the different tasks such a general title covers can be explored
along with various solutions.  And we can see another *new* knot.

--dl*
====

Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 25, 2009, 12:19:36 AM
Um.  I'm a little confused.  I freely admitted that I did not have a firm command of some of the specific language used in knotting.  I did my best to explain what I had done as I was encouraged to do.  If I was able to communicate it to you then I suspect that I succeeded at least in that.

In short, yes, I've played around with this damn floating constrictor,
which to my mind came as a better Clove Hitch -- but then those
knots are just a tuck apart, aren't they.

I think that functionally the floating constrictor and the clove hitch very differently in the mechanism that hold them in place. The cove requires a convex surface to press against.  This does not.  That is often a useful feature.  The Clove only has the gripping section pressing against one side while the floating has it wrapopoed around and pressing the two ends together, which are moving in opposite directions thus increasing the grip.  There are of course similarities.  For example both pass around the object twice.  And both can be tied in rope, cord, twine, etc.

But you know I just realized that the only thing that seperates a Sheepshank from a folded piece of rope is a couple of tucks as you say.

I wonder in what you've tied this, for in some hardware-store common
solid-braid nylon (3/16" or about) around a 1" diameter PVC pipe,
the locking grip just isn't there --

I believe I did mention that it holds better under tension.  Similar to a Sheepshank whisch requires tension to maintain grip.  I also mentioned that it could be finished with half hitches or a square knot to secure it.  I don't think that a single small pipe is really the best application of this knot.  However I did try it on a 1.5 inch PVC and a 3 inch PVC piupe.  On the 3 inch it did hold better.

it's easy to push apart the turns
opposite the knotted section and see it loosen.

You are correct.  If you will notice in my original description I wrote how this is how you untie it.

This nipping loop in the structure is tensioned only after a full turn around the object, so that's a strike against its efficacy at providing sure nip.  The turn could be a double turn, which I think will be better than the more complicated additional two single loops of your variation.

I am sorry but in this you are completely wrong.  Increasing the number of turns in the nip loop will dissipate the tension and results in very poor grip.  Multiple loops increase the grip as a linear function.  Two will have twice the grip of one.  Three will have three times, etc.  But the multiple loops will also begin to increase the resistance to pulling tighter.  As I said with 5 loops it was possible to tie in Glide dental floss.

As for mechanical advantage, in many common materials you'll find that the usual Trucker's Hitch is around 1.5:1, way shy of the theoretical 3:1, and friction as well as material resistance to bending eats up a great deal of such supposed advantages in related structures; there is a thread about that on this forum, in which I experimented with some various ropes and
barbell (dead) weights.  I really recommend that others employ such testing
to better appreciate the hype that books sell.

Where to start?  It would not surprise me if the Truckers Hitch measures out at 1.5 to one Mechanical Advantage, because theoretically it actually only starts out at 2 to one not the often quoted 3 to one.  This is just basic pulley physics.  Just look at this diagram from the Wiki pulley entry for an explanation.  (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Pulley1a.svg)
Try your testing experiment with weights and the ropes passing over lubricated pulleys. rather than each other.  I think you will find the results are very close to the true 2 to 1 mechanical advantage.  Using ropes instead of pulies adds friction not mechanical advantage.  Look there are only 2 ropes supporting the load they can't each be bearing only 33.3% of the load because that would only add up to 66.7% of the load.  And there is no explanation offered for what is holding up the other 33.3%.  Anti-gravity is not generated by knots.  The third section of the rope is NOT bearing the load directly.  It is redirecting the force downward.  The best way to calculate theoretical mechanical advantage is to look at how much movement is applied vs how much is generated.  

Try this:
1. Tie a truckers hitch.
2. Tension the system.
3. Pull the LOOSE END (whatever you want to call it Mr Lehman)
4. Measure how much you move the loose end versus how much the load moves.
5. Realize that for every 2 feet of rope you pull, the load moves 1 foot.
6. Realize that this is what is called a 2 to 1 mechanical advantage.

Regardless of whether the Trucker's hitch has a theoretical 2 to 1 advantage or a 3 to 1 advantage does not address in any way this knot.  Crack open a high school physics book.  It should be in one of the early chapters.

Seeing as how I am right about the mechanical advantage of the Truckers Hitch, could you please give me the benefit of the doubt and take a look at this knot with an open mind?  (By the way I am not the first to point this out to you.  see: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1416.0, for a recent Noob who tried to discuss this that you shot down.)

I like to think of such structures as "Paul Bunyan knots" :  i.e., ones in which even mechanical disadvantage is overcome by simply being able to deliver much more force than is needed in the finished binding, and where the automatic locking is a key aspect.  -- where one can surge force (vs. a steady application), and have that surge's effect held.

I do not think a Clove Hitch tied on 1 inch pvc would hold that well either.  But at any rate the effect of the "Paul Bunyon" as you call it is to create tension which as I said is required.  And this was not the sort of application I was suggesting for this anyway.  However I did find that it held a bit better on 3 inch PVC.  Probably as a result of having a longer piece of rope in which to create tension.  The theoretical mechanical advantage of the Floating Constrictor is the same as the mechanical advantage of the Clove Hitch it is 4:1.  Again nothing magic.  Just Physics.  If you draw THE LOOSE ENDS in by 4 feet the load will move 1 foot.  Friction is of course the enemy of mechanical advantage and even on well lubricated block and tackle there is a loss of efficiency but the advantage remains the same, pull 2 move 1 in 2:1, and pull 4 move 1 in 4:1, .  Remember that it works both ways if you ease tension on line the load pull 1 foot for every 2 feet of line that is drawn in.

And I will note that generally 4:1 is better than 2:1.

Quote
... because it (viz., Trucker's H.) has 360deg turns under tension ...
Huh?  I don't see this; the Trucker's H. has 180deg, "u-"turns, no roundturns.
You are correct I should have typed 180.  My mistake.  But never the less the issue remains the rope is still in the position to cut itself.  This is going to significantly reduce the breaking strength.

As for
>>> and due to its simplicity, it's unlikely that it is widely known,
>>>  considering the bulk of publications on knots

I have my doubts:  maybe there are some small-press, esoteric publications scratching reality and novelty, but most of what's come to my eyes has been terribly redundant.  "Hansel&Gretel" e.g. have many Plates of Sheepshanks, e.g. -- which won't be found in the Wild .  Yet that nifty Reverse Groundline Hitch so common in commercial-fishing knotting, does not show up in the books I've seen (other than by a roundabout, not quite to-the-point, way, as some Miller's knot or spar hitch).

In the first place that was not my quote.  However I have not found this knot in any of the sources I have looked at.  Given your experience which is obviously vastly superior to mine, I suspect you haven't either, or you would have mentioned it.

Perhaps a good thread to start is one entitled "Binders", where the different tasks such a general title covers can be explored along with various solutions.  And we can see another *new* knot.

I don't know about whether there are other new knots, perhaps you can find one yourself.  
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 25, 2009, 01:22:23 AM
This nipping loop in the structure is tensioned only after a full turn around the object,
so that's a strike against its efficacy at providing sure nip.
The turn could be a double turn, which I think will be better than the more complicated additional
two single loops of your variation.
I am sorry but in this you are completely wrong.  Increasing the number of turns in the nip loop will
dissipate the tension and results in very poor grip.  Multiple loops increase the grip as a linear function.
Two will have twice the grip of one.  Three will have three times, etc.  But the multiple loops will also
begin to increase the resistance to pulling tighter.  As I said with 5 loops it was possible to tie in Glide dental floss.
WELL, "completely" entails the bit about the reach of tensioned ends to the
nipping loop, about which I'm quite right; adding loops in your way will by
force migrate then around the object and so closer to the ends.  But my point
is that whereas in e.g. the Constrictor the tensioning of ends pulls directly into
the Overhand crossing (but has the long reach around to tighten the overwrap),
here, in order to tighten the nipping loop force must flow around the object
which is no small order for some sorts of things.

As for the double loop vs. single (my way), I find the opposite -- same materials
as before; at least if I have a structure in which the two turns are rather spaced
in their circumnavigation of the object (in my case, roughly 1.5" opp. dble.loop).
Here, the tensioning was more nearly parallel with object.
In some earlier playing, I found that the workings of the dbl. loop were adding
nips that frustrated tensioning it.   argh.

Quote
As for mechanical advantage, in many common materials you'll find that the usual Trucker's Hitch is around 1.5:1, way shy of the theoretical 3:1, and friction as well as material resistance to bending eats up a great deal of such supposed advantages in related structures; there is a thread about that on this forum, in which I experimented with some various ropes and
barbell (dead) weights.  I really recommend that others employ such testing
to better appreciate the hype that books sell.
Where to start?  It would not surprise me if the Truckers Hitch measures out at 1.5 to one Mechanical Advantage,
because theoretically it actually only starts out at 2 to one not the often quoted 3 to one.  This is just basic pulley physics.
Just look at this diagram from the Wiki pulley entry for an explanation. [see above]
Here's where to start:  with a proper notion of the structure at issue.  A Trucker's
Hitch is a mechanism to tension a line tossed (paradigmaticly) over the truck's load
from an anchor side to a hitching side (to coin some terms); there, after working
some impromptu sheave mid-line of the rope (maybe a slip-knot), a turn is made
on one hopes a relatively smooth hook or through a ring --low friction, ideally--
and then taken up through the impromptu sheave, and hauled downwards -- NB.

Now, by your bassackwards reference, you would have the low bed of the truck
moving up to the impromptu eye   :o ; in fact, it is this eye that moves downwards
towards the hook/ring anchorage.  That, as you can see, means that there are
3 parts bearing load (haul end (still not bitter), reeved up to eye part, and first
part brought from eye to hook/ring), to the one S.Part carrying force away:  3:1.
Or, put another way, to close the gap by pulling the rope eye down to the ring
would move this eye X distance and you'd have hauled out 3X rope to do so.

Quote
Try your testing experiment with weights and the ropes passing over lubricated pulleys.
For me, at issue is actual (vs. hyped, and theoretical) advantage.

Quote
Seeing as how I am right about the mechanical advantage of the Truckers Hitch,
could you please give me the benefit of the doubt and take a look at this knot with an open mind?
  (By the way I am not the first to point this out to you.  see: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1416.0,
 for a recent Noob who tried to discuss this that you shot down.)
My mind is plenty open; I doubt you followed my link there, but only echoed your
mistaken notion of the hitch.  I've explained it above; Inkanyezi has done so here,
and perhaps some others will chime in, if you want the *democratic* approach.
But the issue should be clear from above.  It's a matter of what moves; that you
must understand before throwing physics books about, or they'll miss.

Quote
 If you draw THE LOOSE ENDS in by 4 feet the load will move 1 foot.
This points to an aspect of such binders that goes against their use for tying
up the odds'n'ends of, e.g., gardening for trash:  that you loose a lot of cord
(one end or the other).  As opposed to some binding such as hauling line
through a Rolling hitch, where the hitch's end is short as can be, and when
tightened the other end can be cut off close to the knot and all remaining
line returned for further use.

Quote
And I will note that generally 4:1 is better than 2:1.
You might test this theory in practical circumstances.  There can be quite
a diminishing return (of gained tension/force) with each frictional sheave,
and balanced against the complexity of tying and consumption of material,
"better" might go to the structure w/less TMA.  YMMV.

Quote
... But never the less the issue remains the rope is still in the position to cut itself.
  This is going to significantly reduce the breaking strength.
Do you know what will be cut?  -- quite to my surprise, it will/could be the
moving rope !  (not the bight one would think it was going to saw through)
At least that's what happened when I tried it in cotton string (supposedly an old
way to cut such stuff).  AND in one case where a rockclimber did "StairSteps"
with old climbing rope through a nylon tubular sling -- imagine!  (Sling was
not in good shape, but the *winner*.)

Quote
In the first place that was not my quote.  However I have not found this knot in any of the sources I have looked at.
Given your experience which is obviously vastly superior to mine, I suspect you haven't either, or you would have mentioned it.
As I said, books copy prior books and stick to a pretty narrow repertoire of "knots".
Now, in Hansel&Gretel land, there's no telling what might turn up (!); but, so far,
I've only found this floating binder in my own hands; and it's nice to see others
looking around with new ideas, too.

Quote
I don't know about whether there are other new knots, perhaps you can find one yourself.  
Done.   . . .   and, er, *doing*.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 25, 2009, 03:53:31 AM
You have spent most of your time discussing the Truckers Hitch, and applying my Floating Constrictor knot in a situation I had not even described as an application.  This would be like saying a cat is no good because it doesn't bark.  I am willing to discuss the mechanical advantage of the Truckers Hitch in the thread http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1416.0 I will not address it here further.

Also I assume that you were able to understand the words I used even if they offended your sensibilities.  But whether or not I use the words that are standard in knotting, or whether I used them exactly correctly has no baring on whether this knot is original nor on whether it is useful for the purposes intended.

If you are need a constrictor knot for a 1 inch piece of PVC, then use a clove hitch.  If you are trying to strap a load to a truck with strong anchor points then by all means use a Truckers Hitch.  If you did not catch the name I suggested it was "FLOATING CONSTRICTOR" of "CONCAVE CONSTRICTOR".

Neither the Clove nor the Truckers will serve in the situation the Floating Constrictor was designed to solve.  A single rigid pipe is a problem that this knot was not designed to solve.  I doubt the clove hitch would perform well in 3/8 on a piece of 1" PVC either, but that is irrelevant.

I clearly said that this knot requires tension in order to hold well.  The Sheepshank require tension as well.  Not surprising, sense they share a similar mechanism.  But by all means tell me how the Sheepshank is no good either because it doesn't hold a a 1 inch piece of PVC.

Is it a perfect solution for all problems?  No.  I never said it was.

Is there an issue with friction?  Yes.  Again I had said so.  But the friction problem generally relates more to the friction of sliding over and across whatever is being tied, more than passing through the loop. 

Adding multiple twists to a single loop is simply worthless.  I have been using this knot for years.  It quite simply weakens the grip.

The multiple loops were for slippery material.  Nylon braid is simply not an issue generally, and in the applications I am suggesting there is NO wrap around concave object like a pipe.  That is not what it was for.  Please see OP, or heck even just the names I suggested.  Across an open space, multiple loops form a straight line, but should remain separate and not allow to bunch up together as this weakens the grip.

You ridicule the application of high force.  This is done to primarily add tension not to overcome friction, certainly not the friction of the loop itself.  ABOK talks about tightening a constrictor by pulling with a stick under the feet and the other in the hands.  When using this knot to bundle moving boxes using Tiger twine with the knot across the flat side of the box it can be drawn so tight that it will thrum.

If you don't like this knot fine.  For the applicastions I specified it is extremely functional, and there is no other knot I know of that serves in the same capacity. 

Nor have I been able to locate any documentation of its prior usage.  Yet I clearly stated that this did not prove that it was original.  And I came here asking about whether anyone else might have seen it documented previously or whether they though it might be original not whether you thought it would work on a piece of PVC pipe.

Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: alpineer on August 25, 2009, 04:35:45 AM
Gleipnir,

I think Dan's 'meow' is worse than his 'scratch', but, as a precaution it's still a good thing to have a thick hide!  ;D
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 25, 2009, 06:19:56 AM
I don't think it's fruitful to quibble over trivial matters as mechanical advantage and waste of material in this thread. There's always another opinion, and I put forth the trucker's only to point out that for some applications, the new knot might not be the preferred one, due to tradition or due to the relative simplicity of the latter.

My usual method of tightening a constrictor is to pull with two marlingspikes either if they are very close to each other, with both hands, or, when impractical to pull with both hands, hammering the marlingspikes apart with quick jerks. That method works also with this knot. When tightening a constrictor very hard, until the twine breaks, it will often break outside the knot. When tying around a hard object that is not compressed, it is the elasticity of the tying material that maintains tension; there's no difference if we compare with the floating version. Therefore it is more likely to hold well if it is formed around a large bundle, as the amount of rope governs its elongation by elasticity.

The most important factor that I see for any knot is its usefulness. When a knot is complicated or difficult to make, usefulness may be hampered by its complexity, particularly if it is not often used, so it will also be difficult to remember. This knot is easily remembered, and I can see real world usage for it. From this first sighting, it is added to the rather few knots that I see as really useful, as it indeed solves a problem of binding over anything that would not hold a constrictor, clove hitch or other binding knot that relies on the convex shape of the bound object. Wherever a constrictor might be considered, but there is a gap where you want the nip, it is useful. I haven't tried it for connecting two objects at right angles yet, but I can see that there is a possibility that it might be superior to the constrictor for a cross.

And the open question of course is whether this actually is the first sighting or not.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 25, 2009, 08:05:05 AM
You have spent most of your time discussing the Truckers Hitch,
and applying my Floating Constrictor knot in a situation I had not even described as an application.
...
I am willing to discuss the mechanical advantage of the Truckers Hitch in the thread ...
Goodness, you began by saying you had a thick skin, but it seems like
it's something else that's "thick"!  I addressed the points of your query,
in all cases, plainly enough.

First up, I'm unaware of this structure having been published.  (But it's a big
and old world, and maybe somewhere ... -- just as somewhere, many places,
others are unaware of what we are doing here, and previously, in private.)
**I** have played with this knot and the like, a little, in recent years.

Here's another twist on the structure, tying in the bight (which, yes, will
not suit many tasks):  form a Clove Hitch but spread flat and such
that the crossing part is generally perpendicular to the ends; take one
side/loop and rotate it around 360deg back into position -- thereby
putting in this "floating" nipping loop in the crossing part, and sort
of crossing the ends 'a la Constrictor.  This structure inverts the central
loop (it points down into bound area rather than up away from it).
It's a quick method of making a similar binding structure for cases in
which the binding material can be put around some (likely known)
collection of objects -- set of stakes or paddles, e.g..

But to your motivation ...
I.p., I am well aware of the binding task you have in mind -- to wit:
"The basic problem I faced was tying together (and compressing) bundles
of sticks and branches for trash pickup."

To which my suggestion above is that a knotted structure that requires
both ends to be drawn out (and esp. at 4:1 compression) will be material
inefficient.  Did you miss this?
As for the Trucker's Hitch (which you persist in not understanding),
that actually is quite adaptable to just the circumstance you face:
 
This method & structure can be tweaked to be TIB (tied in the bight) by
using a Slip-knot bight to span sheaves, the OH base being then the sheave
itself (vs. its bight, as w/Trucker's H.), and by tying the eyeknot of the
first step last (this being the ONE *end* available, the rest of the material
--binding twine, say-- yet in a spool/ball/whathaveyou).  Tie to the slip-eye
AND end part, and the back'n'forth now goes one reeving further than with
the Truckers, which gets you a potential in-the-sheave nip good at least
for holding long enough to tie off a freshly cut 2nd end.

Quote
Also I assume that you were able to understand the words I used even if they offended your sensibilities.
My understanding is evident, not any offence.  (In fact, the bit about "bitter"
is more aimed towards other(s).)

Quote
Neither the Clove nor the Truckers will serve in the situation the Floating Constrictor was designed to solve.
Actually, they can.  I explained the adaptation of the latter, above.
As for the Clove, one can draw it up and while holding the tension put in
an Overhand of the ends such that they can be tightened down to lock
'a la Reef knot against the crossing part of the Clove.  Which structure
was shown mistakenly by Verrill in 1917(?) as his interpretation of Bowling's
or one of Bowling's echoers' verbal description of the Constrictor!  Try it.
But it, too, leaves one drawing out both ends, with one to chop or toss
along with the trash, if working with some ball of twine (although for light
stuff one could walk the knotted part around until one end was short).
 -- in some cases, anyway (though not so completely generally, binding across
pure space), such as a cluster of 3/4" ropes with cord (just tried).

Quote
But by all means tell me how the Sheepshank is no good either because it doesn't hold a a 1 inch piece of PVC.
Now you're tossing out non sequiturs.  Slow down!
Pipe or no pipe, that was a check of the nipping loop's grip,
and as I stated, I found it wanting.  Will you fare better with less
object surface?  -- yes, likely so, but the PVC is slick and should see force
making it to the nipping loop; I didn't see enough to give me great
confidence in the structure, that's all I said.
As for the Sheepshank, I continue to puzzle over its supposed duties;
many books now present it even admitting it has no use.  (Some years
back there was a debate over that here which went sour, missing some
obvious points.)

Quote
You ridicule the application of high force.
No, not at all; rather, I point to it as a necessary aspect to overcome
friction, that's all -- friction of the material against the object, and of
the material against itself, which will ultimately enable the self-locking.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 25, 2009, 11:16:00 AM
Oh dear, you have gone and riled the guard dog !!  Please step away and stop annoying him, the barking only upsets the neighbours.  Next time you come, please make sure to bring a tasty treat and he might just grow to like you.  He really is a sweetie, but does love to eat the Newbies.

Now to your knot  ----   WOW  WOW and treble WOW 

No I have not seen it before, but Dan is our expert on this, and I think you have your answer, he doesn't seem to have come across it before either.

The name -- sorry, way off the mark --  there is nothing Constrictoresque about this baby at all, more a 'floating monoshank', seriously though, a name is important and will influence how well it catches on.  Without doubt, I will use it and will teach it, but it needs a catchy name - 'Grabber' or 'Load Lock' - but it's your knot so you choose, just please don't associate it with the Constrictor with which its only similarity is the two load wraps.

You clearly have been working with this beauty for some time and understand it well, even down to what loops work and which ones don't (by the way, it is really really easy to tie 'in line', I will explain if you are interested).  I started playing about with it in completely the wrong way, by tying it 'on' something, constricteresque style, and of course it didn't work and was a very poor fastening.  Then by accident, I held the two loops on my fingers with 'The Beast' suspended in free air and Bingo - it worked.  It has a strange action and it took me a while to understand exactly how (why) it works, and I have to say this mechanism is novel. I haven't seen this mode of functionality before.  Most knots rely on compression within the knot to generate the lock, but this beastie relies on elasticity of either the load or the binding to create the lock.  Pull up on the 'ends' (you have got us all twitchy now as to just what to call them !!) and the structure rotates and unlocks, allowing cord to flow through the eye.  Then when tension on the ends is released, the elasticity in the lines or the load rotates the 'eye' and it locks - the greater the load, the greater the lock - Pull, unlock tighten, release, lock.

This is an absolute gem.  Ultra simple to tie - two wraps, twist, feed through the ends and tighten, or make inline and pass over the load.  Easy to remember.  Easy to untie, and so far, I can't find any way for it to spill or degenerate into something dysfunctional.

This really should be published in KM, and for my money you should be in line for some form of recognition from the Guild for bringing this little beauty to light.  I am interested in how you 'found' / 'created' it.  Would you be interested in sharing the details with us?  Are you a member of the IGKT and would you be interested in creating an article for KM?  But first of all - what about a proper name for it please.

Derek
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 25, 2009, 12:49:53 PM
I used the knot today for gluing a chair that came apart. It works wonderfully!
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: alpineer on August 25, 2009, 04:24:39 PM
I kind of like ShepherdShank or RoundShank as a name for this binding knot.

alpineer
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: alpineer on August 25, 2009, 04:57:57 PM
Or,

If found you have reasonable claim as your original intellectual property, and would have your name included in the knot's name, then DahmShank.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: roo on August 25, 2009, 05:08:45 PM
Gleipnir,

I'm not sure how to go about evaluating what you have.  So I'll just ask a question about your "open air" binder:

When or why would I use the mechanism you show instead of a Versatackle, for example?

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/Versatackle.html
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 25, 2009, 05:26:59 PM
Why sully the structure with a name reminiscent of something generally regarded
as useless -- viz., the Sheepshank?

"OneGoodTurn" or --as it's a nipping turn-- "TurNip" come to my mind.

A problem though is that names seemingly descriptive can soon be fount to
be as apt for some other, similar structure.  E.g., I've used the roundturn for
a tensioner envisioned for use in lobster pots, to hold the entry-cone netting
(or opener ring in such netting) tautly in place; either term could apply to
that, as well (though not so well in the "ONE...", as there is more than the
turn to it).

I still find the dble-turn version secure if not more so, btw -- just tried in
3/4" soft-laid PP around the back of a desk chair.  And it still takes some
good hauling to deliver tension/force to the nipping loop(s), so using this
around hard edges (lumber) will be difficult or take some working.  I should
think that Inkanyezi would have tickled this problem with the size of his
cordage around the chair, though perhaps the hard smoothness of that
facilitated force transfer.

Roo asks "When would I use ... vs Versatackle?"
I think that Inkanyezi's application shows one case:  the TurNip is simpler,
and the tensioning is evenly distributed to each end.  But, yes, other
mechanisms can work.
(In the V. one will have tension on the haul end plus tension on the
immediate continuation of that putting that combined tension into
the side going away (if pulling leftwards to tighten, the right side will
feel the rough double the hauling force, during tightening (when
the free haul-end bears tension).  -- bit of an imbalance.)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: roo on August 25, 2009, 05:37:42 PM
-- bit of an imbalance.)

So I sometimes find my other hand grabbing the other half of the Versatacle.  It usually suffices, especially as the load increases and friction starts putting the brakes on things.

If one wanted, two on-the-bight loops could be used so that a free end of rope is available on both the right and left side to balance the Versatackle.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 25, 2009, 06:25:48 PM
I tensioned from both sides, with levarage with the marlingspikes. I didn't appreciate that there was much friction from the turns over the back of the chair, but there was some slippage when the knot set itself. Maybe two turns might help that. I made the knot in the bight and passed it over the back of the chair. I strapped the chair in two more places, but I couldn't pass it over there, so I used Spanish windlasses. However, it seems as this knot works quite as well, and it might perhaps be combined with a Spanish windlass on the parts that go behind the chair if more tension is needed.

I think a clever invention regarding the way of tying might be next to come, preferrably with double turns. I give my kudos to the discoverer of this knot.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 25, 2009, 06:45:01 PM
Gleipnir might perhaps be a good name for the knot, although it would be nice to attribute it to the name of the discoverer/inventor. The Vikings had names for everything, and in the tale about Fenrir, Gleipnir is the fetter with which they bound the wolf so that he could not escape.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 25, 2009, 11:50:33 PM
Out of curiosity, I tried it with double turns and a Spanish windlass on the two parts behind, and I tensioned it as much as I dared; tensioning more might break something. When I hammer somewhat on it it gives out a high pitched "ping". The cord makes a slight impression into the wood. There is absolutely no slip.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 26, 2009, 03:40:43 AM
Out of curiosity, I tried it with double turns and a Spanish windlass on the two parts behind, and I tensioned it as much as I dared; tensioning more might break something. When I hammer somewhat on it it gives out a high pitched "ping". The cord makes a slight impression into the wood. There is absolutely no slip.
Which is as G. claimed; now, he also claimed that if those TWO turns were
a single double turn (interesting wording, that, eh!), it would lack grip.
This is contrary my experience.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 26, 2009, 07:34:27 AM
I tried with two turns, but then the double turn is like drawing the ends through a pipe, it won't twist back under tension, as the double turns provide leverage, and friction in the remaining elbow will decrease the nip of the turns. It becomes more difficult to set, and the nip seems poorer. I was able to set the knot, but it is more difficult. I'd say that doubling the turn does not improve the knot. However two or more spaced turns increase grip, although they also increase resistance to tensioning.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Sweeney on August 26, 2009, 08:18:48 AM
I tried this last night as a bit of a last resort. I have 8 roughly one foot long pieces of ex-curtain pole each one is round cross section and about an inch diameter. The pole was waxed before I cut it up (and I haven't got round to degreasing it) so holding this heavy lump together to carry it has proved frustrating; a constrictor won't grip properly and alternatives are difficult on this slippery (and heavy) bundle. So I tried this knot using a trainer shoe lace which has some elasticity (and happened to be handy!) and a piece of 2mm cord again with stretch. To start off I used a bit of old string and a reef knot just to hold the bundle roughly together and then applied 2 fastenings with a single nipping loop each. It is holding really well - so much so it is difficult to slide one rod from the bundle (before they all fell on the floor as soon as I picked it up). Its uses may be limited but I think this knot has a niche market where it scores highly.

Barry

PS you may wonder why on earth I want to carry round 8 lumps of wood.................!
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: roo on August 26, 2009, 03:02:55 PM
Yesterday, I did a quick and dirty test around a bathroom scale (non-convex surface, but not open air).  I only had a few minutes, so the results are equally quick and dirty.  The rope wasn't particularly slick.

The mechanism in question had roughly half the tension of a Verstackle.  Both methods retained roughly half of their peak pulling tension.

Then, on to my favorite method of bundling sticks:  Running loop around bundle (or a hitch on an anchor point), and roll up the bundle as you compress the load and pull the line, allowing friction to hold previous wraps' tension.  It spreads the compression out over the whole bundle, but uses more line (which isn't a big concern with twine).  Then I finish with a utilitarian hitch (half-hitch based), since it's just sticks.  With not too many wraps, this method also achieved more tension than the mechanism in question.

This isn't a condemnation.  Just an observation.  If I was not interested in a lot of tension, but in simplicity, I might use a Trucker's (single loop) setup instead of the mechanism in question.  

It may be worthwhile for the original poster to do some open air tests with a hanging scale.  
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 26, 2009, 05:43:11 PM
Barry,
your example should be put under my separate and more general thread on
binding structures; and that initial structure could serve you.  BUT,
your case of multiple cylindrical objects makes a good contrast to my
photographed binding of square lumber:  it would be frustrating to try
to implement my binder with a collection that was not *sitting still*,
in neat order; rather, Roo suggests a method to work with such dynamic
cases, among various.  Conceivably, an overall method might even entail
an iteration between something done quickly just to roughly *settle*
the material, and then a better binding put on for the final securing.
Again, in your case, that formed-in-hand-in-the-bight sort of inversion
of Dahm's structure could be fit around the quickly bound set of things,
once they indeed got so bound.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 26, 2009, 06:03:49 PM
I tried with two turns, but then the double turn is like drawing the ends through a pipe,
it won't twist back under tension, as the double turns provide leverage,
and friction in the remaining elbow will decrease the nip of the turns.
It becomes more difficult to set, and the nip seems poorer.
Interesting.  I'd post a photo, but am not eager to click-&-download for
just that.
As what I just did, upon reading this report, it to run some 5/16" (hard
to figure hollow-braid size) fairly slick (but collected from the Wild)
PP hollow-braid (quite compressible cross section) through an oval
'biner (very smooth, round, 1cm dia) and a slightly fatter hook of
a 5:1 pulley, running the ends through a double turn of the continuous
side of the simple loop (two strands bearing load).  I tightened it pretty
easily, and then stood on the pulley.
NOW, "5:1" is TMA, but as it's a quite lousy (one bad sheave) pulley,
let's chop actual MA by half:  5x180=900#/2 ~=> 400# say.
AND, after initial loading, I tightened the loop further (just hands),
and stood upon it again.  There was little slippage (the sort of yield
that might better be seen as a setting-settling of material.

This hollowbraid flattens in the double loop, to a nipping width
of about 3/4"-2cm.  Your 3-strand rope looks to be rather firm
and round (and *grooved*).   => YMMV

!?

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: lcurious on August 27, 2009, 04:34:56 PM

I think your knot is quite brilliant!! It is presently holding together my bundles of hedge clippings etc. awaiting the garbage truck.


There is only one name for it. Its a    -   GLEIPNIR  -
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: roo on August 27, 2009, 05:18:49 PM
It is presently holding together my bundles of hedge clippings etc. awaiting the garbage truck.

Be careful.  If the garbage guy grabs certain parts of the twine, it will cause the bundle to fall apart.  Finishing with a tuck or two of the ends would help
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 27, 2009, 05:43:10 PM
I was using it for the third time today for a real job. The Media Markt had remodeled the store and there were special reopening offers. I needed a new vacuum cleaner, and the actual store is about 25 miles away and I don't have a car. So I went there on bicycle, bought the vacuum cleaner and tied it to the bike with two turns as it's a very slippery PP cord. It held for 25 miles without the slightest slip, and part of the way is cobblestone. I really like this knot, it is really the answer to a few needs.

The pictures were taken after I got home.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: roo on August 27, 2009, 05:58:11 PM
I needed a new vacuum cleaner, and the actual store is about 25 miles away and I don't have a car. So I went there on bicycle, bought the vacuum cleaner and...

 :o
Maybe you can talk a friend, neighbor, or relative into giving you a lift sometime. :)
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 27, 2009, 06:36:35 PM
Cycling is healthy. I had the possibility to use the underground, but I don't mind going a few miles on bicycle. And it's on the other side of the town, which is not car-friendly.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 27, 2009, 07:48:31 PM
Cycling is healthy ... I don't mind going a few miles on bicycle.
I.e., the ride was not too short to be worthwhile!    ;D
Indeed!

 :)

Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 28, 2009, 01:56:58 AM
Thanks for the kind words.  IF it does turn out that this is a new knot, then I guess I will need to give serious thought to the naming issue.

As some of the early responses noticed, my command of knot terminology is somewhat limited.

I would appreciate any assistance on offer.


Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: The Fly on August 28, 2009, 06:27:16 PM
I tied that Dahm knot around a bundle of flattened cardboard this morning with twine--worked beautifully! The ratcheting effect is like magic.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 28, 2009, 07:56:13 PM
When I tied it on the bike, I used a slightly different form, a variation, where I took the twine around the rack on each side and then back. This form of the knot can of course be used for pulling any two things together. It could also be used in this way to complement a versa-tackle.

I also found that a simple way to tie the knot is to first pass one turn and have a sufficiently long end for the second turn, then making a half hitch around the standing part and continuing with the next turn and reeve the end through that hitch, which is the middle after the second turn.

I am quite confident that this knot will become a classic. It's one of the most useful knots that I have seen.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: roo on August 28, 2009, 08:48:02 PM
When I tied it on the bike, I used a slightly different form, a variation, where I took the twine around the rack on each side and then back. This form of the knot can of course be used for pulling any two things together. It could also be used in this way to complement a versa-tackle.

I also found that a simple way to tie the knot is to first pass one turn and have a sufficiently long end for the second turn, then making a half hitch around the standing part and continuing with the next turn and reeve the end through that hitch, which is the middle after the second turn.

I am quite confident that this knot will become a classic. It's one of the most useful knots that I have seen.

Thanks for mentioning the variation.  One thing that bothers me about this overall mechanism is the same thing that bothers me about another tensioner someone asked me to show on my site some time ago.  It works on a similar principle:

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/guyline.html

As I note, if for some unforeseen reason, the legs are unevenly loaded such that the adjustable side sees even a little more load, the thing slips.  I've alluded to the issue before in this thread, but I get the feeling that people won't be aware of this issue and won't take steps to guard against it.  People don't like to read the fine print.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 28, 2009, 08:53:51 PM
When I tied it on the bike, I used a slightly different form, a variation, where I took the twine around the rack on each side and then back. This form of the knot can of course be used for pulling any two things together. It could also be used in this way to complement a versa-tackle.

I also found that a simple way to tie the knot is to first pass one turn and have a sufficiently long end for the second turn, then making a half hitch around the standing part and continuing with the next turn and reeve the end through that hitch, which is the middle after the second turn.

I am quite confident that this knot will become a classic. It's one of the most useful knots that I have seen.

If I'm understanding your description correctly, I have a couple comments:

1.  It sounds like you are describing making a half hitch rather than a simple twisted loop in the middle.  This can be done.  And I actually tried this technique first when developing the knot.  In my experience it suffers from a some problems.  First as the tension on the system increases, the half hitch begins to tighten and BITE into the loose ends, but has no mechanism to relax when the loose ends are pulled apart when trying to further increase the tension in the system.  This results in the knot being more or less self limiting in terms of the tension it as able to absorb as at a certain point the half hitch has grabbed the ends so tightly that you simply cannot pull anymore through.  This is usually less tension than you would have otherwise been able to achieve.  Also, if at this point the load shifts creating slack in the system, it will be rather difficult to re-tension as the half hitch has too firm a grip on the ends.  This knot will also be much more difficult to un-tie for the same reason.  Though in twine this is not a serious concern since it can simply cut and discarded.  If the issue you are trying to address is an improvement in the security of the knot, then I would suggest half hitches either between the two ends in the case of a single twisted loop structure, or between the loose ends and the outside double loops outside the last twisted loop in each side of the multi-wisted loop structure.

2.  I'm not sure but I think you are describing having the two loops following different paths in your case around two separate objects.  I have not tried it around two separate objects each looped separately.  However I have tried it with a cross tied on a rectangular package.  There are two ways I have done this.  Suppose you have a box oriented on the compass.  Pass the rope going east and west around the box.  Where the rope ends meet underneath have the cross have each make a right angles such that they come back up on the north and south sides.  Form the twist the the middle on top and pass through as before.  Alternatively suppose you start at the middle on top with a right angle (this is where the twist will be made) such that the ends go to the north and east, then pass under the box and cross each other at right angles coming back up on the west and south.  When the ends meet the middle right angle, form the twist and pass through as before.

While these forms of wrapping a box works, I find the knot to be far less secure than simply making two separate knots.  One circumnavigating east/west and the other running north/south.  But I am interested to see your results.  I will also have to try making it a figure eight with the loops passing around separate objects.  That sound interesting.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 28, 2009, 09:21:53 PM
The "half hitch" is merely the same twisted loop when the knot is finished. It is just another way of forming the same structure. When it is impractical to reeve one of the ends through the twisted loop, the knot can be formed in this way; i.e. first a full turn around the object (or as in the bicycle rack case, back and forth), with a sufficiently long end to make another pass, and then the end is half-hitched around the standing part and the second turn is taken and the end rove through the HH. There are surely other ways of doing it, but I found it practical to use that method instead of reeving almost the whole length through the eye formed by the twisted loop. When I glued the chair, I simply pulled the whole coil of rope through that bight.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 28, 2009, 09:35:49 PM
As I note, if for some unforeseen reason, the legs are unevenly loaded such that the adjustable side sees even a little more load, the thing slips.  I've alluded to the issue before in this thread, but I get the feeling that people won't be aware of this issue and won't take steps to guard against it.  People don't like to read the fine print.

I completely agree with this.  Differential tension on the two loops will cause the knot to release.  In fact this is how it is untied.  I have found that if you are careful to have both loops follow the same path then the risk of differential tension is greatly diminished.  I find this is rarely a problem however.

What I have found to be a concern is when the system goes through intermittent slack and tightening such as a shifting load or something blowing in the wind.  This is the same problem found with the Sheepshank which uses the same looped technique to create BITE.  (Gosh, I hope I'm not misusing nor misspelling BITE this time.)

For increased security I recommend half hitches.  Again my powers of description are sorely lacking.  I apologize.  But if the knot has been tied with a single twisted loop then forming half hitches or a square knot is fairly simple.  When it has been tied with multiple twisted loops this is not possible.  Attempting to tie a square knot between the ends will result in drawing the twisted loops together which WILL weaken them as they are meant to operate independently.  In this case I recommend forming a half hitch between one of the loose ends and the the double circumnavigating loops at the point just where this loose end emerges from the last twisted loop.  And then repeating with the other loose end at the other end just where it emerges from its last twisted loop.

Perhaps there is a better method than half hitches of securing the knot.  Half hitches are simple and work.  Though I seldom bother to use them at all.  As I have used this knot the last 10 years, I have had so few incidents of slippage that I have grown complacent perhaps.  When there is slippage it is generally due to using slippery material like the stuff they give away free at big box stores for tieing their merchandise to the top of your car.  I have used it innumerable times in this situation.  When using this twine I tend to use 2 or 3 twisted loops, but again seldom bother with the half hitches, it depends on the situation.

Adding this security is not without a price however.  The obvious one is that it is more difficult to untie.  But perhaps more problematic is that if the load shifts there is NO way to re-tension without undoing the half hitches.  While if left "unsecured" a simple tug will retention.  Again I find with careful planning for load balance, and drawing very tightly, and with multiple twisted loops as needed, that the additional security is not necessary.

When life and limb are at issue you of course can not be too careful.  I might use both, some tied with half hitch security and some not.  And use many times more than I thought was necessary.  As the Romans used to say "Anything worth doing, is worth overdoing."

Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Gleipnir on August 29, 2009, 03:29:42 AM
The "half hitch" is merely the same twisted loop when the knot is finished. It is just another way of forming the same structure. When it is impractical to reeve one of the ends through the twisted loop, the knot can be formed in this way; i.e. first a full turn around the object (or as in the bicycle rack case, back and forth), with a sufficiently long end to make another pass, and then the end is half-hitched around the standing part and the second turn is taken and the end rove through the HH. There are surely other ways of doing it, but I found it practical to use that method instead of reeving almost the whole length through the eye formed by the twisted loop. When I glued the chair, I simply pulled the whole coil of rope through that bight.

Ack.  My understanding of these terms is so poor, I'm going to need some time to tease out how this works.  Is there any chance I could get a picture?  Thanks.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 29, 2009, 08:42:30 AM
Oh, this is the way I do it:


Pulling in line with the turns decreases the nip by twisting the HH to right angles, and releasing equalizes tension and the HH twists back to hold the nip.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: alpineer on August 29, 2009, 11:58:08 AM
re: Knot's Naming
ShepherdShank> sullies knot's reputation by association with SheepShank
TurNip> kills knot's use outright by association with a vegetable not liked by many
GLEIPNIR gets my vote. (How do you pronounce it?)

alpineer
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 29, 2009, 12:06:00 PM
GLEIPNIR gets my vote. (How do you pronounce it?)

The accent in Norwegian or Swedish is difficult to acquire, but if you think its vowels somewhat similar to the English word "sailing", you might get the hang of it. If you can also stress the first syllable, you get it right.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: alpineer on August 29, 2009, 12:15:56 PM
Inkanyezi,

I like your method of tying. :)
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 29, 2009, 12:20:26 PM
And I am beginning to love this knot. For its beautiful simplicity and functional holding power.

I have also shown it to a couple of friends, and their reaction is similar, WOW, WOW, WOW!
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: alpineer on August 29, 2009, 12:26:25 PM
GLEIPNIR gets my vote. (How do you pronounce it?)

The accent in Norwegian or Swedish is difficult to acquire, but if you think its vowels somewhat similar to the English word "sailing", you might get the hang of it. If you can also stress the first syllable, you get it right.

Thanks Inkanyezi. Could you post a soundbite? ;D
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 29, 2009, 01:26:50 PM
I didn't have a decent mike, so I took it on the laptop's built-in that doesn't work very well...

Anyway I put it at http://web.comhem.se/~u77479609/Gleipnir.wav

There are alternative pronunciations, you need not necessarily stress the first syllable.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: WebAdmin on August 30, 2009, 12:29:15 AM
Hello Gleipnir,

I was trying to follow your Picasa link, but it doesn't seem to want to work for me.  Please may I ask if I could have the photos on email?  I'd very much like to add this knot to my limited repertoire :)

Have you considered publishing your knot in Knotting Matters?  If you check with Lindsey (Squarerigger) it would give you the entire membership to search for verification that this is a previously unknown knot.

I'm too amateur myself to be well up on naming things, but if I understand the conversation correctly, this is a hitch because it holds things?  I would say Gleipnir Hitch would be a good name.

Regards

Glenys
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 30, 2009, 07:37:22 PM
Quote
While these forms of wrapping a box works, I find the knot to be far less secure than simply
making two separate knots.  One circumnavigating east/west and the other running north/south.

Yes, because in this case, loading in certain directions bears against
only a tensioning strand, and thus pulls it out w/no consequent
increase in the turn's nip.  Although, OTOH, there is some appeal in
the tensioning part of this tying, in that the pulling of the ends gives
direct tensioning/draw upon the nipping turn (turNip), as the ends
of all parts where they bend around the box could here be nailed
in place at that point -- the tensioning happens of parts entirely,
immediately, on the box face.

Which is my continued problem with liking this presented turNip structure
(Alpineer, food tastes need help; but "turNip" can refer to the effective
binding structure, NOT to this particular implementation using it -- fair enuff?)
--:  I find WAY too much friction in the path of reaching the turNip from
the ends -- i.p., going around FOUR corners (top left, bottom left, bottom
right, top right & the reverse for the other end).
So, maybe re the flattened cardboard relative dia. of twine and firm
smoothness of cardboard helped; and with the bike-mount, I'm still
surprised, though similar considerations must've been in play.  On my
pulley & 'biner loading, of course, there were just those two, smooth
bending surfaces (and largely the proof there was of holding imparted
force, more than gaining and holding gained tension).

I just tried 3/8" laid rope around some books, much like Inkanyezi's photos
(which I think show 5/16" or smaller dia. rope); there was just no good
transmission of hauling tension around the books into the turNiPart.  boo.

So, I've tried a structure similar to one I dreamed up for lobster-pot,
entry-net-cone tensioning (thin cords pull out taut/open netting cones
into which lobsters move, seeking the bait).  In that, one begins with a
Girth Hitch to inner anchorage part of the trap, then on a short end one
ties a stopper knot, and the parallel line makes the turNip around this
must before the knot, and continues through the netting ring and back
through the turNip:  hauling on the end rolls the turNip until it
firm abutts the stopper and tightens around the end pulled through it;
finish with HHitches or stopper the end.
Consider:  I read that an oval 'biner has an efficiency of 70% (mind you,
though, I just suspended 50# opposed by 25# in 8mm kernmantle and
IT HELD STEADY, suggesting 0.5 efficiency thus), so how good can the
corners of many objects be, compared to that (180deg vs. 90deg bending)?
At 0.7, 35# hauling tension amounts to 9# or so coming into the turNip
-- not a lot of help, there.

For this general binding, with the design goal being to bring hauling
tension more immediately into the turNip, I have tried this:

[for objects with flat surfaces]

1) place a bight near one surface edge and take both legs away,
back around the object,

2) bringing one end all the way back to turn through the bight,
and
3) into a turNip formed in itself (which one could form in the same
capsize-a-half-hitch method used in the bowline quick-tying);
4) bring the other (shortened to about this length, ideally) end
through the turNip in the opposite direction (as per Gleipnir binding),
and
5) tie a HHitch with this 2nd end around the first, or just put a stopper
in it (alternatively, leave it unsecured beyond the turNipping).

And now one hauls on just ONE end, which "2-to-1" pulls on the
initially formed bight of material going around the object corner,
which "2-to-1" line's anchoring is the turNip -- QED, getting tension
near immediately, mediated only by the friction in the bight.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re tying the Dahm hitch, take the tied stucture and gradually capsize
it in order to reveal a perhaps better way of forming it via capsizing.
I read Inkanyezi to have done this sort of capsizing but with only one
end, needing yet to reeve an end through the turNip; one should be
able to do it with both ends, hauling jointly on them to first capsize
/form the turNip and then immediately continue tensioning it all.

Given the points about frictional resistance, above, the imparting of
the turNip via capsizing should help consume any slack in that part,
giving a good beginning tension hoped to be increased (but, as I
note, problematic in getting force fed to it).  I.e., putting a turNip
into a previously straight line will necessarily shorten it, tighten it.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: asemery on September 01, 2009, 08:24:04 PM
I have been reading this thread with interest and today used "the knot" to cinch up a coil of garden hose.  It works well, no slippage and it does not collapse the hose.  Thanks.  Tony
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on September 01, 2009, 09:48:05 PM
I have used it for tying things to the bicycle rack a few times more now, but with shock-cord. It slips out rather easily, if one does not equalize pull on all parts. It works best with two twists in that material. I find the half hitch method simpler than the twist a bight method, particularly when making more than one "turNip". To even out the tension, I make the two nips on top of the load, then after pulling tight, I grab it over the knots and move it a few times back and forth. Then it sits fine and does not slip any more.

Just as with any new technique, one has to learn how to use it.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 02, 2009, 03:07:33 AM
This discussion has motivated me to find the bits of play rope recording
some turNip sort of tensioner I'd fiddled last year or so, still yet to
record (in pen on paper, vs. tying up cordage), along with so much.
But now, a photo and record here, at least.

The structure is pretty simple, and must've followed from some musing
about some commercial-fishing structures I'd seen.  With an eyeknot
having a long tail, form a round turn in the eye and run the tail through
that to go around whatever needs to be pulled tight (S.Part of eye being
anchored in opposition), and return the tail to again pass through the
round turn in the eye in the same direction as first done.  So,
now one hauls on the end, and the round turn tightens to nip it.

For illustration purposes, I locked a white nylon solid braid cord
onto the tail of the eye knot, and that thus is what I've run through
the red PP cord's round turn.  The eye knot is up, out of view.

--dl*
====

postscript (edit) :  I should remark that the attachment of the white cord
to the red is the briefest snood (gangion) hitch I've found -- rope run
through the lay of the object-rope and then Half-Hitched.  I think I've
seen the reverse, as well (or perhaps found only one, and am confused),
where the rope makes a turn and the end is taken over the S.Part and
immediately tucked through the lay (and can then be hog-ringed to
the S.Part).   Ah, ... my notes:  I did find that shown, and its end
was tucked back into the S.Part (impossible here w/solid braid) twice.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Mike on September 08, 2009, 02:18:59 AM
i am not able to get the knot to grip very well in 550 cord.    I did, however, find another way to tie it.   It is simply a clove hitch with the sides reversed.   Just make a standard clove hitch, and then bring one side around the other side.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on September 08, 2009, 07:55:54 AM
i am not able to get the knot to grip very well in 550 cord.    I did, however, find another way to tie it.   It is simply a clove hitch with the sides reversed.   Just make a standard clove hitch, and then bring one side around the other side.

I don't find any problems in getting a grip with paracord. When tying in paracord, if the cord is just long enough, i.e. the object(s) sufficiently large, there will be no problem to get it to grip. Mind that 550 cord needs more than 500 pounds tension for 30% elongation; a thinner paracord might be a better choice for small objects.  550 cord might not have enough elasticity for tying around a small object that is not resilient enough. The nip relies heavily on resilience, as all parts must have equal tension for the knot to hold. Very elastic cord, as shock cord, can capsize if there is too much tension on the center part, and too little tension on the center part will allow slippage in any material.

Your way of tying is simple when the knot can be passed over a rather small object, like for closing a sack, but it is unfeasible for larger ogjects and situations where an end of the object is not accessible.

I'm getting used to this knot and its behaviour, and I have already used it in several real life situations. Like any knot, it has to be learned, so that you understand its virtues as well as its limitations.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 09, 2009, 09:46:34 PM
i am not able to get the knot to grip very well in 550 cord.    I did, however, find another way to tie it. ...

Good Mike.  NB, you could've found that method on p.2 of this thread
-- to wit:
Quote
Here's another twist on the structure, tying in the bight (which, yes, will
not suit many tasks):  form a Clove Hitch but spread flat and such
that the crossing part is generally perpendicular to the ends; take one
side/loop and rotate it around 360deg back into position -- thereby
putting in this "floating" nipping loop in the crossing part, and sort
of crossing the ends 'a la Constrictor.  This structure inverts the central
loop (it points down into bound area rather than up away from it).
It's a quick method of making a similar binding structure for cases in
which the binding material can be put around some (likely known)
collection of objects -- set of stakes or paddles, e.g..

 ;)

Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Mike on September 10, 2009, 12:09:47 AM
i am not able to get the knot to grip very well in 550 cord.    I did, however, find another way to tie it. ...

Good Mike.  NB, you could've found that method on p.2 of this thread
-- to wit:
Quote
Here's another twist on the structure, tying in the bight (which, yes, will
not suit many tasks):  form a Clove Hitch but spread flat and such
that the crossing part is generally perpendicular to the ends; take one
side/loop and rotate it around 360deg back into position -- thereby
putting in this "floating" nipping loop in the crossing part, and sort
of crossing the ends 'a la Constrictor.  This structure inverts the central
loop (it points down into bound area rather than up away from it).
It's a quick method of making a similar binding structure for cases in
which the binding material can be put around some (likely known)
collection of objects -- set of stakes or paddles, e.g..

 ;)




 :-[   I guess I need to slow down my speed reading.   I missed that post.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on September 13, 2009, 08:34:53 PM
The similarity with the sheepshank has been pointed out, but I find it a lot more interesting to see its relationship with the bowline.

The question has been raised whether "capsizing" the bowline is deliberate, and although I think it is not, the most common form in which we see the bownline is with the bight drawn out, half capsized, in a form rather different from the one that is tought, and very different from the sheet bend knot form.

When "capsized", the round turn, or rather the elusive half hitch that nips the knot, is in line with the pulling force, exactly as in the Gleipnir binder. I demonstrate it here below with a bowline tied in 4 mm cord, where I have attached a monkeywrench with a carabiner, so that it is under load.


I think this new knot casts new light on the bowline and why it is such a good knot, as well as pointing out why a half hitch can be used for hanging a coil or in the sheepshank. The sheepshank might be a useless knot, but there is something to learn from it, something that tells us more about how many common knots work. I'm thankful to Gleipnir for pointing it out.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 13, 2009, 11:10:09 PM
When "capsized", the round turn, or rather the elusive half hitch that nips the knot, is in line with the pulling force, exactly as in the Gleipnir binder.

I'd say not "exactly":  for the TurNip of Gleipnir's structure is held more in the
half-hitch orientation by virtue of each end's un-ending side, which sustains
tension resisting the opening of the Half-hitch into Round Turn form.  Without
such resistance, the TurNip is a fickle thing -- YMMV with material, et cetera.

The Bowline with such a hard turn in it I'm guessing is one that gives a lower
reading then were the bending around the tail significant.  But these details
remain to see deliberate testing.

--dl*
=====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on September 14, 2009, 04:19:58 AM
Of course it is fickle when the bight that hugs the SP is removed, security then is nigh to nil, no better than the balancing pole hitch, but I did try putting more load on it, and it still holds as long as both legs are loaded.

And in the Gleipnir, the end that comes from the opposite end helps to hold the HH from untwisting, as well as the bight hugging the SP does in the bowline. What I wanted to show is the relationship, and how maybe some new light is shed on the mechanism that makes the bowline work. Its 'capsized' form is the one most often seen when it has taken some strain after seeing some use. Its HH then is similar to the Gleipnir HH, with the force mainly in line with the turn.

Maybe this deviation from the original theme is more akin to knot theory than practical knots, but nevertheless, I put it in the Gleipnir thread for the similarity, which might help us understand how knots work.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: lcurious on September 15, 2009, 04:40:21 PM

How does one  get to see your pictures??
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on September 16, 2009, 07:50:15 AM

How does one  get to see your pictures??

You might have to enable scripts in your browser to see the pictures, but in most browsers you should see miniatures of the images in the post, and clicking on them should open a larger popup. Under the picture also is a text link with the image name, and it can be downloaded by right-clicking.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 17, 2009, 05:57:36 AM
... .   With an eyeknot having a long tail, form a round turn in the eye and run
the tail through that to go around whatever needs to be pulled tight (S.Part
of eye being anchored in opposition), and return the tail to again pass through
the round turn in the eye in the same direction as first done.
So, now one hauls on the end, and the round turn tightens to nip it.
For illustration purposes, I locked a white nylon solid braid cord
onto the tail of the eye knot, and that thus is what I've run through
the red PP cord's round turn.  The eye knot is up, out of view.

I got to employ both Gleipnir's binding (with rather short run, to bind together
two shelving sides, for temporary support while installing X brace), and also
a variation of the one shown here, with the TurNip in an eye knot.
But unlike what I'd done previously with this eye knot where I used its
end running long out & back, the S.Part anchored separately, I used the
eye with TurNip in one end of a long loop/grommet with the opposite
side running through it en route to a remote anchorage, where the cord
turned and returned through the TurNip, then to become a hauling end
for that mythical Two-to-One (theoretcially more, 3:1, here?) mechanical
advantage, all the while being directly nipped and directly tensioning that
nip -- that is the point!  -- worked great, while the Gleipnir binder
had the problems previously experienced, where the TurNip is too far
removed (by bends of material around corners, here) from the direct
input of force to quickly gain increased binding effect; it worked for
me, in quite frictive old marine kernmantle sheath (?! -- an odd find),
but showed the difficulty in gaining nipping power.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 18, 2009, 05:03:41 AM
Attached is a photo of the TurNip-in-Eye structure that I used in tensioning
some shelving frames (to hold in place while a metal X brace was installed).
This structure will give stronger nip in cases where the material cannot flow
around the object and tighten the TurNip so well.

Image explanation:  the 3/16" solid braid nylon(?) cord (soft, flexible) is
run through some half-inch thin polyester cable-hauling webbing secured
to the lower left side of the shelf, in a sling, and an end from this point
forms a Myrtle/Quick Bowline with a round turn (TurNip) around the other
side, which side reaches up to the shelf's top-right post and comes around
that smooth surface back to enter the TurNip from the opposite side, end
pointing upwards here.  Haul on the end to tighten the long loop formed
and the TurNip's grip as well; the main pull is on the eye knot side.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on October 27, 2009, 06:29:59 AM
On the Gleipnir, if one shrinks the one of the two loops around the object, one gets the Eskimo bowline,

 ???  You'll have to do better than this, for, no, just collapsing either loop
around the object (by which I mean remove the object, pull on one end
-- what else is there ... ?) gets one a nothing, or a form of "Fig.10".

Quote
( which works better than the standard bowline when the loop is stretched wide

Hmmm, the bowline works rather well, wide; greatly wide is something that
one should prefer to avoid, but if the material's got the strength, it can be
done.

Quote
The zipper was invented between 1905 and 1915, AFTER the special or the general theory of relativity!

Now there are two achievements of mankind to contemplate together!

 :D
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on November 01, 2009, 06:40:09 PM
If I'd do any guesswork on precedence, the mesh knot for netting probably would be preceding, as a historically more fundamental knot, than both the bowline and the sheet bend, which both might be derived from the mesh knot.

The fisherman's net is essential for growth of the human society, and it has been invented in all continents, and they all use the same form of knot, which is the basic form with which we make the sheet bend and the bowline. The bowline afterwards, by collapsing, takes its form with the Gleipnir turn, which someone might think is not accidental, but done on purpose. The turn is not the same in the net or in the sheet bend. The reason is that the bowline is loaded on both legs of the loop.

So historically, afaik, there is no former appearance of the Gleipnir, although it is closely related to the bowline after it has 'collapsed', as well as the sheepshank. I think one reason why it is not common would be that anyone accidentally making one would be reluctant to trust such a fickle contraption. We like to add something for security, but the Gleipnir in its basic form will not be improved by an extra half hitch. It relies on tension, and the fact that all legs of the knot bear equal load. It works better if there is slip over the object around which we bind it, and it takes its form by a cooperation of the elasticity of the binding stuff and the bound objects, as well as the slip over what it binds. It should not, however, slip where it is nipped.

I think it is rather a very specialised knot; a knot that takes a specialist, one in the know. It has a distinct minimalistic beauty. It is hard to think of anything simpler that would do the job that it does. It isn't just coincidence that its inventor thinks of it as a constrictor; what it shares with the constrictor is utter simplicity and the ability to hold the tension applied to it. I really love this knot and consider it one very basic knot that explains a lot about what knotting is about. I regard it as one of the most beautiful knots that can be found. And it sure does explain the riddle of the bowline; however, I don't think it relates to the bowline in any other way, than explaining why a 'collapsed' bowline is still an excellent knot.

It's not that it would precede the bowline, but when dissecting the collapsed bowline that has taken its final form, we find the Gleipnir turn, which makes it hold.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on November 02, 2009, 08:24:26 PM
I managed to do the transformation, but it involves one extra step that's missing in the instructions. The "first loop", before collapsing, must also be taken around end B to form the Eskimo bowline. I think the operation is a bit far-fetched, and it does not show any real relationship between those knots.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: DerekSmith on November 03, 2009, 03:12:57 PM
I managed to do the transformation, but it involves one extra step that's missing in the instructions. The "first loop", before collapsing, must also be taken around end B to form the Eskimo bowline. I think the operation is a bit far-fetched, and it does not show any real relationship between those knots.

Well, this has been an interesting post - I have learnt three things;

I have learnt (yet again) to trust my convictions - I have struggled for days to translate the Gleipnir to the Eskimo bwl., yet no matter what variant of interpretation of the instructions I took I only achieved a Reef, a fancy rethreaded Eskimo bwl. or a Non-Knot.  Then thanks to Inkanyenzi, I dread that it is necessary to partially undo the knot by its 'B' end before the translation is possible.  Undoing the 'B' end one step is not simply a matter of collapsing the first loop as claimed, so I feel Dan's protestations and my own failure to be somewhat vindicated.

Second, I have learnt (yet again) that the value of a knot is hugely influenced by the means of creating it.  If the method is clumsy and unmemorable, then the knot is virtually useless, while a less ideal knot that is easy to tie will posses greater utility.  I have always felt that the Eskimo is essentially valueless for this reason.

But third, and by far the most important, I have discovered an easy way of tying a very useful knot.  The knot - yes, it is the Eskimo bwl.  The method - NO it is not the collapsed Gleipnir !! 

Take the end of the rope and pass it around or through whatever you are going to make the loop to, and take the end back to the rope where you want to make the Eskimo.  In the rope tie a simple slipped overhand and poke the end through the slipped loop.  Pull the rope to collapse the slip and to pull the end into a bight, pulling it back into the OH.  As the bight forms, the OH collapses to form the bwl. collar.  It is a stunningly simple method of making the Eskimo bwl. exactly where you want it.

I think I would have to say that this method makes the Eskimo the easiest bwl. to tie.

As the slipped OH is possibly the simplest of knots to make (and therefore possibly amongst the oldest), I think it is reasonable to surmise that the Eskimo was likely to have been the very first bwl. to be discovered, and that the other variants of the basic structure, predominantly the Bowline and the Sheetbend, evolved from it - Not from the Gleipnir as xarax proposed.

I think this method of creating a loop even beats the Constrictor / Myrtle method for speed, and simplicity, and now I can tie the knot so easily, I can even see the utility of the loop legs leaving at 90 degrees instead of parallel.  A part of my barn roof has just been blown off in a storm, and I had to lash a tarp over the damage.  I fed a rope through two adjacent tarp eyes, brought the end back to where I would have made a myrtle, folded a slipped OH, popped in the end and pulled - the resultant Eskimo sat naturally with the two loop legs leaving at a wide angle to the tarp eyes, and the collar left the knot at right angles to the tie down point - the perfect knot for the job and tied so easily even with a high wind flogging the tarp and trying to pull the rope out of my hands.

Thank you xarax for stimulating the thought provoking challenge - I can see that if we can convince you to stay around, we can look forward to having a lot of fun with you.

Derek
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on November 03, 2009, 06:43:02 PM
Forming the Gleipnir in hand, when it shall be passed over an object, like when closing a sack, can be done very quickly by first forming two round turns, then slide the upper round turn to the side and place it below the other, forming a clove hitch, and subsequently repeating this with the turn that now has become the upper one, which will form the Gleipnir. The method is nifty, because there's no reeving to be done, half hitces need not be formed, and there are two sequences that are just repeated; first one round turn, repeat, then slide apart to swap sides and repeat. Although limited in use, because it is done in hand, it is a quick and simple movement. Of course the method of grabbing the line with both hands a bit apart and twisting to form the half hitches, then passing one behind the other is the same thing.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on November 03, 2009, 09:42:03 PM
My rather humble opinion is that these musings around bowlines are wandering far from the subject at hand, the Gleipnir knot.

I am rather convinced that we have seen a first sighting even though there might be some former evidence somewhere about such a knot, but so far, it has not surfaced.

The knot is ingenious, and it lends itself to alterations that adapt it to various tasks. It has real world usage, and for its utter simplicity, it really merits recognition. i haven't however seen Gleipnir himself around for some time, I hope he might put it in KM and get his due credit for what that's worth.

I am really glad to have been around when the matter arose, and the Gleipnir is indeed a very nice addition to the tools at hand.

So I really want to thank Gleipnir, aka mr Dahm for sharing this,
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: DerekSmith on November 03, 2009, 10:24:24 PM
My rather humble opinikon is that these musings around bowlines are wandering far from the subject at hand, the Gleipnir knot.

I am rather convinced that we have seen a first sighting even though there might be some former evidence somewhere about such a knot, but so far, it has not surfaced.

The knot is ingenious, and it lends itself to alterations that adapt it to various tasks. It has real world usage, and for its utter simplicity, it really merits recognition. i haven't however seen Gleipnir himself around for some time, I hope he might put it in KM and get his due credit for what that's worth.

I am really glad to have been arount when the matter arose, and the Gleipnir is indeed a very nice addition to the tools at hand.

So I really want to thank Gleipnir, aka mr Dahm for sharing this,

I agree with your comments  - as I commented back in post #18.  I also hope that Mr. Dahm presents an article on this knot to KM so that the wider IGKT membership gets the chance to learn about it.  So far every comment seems to support its newness and its value.

These latter posts are now moving on to cover the lateral issues of the structure / nature etc of this knot.  I hope that you can agree that they do not in any way damage or demean the comments that have gone before.

@ xarax

Yes I do hold you culpable for the misinformation that led Dan and myself astray.  Your terms involved "snip... have to shrink the one loop around the other snip..."  You made no mention of the 'B' end being included, nor any consideration for the fact that the 'A' and 'B' ends could have been of considerable length.  Indeed, you have ignored the fact that in post #18 I mentioned that this knot could be tied inline, in which case it could not have been transitioned.  Still, you did apologise for your lack of ability to communicate this procedure, so I have to accept the final limitation to be on the parts of the readers and not you and thankfully not Inkanyezi.

The well known method you refer to of using ABOK #529 is in fact using the slipped OH I was referring to.  It is strange that this method, being as you claim a "well known fact in the boating world" that I have not been shown the method before, and I am surprised at this because it is such a slick little method of creating the bowlines - why didn't anyone show me this way instead of the wrist twist or the rabbit tree methods ? ? ? ? Clearly I need to frequent the boating world a little more.

Derek
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on November 03, 2009, 11:14:42 PM
Really OT here, but I'd confirm that the slipknot method is not widely known. I have however worked out my own way of doing it, and I have tought it to firefighters among others. (Situation: you have a rope that you shall tie to your comrade's belt, and you have gloves on, and it's pitch dark and smoke-filled.) And yes, in a way, I'm into boating.

I have a video of it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTApTsLIe1g (in Swedish). The slipknot method is first shown at about 50 seconds into it, and the surprise moment is at the end from about 2 min 33 sec.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on November 04, 2009, 07:13:15 AM
Just when I was going to leave this aggravation undisturbed, as XaraX continued
in denial and unrecognition, I found my/our own -- all of us -- oversights, and, so, ... ::

Well, well, wellllll.  <eureka>

Now --eureka--, I see at last that (1) XaraX is right (if not precise) (!!!)
and (2) there are a host of subtleties on the XaraX transformation(s)!
Details I think best wait for time & CAMERA (of pen-on-paper illustrations) for
full follow-up.  The factorial aspect is here:  multiple ways to twist the turNip,
and various ways to cross the ends through it.  I don't know if some combinations
with different path (twist-A, cross-C = twist-B, cross-D) get equal results yet,
but I think not, trying to think knot ('thinKnot').

whew.

I thought, for a moment, that my simple observation that the Gleipner can collapse to an Eskimo bowline could,
But **The** Gleipnir Binder cannot!  (This reduces to the Overhand, btw.)
The XaraX transformation on it produces my Quick-8.

Yet some Gleipnir version can !
You can check the submitted photo to confirm the first fact;
you --XaraX-- then will know how that differs from your version:
in the twist:  clockwise for G., anti-c. for G'<=XaraX=>Eskimo.
(Xarax's G. reduces to something looking like a Fig.10 (Stevedore) in one
or its symmetric forms; and if the ends crossed just differently there, it IS
this Fig.10.)

So, by page 6-7 we have "Gleipnir" binder(S), "TurNip" structure, and now
"XaraX" transformations of Gleipnirs.

There are versions that can be formed w/o ends; there are a couple ways to get
similar structures, e.g., via transformations of the Clove Hitch (one described by
me and later by Mike; and that one at the mid-way point, with Clove halves just
slid atop/below each other, so turNip is in proper away-from-object orientation;
and I think both such transformations exist for the Constrictor); and there are
other Gleipnir versions that reduce to a knot -- i.p., to an Overhand (and more?),
not to nothing.

XaraX transformations on these various knots can produce the Eskimo Bowline,
the Quick8, the half-nipped Q8, the Anglers Loop (!), and who knows what else.
(If you are not nuts when you start out playing with these --and trying to keep score--,
you soon enough will be!)

 ::)   :o   :-[   :P

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It might do well to see about purging many of the exercises in futility just
preceding this eureka post, as those serve no good purpose.

 - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote
... the higher elite of knots, equal in simplicity and beauty with the Zeppelin bend the
double eight bend, and the bowline ( perhaps I should add the constrictor, but nothing else I guess).
???
To explore this notion will go well Off-Topic, but I hardly see anything so
special about these knots -- perhaps esp. Rosendahl's Zeppelin, which has
a family of interlocked Overhands each worthy of any claim made for it,
or nearly so, depending on knot (i.p., Ashley's Bends #1452 & 1425).
And the Constrictor I think is hyped beyond merit.  I've yet to see it out
In The Wild, though I can accept that various crafts people employ it.

Quote
I also believe that I am one of the few persons [who] now ties his pants with the help of a Gleipnir,

May your necessities not be urgencies.   :D

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on November 05, 2009, 07:07:15 AM
Now and then, I peek through the Ashley Book or Knots, and just now I saw something familiar. Ashley might have been close to discovering the Gleipnir knot, although probably not fully appreciating the HH transforming into the TurNip. The contraption shown in ABoK #160 is closely related to the opened bowline in the third picture in post #64 in this thread.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on November 05, 2009, 08:36:21 AM
While I'm at it, I couldn't help thinking out a possible improvement to the scheme of captain Mullins. Considering the importance of the TurNip and the similarity with the holding power of the bowline, if instead of taking the rabbit turn, a bight is passed up the hole, then the bight may be toggled to the SP, and the resultant knot will be a sibling of the bowline, with the same features for easy adjusting and casting off as the ABoK #160.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on November 05, 2009, 03:22:48 PM
What I see in the Gleipnir as its essential charasteristic is the transition from a half hich into the round turn, which is stopped from further becoming undone by the very same force that holds it tight; the returning end, whether those are two loops around a bunch, or two splayed loops between two objects. The same principle is at work in ABoK #160, although it is not as secure, due to being loaded only from one side. In the Bowline (as well as its sibling shown above), the impediment from further untwisting is the bight that forms a collar around the standing part (or in the toggled variety, the toggle). Very little force is needed to hold the form, and the partially "capsized" bowline is in fact the form that a bowline will inevitably take under strain.  We are only so used to see it in the uncapsized form, that we regard this form as the "true" form of the bowline and its final form an anomality. But we see the bowline in real life so often having this "capsized" form, that the question has been raised whether it is done on purpose. The answer is simple; it's not done on purpose when making the knot. It is the inevitable result of using it.

In Ashley's sketch of the half hitches in the standing part of #160, he has acknowledged the orientation of the half hitches. It is evident that he in part draws what he can see with his eyes. The actual setup is different from what we can expect of modern rope, which is probably not as stiff as those ropes that captain Mullins was using.

But the riddle that the Gleipnir has resolved is the one of the half hitch/TurNip transition. When a coil is hung with a half hitch around a bight at the top or around the coil itself, and in the sheepshank, as well as in the bowline, the half hitch will form the TurNip, and it can save a bit of headache for the boatsman that might think of a capsized bowline as something gone wrong. It's not wrong at all, that's exactly what a bowline looks like. The Gleipnir helped us to understand how tittle force is needed to hold the TurNip from collapsing. We may observe that principle at work in one of our most well-known knots as well.  

And if only Ashley or Mullins had thought of treating the other end of the rope in the same way, they might have come across the evident, that only one HH is needed if both ends are passed through it. But they did not, probably because the Mullins variety served its purpose.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on November 05, 2009, 08:01:15 PM
What I see in the Gleipnir as its essential charasteristic is the transition from a half hich into the round turn, ...

I'm stuck on how/whether/what ... of this distinction between half-hitch & (round) turn
-- as well on the whole mess of "(round) turn(s)":  180, 360, 540 degrees ... .
In e.g. what I call the "Reverse Groundline Hitch", which is common in commercial
fishing knotting for intermittently locking a spiral wrapping of things together (e.g.,
some clump of netting at its edge, two sides of netting, netting to a headline, or
two lines), there is the ditinct locking-down-upon-itself aspect, able to be seen in
a single structure, one end nipped and untensioned beyond, the other being loaded;
in this Rev.GlH use, both ends are in some stable low tension, leading fore/aft to
other such structures.  Whereas in the Bowline, the arguably like structure is loaded
significantly coming & going, and not really so much nipping itself (in contrast to
the Sheet Bend, NB!).

Quote
and the partially "capsized" bowline is in fact the form that a bowline will inevitably take under strain.  We are only so used to see it in the uncapsized form, that we regard this form as the "true" form of the bowline and its final form an anomality. But we see the bowline in real life so often having this "capsized" form, that the question has been raised whether it is done on purpose. The answer is simple; it's not done on purpose when making the knot. It is the inevitable result of using it.

Here I disagree -- at least at all points beyond "partially".  You previously presented
an image/photo of what you labeled "capsized":  that is markedly different from
my photos of (truly) capsized knots, where many folks won't be able to identify
the knot (and it can be confirmed by them as "new"!) -- where the HH=>turn=>
... spiral.  And these I do NOT see as inevitable (testing of the knot will prove this),
but as results of having a relatively loose collar which enables that much distortion
of the knot's nipping loop.  One could see a problem of *man* working with big,
stiff, rope, unable to adequately set the knot and then the huge loads for which
such rope is intended working this capsizing; but in the cases I've seen, although
rope & loads might be large, the material actually is rather pliant, not all so elastic,
and I believe can be tied with a snugness denying the deformation seen.
(Look at many sailing/yachting images:  there is often a HUGE amount of looseness
in the bowline's collar!)  Why, I can tie shock cord --super deformably elastic stuff--
and see it behave.  (And, as I've mused before, the end-on-outside bowline better
resists the capsizing; at one point I thought that if indeed the "Dutch navy" had
this form in favor, it might be why -- but I think all that Dutch business is myth.)

Quote
In Ashley's sketch of the half hitches in the standing part of #160, he has acknowledged the orientation of the half hitches. It is evident that he in part draws what he can see with his eyes. The actual setup is different from what we can expect of modern rope, which is probably not as stiff as those ropes that captain Mullins was using.

Indeed.  And the load is relatively slight.  One can think of various ways to have
met this rope problem ; I immediately wonder "Why not just a bowline?"
-- or the toggled one you show, easily re-made w/new bight and toggle reinserted
for the move-release-backup-reattach sequence Ashley suggests.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Incidentally, I still find the Gleipnir to be way deficient in effecting lock:  again,
that the bending of each loaded end's transmission of force to the nipping loop
must go around 4 edges (of squared bundles) renders getting a decent nip in
this way fruitless.  Dang, I'm about to load some books-bound thus with dead
weights to show it!  Recall that in my prior musing with this structure some
years ago, I didn't see adequate nip around smooth PVC pipe with flexible
soft (common) nylon solid braid cord (I saw it as a locking Clove hitch).

One way I'm seeking to redress this deliver-tension-to-TurNip problem is to
figure ways to set the wraps relatively snug AND THEN load ends to capsize
into the initially straight part the TurNip, which naturally tightens that part,
effects the lock, and can be further loaded a bit -- though of course there
is little hope in many cases of getting that load around the 4 corners to
the TurNip (conceivably, those edges might not want much pressure).
I see that this deliver-force... problem is aggravated by binding to a
convex surface, as the ends will press inwards on the TurNip and add
a point of frictive resistance for force to overcome in tightening it.


The Gleipnir can be locked by Simple knot (as though closing a Reef knot),
or by making a Slip-knot in one end with the other nipped by it, snug to
the TurNip.  In many cases, for any duration, I'd not trust the TurNip
to keep tension -- bit by bit, there can be some pressure on the ends
to come out; there is no turn in them to resist.  -- varieties of circumstance.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on November 06, 2009, 06:56:40 AM
Okay, here are XaraX'd Gleipnirs in the four main versions.
"The" G. is upper-left; Xarax's version is lower-right,
switching both the twist AND the end-tucks.  The X-t(G.)
aka "Quick8" is a nice-seeming eye knot (adjustable until
loaded); it can be further secured (and maybe strengthened)
by tucking the end down between the eye legs right where
they enter the Fig.8.

The upper-right Gleipnir version is one that can be tied in
the bight (TIB) from a Clove hitch start, having the two
halves sort of step around each other.  And the inverted
TurNip'd Clove version is this, too, viewed outwards from
the bound area; note that the XaraX transformation of this
is not the same, as the moved loop is going the other way.

Beyond what you see here come the same structures but with
doubled TurNips, inverted TurNips (these same images representing
the underside of the binding, i.e.), and who knows what
further.  Maybe those are left as frustrations (er, "exercises")
for the reader!


--dl*
====
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: SpitfireTriple on March 10, 2010, 10:47:23 PM
Well here we are 6 months later and we still aren't sure what to call this knot.

I understand the founding of the IGKT was inspired, at least partially, by the (as it turned out re-) discovery of the Hunter's Bend.  The Hunter's Bend is a beautiful thing, but it doesn't really do anything any better than half a dozen existing knots - the Zeppelin Bend probably being the closest.  If one knot that is neither new nor unique can help found an international guild, then what should we expect from something as special as Mr Dahm's creation?

Yet here we are with Mr Dahm's more beautiful(?), more useful, and UNIQUE knot.  And after a flurry of initial excitement (and some less enthusiastic responses) we have let it .. go to sleep.

If we still think this is as important and significant a knot as we (okay not me, I wasn't around then) did 6 months ago, then what are we going to do about it?  Could I request that someone with some authority contacts Gleipnir/Mr Dahm?  It will need to be on his personal email address, a forum PM will be no good as he does not seem to frequent these pages any more.

Could we ask him what he wants to call his invention?

We have variations on:
"Floating Constrictor Knot"
"Concave Constrictor Knot"
Dahm Floating Constrictor
Gleipnir
Dahm knot
OneGoodTurn
TurNip
TurNip Twist
ShepherdShank
RoundShank
DahmShank

And just for the hell of it I'll chuck in "Wolfshank" I think it would be more meaningful and more memorable to more people than "Gleipnir".  The IGKT is here to spread the word; it should resist the temptation to indulge itself in the telling of in-jokes.  I concede, for the cognoscenti, Gleipnir is colourful.

I can't resist posting this from the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleipnir):

Gleipnir
In Norse mythology, Gleipnir (Old Norse "open one") is the binding that holds the mighty wolf Fenrir
Even though it is as thin as a silken ribbon, it is stronger than any iron chain. It was forged by the dwarves in their underground realm of Svart?lfaheim, and made of six ingredients:

    * The sound of a cat's footfall
    * The beard of a woman
    * The roots of a mountain
    * The sinews of a bear
    * The breath of a fish
    * The spittle of a bird


Marvellous!

And could we ask Mr Dahm to tell us a little bit about himself?

Such information, assuming he is happy to provide it, will be helpful to whoever first incorporates Mr Dahm's knot into a book.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: DerekSmith on March 11, 2010, 01:16:40 PM
Quote
Gleipnir (Old Norse "open one") is the binding that holds the mighty wolf Fenrir
Even though it is as thin as a silken ribbon, it is stronger than any iron chain.

Since it was brought to us, I have used it regularly and teach it whenever I have the opportunity. And when I do, I call it The Gleipnir ( I pronounce it glipe-ner ).

Although it is a strange name, now you have brought the Norse definition to us, I can see that it is the perfect name for a knot which so easily embodies the most simple principles of effective binding.

Your point Spitfire is well made that the Guild should not let this opportunity simply fade away - but there you have come full face onto the problem - just what is 'The Guild' ?

Is it you and I and the folks of this Forum? surely not ?
Is it all the members dotted around the world?  Possibly, but how would they collectively ever 'do' anything?
In essence, when it comes down to matters like formally recognising an important 'new' knot, 'The Guild' is embodied in our Council.

Recently, Barry (Hon. Sec.) said to me that the Guild has the Council that it deserves - "as volunteers are like frost in warm sunshine - they disappear as you watch".  As a consequence, 'The Guild' is in essence no more than one or two seriously overworked individuals with virtually no support from the rest of us.  Without support a little more substantial than the proverbial 'frost in sunshine', what should we expect other than Forum excitement followed by obscurity as the next interesting challenge floats onto the Forum ? ? ?  We on the Forum, don't actually 'DO' anything despite all our noise and input, and despite all of the substance here on the Forum, behind us there is very little 'substance' in the real world (not wishing to demean any of the work our Council puts in).

If we want more to happen, then we here on the Forum need to be offering real physical support to our Council to get things happening.

A few months ago, I put in a proposal to the Council that they award a new knot certificate for the 'Hurley Hitch'.  Lindsey has asked that I write an article for KM and I offered to produce a Certificate to award to the Hurley brothers and to their Scout troupe.  This still leaves Barry with the task of signing and presenting the certificate, but it has taken as much of the work off him as possible.

Personally, I believe that we should make as big an issue about the Gleipnir as possible - but for that to happen WE must be prepared to do the physical legwork to make it happen.  Barry et. al. can formalise it for us, but they cannot supply the time and effort to make it happen.

Who on here wants to make it happen?  How can you make it happen without waiting for 'the Council' to do it for you ?  What help can you offer to Barry to recognise what many of us think is a great knot ?

Or would we rather watch the 'frost in the sunshine'?

Derek
Title: "Like frost in warm sunshine"
Post by: SpitfireTriple on March 11, 2010, 04:17:52 PM
It is a lovely story isn't it?

We could, if we chose, exploit the story in a carefully-written press release.   We could obtain a lot of free publicity for the IGKT and for knotting generally by making use of it.  Newspapers are always looking for little stories to fill their pages.  This new knot would be perfect - it's simple, novel, and if we made use of the word Gleipnir it has a nice little story behind it too.  All we need is for Mr Dahm to be handsome, and his photo and the knot's would be in every other Sunday paper worldwide.  Are you handsome Mr Dahm?

I have four concerns about Gleipnir though.

1.  The word Gleipnir will not be memorable outside the confines of the IGKT. And we really, really should think beyond our immediate membership if we are to fulfill our mission as spreaders of knotting knowledge.

2.  And would the knot really be of any use tying up a giant wolf?!  I know this sounds silly, but if the knot isn't suited for such a purpose, we have to ask whether we should be using the name Gleipnir. Okay, okay, I'm splitting hairs.

3.  As for pronunciation, Derek says Glipe-ner, Inkanyezi says

GLEIPNIR gets my vote. (How do you pronounce it?)
The accent in Norwegian or Swedish is difficult to acquire, but if you think its vowels somewhat similar to the English word "sailing", you might get the hang of it. If you can also stress the first syllable, you get it right.
Glape-neer

Though Inkanyezi then muddies the waters with
There are alternative pronunciations, you need not necessarily stress the first syllable.
And I suspect most people familiar with neither German nor Norwegian might say Gleep-neer

So, Gleipnir has a great story behind it, but do we really want to launch a new knot with a name we know in advance will be pronounced so many different ways?  We really should think about things like this.  Conversely, maybe a point of the differing pronunciations could be made in the press release - you say tomato ?

4.  Similarly, every time the word Gleipnir is spoken to a non-Norse audience, it will need to be spelled.  This is a weakness.  AEBE, we would do better to chose a word that has only to be spoken for the listener to know how it is spelled.

Despite all the above, I still like Gleipnir, if only for the story!

Before we rush to crown Gleipnir though, let's look again at the alternatives

Dan's OneGoodTurn and TurNip are both simple, great fun, and pack in a lot of how-to-tie-the-knot meaning - which helps the name and hence the knot to be memorable.
My variant, TurNip Twist has a nice bit of alliteration, and reminds the user that they will need to put a twist in the rope.
Alpineer's ShepherdShank also has alliteration, and is close to SheepShank, which will make it easier to remember, the knots being similar.  Sort of.  We might need to -ahem- invent a story about shepherds using the knot to carry bundles of firewood.  Anyone know a tame shepherd..?
Alpineer's RoundShank is less strong, I feel
NB Alpineer later decides he's not so keen on ShepherdShank !
re: Knot's Naming
ShepherdShank> sullies knot's reputation by association with SheepShank
TurNip> kills knot's use outright by association with a vegetable not liked by many
GLEIPNIR gets my vote. (How do you pronounce it?)
An alternative to ShepherdShank would be Wolfshank
Derek's Grabber or Load-Lock are short and punchy names.  But is there a risk that they are too generic?
Floating Constrictor describes what the knot does. That could be the day-to-day name, the "official" name could be the Dahm Floating Constrictor - though I note that very few knots are named after their inventor, even those whose inventor is known.  Ashley might be an exception.

I understand to an extent, Derek when you say  
there is nothing Constrictoresque about this baby at all,
The knot might not resemble, say, a Boa Constrictor, or a "single" Constrictor, or a Double Constrictor.  But Constrictor surely describes function rather than form?  I recognise that a constrictor normally needs something solid for the knot to sit against, such a thing is not present with the Gleipnir~.  But don't we get round that by prefixing Constrictor with Floating?

This really should be published in KM, and for my money you should be in line for some form of recognition from the Guild for bringing this little beauty to light.  I am interested in how you 'found' / 'created' it.  Would you be interested in sharing the details with us?  Are you a member of the IGKT and would you be interested in creating an article for KM?  But first of all - what about a proper name for it please.

I have tried to present as many pros and cons of the various names as I can, in order that Mr Dahm has a good overview of the implications of his various possible choices.  Of course, there's nothing to prevent him coming up with something entirely different from any of the above.
If we want more to happen, then we here on the Forum need to be offering real physical support to our Council to get things happening.
I offer to liaise with Mr Dahm (in a week or so, to give people time to see this and comment if they wish).  Assuming everyone's happy, I offer to work with Mr Dahm (and maybe you Derek? and maybe Inkanyezi and others who have been so positive?) to draft some form of Press Release to go to the council for approval before whacking it out to the biggest newspaper list we can find.

This knot has been kicking around for long enough now.  Let's move things along.  Unless anyone objects, I will email Mr Dahm in, say, a week's time with a link (not that he will need it) to this thread.  Then, hopefully, he can give the definite name, and we can move towards getting it out into the world.

So, speak now or forever hold your peace !

Thanks for the kind words.  IF it does turn out that this is a new knot, then I guess I will need to give serious thought to the naming issue.  As some of the early responses noticed, my command of knot terminology is somewhat limited.  I would appreciate any assistance on offer.
Over to you Mr Dahm?
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: roo on March 12, 2010, 12:27:47 AM

Personally, I believe that we should make as big an issue about the Gleipnir as possible ...  

I really don't get this.  The tensioning mechanism in question does a substandard job of applying tension.  And in its original form, is quite rope-length inefficient in applying that substandard tension.  And it has to have open air to do what little it does.  And it falls apart if the rope load is distributed funny unless it is backed up.

I am left to think that you'd be willing to drain your bank account to put up billboards advertising a mechanism just for its relative simplicity.  
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: SpitfireTriple on March 12, 2010, 10:55:55 AM
Okay, that's one bit of feed-back.  Thank you Roo. Let's have some more from other people.

Oh, one thing Roo, I'm not suggesting the IGKT spend any money on billboards.  Sending an email to a list of newspaper editors costs nothing but time.  And i don't mind giving my time on this.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 12, 2010, 05:41:34 PM
Okay, that's one bit of feed-back.  Thank you Roo. Let's have some more from other people.

The thread has considerable information it it, already.

On the name, I think of it as "the Gleipnir ", happily.  I don't mind
that pronunciations will differ; they do on most things (a local radio traffic
announcer or a cycling friend of mine say "bay-ack" for "back" or "cray-ash"
for "crash" and so on; or the peculiarities of those New Englanders or NYCity;
and sugary Southern states sweet "thank-eee-yew" still tickles my memory
heard in a fast-food joint between manager & waitress (each to other)
somewhere in Carolina?).  It is certainly a unique/distinctive name to my
American ear.  --and it carries less of a personal sense then would "Dahlm
Twist" or some such.
(My once-suggested "turNip" I favor being the name of the turn so
used to make a nip, seen in many manifestations, no particular "knot".)

On the working & supposed MA:  I think that there is none -- rather, as
I stated, it's a "Paul Bunyan (giant) knot", requiring over-exertions for
what is ultimately delivered, but working to lock & hold the gain.  But
you will have differing effect in different circumstances.  Just consider
that all that frictional gripping that must be done to lock the tensioned
ends pulled through it must be resisting their tensioning pulls as well
(with some caveat about differences in frictional effect on moving
parts, which I won't pretend to understand (one can quote CLDay's
famous remark about friction)).  But I have found much LESS favor
in the structure than has Inkanyezi, surprisingly.  Just yesterday, out
"in the wild" and using a 3mm kernmantle old bit to bind a newly
harvested coil of rope to another one already dangling from my
belt, I thought to try the Gleipnir :  it was impossble to get
much tightening to the turNip; it worked okay, but far from the
glowing reports Inkanyezi brings.  So, YMMV.

(One could try to test this with weights & pulleys (for redirection).
And, given your insistence on not trusting things voiced in the
thread on a knot mystery, I'd think that before you devoted an
iota of PR to this novelty you would insist on giving it a full testing
yourself, to better understand it.  Please take a shot at this, using
both slick (metal) objects and then something less so -- bit tough
to think of working out how to assess binding tension around a box,
though (essentially, around 4 cardboard corners).)

This thread contains a couple of similar structures that employ
a turNip and which might better tighten, in some instances.
I'm playing around with one now where the turNip feeds its
end through a bight to pull back through the turNip, and so
in limited spacing (typically) to have that apparent 2:1 pull
on a bight, the anchoring end of which (the pulling line, i.e.)
is the turNip and so worked tighter.  This structure should do
well on convex surfaces, with lessened space to delivering
tension to the turNip.

--dl*
====
Title: The boy who cried Gleipnir
Post by: SpitfireTriple on March 13, 2010, 07:12:47 PM
The thread has considerable information it it, already.
I'm not trying to re-open the discussion about the knot.  I'm trying to summarise where we are right now, and achieve consensus on how we / the IGKT should move forward with this knot after 4 months of doing nothing.  I am asking for people to come together on this.

On the name, I think of it as "the Gleipnir ", happily.  
Fine, that's one more vote for Gleipnir. I still feel Mr Dahm should have the final say, but given that he chose Gleipnir as his name here, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he concurred.  But that's for him to say.

And, given your insistence on not trusting things voiced in the thread on a knot mystery, I'd think that before you devoted an iota of PR to this novelty you would insist on giving it a full testing yourself, to better understand it.
We are being sidetracked here, but for anyone interested, Name this mystery knot: (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1730.0)
I will say, however, that if that knot is ever used to bear weight, and if the people of the climbing wall have no idea what it is, then they are failing in their duty to keep the wall safe.

Except that maybe someone does or did know what it was, and having been used many times, it has proven itself -- it hasn't come untied.  So, the others at the shop preserve it for continued (safe) use.

--dl*
====
I responded
I considered that argument then rejected it.  So too would any court.

Would you, Dan, risk your life, or allow a grandchild's life to be risked, on a knot that "Rumor has it that an employee (and knot enthusiast) tied it long ago and currently remains a mystery to all."

Damn sure I wouldn't.

Meanwhile though, no-one is suggesting the Gleipnir/~ is ever used in a life-critical situation.  The Gleipnir is a simple knot for bundling firewood etc.  Not for climbing the North Face of the Eiger.  As Mr Dahm made clear in his posts when he described the knot as a "floating constructor": The basic problem I faced was tying together (and compressing) bundles of sticks and branches for trash pickup.

I wonder in what you've tied this, for in some hardware-store common solid-braid nylon (3/16" or about) around a 1" diameter PVC pipe, the locking grip just isn't there -- it's easy to push apart the turns opposite the knotted section and see it loosen.  
This is the sort of test to which a hitch or conventional constrictor could rightly be put.  But Mr Dahm never presented his knot as a hitch or conventional constrictor.  As he made clear in his posts when he described the knot as a "floating constructor": The basic problem I faced was tying together (and compressing) bundles of sticks and branches for trash pickup.

It is good to have a voice of caution, especially when discussing something as potentially life-critical as knotting.  But when that voice of caution is negative about everything and anything, people eventually stop listening.  

Roo probably made a valid point though:
It is presently holding together my bundles of hedge clippings etc. awaiting the garbage truck.

Be careful.  If the garbage guy grabs certain parts of the twine, it will cause the bundle to fall apart.  Finishing with a tuck or two of the ends would help
As I note, if for some unforeseen reason, the legs are unevenly loaded such that the adjustable side sees even a little more load, the thing slips.  I've alluded to the issue before in this thread, but I get the feeling that people won't be aware of this issue and won't take steps to guard against it.  People don't like to read the fine print.

Dan/ Going back to  your testing suggestion:  I had already tested the Gleipnir.  If I hadn't, I wouldn't be posting all this.  I tested it weeks ago when I first read about it.  But I did not test it on a piece of solid pipe, constrictor-style.  I understood that that was not what it was for.  I tested it on a bundle of lengths of planking in my garage.  It did well.  I recognise I am not an expert, and have no authority to speak with authority(!), but when I tested the knot on the application it was designed for, it worked.  I'll freely concede my "test" doesn't prove that the knot will always work on its application.  But other types of test on applications for which the Gleipnir was never designed are irrelevant.  And should not be allowed to cloud the issue.

Please take a shot at this, using both slick (metal) objects and then something less so -- bit tough to think of working out how to assess binding tension around a box, though (essentially, around 4 cardboard corners).)
No.  The Gleipnir was not designed for tying around slick metal objects, nor was it designed for tying round boxes.  It was designed for tying round bundles.  As Mr Dahm made clear from the start. The basic problem I faced was tying together (and compressing) bundles of sticks and branches for trash pickup. (That's the 3rd time I've quoted Mr Dahm, should be enough)

I find it difficult to understand, Dan, why you persist in trying to undermine the Gleipnir.  And, for that matter, other innovations presented by people on this forum.   No doubt you would also criticise a motorcycle for being a poor choice of family vehicle, or a helicopter for being relatively slow compared to an aeroplane.  Edit:  Mr Dahm got here before me:
You have spent most of your time discussing the Truckers Hitch, and applying my Floating Constrictor knot in a situation I had not even described as an application.  This would be like saying a cat is no good because it doesn't bark.

Dan/ You also ripped apart Mr Dahm's understanding of Mechanical Advantage. Even though he humbly admitted up front that he was no mathematician/engineer. But you didn't explain to him how and why he was wrong:  He arrived at his (incorrect) 4:1 ratio because he was erroneously thinking of the Gleipnir's "TurNip"* as the top tackle of a pulley system, but with the bundle-of-sticks "load" replaced by a hypothetical load attached to a hypothetical twin-wheel block sitting at the bottom of two loops of rope.  In doing so he mentally applied an invalid test to a knot which was never designed as a block-and-tackle. It was designed for bundling, and given that the rope wraps only twice around the bundle, the MA is actually only 2:1.   But your pointing out his mistake on that matter should not be allowed to detract from the value of the Gleipnir when used for what it was created for - tying up bundles.

*I welcome and embrace, Dan, your offer of your word, "TurNip", which you originally put forward as a candidate name for the Gleipnir, as the word we could use for the ...err .. TurNip when it appears in the Gleipnir or indeed in any other knot.

Finally, Dan, I notice you seem to claim that you invented the Gleipnir knot some time ago.
**I** have played with this knot and the like, a little, in recent years.
Perhaps I should not be surprised. After all, when in my first post on this forum (not this thread) I presented a new method for tying a loop knot (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1697.0), your response was to state that it was "obvious".  I wonder how many other novel knots and novel methods are stored in your brain that you have not yet deigned to share with us. A cynic might suspect that you will not reveal these gems until someone else first announces them.

But I am allowing you, Dan, to sidetrack me into a discussion of things that are not the issue here.  

The issue is, how are we going to take this (Gleipnir) knot forward?
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: squarerigger on March 14, 2010, 04:28:29 AM
Hi Spitfire,

You asked where do we go from here?  I think that next step should be for Gleipnir to submit his knot to the Knotting Matters Journal of the IGKT.  Is he a member I wonder?  If not, are you a member and, again, if not, will a member submit on his/your behalf?  I think it has had more than a fair share of discussion and there seems to be no positive or negative concluding remark that has not been discounted or nay-sayed or accepted.  Maybe it should just be submitted to the scrutiny of the IGKT members for their say-so and then see what happens - maybe it will be pronounced as a new knot and receive the publicity it deserves/warrants and maybe not.  Won't know until it is tried, will we?   8)

Lindsey Philpott
Editor, Knotting Matters
AKA  squarerigger
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: SpitfireTriple on March 14, 2010, 12:48:49 PM
I agree that the next (or maybe the next-but-one*) step should be for gleipnir to submit the knot to the IGKT

*First, though, we need to encourage him to do so.  Which is why I offered to email him to encourage him to do just that - and to formally name the knot.   I'm still happy to do that.

As far as I am aware, Gleipnir is not a member of the IGKT.  I do not know the rules, but it would seem strange to me were the IGKT to refuse to consider a new knot simply because the person submitting it was not a member.  I am not a member either, but if this really was an issue I am confident that someone who is a member here would raise the matter in whatever way the IGKT committee requires.

But first, we need to contact Gleipnir to encourage him to come forward after a too-long lapse.

I agree with your philosophy, Lindsay, we won't know how this will pan out until and unless we try.  I'm simply offering to do my bit to get things moving along.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: knot4u on December 21, 2010, 10:46:56 PM
3 in Series:
(http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962)
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962 (http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962)

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but that knot seems to be tied incorrectly compared to what I think is intended.  Specifically, the third half hitch appears to be tied wrongly.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on December 21, 2010, 11:31:38 PM
3 in Series:
(http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962)
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962 (http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962)

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but that knot seems to be tied incorrectly compared to what I think is intended.  Specifically, the third half hitch appears to be tied wrongly.

I don't think so. Gleipnir wanted to convey that the twists can be done any direction, and that in case of several twists, they should not touch each other, but lie somewhat apart. When you tie it in slippery twine, it might be necessary to make more than one twist (TurNip). So far, I never needed three.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: knot4u on December 21, 2010, 11:49:18 PM
3 in Series:
(http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962)
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962 (http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962)

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but that knot seems to be tied incorrectly compared to what I think is intended.  Specifically, the third half hitch appears to be tied wrongly.

I don't think so. Gleipnir wanted to convey that the twists can be done any direction, and that in case of several twists, they should not touch each other, but lie somewhat apart.

Interesting, is that also the idea for Gleipnir with two turns in the middle?  I have found that a Gleipnir with two turns that touch is fantastic security, nearly jamming.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: DerekSmith on December 22, 2010, 04:01:22 PM
@Spitfire Tripple,

Did Mr. Dahm ever reply?

Derek
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: SpitfireTriple on January 14, 2011, 11:14:38 PM
Yes he did.  PM sent.
Title: Re: "Like frost in warm sunshine"
Post by: Hrungnir on January 18, 2011, 08:42:39 PM
2.  And would the knot really be of any use tying up a giant wolf?!  I know this sounds silly, but if the knot isn't suited for such a purpose, we have to ask whether we should be using the name Gleipnir. Okay, okay, I'm splitting hairs.

Considering how strong the wolf were, it is doubtful that the wolf was hitched to an object. Gleipnir (the thread) was the only thing which could hold the wolf, and the object the wolf would have been hitched to, would have to be just as strong.

A drawing on wikipedia suggests binding the legs of the wolf in pairs together. I'm sure this could be the gleipnir knot :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/John_Bauer-Tyr_and_Fenrir.jpg
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on January 18, 2011, 11:26:23 PM
As questions have been raised about the security of the knot, as well as the power advantage in tensioning, I think there is no reason for fear that it should fail. I have used it extensively since first knowing it, and it has not failed at any time. For security, at first I also tied with another string and a trucker's hitch, to make sure that my load would not get away, and occasionally I still do. I also have a habit of making a half hitch with each end around the legs of the knot, but it's more to spend the material and to make sure that any snagging of an end would not open the knot.

I also found a simple and convenient way to tie it under load, by simply half-hitching the first end around the centre of the middle bight, then following it in the opposite direction with the other end, whereupon I spill the so formed doubled half hitch into the TurrNip in the centre bight of the knot. Moslty when I tie down a load on the bicycle rack, I use the knot in the form of two splayed loops, and I regard it as still the same knot when tied in that way. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2262.0

And indeed the John Bauer aquarel shows the wolf tied up with bindings. I think Gleipnir is a good name for this knot.
Title: Re: "Like frost in warm sunshine"
Post by: Hrungnir on January 19, 2011, 07:45:34 PM
2.  And would the knot really be of any use tying up a giant wolf?!  I know this sounds silly, but if the knot isn't suited for such a purpose, we have to ask whether we should be using the name Gleipnir. Okay, okay, I'm splitting hairs.

Considering how strong the wolf were, it is doubtful that the wolf was hitched to an object. Gleipnir (the thread) was the only thing which could hold the wolf, and the object the wolf would have been hitched to, would have to be just as strong.

A drawing on wikipedia suggests binding the legs of the wolf in pairs together. I'm sure this could be the gleipnir knot :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/John_Bauer-Tyr_and_Fenrir.jpg

And indeed the John Bauer aquarel shows the wolf tied up with bindings. I think Gleipnir is a good name for this knot.


Just some text from the Prose Edda, Gylfaginning chapter 34:

Everyone refused to place their hand in Fenrir's mouth until T?r put out his right hand and placed it into the wolf's jaws. When Fenrir kicked, Gleipnir caught tightly, and the more Fenrir struggled, the stronger the band grew. At this, everyone laughed, except T?r, who there lost his right hand. When the gods knew that Fenrir was fully bound, they took a cord called Gelgja hanging from Gleipnir, inserted the cord through a large stone slab called Gj?ll, and the gods fastened the stone slab deep into the ground. After, the gods took a great rock called Thviti, and thrust it even further into the ground as an anchoring peg.


This confirms the aquarel by John Bauer. The wolf was tied with a binder. They didn't make an anchor before they were convinced the wolf was tightly bound.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: knot4u on January 19, 2011, 07:50:28 PM
I've been experimenting with this Gleipnir for awhile now.  Overall, it's pretty good.  The best part is that it looks cool.  However, for performance, I still prefer a few other knots instead.  For example, where a Gleipnir is appropriate, I feel more comfortable with a Backhand Hitch plus Two Half Hitches.  Another one I like better than the Gleipnir is Two Half Hitches Plus a Half Hitch Lock.  (I really wish there was a shorter way of saying that!).
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Hrungnir on January 19, 2011, 08:29:00 PM
I've been experimenting with this Gleipnir for awhile now.  Overall, it's pretty good.  The best part is that it looks cool.  However, for performance, I still prefer a few other knots instead.  For example, where a Gleipnir is appropriate, I feel more comfortable with a Backhand Hitch plus Two Half Hitches.  Another one I like better than the Gleipnir is Two Half Hitches Plus a Half Hitch Lock.  (I really wish there was a shorter way of saying that!).

When I'm tying a Gleipnir, I'm always tying the Round Turn Gleipnir documented by Xarax. It uses just a little bit more rope than the original and isn't much harder to tie. I haven't tried the Backhand Hitch plus Two Half Hitches, but in most situations the Round Turn Gleipnir outperforms both Two Half Hitches Plus a Half Hitch Lock and Buntline Hitch Plus a Half Hitch Lock. I would compare the strength of the binder with Double Constrictor, but it uses less rope.

I use the Buntline/Half Hitch Plus a Half Hitch Lock when I don't have a lot of rope, or when a simple and fast knot to tie is more important than binding strength :)
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: knot4u on January 19, 2011, 09:48:57 PM
I've been experimenting with this Gleipnir for awhile now.  Overall, it's pretty good.  The best part is that it looks cool.  However, for performance, I still prefer a few other knots instead.  For example, where a Gleipnir is appropriate, I feel more comfortable with a Backhand Hitch plus Two Half Hitches.  Another one I like better than the Gleipnir is Two Half Hitches Plus a Half Hitch Lock.  (I really wish there was a shorter way of saying that!).

When I'm tying a Gleipnir, I'm always tying the Round Turn Gleipnir documented by Xarax. It uses just a little bit more rope than the original and isn't much harder to tie. I haven't tried the Backhand Hitch plus Two Half Hitches, but in most situations the Round Turn Gleipnir outperforms both Two Half Hitches Plus a Half Hitch Lock and Buntline Hitch Plus a Half Hitch Lock. I would compare the strength of the binder with Double Constrictor, but it uses less rope.

I use the Buntline/Half Hitch Plus a Half Hitch Lock when I don't have a lot of rope, or when a simple and fast knot to tie is more important than binding strength :)

OK...my experience is different than yours.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: LanceThruster on January 27, 2011, 09:36:10 PM
I only came across this the other day and already I'm using it in many varied applications. I think it's remarkable to devise such an innovative application. One of the reasons I first started searching for knotting instructions online was to find those that would work well with the large supply of scrap wire lengths our department generates. Aside from various communications cabling, any number of computer wires from mice, old USB cables, flat phone cord, etc are avialable to play with. I usually start by doubling it into a loop with a figure 8 knot and adding the extra turn (surgeon's knot?) when applicable. I started making these of lengths short and long to simplify tying down loads of expensive PC equipment on hand trucks with only a few bungee cords and/or carabiner clips, and when you have adequate slack, a simple half hitch ties it off. The short loops make hooking the axle or side rails with the bungee or clips so much easier. I made a pretty crude truck cargo netting out of line cable and hope to do even better on the next one (with a border made with thcker marterial).

I'll post my questions elsewhere in the appropriate topic, but I'm looking for ways to recycle a lot of other thicknesses of scrap wire. Most of my approaches are hybrids utilizing several types of hardware. I wanted to bind thicker and shorter round three-pronged power cables to make three foot segments that could work as a barrier rope connecting posts on a path. I thought maybe I could weave the strands like a bridge cable but think that is probably impracticle for its length and diameter. I still want to use several for a thicker grip (like a velvet rope) and figure termination could be into the end of a conduit coupler of the type that has the screw and plate to reduce the interior diameter and grip the material. I could also bind the length with much thinner wire for looks and support but would be making it up as I go along and would also be lost as to how to terminate the ends. I was never a Boy Scout and have no familiarity with most knots but I'm picking up the easy and useful ones (which is why I'm so impressed with the Gleipnir). It was mentioned the amount of material used but I can see a number of ways around that (I'll use it often for tree trimmings). I could use rope or wire to constrict the bundle, tie it off with cheap twine and a regular old knot (I found twine usually broke when trying to tighten it but worked great once the added tension was relaxed).

Hope to learn a lot here and welcome any suggestions or critiques. Will look for the right thread to expand further (Misc.?)

Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: swanoonie on January 13, 2020, 04:40:43 AM
Am I the only one to have reached the conclusion that member [Inkanyezi] gone in reality discovered or rediscovered the Gleipnir but wisely disclosed under a pseudonym given the usual outpouring of vitriol that awaited him? The board is the poorer without his participation.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: agent_smith on January 14, 2020, 06:32:04 AM
Hello swanoonie:
There is more than one casualty since this thread was born...
Notably, Xarax is MIA (or KIA depending on you point of view!) which is a significant loss, and so are his posts in this thread.
Some of the original photos of the 'Gleipner' are gone too - its not until well into this thread where you start to see some photos of a reasonable quality. Although - the resolution is still not exactly easy to unpick.

I also note this post which had a few barbs aimed in a certain direction...
At reply 91:
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.msg11955#msg11955

Its hard to know (with 100% certainty) who discovered what and at which date... new knot discoveries are always difficult to verify - one only has to look at the infamous #1425A Riggers bend which launched the IGKT and was later found to have been discoverer much earlier by Phil Smith.

I personally know that Xarax has done a great deal of work on hitches and its sub-class of 'binders' - and most of that work isn't seen on this forum.
All sorts of mathematical model models have been looked at and theories proposed - but I find most of them to be lacking in one form or another.

...

As a side note - not directly related to your post or this thread (but nevertheless interesting):
There was a paper published recently on knots which alluded to the number of topological 'crossings' being an important determinant of a knots security/stability.
And yet, this does not satisfactorily explain how the Zeppelin bend works.
[ ] The number of topological crossings in a Zeppelin bend is 10 (jam resistant in through loading)
[ ] The number of topological  crossings in a #1425A Riggers bend is 12 (jams)
[ ] The number of topological  crossings in a #1053 derived Butterfly bend is 12 (jam resistant in through loading)

Charles Hamel (aka Nautile) wrote an interesting paper about a comparison of 4 bends...but reached no decisive conclusion as to why #1425A jams and Zeppelin bend does not (and is just as secure and stable). Topology (in my view) does not provide all the answers. Geometry (and not topology) appears to provide a better path to understanding.
Link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=2ahUKEwi5pOrxp4LnAhVyxzgGHbd5CVgQFjAMegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcharles.hamel.free.fr%2Fknots-and-cordages%2FPUBLICATIONS%2FBends-comparison-release-2013March9.fdp&usg=AOvVaw1GVt9A6DGCV53cWcyB61Iv (change to pdf).

And with the Gleipner binder hitch - I also think topology wont provide concrete answers either (as to exactly how it works). Perhaps a holistic view is key...?
I personally see all binders as using a progress capture mechanism - which allows them to progressively crush their (deformable) host object.
The Poldo tackle is another very interesting structure... Link: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5377.0
Also discussed in 'Knotting Matters' #41 (at page 18).

And then there is little paper from Thomas Evans which compares 3 'tackles':
Link: http://itrsonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Evans.Truebe_A-comparison-of-the-Truckers-Hitch-Voodoo-and-Poldo_Paper.pdf
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: KC on January 15, 2020, 12:31:15 PM
WABACH machine (http://picasaweb.google.com/101204269027167400849/Knots?gsessionid=ZMaCTT8tgbqZZAOI0WAnQw)
Perhaps admin can help with MIA photos at least:
(https://web.archive.org/web/20180313070619/http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iJjgtPnImOY/SpIo9oqm_-I/AAAAAAAAWyY/KBPegCYum74/Ic42/Floating%2520Constrictor.png)
.
(https://web.archive.org/web/20180313070623/http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VI_NYWkd9x8/SpIo-dIfkVI/AAAAAAAASlA/Lyzm6LQO-5g/Ic42/Floating%2520Constrictor%25203%2520Series.png)
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: Scorpion Regent on January 15, 2020, 03:59:31 PM
Hi, as a new member I feel lucky and impressed to witness the discovery (invention?) of a new knot.  Detractors will say that some one out there had all ready invented it and it was only self discovered.  If that is true who ever invented it earlier didn't document it and name it such that was recognised and became commonly used. 
I really like the physics of the Gleipnir: a marling twist cross tensioned to hold a bundle is a thing of beauty.  The symetry and simplicity are really appealing.   I do remember seeing the illustration in ABOK, years ago, of the sequence of marlings (a half hitch tied around a line under tension) used to hold a tow line around the axle of a vehicle, but I have never seen the element of cross tensioning till now.  I have always tied my Sheepshanks with Marlinespike hitches because I respect Murphy as a force of nature and I know that, sure as the sun rises in the east, tension is never constant when it is expected to be.  Cross tension, however, really is something that can be relied upon. 
As to the naming of this new knot my vote is cast for Gleipnir. 

Scorpion Regent

Ignorantia timoris, et estote filii fortitudinis discere.
Title: Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
Post by: swanoonie on January 17, 2020, 02:54:37 AM
Thank you for the sincere reply and the fascinating links, agent_smith. I'll be fitting those into my reading.