International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: xarax on June 24, 2011, 02:18:26 PM

Title: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 24, 2011, 02:18:26 PM
   As we grow older, we realize that there are some types of good-looking knots/women we never really liked, but we can not say why...( After some time, we do not even bother to justify our choices...). This is happening with me and the Double Constrictor, a simple, fine tough hitch. ( On the other hand, the Double Strangle was, right from the beggining, and stil is, one of my favourite knots). However, having included the common Constrictor in my bakers dozen, or dozen, or ten, or even six more interesting knots ( as it is a perfect example of the cooperation of two out of the five basic knot elements - the riding turn and the rope embrace-twist ), I felt that I should have a fresh look at her. Same old story, I still do not like it !  Instead, a close relative of her, a young beauty, captured my eye, and I post a picture of her here (See the attached picture) It is a another form/dressing/variation of a Double Constrictor, a knot I really do like. In a sense, it is more symmetric than the "old" Double Constrictor, more "balanced". I have not met her anywhere else, but it might well be the case that I was not careful enough, and I have not paid the attention she deserved. (*)

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2191.msg16556#msg16556
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2191.msg16938#msg16938

* P.S. Yes, that I exactly what is the case!  :) This beauty is siting on the Bible s throne, as ABoK#1253. I had been looking for her all around the place ( of my mind ), while she was just around the corner of the bookshelf... There is a saying going somewhat like this : I was searching for you in the heavens, and I found you on earth !
 
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: knot4u on June 24, 2011, 06:45:15 PM
Interesting, I'll have to try this, but I can't see how it's tied.

Anyway, you'd put the Constrictor in your top 6 knots?  What's are its attributes you like or need?  After the Gleipnir enlightenment, I don't even have the Constrictor in my top 50 knots.  I have 8 binders on my short list, and the Constrictor is not one of them.  I still know how to tie it in various ways, but I don't see myself going past my top 8 binders to settle on the Constrictor.  I also removed the Boa from my short list.

To each his own, I guess.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: roo on June 24, 2011, 07:37:28 PM
After the Gleipnir enlightenment, I don't even have the Constrictor in my top 50 knots.
On a bundle, the Gleipnir often fails to tighten at all.  Other times it holds loosely.  It was described as an "open air" binder in its introductory thread.  Depending on how it is formed, it may leave a leftover knot if slipped off the end of a bundle.  

In comparison, the Constrictor Knot holds immediately and tightly on a bundle and ties quickly on the bight or with the end of the rope.  It never leaves a leftover knot if slipped off the end of its bundle.

I'm still struggling to see where the low-tensioning, open-air-only (or nearly so), rope-hog Gleipnir is the knot of choice for any application.  But this is a diversion from the thread topic, so I digress.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 24, 2011, 09:17:40 PM
I can't see how it's tied.

Very easily, my dear knot4u, very easily... :)
Follow her path...
(The three riding turns are "parallel" in the back side of the pole / transparnt glass tube.)(See attached pictures)

What's are its attributes you like..?

...it is a perfect example of the cooperation of two out of the five basic knot elements - the riding turn and the rope embrace-twist
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: knot4u on June 24, 2011, 09:48:10 PM
In comparison, the Constrictor Knot holds immediately and tightly on a bundle and ties quickly on the bight or with the end of the rope.  It never leaves a leftover knot if slipped off the end of its bundle.

I'm still struggling to see where the low-tensioning, open-air-only (or nearly so), rope-hog Gleipnir is the knot of choice for any application.  But this is a diversion from the thread topic, so I digress.

You made sense until you said a Gleipnir is a rope hog.  A Constrictor is roughly 2 wraps around the object, and so is a Gleipnir.  By the way, I prefer the Xarax Binder (a modification of the Gleipnir brand of knots).

If the goal is to conserve rope, I'd go with a binder requiring roughly a single wrap, such as a Tautline Reverse, a Reef, or Two Half Hitches locked.

The only advantage I see about the Constrictor is that it falls apart if you slip it off the object, and that's something I have never actually done in a real application.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: TMCD on June 24, 2011, 09:54:26 PM
I find the Packer Knot to be a great binding knot, I often use it to bind ladders together on top of my van before tying them down using the TH. I'm not sure how well the Constrictor would work around ladders or for that matter any surface that's not convex. I can get as much tension as needed using the ole Packer Knot too, it's a great knot.

I haven't familiarized myself with the Gleipnir but if it's a rope hog, I don't want it around me. I've never learned the Boa, I'm sure the Double Constrictor would be sufficient enough for most practical applications.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: TheTreeSpyder on June 25, 2011, 12:59:22 AM
To me the Double Constrictor is harder to Cinch up, but once purchased into it's death grip, harder to likewise release it's tensions.

i think of a Clove as a base knot, a Bag Knot as almost a Clove, save the last tuck to bring the tail into the same lock position, 'squarely' saddled between the 2 rails as Constrictor.
(Groundline same but tail/bitter to outside, so not squarely trapped).

Constrictor as the Clove maid fully, then the same lock as mentioned in Bag, another Turn around same position to make Double Constrictor.

This trapping places the mainline/could be Standing, squarely on top of the Bitter/tail after line tension reducing Turns, and is symmetrical (Bag and Groundline wouldn't be same knot when pulled backwierds)

Leave the Constrictor loose some around a spar as host, and place another crosswise spar above that spar squarely under the cinch down of the Constrictor's lock right on top of that spar for Transom.
Because, the main thing here is that the lock is squarely  on top of the spar, i like the thicker spar on top, to give more room to achieve this.  So the smaller spar will be in the 'saddle' of the 2 simple loops, and the larger trapped squarely under the lock.

i favour True Constrictor form as Transom, Bag or slipped Bag for much other.  Sometimes nothing but Constrictor seems like it will do though, and is easier to place tension into than Double, the Double does have it's days!

Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: roo on June 25, 2011, 01:31:16 AM
You made sense until you said a Gleipnir is a rope hog.  A Constrictor is roughly 2 wraps around the object, and so is a Gleipnir.  
For an open-air binder (which a Constrictor is not), the Gleipnir is indeed a rope hog.  It has to make two trips around the objects, whereas most open air binding systems take one trip, and use most of their rope in a tensioning system that actually amplifies tension.  The Gleipnir wastes rope without such amplification.
Quote
The only advantage I see about the Constrictor is that it falls apart if you slip it off the object, and that's something I have never actually done in a real application.
What of the advantage of actually holding tight around a convex bundle, and ease of tying?  The Gleipnir can't even be considered, as it usually doesn't not hold in such situations, where other open-air binding systems could, even if it would be a little awkward.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: knot4u on June 25, 2011, 05:04:15 AM
Does anybody besides me think this knot deserves a new name besides "More Symmetric Double Constrictor"?

First, a Double Constrictor is already symmetric.  So, I don't know what "more symmetric" means.  Second, although the concept is similar to a Double Constrictor, this knot is topologically different than a Double Constrictor.  It's not just a different dressing.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 25, 2011, 07:19:27 AM
This has long been my preferred double constrictor to use for a quick
whipping, as the way the doubled overwraps (riding turns) tuck under
each other I think better resists rubbing against them unsettling
the knot.  Knot4U, one begins by tying a cloverhand around the
object, then taking one end around and making the appropriate
constrictorish tuck.  (A "cloverhand" is the sometimes seen
supposed --but in fact mistied-- clove hitch that is actually an open
("long"?) overhand --as if in tucking one end it ran on the wrong
side of the other.)

I just call it "Ashley's #1253"  for precision.  But why spoil that
new-knot smell when the hunt is on!  (For some it is history, for some
it's repeated history.)

 :)

I'm not sure what TreeSpyder's hinting at, but many sources describe
the transom (binder) as an application of the constrictor, but it's
in fact the strangle --though it does assume a sort of c.-like
disposition.  And I think that this grips better than the c. so used.

--dl*
====


Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 25, 2011, 10:46:43 AM
"Ashley's #1253"[/i]

   Thank you, Dan Lehman. I am glad I can help you show some of your knowledge, because you do not seem to show many of your knots... :) And how good it must feel when you do it even in every 1 of 30 of the knots I present, (as knot 4u does), because I "toss them up" sooo often... Just kidding. Yes, the hunt is on, but I really do not believe there are many morte new, simple, potentially practical knots left out there to pray. If we could use a suitable computer program, that could produce all the possible combinations of knots with few crossings, and tighten them automatically, it would be a matter of weeks, at most. Now, it is a matter of years. With the few knot tyers that do not fear this sport, it could well take some more. But the end is in sight. If Ashley had lived a few more years, and was willing to offer them in the hunt, we would have been closer to the end. The great marine tradition of tying knots ceased to exist, and we depend only in a handful of armchair knot tyers. ( Rope manufacturing companies that could help, do not. )
   It really feels good when one "discovers" by himself something already known, if this is so elementary, simple, beautiful and useful as this form of Double Constrictor. For some she is offered for free, others will have to gain her after a long hunt...Guess who would appreciate more her conquered beauty !  :)
   I myself was not able to notice strength differences between the two forms, although I would expect that ABoK#1253 form would hold better. ( The distribution of forces into the riding turns configuration seem to be more "balanced"). So, TreeSpyder, this beauty should have fewer of "those days", than the common Double Constrictor !  :)
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 25, 2011, 11:57:17 AM
  First, a Double Constrictor is already symmetric.  So, I don't know what "more symmetric" means.

   You are right. I used this vague characterization only to stir some interest on this knot...before I learn that the knot was already saved from oblivion, from its place in the ABoK. Of course, there are degrees of symmetry, shapes can be symmetrical, and others even more symmetrical than them, but we do not have such a situation here. The two riding turns are both inclined, in relation to the vertical, to one direction, but due to the fact that the riding turns in the ABoK#1253 are vertical to more than one third of their length, this "obliqueness" is less pronounced. ( So, "less oblique" is a better characterization than "more symmetric").

...although the concept is similar to a Double Constrictor, this knot is topologically different than a Double Constrictor.  It's not just a different dressing.

  True, but...it IS a Double Constrictor, because it there are two riding turns pressing the embrace/twist of the tails on the surface of the pole. That is the meaning of "Double"', in both variations.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: knot4u on June 25, 2011, 02:20:32 PM
"ABOK #1253" works for me here.  The knot in the original post should not have "Constrictor" in its naming.  (Note that ABOK doesn't call it a Constrictor either.)  This knot cannot be tied in the bight.  Second, this knot does not fall apart when you slip it off the end of an object.  These are two important features that I consider to be synonymous with the Constrictor brand.

Note that a Strangle Knot cannot be tied in the bight.  So, perhaps the knot here is better described as a more symmetric Double Strangle Knot.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 25, 2011, 02:43:47 PM
   Your arguments have some merit, but you miss the essential element of the Constrictor : The way and degree that the tails are twisted around each other under the riding turn(s) ( differently, and more, than in the Strangle ). So, being as twisted as they are, they leave the knot s nub towards another direction than in the Strangle, i.e. (approximately) at right angles with the pole s axis, and not in parallel to it.
   The fact that some knot can be tied in the bight and some not, is not always important. We do not often use the Constrictor as we use the pile hitch. It is a very tight hitch, that is its main function. With the Double Constrictor, this is twice true, an extremely tight hitch, seldom needed and used. Being able to be tied in the bight is not so important a factor, that should dictate a change in name.
   I do not see any reason to name the Constrictor with its ABoK number ! The same we should do with the Double Constrictor, in its two variations.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: knot4u on June 25, 2011, 03:02:50 PM
   Your arguments have some merit, but you miss the essential element of the Constrictor : The way and degree that the tails are twisted around each other under the riding turn(s) ( differently, and more, than in the Strangler ). So, being as twisted as they are, they leave the knot s nub towards another direction than in the Strangler, i.e. (approximately) at right angles with the pole s axis, and not in parallel to it.
   The fact that some knot can be tied in the bight and some not, is not always important. We do not often use the Constrictor as we use the pile hitch. It is a very tight hitch, that is its main function. With the Double Constrictor, this is twice true, an extremely tight hitch, seldom needed and used. Being able to be tied in the bight is not so important a factor, that should dictate a change in name.
   I do not see any reason to name the Constrictor with its ABoK number ! The same we should do with the Double Constrictor, in its two variations.

I don't know about that.  If this were the Decorative Knots forum, then yes I'd call it a Constrictor because it kinda "looks" like one.  However, because of the fact that it can't be tied in the bight, that's already an important difference.  That difference is likely an indication there are important functional differences that would be revealed with further testing with objects of various sizes and shapes.  My guess is that this knot functions more like a Strangle Knot if I were to put it through the ringer.  (The fact that it doesn't fall apart is already a function that places this knot more in the Strangle Knot camp.)
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 25, 2011, 03:12:33 PM
If this were the Decorative Knots forum, then yes I'd call it a Constrictor because it kinda "looks" like one.

You are a little confused here...When I was saying:
The way and degree that the tails are twisted around each other under the riding turn(s) ( differently, and more, than in the Strangle ).

, I was not describing pictorial elements !  :) The way and the degree the tails are twisted make the Constrictor a tighter practical hitch, and a harder to untie practical knot, than the Strange. Have you swallowed any roo s nostrum/opinion, to make you tell that I am talking about " Decorative" knots and knot characteristics, and should better post in the "Decorative knots" forum ?  :) If yes, I hope you will recover soon ( Indeed, roo hmself seems to be cured by this mania lately, but it might take some more time... :))


Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: knot4u on June 25, 2011, 04:14:24 PM
I find the Packer Knot to be a great binding knot, I often use it to bind ladders together on top of my van before tying them down using the TH. I'm not sure how well the Constrictor would work around ladders or for that matter any surface that's not convex. I can get as much tension as needed using the ole Packer Knot too, it's a great knot.

I guess I don't get the purpose of the Packer's Knot or the related Corned Beef Knot.  Based on my testing, I get better results from Two Half Hitches, which is also much simpler to tie.

Two Half Hitches as a binder?...Yes!  I know it sounds awkward or boring, but it works for applications where you could tie a Packer's Knot.  Note that the Two Half Hitches provide more surface friction onto the standing end.  When done tightening down, I can lock the Two Half Hitches with a Half Hitch at the standing end, just like in a Packer's Knot.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 25, 2011, 04:19:42 PM
I'm not sure how well the Constrictor would work around ... any surface that's not convex.
   However, TMCD is right in this comment ...
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: knot4u on June 25, 2011, 04:28:34 PM
If this were the Decorative Knots forum, then yes I'd call it a Constrictor because it kinda "looks" like one.

You are a little confused here...When I was saying:
The way and degree that the tails are twisted around each other under the riding turn(s) ( differently, and more, than in the Strangler ).

, I was not describing pictorial elements !  :) The way and the degree the tails are twisted make the Constrictor a tighter practical hitch, and a harder to untie practical knot, than the Stranger. Have you swallowed any roo s nostrum/opinion, to make you tell that I am talking about " Decorative" knots and knot characteristics, and should better post in the "Decorative knots" forum ?  :) If yes, I hope you will recover soon ( Indeed, roo hmself seems to be cured by this mania lately, but it might take some more time... :))




If you're comparing tightness/security, a better comparison is a Double Strangle Knot.

Look.  Whatever you personally want to call it, I don't care.  For my purposes, I won't be calling it any type of Constrictor because, again, a Constrictor to me is synonymous with tying on the bight and being able to fall apart.

Regarding practical knots, I do wonder the practical purpose of every knot here.  For you to be defensive about the questions, while in the Practical Knots Forum, makes you the oddball out.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 25, 2011, 04:44:12 PM
If you're comparing tightness/security, a better comparison is a Double Strangle Knot.

No. We should compare the Constrictor to the Strangle, and the Double Constrictor to the Double Strangle.

I do wonder the practical purpose of every knot here.

   Practical purposes differ from user to user. You could not possibly figure out if, and how many practical purposes a simple knot might have, to another user, on another material, in the past, now or in the future ! If you think you could predict anything about the possible practical uses of a knot or not, think it again... :) Do wonder, but do not be sure.

For you to be defensive about the inquisition, while in the Practical Knots Forum, makes you the oddball out.

   Oh, I like teasing roo, and trying to teach him something about new knots, and some elements of Homer s language. ( He tries to teach me elements of Shakespeare s language, and how to use Google translator !  :)
   I have been accused as being offensive, not defensive... :) I am not counting votes or sell anything. So, I guess "I will live" being the "oddball out".  :)
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: knot4u on June 25, 2011, 05:23:56 PM
If you're comparing tightness/security, a better comparison is a Double Strangle Knot.

No. We should compare the Constrictor to the Strangler, and the Double Constrictor to the Double Strangler.

???  I'm talking about comparing the knot in the original post to the Double Strangle Knot (and to the Double Constrictor).  Um, yes, that makes sense to me.

The (single) Constrictor and the (single) Strangle Knot are mostly just background information here.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 25, 2011, 07:25:00 PM
???  I'm talking about comparing the knot in the original post to the Double Strangle Knot (and to the Double Constrictor).

   OK. I was deceived by the wording. The knot in the original post should be compared to the Double Strangle, of course, because it is the Double Constrictor !  :) Well, the non-TIB variation of it, but this is only of secondary importance. We have other cases where two knots are topologically different, because of a variation in the path of the tails in their final tuck, but still called by the same name. We have seen such an example recently, with the two variations of the Double Harness bend.(1)
   I was not aware of this Double Constrictor until some days ago. If I was, I would have called THIS as THE Double Constrictor, and the "old" Double Constrictor as a more oblique, less balanced, atthough a TIB, variation of it. I do not know who called the uglier sister with the family name, and left the pretty one in the shadows all those years till now !  :) It is only a historical accident, I believe.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2851.0
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: TMCD on June 25, 2011, 09:26:45 PM
I find the Packer Knot to be a great binding knot, I often use it to bind ladders together on top of my van before tying them down using the TH. I'm not sure how well the Constrictor would work around ladders or for that matter any surface that's not convex. I can get as much tension as needed using the ole Packer Knot too, it's a great knot.

I guess I don't get the purpose of the Packer's Knot or the related Corned Beef Knot.  Based on my testing, I get better results from Two Half Hitches, which is also much simpler to tie.

Two Half Hitches as a binder?...Yes!  I know it sounds awkward or boring, but it works for applications where you could tie a Packer's Knot.  Note that the Two Half Hitches provide more surface friction onto the standing end.  When done tightening down, I can lock the Two Half Hitches with a Half Hitch at the standing end, just like in a Packer's Knot.

Oh my gosh, the Packer's Knot is awesome. Just wrap a piece of rope around an item, in my case two 24foot ladders, take the working end and tie a fig 8 around the standing end and pull tight. Lock the knot with a half hitch to finish it off. It's ABOK 187 and Ashley has a fairly high opinion of this knot. I can get much more tension using this knot than say the Gleipnir. ABOK 191 looks even better, the Corned Beef and Salt Pork knot is tied using a buntline around the standing end instead of the fig eight.

I prefer to have just the right amount of rope when using these knots, maybe that's a drawback.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 26, 2011, 03:55:49 AM
"ABOK #1253" works for me here.
The knot in the original post should not have "Constrictor" in its naming.
(Note that ABOK doesn't call it a Constrictor either.)
This knot cannot be tied in the bight.
Second, this knot does not fall apart when you slip it off the end of an object.
These are two important features that I consider to be synonymous with the Constrictor brand.

Note that a Strangle Knot cannot be tied in the bight.
So, perhaps the knot here is better described as a more symmetric Double Strangle Knot.

Hmmm, rather than two, I see only the one aspect, put into
reciprocal behaviors (TIB).

  Your arguments have some merit, but you miss the essential element of the Constrictor :
The way and degree that the tails are twisted around each other under the riding turn(s)
( differently, and more, than in the Strangle[r] ). So, ...

   The fact that some knot can be tied in the bight and some not, is not always important.
We do not often use the Constrictor as we use the pile hitch.  It is a very tight hitch, that is its main function.

I concur in X.'s noting K's point, yet resisting that and leaning
towards "constrictor" naming for the reasons given above.
(But I classify it NOT as a hitch, but as a binder --both ends are
untensioned; all tension is in the knotted material around some object
(which suggests a difference with the strangle (no 'r') binder when
it is devoid an object, perhaps serving qua stopper (as e.g. is
promoted in rockclimbing, and there named "double overhand").

In any case, are we agreed that the #1253 is in some sense "double"?
The strangle series, e.g., can be seen as beginning only with
a double overhand --getting thus the single overwrap
(riding turn, a security element), and progressing with additional such
wraps as desired --and, i.p., I use the variations that usually include
an additional *twist* of the ends beneath some 4-8 overwraps,
depending upon material.  (Egads, though, this then confounds
the simple nomenclature of matching overwraps count with the
"strangle" modifiers "double, treble, quadruple ..." and a direct
relationship to overhands --so should call for some kind of
indicator of the twist count, as well.)

Similarly, the constrictor can be *built up* with additional overwraps.
Knot4U, do you concur in that?  --e.g., that beyond double constrictor
(meaning #1252, for the moment!), come treble/triple, quadruple, ...
versions of the binder?  (To my mind, though, they don't build up so
nicely as does the strangle series.)  (Ashley stops at "double"
--perhaps he saw no need in then common materials to go further--;
but we can project beyond that, by a simple tying algorithm.)

And this comes back --now, in K.'s favor, we might suggest-- to show
another contrast with the #1253 "d.c." : that it does not lead to any
obvious "triple c.", and only rather dubiously to a "quad.c." !!
For the manner in which the riding turns lay into each other
in a sort of *opposition* rather than *repetition* doesn't indicate
a place for one (three (five))) additional turn(s)_ --no, they must
come in even numbers to maintain the balance of this opposition!
.:.  Well, that is thought to ponder for further exploration, in the
face of which, I think it's time to go seek a nibble of something.

 :P

--dl*
====

ps:  Has it been noted that if the double constrictor (#1252)
is brought off of the object and laid riding-turns-down on a table,
folding the out turns back down and (lifting off of the table) then
brought together (180deg from their c. orientation) so that
the 3rd/central turn remains pointing up, that one has then a
gleipnir version!?
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 26, 2011, 04:45:55 AM
For the manner in which the riding turns lay into each other in a sort of *opposition* rather than *repetition* doesn't indicate place for one (three (five))) additional turn --no, they must come in even numbers to maintain the balance of this opposition!

   Not a completely dull argument, but not a very convincing one, too. OK, the pretty Double Constrictor sisters come only in even numbers, while the ugly ones in even and odd numbers...So what ? We use the small-numbers known truths to prove the large- numbers truths, not the opposite.

No, I have not noticed the ugly Double Constrictor turned into a Gleipnir beauty, but this operation looks more than a simple cosmetic surgery to me...
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: knot4u on June 26, 2011, 07:13:50 PM
Just wondering, if you invented a knot similar to the Butterfly Loop that could NOT be tied in the bight, would you consider putting the word "Butterfly" in the name?  I definitely wouldn't because the name "Butterfly" is, to me, synonymous with being able to be tied in the bight.

That's how I feel about the Constrictor knots.  I can tie these knots (Constrictor and Double Constrictor) quickly and easily in the middle of the rope.  If you also can do this, then you should readily see my point.  If another knot comes along with the word "Constrictor" in the name, it's reasonable for me to assume I should be able to tie it in the bight.

Knot names are not necessarily descriptive for practical knots.  They're mainly for identification.  What's happening here, I think, is that folks have fallen in love with the word "Constrictor".  After all, it is a cool name for a knot.  Enough already though.  Think of another name for this knot!!!  I like it, but let's not call it a Constrictor!
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 26, 2011, 07:52:18 PM
   Knot4u, I already said that you have a point with the TIB argument, as Dan Lehman has with the even-only counter argument. I myself do not pay much attention to names, as to geometry. So, it would be very comfortable for me, if I had adopted a "purist" stance right from the beginning, and I had denied to call with the same name two knots with different topology. I would also feel comfortable with a distinction based upon the Ashley numbers, i.e., Double Constrictor(ABoK#1252) and Double Constrictor(ABoK#1253). I leave the matter of the name to you guys, and I will happily swallow any pill , sweet or bitter, you give me !  :)
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 27, 2011, 04:47:08 AM
Just wondering, if you invented a knot similar to the Butterfly Loop that could NOT be tied in the bight,
would you consider putting the word "Butterfly" in the name?

Well, I have considered that name for Ashley's #1408, which seems
similar in structure to the lineman's loop, but is symmetric
--not bound by the TIB constraint.  But I take your point.
On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable naming something
"butterfly" it it differs much in structure, even though it might
serve the same function.

Quote
I can tie these knots (Constrictor and Double Constrictor) quickly and easily in the middle of the rope.  If you also can do this, then you should readily see my point.  If another knot comes along with the word "Constrictor" in the name, it's reasonable for me to assume I should be able to tie it in the bight.

But many times, the constrictor is tied by a different tying algorithm
which uses the ends; and this method provides a step to achieve the
double constrictor --the overwrap is repeated.  This can be seen
as a factor in generating a constrictor binder series.  But you don't
agree with this, then?  What should one call the successor knots of
this series, beyond the "double constrictor" ?!


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: TheTreeSpyder on June 28, 2011, 12:21:19 PM
i guess i read that Transom was Constrictor and tied it that way (though in small stuff) for years now.

To me all of this is best de-scribed by it's particular mechanical form, not visual form.

Strangle to me is a Double Marl in rigging, the ends come together seated under the Turn for best lock; like the Constrictor lock.
To me the knot shown at start of the post, doesn't fit that description.

When i've needed a Dble.Constrictor type form, i went off more of a Tautline of 1 Turn over a Round Turn; then Constrictor Lock as easiest one to cinch down IMLHO.


http://www.mytreelessons.com/ks/other_Double.swf (http://www.mytreelessons.com/ks/other_Double.swf)

Can drag cursors, to freeze motion, drag off and release larger cursor/slider on bar.  Click it or drag again and release inside cursor to make movie play again.

Most symmetrical in this form would be a Round Turn over Round Turn Tautline type lacing; then lock.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 28, 2011, 01:37:31 PM
    Thank you, TreeSpyder,

   As much as I appreciate the presentation, I have to say that this knot is not a Constrictor-type knot at all, either single or Double ! The central "chiasm", the embrace/twist of the two free ends is not right underneath the riding turn(s), which is what makes the Constrictor a constrictor... The tail, before is gets out of the knot s nub, is twisted around two riding turns, not only the other free end, and this prevents the twist of the two ends to be just underneath the riding turn(s), squeezed in between the riding turn(s) and the pole, and so enjoy a tighter lock, by an enhanced friction effect. If you wish a proper name for your knot, there are other types of constricting snakes besides Boa, like the Python, the Anaconda, etc.   :)
   Now, if you make a modification of your knot like this shown in the attached picture ( only one tuck different than yours), you can have a more Constrictor-like knot, that can also viewed as a variation of a Double Constrictor... and a more good-looking knot, too !  :)
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: knot4u on June 28, 2011, 06:17:59 PM
You need to show that knot loosened up or something.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 28, 2011, 07:23:56 PM
   The riding turns in the back of the pole are "parallel", do not cross each other. ( If It were otherwise, I would have shown the "back side" view as well). See at the second attached picture, where the bulge of this snake s belly - right after it has swallowed its prey (the twisted free ends / tails) - is clearly shown... :) Is this a new low in knot ugliness ? It might well be, but this knot is a Constrictor-type knot nevertheless. The knot TreeSpyder presented in reply 28, is a different species, I believe.
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 28, 2011, 08:59:47 PM
   It occurred to me that, in the great garden of Knotland, there is some gift for everybody ! I have chosen the younger beautiful Double Constrictor(ABoK#1253) - even if I have to share it with the other guy  :) -, knot4u has chosen the older, a little lump, but ready to come undone so fast Double Constrictor(ABoK#1252), the TreeSpyder chose a close relative, and TMCD would probably be satisfied with the uglier, a little hunchback, but tight nevertheless Double Constrictor(ABoK#?- reply 28). Because, the "ugly", so pronounced bulge of the later, might well offer an advantage when the surface of the pole is not so convex. This second riding turn, going over the first one and the twisted pair of the two free ends, is pushing the rest of the knot s nub towards the surface of the pole, even if the first one is not - as it happens in the case of a flat(ter) pole surface. There is an obvious asymmetry in this knot, that may be exploited for a good purpose: the one free end, after its embrace with the other, becomes the lower riding turn, and the other becomes the upper one. If we choose as standing end this second free end, ( the one that becomes the upper riding turn, and goes over the other) we can transfer the tension of the pull into the corresponding riding turn more easily - and thus tighten easier this riding turn, that is more curved, and presses the rest of the knot s nub harder toward the surface of the pole. Of course, TMCD is advised to test this theory in flat and slightly convex surfaces, before his final choice.  :)
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 29, 2011, 05:06:48 AM
... if the double constrictor (#1252) is brought off of the object ...one has then a gleipnir version.
  In a similar but simpler cosmetic operation, the Triple Strangle, if only the two outer coils are wrapped around an object, is turned into a Double "simple hitch a la Gleipnir" (See the attached picture). Or, this later, if brought off the object, and the two riding turns are shrunken to the size of the nipping loop, one has then the "Triple Strangle".
   ( I believe that the Double "simple hitch a la Gleipnir"  is a most tight hitch that can be compared, indeed, with the various sisters and cousins of the Double Constrictor, but this is something than can be proved or disproved only by careful experiments.)
Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: TheTreeSpyder on June 30, 2011, 12:38:18 AM
The Dbl. constrictor i normally think of takes a 'linear Round Turn' with Bitter end around input from Standing.
As like a number of such 'twirls' for Timber variations, turns over first rather than under, half hitch with better nip etc. the 2nd 'linear Turn' can help in key positioning for best 'nip'.

i think of Strangle as Dbl. Marl., because of Round Turn 'upgraded' from Turn in it's forging.
Dbl. Bowline presents Turn to Round Turn etc.

In this i just see added Turn to Constrictor.

If the mechanic is in the Constrictor, some of same mechanic would be in added Turn form too?

http://www.mytreelessons.com/ks/other_Double_a.swf (http://www.mytreelessons.com/ks/other_Double_a.swf)

Not really hung on name thang, but rather mechanic; but think naming should reflect that mechanic.

 If there are 8 turns on the road, to next town, and 3 destinations; you wouldn't start directions over each time; just say go to town on such and such hiway, take Left to go to school, but take right to go to market, past the market and right for library etc.  i think understanding and naming should have the same logic as the route directions to next town etc.

Title: Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
Post by: xarax on June 30, 2011, 04:19:18 AM
In this i just see added Turn to Constrictor.
If the mechanic is in the Constrictor, some of same mechanic would be in added Turn form too?
http://www.mytreelessons.com/ks/other_Double_a.swf (http://www.mytreelessons.com/ks/other_Double_a.swf)

   No. The fact that, if we remove one riding turn, a knot now turns into a Constrictor, does not mean that this knot was the Double Constrictor in the first place ! In short, a Double Constrictor is not a single Constrictor with any additional riding turn, but a Constrictor with an additional riding turn that runs over the twisted free-ends-pair of it.