International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: Korg on March 26, 2011, 06:10:31 AM

Title: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Korg on March 26, 2011, 06:10:31 AM
Was at work yesterday and had the chance to legitimately use the Gleipnir knot.  I was typing up some aluminium poles.
It's funny that these poles now stand in the dock at work, firmly bundled, and nobody else but me knows that they are held together with a knot that was only recently invented.  Everyone else sees it and it's just some poles and some rope.  Every time I see it, it makes me smile.  Ah, the little things.   :)

Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on March 26, 2011, 09:26:39 AM
I can relate. From unknown to one of my most used knots, this little beauty still impresses me with its simplicity, ease of tying and surprising security
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: DerekSmith on March 26, 2011, 03:39:50 PM
I have recently finished clearing out an overgrown garden and was faced with the prospect of clearing away a great pile of pruned timber and twigs.

I decided to try the Gleipnir using cheap hempen garden twine.

Oh Joy  -  because the knot does not have any hard turns or frictional surfaces as you haul the ends to apply tension, there is no risk of 'chopping' the cord and I could haul full strength to tighten up the loops.  Then, as soon as I relaxed the applied tension the nipping loop clamped closed like a vice and my bundled faggot was neat and tight.

Shifting the bundles to the trailer was an easy job, and when unloaded I found an even greater delight of the Gleipnir - pull on one of the leg loops and it feeds easily through the nip and the knot falls apart.

I agree with Inkanezi it is the  ♥gleipnir   and is easily a serious working knot and has earned a well deserved place in my toolbox.

Derek
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on March 26, 2011, 08:58:16 PM
The Gleipnir is good.  Even better is a related knot known as the Xarax Binder.

(http://i53.tinypic.com/vi2nnr.jpg)
Xarax Binder


(http://i53.tinypic.com/vfgtxv.jpg)
Xarax Double Binder
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: TMCD on March 27, 2011, 02:31:35 AM
Can we get several demonstrations on the gleipnir and the xarax binder...I can't find any video's or much info on these rather new knots.

I must say I tied four fishing poles together using the constrictor and the knot had failed by the time I got to the lake. I was using garden twine, that's what I call it and the knot had completely come undone after the poles endured a bumpy ride in the back of the boat. I was lucky I didn't lose some poles.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 27, 2011, 02:51:21 AM
The Gleipnir is good.  Even better is a related knot known as the Xarax Binder.


I think so.

Comparison of the Gleipnir binder and the Xarax binder:

Equally easy to tie
The Xarax binds much more tightly.
The Gleipnir must be supported against a surface of the thing(s) being bound, while the Xarax  holds very well even if it is suspended in mid-air.
The Gleipnir is quite a bit easier to untie, except when the Xarax binder is suspended in air. In the that case you just start by  pulling apart the turns around the Xarax's binding turns.  Any suggestions for easier untying of the Xarax binder when it is supported firmly against a thing being bound?
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 27, 2011, 02:55:35 AM
Can we get several demonstrations on the gleipnir and the xarax binder...I can't find any video's or much info on these rather new knots.

I must say I tied four fishing poles together using the constrictor and the knot had failed by the time I got to the lake. I was using garden twine, that's what I call it and the knot had completely come undone after the poles endured a bumpy ride in the back of the boat. I was lucky I didn't lose some poles.

The constrictor has to be supported throughout the length of the knot by a convex surface, as does the gleipnir binder.

The Xarax binder does not. The knot can be suspended in midair in a gap between the things being bound, or not. It works either way.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 27, 2011, 03:19:43 AM
Verbal procedure for tying the Xarax binder around, e.g., a bundle of rods:

Use a piece of cord between three and four times the length necessary to pass once around the bundle to be bound after tightening, at least.

1) Take a turn around the bundle, winding up with a shorter end long enough to grasp for tightening at the end of the procedure, and a longer end.
2) Make a round turn around the shorter end with the longer end.
3) With the same longer end, make another turn around the bundle, continuing around the bundle in the same direction around the bundle as the first turn around it but on the side of that first turn that is opposite to the entry into the round turn made around the shorter end by the longer one.
4) Insert the  same longer working end through the round turn made around the other working end in the direction opposite to that other end coming out of it.
5) Tighten by pulling the two ends apart parallel to the bundle so that they are embracing inside the turn around them and so that the pull makes the turn around them perpendicular to the bundle.

Is this comprehensible?
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 27, 2011, 05:54:57 AM
The Gleipnir is good.  Even better is a related knot known as the Xarax Binder.

(http://i53.tinypic.com/vi2nnr.jpg)
Xarax Binder


(http://i53.tinypic.com/vfgtxv.jpg)
Xarax Double Binder

I remain sub-thrilled by the Gleipnir (but I like its name),
having found it wanting esp. in the situation shown in this
image (Knot4U's post).

Nevertheless, there are various ways to employ a turNip
and i.p. in reference to the above image, rotate the right
side's turn (say) 180degrees anti-clockwise.  The point of this
is to have direct tensioning of the turNip upon the hauling
of ends --vs. needing applied force to be transmitted around
the bound object(s).  In this variation of the nipping structure,
one pulls ends against each other perpendicular to the axis
(plane) of tension in the binder; and, principally, the turNip
is pulled (and thus immediately tightened, nb!) towards
the ends, as their material is hauled out through it.

This variant will not suit e.g. Inkanyezi's use on the back of the
bicycle, on the rack, as he has set it up; rather, this is a fully
surrounding structure.


 - - - - - - - - -

Dmcadd, I don't know what you're not seeing, but the Gleipnir
most certainly DOES NOT NEED contact with the bound object,
and nips as well in mid-air --that is afterall its claim to fame,
so well holding on dubious-surfaced collections such as the
set of poles Knot4U had (he should've tied off the constrictor
with an overhand finish 'a la tying shoes, reefing (and
the clove hitch would suffice for this)).

--dl*
====
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Hrungnir on March 27, 2011, 01:17:03 PM
Equally easy to tie

Now this is wrong. Xarax binder might be just as easy as tie as the second gleipnir version presented by Dahm (sheepshank gleipnir?), but not as easy tied as the first one he represented and the most popular one.

Xarax binder need two loops. You can't just pass the working end through the loops either. If you do, the turnip might twist, it won't hold as good and you get the unwanted feature by release when pulling one of the legs. The working end from below has to exit the turnips at the upper part of the turnip. The upper working end has to exit the turnip at the lower part of the turnip.

This is documented at knot4us picture:
(http://i53.tinypic.com/vi2nnr.jpg)

Try attaching an object to a vertical pole with a xarax binder and a gleipnir, and you'll see how much more difficult the xarax binder is to tie.

The xarax binder is easy to do wrong, difficult to tie, hard to inspect, hard to undo, but it's a very strong binder and I'm using it.

I agree with Dan_Lehman. The initial purpose of the gleipnir was a flying constrictor.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: TMCD on March 27, 2011, 02:05:40 PM
Verbal procedure for tying the Xarax binder around, e.g., a bundle of rods:

Use a piece of cord between three and four times the length necessary to pass once around the bundle to be bound after tightening, at least.

1) Take a turn around the bundle, winding up with a shorter end long enough to grasp for tightening at the end of the procedure, and a longer end.
2) Make a round turn around the shorter end with the longer end.
3) With the same longer end, make another turn around the bundle, continuing around the bundle in the same direction around the bundle as the first turn around it but on the side of that first turn that is opposite to the entry into the round turn made around the shorter end by the longer one.
4) Insert the  same longer working end through the round turn made around the other working end in the direction opposite to that other end coming out of it.
5) Tighten by pulling the two ends apart parallel to the bundle so that they are embracing inside the turn around them and so that the pull makes the turn around them perpendicular to the bundle.

Is this comprehensible?

Thanks for the directions but I'm having a hard time exectuing the steps all the way through. Can someone post a diagram of the gleipnir and xarax binder being tied. Pictures are more friendly to my brain.lol.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Hrungnir on March 27, 2011, 05:28:47 PM
Thanks for the directions but I'm having a hard time exectuing the steps all the way through. Can someone post a diagram of the gleipnir and xarax binder being tied. Pictures are more friendly to my brain.lol.

Inkanyezi made a very detailed picture serie of how to tie the gleipnir in an alternative way
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2262.0

Mr Dahm made pictures of loosely tied gleipnirs. I learned to tie the knot by copying his pictures.
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962

Link to Mr Dahms representation and instructions for the knot: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.msg10063#msg10063

"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."



The xarax binder is a bit more complex to tie and explain.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on March 27, 2011, 09:18:52 PM
For me, the Xarax Binder is no more difficult to tie than the Gleipnir Binder.  For the purpose of explanation, let's say there's one standing end and one working end.

1.  Stick one or two fingers along the standing end.
2.  Form the middle wraps around your finger(s) and the standing end.  I prefer two wraps.
2.  Bring the working end around the object and weave it through the two wraps where your fingers are.

I tie the Gleipnir Binder in this same simple manner.  However, I have not found a need for the Gleipnir Binder because of the Xarax Binder.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Hrungnir on March 27, 2011, 09:43:06 PM
For me, the Xarax Binder is no more difficult to tie than the Gleipnir Binder.  For the purpose of explanation, let's say there's one standing end and one working end.

1.  Stick one or two fingers along the standing end as I form the middle wraps.  I prefer two wraps.  The wraps go around both my finger(s) and the standing end.
2.  Bring the working end around the object and weave it through the two wraps where my fingers are.

I tie the Gleipnir Binder in this same simple manner.  However, I have not found a need for the Gleipnir Binder because of the Xarax Binder.

The 7th of january Xarax corrected me when I posted a picture of his binder. You can't just "weave it through the wraps", like I did in my picture.

His private message:
Quote from: Xarax
Almost...  Reverse the relative position of the two tails before they exit the knot s nub, so they cross better. I can send you a e-mail if you wish.

You'll see this if you compare Dahms simple gleipnir with Xaraxs binder. The tails exits the knots nub differently, and it matters for the behavior of the xarax binder.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on March 27, 2011, 09:52:10 PM
You can't just "weave it through the wraps", like I did in my picture.

I just tied the Xarax Binder five times how I explained above.  I tied it in the same manner on a horizontal object as well as a vertical object.

Practice.  Good luck.

Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Hrungnir on March 27, 2011, 10:01:02 PM
You can't just "weave it through the wraps", like I did in my picture.

I just tied the Xarax Binder five times how I explained above.  I tied it in the same manner on a horizontal object as well as a vertical object.

Practice.  Good luck.


There's obviously something you don't understand from my post and xaraxs quote. The tails from a Xarax binder do exit the knots nub differently from the original gleipnir. I don't know how to explain this any clearer, but that proves the complexity and how easy it is to misunderstand the tying method and complexity of the xarax binder. I assume the posted picture is one of Xaraxs, since he clearly shows what I'm trying to explain.

If the tails exit the knots nub like the original gleipnir, the xarax binder will be hard to tighten. It won't hold as well and the knots nub will twist. Xarax binder should also be difficult to untie by just pulling one of the legs.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on March 27, 2011, 10:13:30 PM
You can't just "weave it through the wraps", like I did in my picture.

I just tied the Xarax Binder five times how I explained above.  I tied it in the same manner on a horizontal object as well as a vertical object.

Practice.  Good luck.


There's obviously something you don't understand from my post and xaraxs quote. The tails from a Xarax binder do exit the knots nub differently from the original gleipnir. I don't know how to explain this any clearer, but that proves the complexity and how easy it is to misunderstand the tying method and complexity of the xarax binder. I assume the posted picture is one of Xaraxs, since he clearly shows what I'm trying to explain.

Yeah, so make sure it looks like the pic when you're tying.  Again, I tied the Xarax Binder in the manner I described and got the knot as shown in the pics.  (Note that I posted the pics here, and yes they are originally from Xarax.)

It is not difficult for me.  While tying the Xarax Binder is not exactly the same as tying the Gleipnir Binder, they're similar enough such that I don't think I need a different explanation than the one I gave above.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Hrungnir on March 27, 2011, 10:27:22 PM
Since it's hopless to explain with words and by reference to other peoples pictures and explanations, I've uploaded my own.


This is a correctly tied Xarax binder:
(http://bildr.no/thumb/852089.jpeg) (http://bildr.no/view/852089)

This is a wrongly tied Xarax binder:
(http://bildr.no/thumb/852090.jpeg) (http://bildr.no/view/852090)

I don't know what version you are tying knot4u, but it's easy to tie the wrong knot by the instruction "just weave it through the wraps". I did the mistake, and I thank Xarax for correcting me.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on March 27, 2011, 11:03:04 PM
Since it's hopless to explain with words and by reference to other peoples pictures and explanations, I've uploaded my own.


This is a correctly tied Xarax binder:
(http://bildr.no/thumb/852089.jpeg) (http://bildr.no/view/852089)

This is a wrongly tied Xarax binder:
(http://bildr.no/thumb/852090.jpeg) (http://bildr.no/view/852090)

I don't know what version you are tying knot4u, but it's easy to tie the wrong knot by the instruction "just weave it through the wraps". I did the mistake, and I thank Xarax for correcting me.

Neither of these knots look like a correctly tied Xarax Binder.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on March 27, 2011, 11:38:30 PM
Here is the Double Xarax Binder I have tied in the manner I described above.  I have shown the rope ends for clarity.

(http://i56.tinypic.com/al2o1e.jpg)

It's not difficult for me.  I'm sorry you had difficulty.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Hrungnir on March 28, 2011, 12:03:57 AM
Neither of these knots look like a correctly tied Xarax Binder.

You are right! The legs exits the knub at the top and not at the bottom. Another trap to walk into!

When tied like this, it just seems to be a reverse or upside down gleipnir.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 28, 2011, 12:16:27 AM

Dmcadd, I don't know what you're not seeing, but the Gleipnir
most certainly DOES NOT NEED contact with the bound object,
and nips as well in mid-air --that is afterall its claim to fame,
so well holding on dubious-surfaced collections such as the
set of poles Knot4U had (he should've tied off the constrictor
with an overhand finish 'a la tying shoes, reefing (and
the clove hitch would suffice for this)).


Hmmm.... I wonder if I'm tying it correctly. I am also guilty on relying on my memory of a month or so ago for the information about mid-air security, which I should not have done. But before I go further I should ask for a reference to a correct and clear presentation of the gleipner. My own quick search just now has not yielded one I consider satisfactory.

EDIT:

I am assuming the Layhands presentation is correct:

http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_Miscellaneous.htm#Gleipner (http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_Miscellaneous.htm#Gleipner)

EDIT 2:

It isn't correct. The method at Layhands guarantees that the binding turns (the turns that pass around the bundle to be bound) cross and bind each other, making the knot very hard to tighten properly.

See down thread, at http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2981.msg17770#msg17770 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2981.msg17770#msg17770)
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 28, 2011, 12:29:27 AM
Equally easy to tie

Now this is wrong. Xarax binder might be just as easy as tie as the second gleipnir version presented by Dahm (sheepshank gleipnir?), but not as easy tied as the first one he represented and the most popular one.


Perhaps, since I'm not sure at the moment I'm tying the Gleipnir correctly. But I am sure the Xarax binder is very easy indeed to tie, as in the included photos.

Quote

Xarax binder need two loops. You can't just pass the working end through the loops either.


Yes you can, if you dispose the round turn around the binding turns appropriately while tying, as in the included photos.

Quote
If you do, the turnip might twist, it won't hold as good and you get the unwanted feature by release when pulling one of the legs. The working end from below has to exit the turnips at the upper part of the turnip. The upper working end has to exit the turnip at the lower part of the turnip.

In other words the ends should "embrace" inside the round turn around them, as they indeed do  when the Xarax binder is tied as in the photos below.

Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Hrungnir on March 28, 2011, 01:05:56 AM
Quote from: dmacdd
Perhaps, since I'm not sure at the moment I'm tying the Gleipnir correctly. But I am sure the Xarax binder is very easy indeed to tie, as in the included photos.

You are right. The upside-down gleipnir (xarax binder) is perhaps as easy to tie as the original gleipnir. As you can see from my discussion with knot4u I've tied the xarax binder wrong, because my legs has exited the knub in the same manner as the gleipnir - making a somewhat double gleipnir - two turn gleipnir.

To my defense, I tried to reconstruct the Xarax binder after he had removed his pictures. When trying to reconstruct a knot from the memory of a picture, a lot of things can obviously wrong. The knot didn't have a name at this time, and I thought Xarax binder was the two-turn/roundturn gleipnir. Somehow Xarax binder is more like an upside-down gleipnir, but my point about the exiting tails is still valid for both gleipnir and xarax binder.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Korg on March 28, 2011, 01:37:02 AM
I've just learned the 'xarax binder' from this thread, and I went to work and used it, replaced one of the Gleipnirs on those aluminium poles.  I like it.  It looks good and does the job.  It holds.  However, it is harden to tighten down and I couldn't get it as tight as I could with the Gleipnir.  So I'd stick with the Gleipnir for those rare occasions when I have to tie up a pile of cylindrical objects, and keep the xarax binder in mind for interest.  btw, is that the name we've gone with, xarax binder?  Did he decide that name?
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 28, 2011, 01:52:33 AM
Help! I'm not sure I'm tying the Gleipnir right. Korgan says it holds tighter than the Xarax binder.  The "Gleipnir" I'm tying doesn't come close to the tightness of the Xarax binder.

I need a clear presentation of the Gleipner.

EDIT:

I will assume the very clear photos of tying the Gleipnir given by Layhands at

http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_Miscellaneous.htm#Gleipner (http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_Miscellaneous.htm#Gleipner)

are correct.

The above presentation seems to produce the structure specified by Gleipnir's own photo at
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186 (http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186)

Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 28, 2011, 01:59:16 AM
..., and keep the xarax binder in mind for interest.  btw, is that the name we've gone with, xarax binder?  Did he decide that name?

No. Xarax invented the knot.  I suggested "Xarax simple binder". Knot4u suggested "Xarax binder", which I like better.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on March 28, 2011, 03:42:25 AM
While I really like the Xarax Binder, I usually find myself tying good ol' Round Turns plus Backhand Hitch instead.  I'll finish it with two or three Half Hitches, slipped if I'm feeling froggy.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 28, 2011, 06:14:49 AM
Thanks for the directions but I'm having a hard time exectuing the steps all the way through. Can someone post a diagram of the gleipnir and xarax binder being tied. Pictures are more friendly to my brain.lol.

Inkanyezi made a very detailed picture serie of how to tie the gleipnir in an alternative way
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2262.0

I cannot figure out what happens between the third and fourth photos above, or what the structure of the knot in the fourth photo is.
Quote

Mr Dahm made pictures of loosely tied gleipnirs. I learned to tie the knot by copying his pictures.
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962

Link to Mr Dahms representation and instructions for the knot: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.msg10063#msg10063

"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."



Since this is a quote from Gleipnir himself, I now assume this is the Gleipnir.

This is not the knot specified at Layhands.

http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_Miscellaneous.htm#Gleipner (http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_Miscellaneous.htm#Gleipner)

The binding turns (the turns that go around the bundle being bound) in the very clear word description above do not cross each other except in the knot.  Layhands has the binding turns crossing each other on the side of the binding opposite the knot.

I attach my photos of Gleipnir's way of tying the Gleipnir.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Andre on March 28, 2011, 12:07:40 PM
Hi,

I tried them both, they look good. Gleipnir and Xarax.

For this purpose, tying bundles of stuff, I use what I call the "reverse fisherman's", i just tie a fisherman's, which is my old buddy and I definitely will get through right, and I just grab both ends and  pull the knots apart instead of together. I don't think I would meet criteria for inventing a new knot with this, but it does the job.

Andre

Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: TMCD on March 28, 2011, 12:52:09 PM
dmacdd,

That's how I'm tying the Gleipnir except it looks like you're pulling the bitter ends parallel with the bound object...I'm pulling perpendicular. Regardless, this is an amazingly simple and effective knot but I think it works better in rope that's not particularly slick. I can get one heck of a lock just by pulling the bitter ends with my hands. This would be very effective in tying off four or five logs to be carried into the house for the fireplace! I'll use it for my fishing poles when in transport to the lake.

I can't seem to get the proper result tying the xarax binder, even though I'm following your pictures closely. The end result I get is nothing like the end result in your picture.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 28, 2011, 02:44:51 PM
dmacdd,

That's how I'm tying the Gleipnir except it looks like you're pulling the bitter ends parallel with the bound object...I'm pulling perpendicular. 

I'm amazed you get a satisfactory result by pulling perpendicular to the bundle.  You have to pull parallel to the bundle, at least for the final pull, in order to allow the seizing turns to close fully.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 28, 2011, 03:19:31 PM
Definitive (I hope) comparative assertion of the structures of the Xarax binder and the Gleipnir binder, in the attached photographs.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 28, 2011, 05:08:25 PM
The Gleipnir and Xarax's inverted Gleipnir are essentially
the same structure if not pressed against a surface --they differ
only in the orientation of the turNip to the circle of the binding
structure.  To this, there is then the orientation of the tails being
passed through the turNip --both in relation to each other
and to their approach to the turNip.  None of these structures
impresses me as binding very well around a solid, round object
--they shine when surface contact is slight.

In the original thread on this structure
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.75 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.75)
--which I'd think would be the reference for "correctness"--,
I presented four possible orientations of the structure, in post#84/pg.6.

As I pointed out above, a faster-/tighter-binding like structure
is formed by passing a bight around the object/bundle
and forming the turNip in this bight tip, through which the
two ends --coming to it from the opposite direction to close this
binder-- pass through the coil/turNip from opposite directions
--to be hauled tight pulling against each other and perpendicular
to the axis of binding.  Doing this will see tension delivered
immediately to the turNip as the drawing out of tails
pulls the bight-end (turNip) ever farther in tightening the binding.

(I'll leave it to someone photographically inclined to quickly post
a photo of this structure.  It should be easily (con)figured, and of
interest, esp. to those realizing the inadequacy of the Gelipnir
in some cases.)

This variant structure might be best at setting tight, but it suffers
also from the charge of *material inefficiency* --that it isn't possible
to make a binding with minimal material : one of the hauled-out
ends will be left as waste (the other can be cut short and its stock
taken away for other use, e.g., binding the other end of some
bundle of trash-pick-up cuttings).

There are some *material-efficient* binders, however.  I showed
(also in the original Gleipnir thread --op. cit.) a structure
used for a temporary tensioner on a shelving frame, which if
seen as a continuous-circle binding gives an efficient binding,
with a lone end to be trimmed short, and incorporating some
eye knot.  The turNip is formed in the eye-knot's eye, and
its S.Part circles the bound object to pass through this turNip
and then around again to pass through again but in the opposite
direction; it is hauled tight possibly by pushing against the
turNip with one hand to help keep the binding from just
rotating around the bound object instead of tightening.


--dl*
====
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 28, 2011, 10:33:28 PM
The Gleipnir and Xarax's inverted Gleipnir are essentially
the same structure if not pressed against a surface --they differ
only in the orientation of the turNip to the circle of the binding
structure.  

Yes. I had not recognized this myself until yesterday when working on really understanding the Gleipnir. I chose the way of presenting the two in the photographs in the preceding post so as to make the similarity clear.

Quote
To this, there is then the orientation of the tails being
passed through the turNip --both in relation to each other
and to their approach to the turNip.  None of these structures
impresses me as binding very well around a solid, round object
--they shine when surface contact is slight.

I find that the Xarax inverted Gleipner grips slightly  better than the correct Gliepner when they are both pressed firmly against a round object -- about as well as the constrictor. This may be due to its being easier to tighten the XiG in this case.

My incorrect belief that the XiG bound much tighter than the G was dues to mistying the G in the way that the Layhands site ties it -- in a way that makes one of the turns that binds the bundle ride on the other, making it difficult to properly tighten the "G". (Someone may debate the scare quotes -- topologically it was a G.)  I don't know why I extend this incorrect impression that G was inferior to the case when G is floating in air.  Sheer thick-headedness probably.

Quote
In the original thread on this structure
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.75 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.75)
--which I'd think would be the reference for "correctness"--,
I presented four possible orientations of the structure, in post#84/pg.6.

I cannot understand that post. I note that the line drawing attached to it does not show the Xarax bnder.

Quote

As I pointed out above, a faster-/tighter-binding like structure
is formed by passing a bight around the object/bundle
and forming the turNip in this bight tip, through which the
two ends --coming to it from the opposite direction to close this
binder-- pass through the coil/turNip from opposite directions

I don't understand this. My mental picture at this point is of the ends
coming from the same direction since the cord was doubled to form the bight passed
around the bundle?

Quote
--to be hauled tight pulling against each other and perpendicular
to the axis of binding.  Doing this will see tension delivered
immediately to the turNip as the drawing out of tails
pulls the bight-end (turNip) ever farther in tightening the binding.

(I'll leave it to someone photographically inclined to quickly post
a photo of this structure.  It should be easily (con)figured, and of
interest, esp. to those realizing the inadequacy of the Gelipnir
in some cases.)

I'll photograph it when I understand it.

Quote
This variant structure might be best at setting tight, but it suffers
also from the charge of *material inefficiency* --that it isn't possible
to make a binding with minimal material : one of the hauled-out
ends will be left as waste (the other can be cut short and its stock
taken away for other use, e.g., binding the other end of some
bundle of trash-pick-up cuttings).

There are some *material-efficient* binders, however.  I showed
(also in the original Gleipnir thread --op. cit.) a structure
used for a temporary tensioner on a shelving frame, which if
seen as a continuous-circle binding gives an efficient binding,
with a lone end to be trimmed short, and incorporating some
eye knot.  The turNip is formed in the eye-knot's eye, and
its S.Part circles the bound object to pass through this turNip
and then around again to pass through again but in the opposite
direction; it is hauled tight possibly by pushing against the
turNip with one hand to help keep the binding from just
rotating around the bound object instead of tightening.

Cool! See attached photos.

EDIT:  The binder may be loosened by pushing toward each other the
turnip and the knot which provides the loop in which the turnip is formed.

Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 29, 2011, 01:34:00 AM

Quote

As I pointed out above, a faster-/tighter-binding like structure
is formed by passing a bight around the object/bundle
and forming the turNip in this bight tip, through which the
two ends --coming to it from the opposite direction to close this
binder-- pass through the coil/turNip from opposite directions

I don't understand this. My mental picture at this point is of the ends
coming from the same direction since the cord was doubled to form the bight passed
around the bundle?


" through which the two ends --coming to it from the opposite direction "

Ding! Lights go on. Pennies drop. -- Reading comprehension grade 3.

Nice little, e.g., bag closer.  This one is almost indistinguishable in appearance from the Xarax inverted Gleipnir, in spite of being quite different in its structure. You can really tighten it hard by pulling at right angles  to the plane defined by the turns that bind the bundle.

EDIT:  May 16, 2011: This does not tighten or bind nearly so well as when the two working ends are wrapped together in a half knot (not shown), like the start of a reef knot, inside the two nipping turns.  When tied this way it is very hard to untie unless slipped.   It's advantage is, of course, that the doubled cord is passed only once around the bundle to be bound, while the other binders discussed in this thread require two passes around the bundle.


Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: xarax on March 29, 2011, 02:46:02 AM
...binder should also be difficult to untie by just pulling one of the legs.

  In fact, this binder is easier to untie than the "Gleipnir binder" - because the two ends of the nipping coil are not in touch with the surface of the object in the vicinity of the knot s nub. So, we can easily pass one tail underneath one riding turn, pull it, and the knot is loosened immediately. (See attached picture) 
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on March 29, 2011, 09:58:37 PM
The binders in Reply #35 & #34 are a winners, worthy of new threads.

The binder in Reply #34 is sort of like a Trucker Hitch.  At first I didn't like it because it requires more rope.  However, the more I tested it, I realized it's easier to get this binder tighter than the other binders in this thread.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: xarax on March 30, 2011, 01:30:09 AM
   I had tried the "binder#35", as a hitch, ( along with some other, more complex, similar variations), but I had decided that it was somewhat inferior to the one finally presented: Now, if one wishes to use it as a free, "mid-air" binder, I suggest he uses it in the triple / threefold coil "tube" version ( actually, a coil tube with two and a half whole turns). I think that this longer length of the "tube" is required, so the tails have more room to better twist around each other/ embrace each other (See the attached pictures)
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 30, 2011, 06:25:57 AM
   I had tried the "binder#35", as a hitch, ( along with some other, more complex, similar variations),
but I had decided that it was somewhat inferior to the one finally presented

What is it to try it qua hitch ?!
--that what would be here the "bound object(s)" is an object
the structure's snugged around and then the ends (both?)
are in tension with this object resisting?
But "the one finally presented" I take to be what is being
called the "Xarax G." and show here, and not qua hitch.
(You found the apple inferior to the orange?)

As for as binding force, I cannot see any comparison of the
prior structures to what I've presented and is here quickly
labeled "#35" --this latter one hauls tight and firmly nipped,
quickly, as was the design goal.  One of the shortcomings
of the Gleipnir (not always realized, mind) is that the
ends must transmit their tightening tension all the way around
the bound object(s) in order to deliver tightening force to
the turNip --I wanted something that sooner tightened
that component, and #34 & #35 do so directly/immediately.
(Think of binding boards:  in the G. the lines in setting
pull around all 4 corners to deliver tension to the turNip
whereas in #35 there are no corners between the hauled-out
ends and the nipping coil!)

But now I wonder at the above difference : if that "immediate"
tightening occurs w/o delivering force around the four corners,
then are the 3 *protected* sides too much losing out in this
tensioning?  Well, if the transmission is not so much impeded,
note that there is a theoretical *mid-point* between the twin
ends being hauled out and the coiled bight-end being drawn
towards the exiting ends --so that the tightening runs in opposite
directions only *half*-way around the bound object(s), not the
full circumference; at the *mid-point*, tension one direction
meets an opposite pull --each line's further *half* is being
tensioned from the other direction!

Quote
Now, if one wishes to use it as a free, "mid-air" binder,
I suggest he uses it in the triple / threefold coil "tube" version
( actually, a coil tube with two and a half whole turns). I think
that this longer length of the "tube" is required, so the tails have
more room to better twist around each other/ embrace each other

Pfft : I think you should tie it as shown previously around your
fingers and that would stop this wild conjecture !  Really, are you
finding the binding failing?  I'm concerned about putting in that
twist of ends, as it's friction to overcome to achieve tightening,
though present to resist loosening --the barter between what
one can overcome to get a firmer grasp, I guess.  (In a small
braided (3mm?) cord tied around a thigh, I got it darn-tootin'
tight w/just the 540deg turNip, and quicly so (the point
about a "*mid-point*" to the tensioning, above) !!  o0O0uch! )


 ;)
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on March 30, 2011, 11:20:22 AM
In either the Gleipnir proper or the "xarax binder" form, for a perpendicular pull, it is necessary to cross the two ends that one will pull, in order not to open the turNip while pulling. This also implies a bit more friction to overcome, which is mostly not important, as it is not primarily intended to strangle the bundle, but to keep it bundled.

I don't really see a need for improving the Gleipnir more than Anthony Dahm suggested, by placing a row of turNips in sequence, which is rather easily done also in the way I usually tie it now. However, this is only needed where the friction is poor, so mostly I need not do it. Those "improvements" suggested so far are in my opinion not really improving the knot, but only complicating it. And I don't see an inverted form as different from the original form; when suspended in mid-air, it is just the same but upside down. As it does not need the support of another object, the supposedly harder binding by contact with the object is not an improvement in my opinion, it can only make the loosening more difficult. I haven't yet seen the Gleipnir fail, so for its original purpose, I regard the ease of untying as a boon, not a problem.

And of course the Gleipnir bites well in mid-air, that is its primary purpose, compared to the constrictor that needs the bound object's convex surface to provide nip.

I have used Gleipnir for various tasks around the house. For example, a sunshade that I put on the balcony was attached to one of the stanchions with Gleipnirs, and I have bound other objects too, as the electric outlet strips for the computer, that I bound to the feet of my table to hold them in place. In those places, the objects are rather square, and the nip is not supported by anything firm. In most places where I have used it, it has replaced variants of butcher's or packer's knots (as #187). The main virtue over those is that it is undone easily and the string can be used again.

But I also use it for rather permanent bindings, like the ones for the sunshade, where I cut the string when I take it down after the summer season.

Other variants of binders, like the one with a 540 degree turn in the bight that is passes are practical, but different from the Gleipnir, and not practical on the bike rack, as there is also the element of simplicity when making the knot with two splayed loops, just passing it over the load and around the rack both sides and then back to the top where the turNip is formed by making two opposing parallel intertwined half hitches which are collapsed into the turNip. The beauty of this knot is its simplicity and ease of both tying and untying, combined with just as much security as needed. Any expansion might make it more secure, but at the same time it loses a few of its desired features. I don't need it to be more secure, but I appreciate that it is so easily tied as well as easily opened.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: xarax on March 30, 2011, 12:03:11 PM
  I had tried the "binder#35", as a hitch, ( along with some other, more complex, similar variations), but I had decided that it was somewhat inferior to the one finally presented:

What is it to try it qua hitch ?!
--that what would be here the "bound object(s)" is an object the structure's snugged around and then the ends (both?) are in tension with this object resisting?
But "the one finally presented" I take to be what is being called the "Xarax G." and show here, and not qua hitch. (You found the apple inferior to the orange?)

  As a hitch, around a round pole.
  "The one finally presented" refers to the original "simple hitch a la Gleipnir"(1), not the one shown in my previous post ! I have found the "binder#35" as a hitch around a round pole, inferior to the one finally presented in (1), so I did not published it. I am glad you managed to arrive there, too, so now we can compare apples to apples.  :)
The one shown in my previous post is a binder around a soft pillow, where the surface  does not presses/squeezes the coils tube. It is a "mid -air" "binder#35" with a three turns coil tube.  

  As for as binding force, I cannot see any comparison of the prior structures to what I've presented and is here quickly labelled "#35" --this latter one hauls tight and firmly nipped, quickly, as was the design goal.  

  The "binder#35" is OK as a mid-air binder.( And it is better still in the three-turns coil tube configuration I show in my previous post. Try it and you will see it at once.)  As a hitch - because the one end of the coil structure/tube leave it in different angles, than in "the one finally presented"-, it is somewhat inferior. The end of the coil structure/tube that remains in touch with the surface of the pole, does not contribute in the knot s nub being squeezed/pressed upon the hard surface of the object/pole. So, the knot s nub is not pressed/squeezed on this surface as hard as there, so the nipping force on the tails that are going through it is not as great. That is my attempt at a simple "theoretical" explanation of what I found in practice : Of course, there are many other things that should be taken into account. Your explanations of the differences in the different structures are interesting. You should have also considered the interaction of the knot and the pole, in the case of a hitch bound with those structures. Compare hitches to hitches, and "mid-air" binders to "mid-air" binders, that is, apples to apples.

  Pfft : I think you should tie it as shown previously around your fingers and that would stop this wild conjecture !  Really, are you finding the binding failing?

  I see you use my line : Remember the "Dan Lehman s finger" , or else, that I suggested putting into the Pretzel bowline ? I do ! :)
  Why you do find such pleasure in twisting other people s words, is beyond my limited analytical powers...Perhaps it has to do with too much knot tying... :) I never found this "binder#35" "failing", and, of course, I never said something like that. Try to read my written lips, as I try to read your unpublished thoughts/notebooks...The  "binder#35"  is a nice variation of the Gleipnir, obviously, and it might hold better than the original Gleipnir, just because its coil tube is longer. The three turns variation I shoe my previous post is, for the same reason , better still. I had made the comparison of an apple to an apple, of the "binder#35", as a hitch, to the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir", presented in (1). Do this first, and then you can Pfff later, as much as you wish !  :)  
   Now, the "binder#34" is not even an orange, it is a bunch of bananas !  :) Good binder, without any question, but we should compare it to the trucker s hitch, not to the Gleipnir, or the other similar simpler binders. I had tried a symmetric variation of it, in the way of the binder presented at (2). I think it is better still than "binder#34", but, again, we should compare apples to apples, and the binder presented at (2) should be compared to Versatackle, not t the trucker s hitch or the "binder #34".
   I think that those binders, #34 and #35 are good, but your binder presented at (3), is great. I suggest you try it with double, Gleipnir-like coils, and then ask dmacdd to post pictures of it !  :)  
  

1).http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.0
2).http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.msg17414#msg17414  
3).http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1451.0
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 30, 2011, 04:06:49 PM
Quote
What is it to try it qua hitch ?!
--that what would be here the "bound object(s)" is an object the structure's snugged around and then the ends (both?) are in tension with this object resisting?
But "the one finally presented" I take to be what is being called the "Xarax G." and show here, and not qua hitch. (You found the apple inferior to the orange?)

  As a hitch, around a round pole.


I would prefer you drop this mis-use of "hitch" : a hitch is understood
as a knot that (in basic form) is of one piece of flexible material tied
to some object with one end loaded (in resistance to the object), one
free.  Apparently, you want "hitch" to denote the nature of the object,
both ends still free.

  As for as binding force, I cannot see any comparison of the prior structures to what I've presented and is here quickly labelled "#35" --this latter one hauls tight and firmly nipped, quickly, as was the design goal.  

  The "binder#35" is OK as a mid-air binder.( And it is better still in the three-turns coil tube configuration I show in my previous post. Try it and you will see it at once.)  As a hitch - because the one end of the coil structure/tube leave it in different angles, than in "the one finally presented"-, it is somewhat inferior. The end of the coil structure/tube that remains in touch with the surface of the pole, does not contribute in the knot s nub being squeezed/pressed upon the hard surface of the object/pole. So, the knot s nub is not pressed/squeezed on this surface as hard as there, so the nipping force on the tails that are going through it is not as great. That is my attempt at a simple "theoretical" explanation of what I found in practice : Of course, there are many other things that should be taken into account. Your explanations of the differences in the different structures are interesting. You should have also considered the interaction of the knot and the pole, in the case of a hitch bound with those structures. Compare hitches to hitches, and "mid-air" binders to "mid-air" binders, that is, apples to apples.

Quote
 Why you do find such pleasure in twisting other people s words,
is beyond my limited analytical powers...Perhaps it has to do with too much
knot tying... :) I never found this "binder#35" "failing", ...

I didn't twist your words --you over react.  Simply, you suggested that
the #35 performed less well than others, that is all my "failing" means;
and that contrasts with my finding it noticeably better (in gaining grip
--it still suffers from wastage of material in its end(s), unlike #34).
And I find this gripping around semi-solid objects (my thigh); you show
your structures around such relatively small-diameter objects I wonder
at their viability there.  Even so, though, #35 should prove the more
quickly tighter & surer structure.

Quote
Now, the "binder#34" is not even an orange, it is a bunch of bananas !  :) Good binder,
without any question, but we should compare it to the trucker s hitch, not to the Gleipnir, ...

But it's a competition for the task of binding, and in the original
case the Gleipnir was put forward to bind things such as cut-up
twigs/branches, where the lack of a continuous convex surface
enables the frictional security of the structure (e.g., for the constrictor).
#34 is exactly to that task, sparing the wasted hauled-out end
(one or other of two, of the G. ), and giving immediate
tightening of the turNip, as its connection to the hauling end
is directly tightened, not waiting for transmission of force to circle
the object, overcoming the friction of all that.

Quote
but your binder presented at (3), is great. I suggest you try it with double,
Gleipnir-like coils, and then ask dmacdd to post pictures of it !  :)  
  
1).http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.0
2).http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.msg17414#msg17414




Your list runneth under --there is no "(3)" : should I look at both
1 + 2, for 1+2 = 3 ?

 :D
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 30, 2011, 05:43:24 PM
dmacdd,

That's how I'm tying the Gleipnir except it looks like you're pulling the bitter ends parallel with the bound object...I'm pulling perpendicular. 

I'm amazed you get a satisfactory result by pulling perpendicular to the bundle.  You have to pull parallel to the bundle, at least for the final pull, in order to allow the seizing turns to close fully.

This depends on the exact orientation of the ends:
if they turn (bend) around each other, then they
will be effectively *redirecting* the tension at this point
within the turNip and there should be little problem
--the force is against each other, and aside from the frictional
reduction of effect to the binding, the turNip can still
tighten around the tensioned ends.  But if the ends pull
against the turNip, then --yes-- it would be hard to get
a good tightening as the hauling would be working against
the turNip closing.

 - - - - - - - - -

Now, another observation about orientation:  Xarax's Inverted Gleipnir
should tighten better (note how he orients the ends, e.g.) around
a pipe e.g. because as he noted in reply to me the line leading
into the turNip are off of the object and pull hard into it
and also press the ends against/towards the (firm) object;
whereas in the (uninverted) G. there is friction bearing
against the feeds into the turNip of ends pressing them against
the object, giving some frictional impeding to the tightening.


--dl*
====
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: dmacdd on March 30, 2011, 06:18:58 PM
dmacdd,

That's how I'm tying the Gleipnir except it looks like you're pulling the bitter ends parallel with the bound object...I'm pulling perpendicular.  

I'm amazed you get a satisfactory result by pulling perpendicular to the bundle.  You have to pull parallel to the bundle, at least for the final pull, in order to allow the seizing turns to close fully.

This depends on the exact orientation of the ends:
if they turn (bend) around each other, then they
will be effectively *redirecting* the tension at this point
within the turNip and there should be little problem
--the force is against each other, and aside from the frictional
reduction of effect to the binding, the turNip can still
tighten around the tensioned ends.  But if the ends pull
against the turNip, then --yes-- it would be hard to get
a good tightening as the hauling would be working against
the turNip closing.


I think we were both wrong. The direction of pull for tightest result is about 45 degrees. This is the angle at which the turnip winds up perpendicular to the two ends it is binding -- in other words, this is the angle at which  the turnip winds up as small as it can be = as tight as it can be.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: xarax on March 30, 2011, 09:02:47 PM
a hitch is understood as a knot that (in basic form) is of one piece of flexible material tied to some object with one end loaded (in resistance to the object), one free.  

   To my mind, perhaps erroneously, a hitch is understood as a knot that enables one piece of (flexible) rope to remain bound at one (solid) object, ( at a pole, for example ), so that one can pull the object by the one or both free ends of this knot. A binder is understood as a knot that enables two or more pieces of (solid) objects, to remain bound together by means of one piece of rope. The "simple hitch a la Gleipnir" was meant as nothing else that such a hitch. I had only made the comparison between the "binder#35" as a hitch, in that sense, and "the hitch finally presented" in my original post. How else we can call/denote those two quite different knot types ?
   Now, comparing apples to apples, hitches with hitches, I have found that the "binder#35" , as a hitch, was-is somewhat inferior to the "the hitch finally presented", so I had not included it in my original post, which was about hitches, and hitches only. I am glad you brought it into peoples attention again, as a "mid-air" "binder". Your audience has, evidently, not as few people as mine... And I would be more glad if you try and discover and admit that the three coils variation that I had presented in my previous post, is better still, just because its coil "tube" is longer, and enables the tails to better twist around/embrace each other before they exit the knot s nub.  
   "Shown here" is, obviously, not a hitch , but a binder, too, around a soft pillow. ( I use this trick just to make sure that the hard surface of a (solid) object does not interfere with the knot s nub in any way, like this I had tried to explain.)
   Comparing apples to apples :
   As simple hitches, according to holding performance
1."the hitch finally presented"
2. The "binder#35",
3. The "Gleipnir hitch"
    As "mid-air" simple "binders":
1. The three coils "binder#35" variation  (need for a better, descriptive name )
2. The two coils "binder#35" (need for a better, descriptive name )
3. The Gleipnir knot
   As "mid-air" complex "binders":
X. The double coil "S binder" ( I prefer to call this S binder as the "Lehman binder")( dmacdd is kindly requested to post pictures f this great binder).
1. The double coil Versatackle-Gleipnir binder
2. The double coil Tucker s hitch-Gleipnir, that is presently named "binder#34" (need for a better, descriptive name )
(X= Unknown performance, to the time being. )

#35 should prove the more quickly tighter & surer structure.

(Compared to the " simple hitch a la Gleipnir" , "binder#35" , as a hitch around a solid, round object. i.e. a pole ).
Quickly, may be, tighter, definitely not, surer, (I doubt it but) it remains to be seen.
AGAIN, those are my findings about "binder#35" as a hitch, in the sense described above.

you show your structures around such relatively small-diameter objects

  Size matters !  :) And  95 % of them, poles or what else, are as "small" (?) as the ones shown in my pictures, due to the strength of common materials, ( wood, hollow metal tubes, etc.) and their common use in everyday life.
  Of course, with the same diameter rope, around a larger diameter pole, the advantages of the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir" over the other structures, are expected to diminish.

P.S. 1 : I apologize, because I forgot to include the reference (3) about the "S binder".  I had since edited my post.
P.S 2  : I noticed your recent comments about the "hitch finally presented", at the second paragraph of reply # 43. Your debt is now 2570 $ ( 80 worthless words-US dollars less. That is a great reduction=gain ! )
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Dan_Lehman on April 08, 2011, 07:24:24 PM
I'm not conceding the argument over which binder is more effective
between the Gleipnir set vs. my bight-wise variation.  But I recently
used both --expressly for comparison-- in small cords binding a small
clump of ropes (folded to about a metre length, and maybe 4 inches
of rough diameter to this rope-cluster), arranged so that what I made
was a sort of carry handle --a broad bight going towards ends of the
ropes cluster like a handle on a carry bag, and loading the binders
qua hitches.

.:.  Both structures worked fine.  It seemed that the inverted Gleipnir
Xarax is championing tightened better, at times, but I'm not sure.
Again, for the task, both worked well --binding adequately (if not
so powerfully, given friction of surrounding the ropes), and then
serving qua hitches for the carry-handle.  --> "Port-a-Rope".   8)

And the one structure is the other with one half rotated
(just as the frustrator & constrictor are related).
(I took a photo, which I'll upload later.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Sweeney on April 09, 2011, 02:33:39 PM
The Gleipnir and subsequent variants have been discussed at length on this Forum. I wonder if someone would like to write an article for Knotting Matters as most members never look at the Forum (about 20% do not have internet access anyway)? Contributions to editor@igkt.net would I'm sure be very welcome.

Barry
Hon. Sec.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: squarerigger on April 10, 2011, 07:00:30 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with Barry's suggestion to send an article - preferably something of one or two pages in length or about 500 words.  Please feel free to send to knottingmatters@igkt.net and it will quickly get to my in-box.  Photographs, if added, should be one to three MB in size and preferably 300 dpi.  Thanks!

Lindsey
Editor, Knotting Matters
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on April 11, 2011, 02:49:10 AM
What's the secret code to get to the elusive Knotting Matters publication?

I did a Google search and still can't figure it out.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: squarerigger on April 11, 2011, 04:23:19 AM
Hi Knot

It is not an on-line publication - it is made the old-fashioned way - it is printed and sent once a quarter to each of the members of the IGKT.  To get your copy, join the IGKT (not the same as the web-site) and you will receive one in the mail every three months.  Looking forward to hearing from you with your membership application - details on the home page of this site!

Lindsey
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on April 11, 2011, 07:46:30 AM
It might be helpful not to ask for images at a particular DPI, as DPI is a useless measure for images that are not yet printed, and which as well does not coincide with the pixels of a colour image that is reproduced on a computer screen or comes from a camera. The final printed size is crucial when calculating DPI, and each pixel might need up to about five dots, so pixel count may be much less than dots according to DPI size.

So the MiB size of images may be a better guidance, as it might be a limit for reception in the mail. It can also be helpful to tell more or less the pixelcount that is preferred within MiB limits for the bandwidth, for pictures that should be printed large. I would suggest that images should be at least about 2 megapixels for a full page and could carry less pixels according to the size on the page. The printer then can decide what DPI to use.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Sweeney on April 28, 2011, 08:01:22 AM
I have just spent Easter weekend at a local waterways museum at Ellesmere Port and each day I took sandwiches for lunch in a plastic box with a clip fitting lid - on which the clip wouldn''t work. The lid has an edge so the top is slightly recessed but for ease of tying and in particular ease of tightening I found Dan's loop variation excellent - I used some thin polypropylene laid cord (really cheap furry stuff) and cut it off each day but it held the tension in the fridge overnight and it was really tight.  The big advantage was the lack of a need for the cord to travel around the box as it was tightened (which makes the original Gleipnir not quite so good on a square section item). I think I'll use this as standard from now on - certainly for throw away cord.

Barry
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on April 28, 2011, 08:27:44 AM
I have just spent Easter weekend at a local waterways museum at Ellesmere Port and each day I took sandwiches for lunch in a plastic box with a clip fitting lid - on which the clip wouldn''t work. The lid has an edge so the top is slightly recessed but for ease of tying and in particular ease of tightening I found Dan's loop variation excellent - I used some thin polypropylene laid cord (really cheap furry stuff) and cut it off each day but it held the tension in the fridge overnight and it was really tight.  The big advantage was the lack of a need for the cord to travel around the box as it was tightened (which makes the original Gleipnir not quite so good on a square section item). I think I'll use this as standard from now on - certainly for throw away cord.

Barry

Do you have a pic or a link to the variation you mean?
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Sweeney on April 28, 2011, 10:09:03 AM
Attached is a photo of a similar box with a loosely tied binder using paracord. The arrangement is a bowline with a round turn formed within the loop and the cord passed around the box twice entering the "TurNip" from opposite directions. Hope this makes sense!

Barry
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: oneiros on July 03, 2011, 05:40:08 AM
I'd like to share two Gleipner variants I found today while playing with the knot.

The attached image shows the first variant being tied in the bight.  If step 2 is omitted, then we get the original Gleipner knot instead.  At step 4, if the B loop is given an extra twist, then we get another variant.  Obviously, more twists could be added to either or both loops.

My apologies if these variants have been discussed before.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 03, 2011, 07:15:25 AM
Hi, oneiros,
that's an interesting variant (depicted graphically), which I think
will lead me to further fiddling.  Nice illustrations!

 ::)
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: xarax on July 03, 2011, 01:51:30 PM
   Hi, oneiros. Welcome to the Forum.

   The shown variation of your hitch does not hold very tightly, but it can be improved immediately! Just invert the whole knot... take it out of the pole, put it upside down, and pass the pole again through the two riding turns. Now it looks more as a Gleipnir hitch  :) , and, what is the main thing that bothers us here, it holds much tighter, too. You can also reverse the order of the coils of the nipping loop. See the attached pictures for those two variations of your hitch.
   The element I find very interesting in those hitches is the U turn of the one free end as it goes through the nipping loop and under the one riding turn. Combined with the embrace/twist with the other leg inside the nipping 'tube", it secures both free ends quite satisfactory.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: TMCD on July 03, 2011, 03:59:45 PM
The original Xarax binder seems a little harder to tie than the original Gleipnir. If I'm using the Gleipnir, I really like Inkanyezi's method of tying it, really simple and effective. I still don't understand why folks around here don't like the Packer Knot or Butcher's Knot that utilizes the WE in a fig 8 fashion around the SE. Just tie a slipped fig 8 around the WE and you talk about some tension...I can get more tension using this knot than the others.

Ashley shows this knot tied with a Fig 8, but if you go that route, it's hard to get undone. Slip the fig 8 and you're in business. The other knots are cool though but I personally get more tension using the old Packer Knot.
Title: Re: ♥gleipnir
Post by: knot4u on July 03, 2011, 09:49:41 PM
I still don't understand why folks around here don't like the Packer Knot or Butcher's Knot that utilizes the WE in a fig 8 fashion around the SE...

...because Two Half Hitches is simpler and more secure.  You can finish the Two Half Hitches with a Half Hitch lock at the standing end, just like in a Corned Beef Knot.  I don't get the need for the Corned Beef/Packer/Butcher.  I've tried these knots on various objects and various rope types.

Even better than Two Half Hitches is a Tautline Reverse.