International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: xarax on November 12, 2010, 01:24:12 PM

Title: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on November 12, 2010, 01:24:12 PM
 A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: DerekSmith on November 12, 2010, 02:06:29 PM
Now that really is a surprise.

Time for more playing.

Derek
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: asemery on November 12, 2010, 02:40:36 PM
Very nice.  I can put that to good use.  Tony
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: SS369 on November 12, 2010, 09:18:24 PM
So pretty! I think it should be in the "Fancy and Decorative Knotwork" Forum. LOL

I like this one and am going to put it to work right now.
Thanks

Scott
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: roo on November 12, 2010, 11:51:50 PM
I'm going to have to give this one a thumbs down.  The hitch started rolling for me at higher load. 
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: Dan_Lehman on November 14, 2010, 09:43:09 PM
  This simple hitch, "a la Gleipnir", is a good binding knot, too.
As the working ends/tails are not secured by being squeezed in between the riding turns
 and the surface of the pole, as it happens in most of the known, "old" hitches, it is very versatile.

While the independence re nipping from the bound object is indeed
an nice attribute (or so it seems --it might also be unneeded),
what practical situations do you see for this?  (The impromptu decoration
of a hat rack is --as a wife might quickly advise you-- hardly a beneficial function.)

As I pointed out in the Gleipnir OP, the need for effectively long tails
for this knot makes it rather INefficient in material consumption (tails
once drawn tight are unneeded, but there they are --one that leads to
e.g. a spool of material can be cut away efficiently, but not the other).

Quote
We can also add one more turn to the nipping loop, turning it into a nipping "tube",
in an affort to increase the friction on the working ends/tails. See the attached picture(s).

I, too, thought this (and thought I found this) to be a way to increase
nipping security; but I'm not so sure of that, now.  Consider that whatever
added tension is managed to be delivered around the wrapping by hauling
on the ends --one of the other problems with this knot (as well as others)--
gets *amortized* over the length of material in the "tube" : if there are two
turns, then the Xcm of draw is divided across the turns, instead of being
*concentrated* in tightening the single turn.  (Then come the calculations
of resulting friction with greater pressure vs. greater surface area pressed!)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: Hrungnir on January 07, 2011, 06:59:07 PM
I think this was the knot Xarax posted. A round turn Gleipnir?

How tight you can make it depends on the object and rope you are using. In some conditions it's possible to make it tighter than even a double constrictor. Thin rope or twine seems to be preferred. Avoid situations where the object might put pressure on the knot (the knot prefers to be "flying").

To make the knot secure, you should finish it off with either a half hitch or a reef knot, otherwise the knot might become untied if you are pulling one of the legs.
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: Hrungnir on January 08, 2011, 01:09:42 PM
To make the knot secure, you should finish it off with either a half hitch or a reef knot, otherwise the knot might become untied if you are pulling one of the legs.
Forget about this one. You have two legs to pull to untie the knot. If you finish the knot off with a half hitch, you'll only lock one of the legs and are able to untie the Gleipnir by pulling the other leg. Use the reef knot to lock both legs and make the knot secure!
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on February 07, 2011, 06:31:16 PM
   Another use of the "simple hitch, a la Gleipnir" that I have presented in this thread, on friction hitches. See attached pictures, for a modified Well Pipe hitch (ABoK#504), in two slightly different variations, A and B . The same mechanism can be applied to many other similar, but more complex, friction  hitches, and climbing hitches as well.  This mechanism keeps the whole knot under some tension, so the upper coils do not run the danger of getting loose and release the rest. After the hitch has been tightened, it can be further secured by two half hitches - as in the Well pipe hitch - but on the section of the working end before it reaches the Gleipnir knot.
   Warning ! At those pictures, I have not tied and shown how the tail can be secured further.
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on February 07, 2011, 10:01:40 PM
   Thank you knot4u,
 
  I suppose that the ability for this hitch to hold should depend, to a degree, of how much we tighten it by pulling the tail, as well as the standing end. I can not say if it holds much better when we fully tighten it, (as we might expect ), or not. Is it much better to have our coils absolutely perpendicular to the pole s axis, each in a perfect circular shape, or they can be inclined, just a little, in a somehow ellipsoid shape ?     
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on February 09, 2011, 04:43:19 AM
   Thank you, knot4u,
    
   Yes, I have replaced the pole with a rope, too. My thoughts are the following:
In the case of a climbing hitch, there are many other things that count in its evaluation, besides its gripping power. The matter is complex, and I am by no means qualified to speak about it. Also, due to the obvious dangers an inappropriate hitch can impose on the climber, I dare make no comments, let alone suggestions, for the use of such a hitch for climbing purposes. But we can speak here about the quality of this hitch,for general use.
   My opinion is that no hitch that is based upon nipping wraps around a vertical rope, ( ANY number of such wraps ), can be more secure than a hitch that involves other, more efficient types of friction mechanisms (2). In particular, a : the mechanism that involves rope embraces/twists, ( like the one we have in the Reef family of bends, the Surgeon knot, etc.), and/or b: the mechanism that keeps one "warp yarn" secured into/ in between, the filling/the adjacent "weft yarns", of the fabric. ( More on this last, but not least, mechanism, in a future thread)(2). My post about the 8-nooses (1), was the result of this ongoing investigation on friction hitches around ropes. The fact that the Gleipnir hitch can tighten the two ends of the coiled rope in a most effective way, can not help beyond a certain point. In this case, where we replace the pole with a rope, the "coil tube" itself can not be sufficiently long - because we can not tighten the two ends of such a soft tube without running the danger of deforming its straight cylindrical shape.
  So, I, from my part, have abandoned this class of friction hitches on vertically hang ropes, and I try to device hitches based upon the other friction mechanisms I have hinted above. I suggest that you start a new thread, on climbing hitches and/or "best hitches around a vertically hanged rope" :), for a discussion and comparison of various established and newer solutions to this "ancient" - but always very interesting - knot problem..
   Your exposition about the circular-vs-ellipsoid collars was very lucid and helpful for me, indeed. This hitch we are talking about here can be tied in two slightly different variations, the A and the B, shown in the pictures I had posted. Have you tried both of them ? Have you measured any noticeable differences ?
  
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2780.msg16911#msg16911
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2191.msg16938#msg16938
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on February 09, 2011, 05:06:54 AM
 As an example, the friction hitches I'd try first for a slick vertical pole are a Klemheist (ABOK #1762), a Well Pipe (ABOK #504) or a Gleipnir Grip Hitch (shown in your pics above).

   Me too ! ( But with the reverse order... :)) I was talkng about friction hitches around ropes, not vertical poles, on the text cited above.The situation of hitches around ropes is quite different, as I will explain in a future post (1).  I am sorry for any misunderstanding due to my wording.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2191.msg16938#msg16938
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: dmacdd on February 09, 2011, 11:56:20 PM
What an astonishing binder the simple hitch is!

As well as binding as well as, if not more tightly than, the constrictor knot, it appears to bind as well on rectangular and other cross sections as on round ones.

I took my own photos because I'm going to have my own web page on this knot, and for unambguous reference. It certainly doesn't have any superiority in documenting the knot over xarax's photos.

Is "Gleipner" its name? I would hope for something more memorably idiomatic for what is likely to be an important knot.
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on February 10, 2011, 12:51:23 AM
Is "Gleipner" its name?

  When I first presented this hitch, I used the modest description "a simple hitch a la Gleipnir" on purpose: this hitch is nothing else/more than a more or less obvious application of the Gleipnir knot.
  ( It was quite a surprise for me that, although I am a great admirer of the Gleipnir binding knot, and I am one of the few people in this forum that I include it in my "10 most useful/interesting knots" list, I did not "discovered" it following this straightforward way ! It was only after I investigated the "bull hitch" for some time, that it suddenly crossed my mind to transform the bull hitch, with its  double nipping loop, into the Gleipnir configuration...)   
   So, I think than only the inventor of the Gleipnir knot should name this hitch, if he wish to do it, and in the way he chooses to do it. The name "Gleipnir hitch" sounds, to my ears, like the most "natural" and unambiguous one, now that the Gleipnir binding knot is established and well known to many people. But it is not my call, only my opinion and my vote... 
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: roo on February 10, 2011, 01:05:54 AM
I took my own photos because I'm going to have my own web page on this knot, and for unambiguous reference. It certainly doesn't have any superiority in documenting the knot over xarax's photos.
Before you get too far, you might want to experiment with this on various size combinations of rope and objects.  As you do, it'd be good to be tying Constrictor Knots and Slipped Constrictor Knots as points of comparison in the binder category.
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on February 10, 2011, 01:34:57 AM
it'd be good to be tying Constrictor Knots and Slipped Constrictor Knots as points of comparison in the binder category.

  And after you do this, it d be good to be tying the "not so simple hitches a la Gleipnir," presented in the same thread, as points of comparison to the binder category where the Constrictor Knots and the Slipped Constrictot Knots belong.  :)
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: dmacdd on February 10, 2011, 02:46:41 AM
Is "Gleipner" its name?

  When I first presented this hitch, I used the modest description "a simple hitch a la Gleipnir" on purpose: this hitch is nothing else/more than a more or less obvious application of the Gleipnir knot.


I do not see this. (Literally and figuratively.)  The Gleipnir seems quite different and not to bind with anything like the ferociousness of the knot in your and my photos.  Can you point me to a picture of the Gleipner knot that is like this, or from which this is an obvious derivation.  For one thing, I understand the Gleipnir is supposed to be easy to undo, whereas this is quite difficult to undo. I should say, although it may be obvious from some of my other posts, that I have considerable difficulty visualizing knots from verbal descriptions, or understanding any kind of detailed talk about knots that does not make  frequent specific reference to pictures.

"Unnamed" seems more like an evolution of the strangle knot than the Gleipnir.

I have attached the photos again -- name changed to unnamed.
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: dmacdd on February 10, 2011, 03:03:17 AM
I took my own photos because I'm going to have my own web page on this knot, and for unambiguous reference. It certainly doesn't have any superiority in documenting the knot over xarax's photos.
Before you get too far, you might want to experiment with this on various size combinations of rope and objects.  As you do, it'd be good to be tying Constrictor Knots and Slipped Constrictor Knots as points of comparison in the binder category.

A simple test:  make each around a smooth wooden dowel and try sliding it up and down the dowel.   Multiple trials seem to show equal binding strength.   "Unnamed" seems to be easier to teach and remember than the constrictor, and seems to be undiminished in its binding strength when made around irregular objects.

"Unnamed" seems more like an evolution of the strangle knot than the Gleipnir.
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on February 10, 2011, 03:18:10 AM
  I understand the Gleipnir is supposed to be easy to undo, whereas this is quite difficult to undo.

  Yes, that was a surprise for me, too. I guess it has something to do with the fact that, in this "simple hitch a la Gleipnir", the nipping loop is in touch with / is squeezed on the pole s immovable, hard surface. Now it is not only a nipping loop, as in the case of the Gleinir binding knot, but a kind of riding turn as well. So, its gripping power is greater.
   The same happens also when we use this mechanism to keep the two ends of the Well Pipe hitch (1) under tension. I would say that, in this later case, the result is even more impressive, because, when the two ends of the Well Pipe hitch are kept under the tension the "simple hitch" can deliver, the effectiveness is "propagated" through out the multiple coils, so that, in a sense, it is multiplied  !  :)   

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg16893#msg16893
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on February 10, 2011, 03:25:02 AM
... seems more like an evolution of the strangle knot than the Gleipnir.

  Certainly, it should compared more to the Strangler knot than to the Constrictor. What should be compared to the Constrictor is the "not so simple hitch", also presented in this thread.
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: Hrungnir on February 10, 2011, 03:41:58 AM
About the naming of the two turn gleipnir.

These were the two first representations Dahm made of the gleipnir:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962

The three turn gleipnir acts differently from xarax two turn gleipnir, but it's quite obvious that mr Dahm has experimented with different types of turns. Xarax was the first one to present the two turn gleipnir, but for all I know, mr Dahm may allready have tied this version without presenting it. The two first turns of the three turn gleipnir is like xarax two turn gleipnir, but the third turn goes in the oposite direction.

Credit to mr xarax for showing us this excelent knot, but I think we should keep the gleipnir name because of its relations to the two original gleipnirs.
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: dmacdd on February 10, 2011, 08:32:09 AM
About the naming of the two turn gleipnir.

These were the two first representations Dahm made of the gleipnir:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962


Credit to mr xarax for showing us this excelent knot, but I think we should keep the gleipnir name because of its relations to the two original gleipnirs.

You may wish argue that, but let us not get confused: the two turn gleipnir

           http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186

is profoundly different from Xarax's "simple hitch"

           http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2075.0;attach=2568;image

Moving the binding turn from being topologically outside the gripping turns to inside (turning it upside down) makes the knot very different  topologically,  as does changing the way the ends pass through the binding turn from simply passing each other to being interlocked as in the  strangle knot and, necessarily then, passing through the gripping turns as well .  The two knots have only a superficial similarity. Their behavior is very different too. Xarax's "simple hitch" grips much more strongly, and is much more difficult to undo.

I believe a name not containing the word gleipnir is warranted, even if it turns out that Dahm invented the "simple hitch" and should have his name attached to it.  In the absence of evidence to that effect, Xarax should have his name attached to the "simple hitch", or better, the "simple binder" and its ilk.     Hmmm..., the  "Xarax simple binder"....
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: Hrungnir on February 10, 2011, 02:58:03 PM
This is what Dahm wrote when presenting the knot. He mentions making several loops in seiries and that they don't have to be twisted in the same direction:

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.



But if xarax wants a different name on his variant/invention, I agree he should be able to name the knot whatever he wants. Corned beef knot and Packers knot, Overhand loop and Halter hitch are examples of other similar knots, but with completely different names after a modification.
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: dmacdd on February 10, 2011, 11:41:40 PM
... seems more like an evolution of the strangle knot than the Gleipnir.

  Certainly, it should compared more to the Strangler knot than to the Constrictor. What should be compared to the Constrictor is the "not so simple hitch", also presented in this thread.

Interesting. Could you show loose versions of

    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2075.0;attach=3297;image

and

    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2075.0;attach=3301;image

I am most interested in these knots as binders.  In that respect I am more interested in the balance of binding strength and simplicity as compared to the constrictor and double constrictor, rather than any topological classification.

EDIT:Oh dear,  the loose version appears already in the photo above each tight version, as in the presentation of the simpler hitches....
Title: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on November 03, 2013, 08:54:38 PM
  A(1)-A(4)
Title: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on November 03, 2013, 08:55:47 PM
   A(5) - A(8 )
Title: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on November 03, 2013, 08:57:04 PM
   B(1) - B(4)
Title: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on November 03, 2013, 08:58:07 PM
   B(5) - B(8 )
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: SS369 on November 04, 2013, 04:26:25 AM
Truly marvelous photography Xarax, thank you!

SS
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: James Petersen on December 15, 2014, 09:11:19 AM
While playing with the gleipnir buckle (yes, it's that time of year again), I began playing with the original gleipnir again, and it occurred to me that the variation in this thread is but a single tuck away from being a hybrid, TIB variation of the gleipnir/constrictor.

JP
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: James Petersen on December 15, 2014, 09:15:42 AM
TIB method of this variation.
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: James Petersen on December 15, 2014, 09:40:37 AM
And a variation based on the strangle/gleipnir knots. Not TIB, but it seems to lay more nicely when tightened.

JP
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on December 15, 2014, 01:11:24 PM
   I had NEVER tied it like this - and I think I had never even asked myself if it is TIB or not !  :)
   The second ( "Streipnir" ) variation should be variation B shown at Replies #26, #27 (1)(2), but I tell it without tying it - because I believe there are no other, third variation, so I just apply the law of the excluded middle/third... :)

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg30229#msg30229
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg30230#msg30230
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: James Petersen on December 15, 2014, 02:40:17 PM
Xarax, I went back to re-examine your photos and I once again came to the inevitable conclusion: you are a porknotgrapher par-excellence! Yours is the best knot porn I have ever seen.   :)
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on December 15, 2014, 02:47:05 PM
   Comments and pictures about the Gleipnir variations based on the ( TIB) Clove hitch, but also on the ( not-TIB) single and double overhand knot ( Strangle ) , at :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4884.msg31968#msg31968
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4818.0
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5014.0
Title: Gleipnir Clove hitch
Post by: xarax on August 02, 2015, 06:15:14 PM
   I like the sure, almost self-complacence :) way this rock-solid tight hitch "sits" on the surface of the pole... Although it is not TIB ( as the "similar", yet TIB Bull Clove hitch is ), its perfect symmetry, its tightness and its conceptual simplicity make it an interesting knot. How one can untie this thing ? With great difficulty ! :)  If you plan to tighten it as much as you can, better tie it near one end of the pole, so you can slide it, and pull it out.
   The interesting reader will notice that here I have not crossed the lines into the "nipping tube", as I did in the case of the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir" - the Clove "neck", by itself, is so tight, that this precaution ( which, in a sense, transforms the original Gleipnir into a Gleipnir X - X=crossed tails ) is not required. In this knot, I believe it pays more, regarding its tightness and security, to be able to pull its ends more easily ( so, to refrain from twisting them around each other inside the "nipping tube" ), than to increase the friction between them even more, in order to secure their "locking": the Clove hitch "lock", wrapped around compressible, elastic structures, as the ropes are, provides all the security we need - and then some !
Title: Re: A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "
Post by: xarax on August 03, 2015, 12:16:58 PM
   Passing the ends of the Clove hitch the other way, its "spine" is oriented perpendicularly to the axis of the pole, and the nub becomes a little more elongated.
   I believe I prefer the form shown in the previous post - but which will be the optimum configuration will depend on the relative diameters of the rope and the pole.