International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Knotting Concepts & Explorations => Topic started by: squarebanksalaska on January 11, 2014, 12:21:52 AM

Title: hitching cousins
Post by: squarebanksalaska on January 11, 2014, 12:21:52 AM
Dear Fellow knotters,

So I was playing around with some double loop hitch knots made with a bight on the working end, and changed the bight around to the standing end, and I don't know what they are (which surely shows my ignorance).  But I thought that there interrelatedness was interesting, and how small changes make big changes.  I am trying to figure out if they can be tied in the bight.  I am sure that if you reverse working and standing end some of them can be, but I don't know if these can.  Are these related to the cow hitch?  Or the clove?  Or what family do they belong to?  And what are they called?

  Keep on truckin'

    Andrew
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: squarebanksalaska on January 11, 2014, 12:23:00 AM
hitch 3
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: squarebanksalaska on January 11, 2014, 12:24:04 AM
hitches 2 and 1
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: squarebanksalaska on January 11, 2014, 12:50:11 AM
hitch 5 = hitch 3 with the working end tucked through the bight.  much tighter.
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on January 11, 2014, 01:43:59 AM
  Congratulations ! Hitch #4, at the first post, is a fine two-wrap hitch. ( It was unknown to me, but that does not mean much, because my knowledge of the knotting litterature is more limited than yours, that is for sure !  :) However, although I believe that I have tied many two-wrap hitches, I have not met this one ). It reminds me a hitch presented some time ago by Oneiros (1)-(2), shown at the attached pictures - but it is much simpler. It has no relation to the Cow hitch, none whatsoever, and I doubt it has any relation to the Clove hitch either. It goes sttaight into my favourite 2-wrap hitches file, along with your previous, Timber-hitch like one.
 
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2981.msg19078#msg19078
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2981.msg19081#msg19081
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on January 11, 2014, 03:21:03 AM
   Now, if you really wish a Cow hitch cousin, resembling some hitches you show in this thread, you can implement the "locking" mechanism described at (1) - based on the great nipping potential of two loaded opposing bights on any line that goes through them - and arrive at the hitch shown at the attached picture. It is not as tight as the Locked Cow hitch presented at (2),(3), but it is a simple and secure two-wrap hitch nevertheless. To facilitate its release when the Standing end is still under some tension, and to gain some additional stiffness, the Tail end can be slipped.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4735.msg30582#msg30582
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4035.msg24785#msg24785
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4441
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: squarebanksalaska on January 11, 2014, 06:23:48 AM
That cow hitch is pretty wonderful, I also have been trying the simple hitch a la gleipnir.  I actually started playing around with these 5 hitches after reading your post in the one with the lifting hitch, trying to find other simple mechanisms to finish that triple wrap and also trying some pile hitch like things.  One of them, I think it was #4 looked pretty promising, but it looked like the working end would be a better knot, so then I had to reverse engineer it, and as a novice (at best) knot tyer, it took me a while.  I also cut a good chunk of my thumb off at work a few weeks ago which makes me an even worse knotter. 

But then I kind of liked the structure with the bight (or would that be a turn?) in the standing end, and then wrapping back around.  They seem almost too simple to be new knots, but I don't have Ashley's Book of Knots, but I with being on workers' comp for the last couple of weeks, I have had a chance try my hand at some knotting again.  I have read a ton of your posts, and have been enjoying my couple weeks of "retirement".  I also highly enjoy your and Mr. Lehman's lively banter, it brings out the color in the world of knotting that I never would have guessed existed. 

Anyway, thanks much for your input, if you think that there is a chance that any of these is new, maybe I'll post it in the new knots forum.  I just found the structure of the knot interesting, and how the variations interact with one another with some real simple changes.  Thanks again for your time.

  Keep on truckin'

    Andrew
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on January 11, 2014, 01:08:06 PM
...I was amazed that there are still knots out there that have yet to be discovered.
...it is amazing how fast the number of variables increases and how there are even very simple knots out there waiting to be discovered...

   I suppose that everything of so simple a nature has already been discovered. Clifford Ashley, ABoK.
 
   Look at the Rolfsen table of knots : Step by step, as the crossing number increases by one, the number of possible knots jumps out of the window ! For hitches, you should also have to penetrate any of those knots with a pole, in all possible ways.
   http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/The_Rolfsen_Knot_Table
   http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/The_Rolfsen_Knot_Table_Mosaic
  Permutations is God s way to create complexity out of a small number of things, I believe  :) - be them electrons, protons and neutrons, or tucks. The number of permutations of the Gordian Knot take-a-part puzzle - or, for that matter, of the Rubik s Cube- is bigger than the number of atoms in the Universe. Of course, practical knots can not be very complex - because evolution had knot selected the human brains that were able to tie complex knots, and I suspect it does not favour them even now  :) - so we can say that their number is limited and relatively small, indeed, and we can even argue that we already know most of them (? ?).     
   Anyway, me, for one, I do not remember to have tied your Hitch #4 - which I find pretty wonderful ! If it is not published already, you should name it somehow...
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: Dan_Lehman on January 12, 2014, 02:24:28 AM
I am trying to figure out if they can be tied in the bight.
??
Just slide the hitch off of the end of the
object : if it dissolves into unknotted rope,
it is TIB, else ... not.
(Your first one, at least, is TIB.)

Quote
Or what family do they belong to?
The ossel hitch came to mind, loaded in reverse.
(I should note that if one doesn't set your first knot
by hauling hard on the tail, its SPart will straighten,
instead of turning bowline-like around parts.)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on January 14, 2014, 06:27:38 PM
   I can not see how this hitch ( Hitch #4 - to be named soon, I hope ) is related to the Ossel hitch- the "locking" mechanism of its two ends is completely different, IMHO. To set it as tight as possible, one has to pull the Tail end before the Standing end, but this is also required by many other multi-wrap hitches - even by some that are not tight, or they are not as tight as this.
   The only hitch that is somehow related to Hitch#4 is the not-so-simple hitch a-la-Gleipnir, shown at the attached pictures - which is identical to TWO Hitches#4, so it is HALF as clever as ONE Hitch#4... :). In other words, Hitch#4 proves that the truly indispensable elements of the not-so-simple hitch a-la-Gleipnir are the one, and the one only, of the two oblique riding turns - and half, and half only, of the rim of the Gleipnir s nipping loop. By cutting off the redundant half part, the Standing end is now able to reach and to load the remaining half of the Gleipnir nipping loop s rim directly, without having to first make one turn around the pole. When I tied the simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir, it seemed natural to me to try to enhance it by duplicating it - while I should better had attempted to simplify it more, and arrive at the Hitch#4... As Ashley said :There are always people who believe that if a single thing is good, two are bound to be better. So they overburden their knots with extra turns and flourishes.   
   Hitch#4 is an ingenious most simple 2-wrap tight hitch - a distinguished descendant of the great Gleipnir knot. 
 
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: Dan_Lehman on January 14, 2014, 07:09:36 PM
   I can not see ...
 how this hitch ( Hitch #4 - to be named soon, I hope ) is related to the Ossel hitch
--the "locking" mechanism of its two ends is completely different, IMHO.
To set it as tight as possible, one has to pull the Tail end before the Standing end,
but this is also required by many other multi-wrap hitches
--even by some that are not tight, or they are not as tight as this.
Maybe you have encumbered your vision with
a disagreeable condition!   :P

For the approach of the tail of #4 is quite reminiscent
of the ossel hitch on cursory glance, only to be
distinguished then in the over/unders.

Also, "one has to pull the tail end before the S.Part"
has assumed a conclusion as well; whereas if one
pulls the S.Part ... , a different result obtains.
Who is to say which is intended?  --that much
was left to the viewer to guess.  In the case of
your setting, one indeed casts a loop into the
S.Part and has that difference; otherwise, there
is the resemblance I noted, where the turning
of parts around the straightened S.Part will nip
the tail for security --as a reverse ossel hitch
(which makes the hitch usable beyond a mere
*ring* also on *spars*, the knotting/binding being
of rope purely, not needed the object for pressure).


--dl*
====

ps : Happy New Year Knotting 2014, X. !   :)

Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on January 14, 2014, 10:48:57 PM
  Thanks. To all members of this Forum, Happy New Knotting year - with New Knots ! Each time I suppose that everything of so simple a nature has already being discovered, here comes a squarebanksalaska with his Hitch#4, out of the blue, to make us add another file into our knotting toolbox !

  For the approach of the tail of #4 is quite reminiscent of the ossel hitch on cursory glance...

 On cursory glance, perhaps... On a careful glance, absolutely not. The locking mechanism of the Hitch#4 is identical to the mechanism of the so-called simple hitch a-la-Gleipnir  - although I have to admit that one should pay some attention to see this, indeed  :). If the Standing end had continued its winding around the pair of the oblique riding turn / Tail end for another half turn (=180 degrees more ), and if, after forming this 360 degrees Gleipnir nipping loop, it had completed one more round turn on the surface of the pole, the Gleipnir mechanism would had been obvious to everybody - although all the essential elements of the core Hitch#4 would had remained the same. From a complete Gleipnir hitch, Hitch #4 retains only the one half, the most essential part - which nevertheless is adequate to keep the Tail end firmly squeezed on the surface of the pole by the oblique riding turn, and firmly locked within the hemi-circular rim of the - halved - Gleipnir nipping loop, formed by the Standing end. The Ossel hitch does not work like this : 1, It has no oblique riding turn, to squeeze the crossing point of the Tail end and the Standing end on the surface of the pole - as it also happens in the case of the Strangle and the Constrictor, for example. 2.  It can be considered as a "locked" variation of the Cow hitch, while the Hitch#4 has no relation to the Cow hitch whatsoever. ( This means that there is some sort of mechanical advantage present in the Ossel hitch, which is absent in the Hitch#4 ). 3. To reach the locking mechanism, the Standing end of the Ossel hitch has first to make a full round turn, so it has to overcome the friction forces it encounters along this path - while in the Hitch#4 any pull of the Stranding end is transferred to the locking mechanism directly, without any power loss due to friction. 4. Last but not least, in the Ossel hitch the locking half-rim remains almost tangent to the surface of the pole, while in the Hitch#4 it remains almost perpendicular to it - just as it happens in the case of the simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir. This means that the perpendicular to the axis - halved - nipping loop is squeezed on the curved surface of the pole, so it  squeezes anything that penetrates it more forcefully. ( I believe that the knot tyer had this particular dressing in his mind - the nipping half-turn being perpendicular to the axis of the pole -, because this is how his hitch is shown at the first post of the thread. )
   Having said that, I do not doubt that, on a cursory glance, there is some relation between the Hitch#4 and the Ossel hitch, indeed  :). However, I believe that if we wish to "lock" both limbs of the Cow hitch, we better use the mechanism of the Locked Cow hitch (1)-(4) - which is the most tight two-wrap hitch we have. Now, even if it is not so tight ( perhaps because of the absence of the mechanical advantage present in the Locked Cow hitch ), Hitch#4 seems also a more tight hitch than the Ossel hitch. The -halved- Gleipnir mechanism locks the Standing end much better - so any tensile forces induced into the oblique riding turn can be accumulated there and remain in place, even when / while the Standing end is not loaded.

1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4035.msg24785#msg24785
2.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4155
3.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4441
4.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4673
Title: Five two-wrap hitches
Post by: xarax on January 15, 2014, 10:51:37 AM
    Placed with no particular order, from the left to the right  :) :

1. Locked Cow hitch
2. Modified ABoK#1683
3. Hitch#4, presented in this thread ( to be named soon ).
4. A hitching cousin of the Ossel hitch, shown at Reply#5.
5. Ossel hitch

   ( I believe that Hitch#4 is a hybrid between the hitches derived from an effort to "lock" the Cow hitch, and the hitches based on the Gleipnir binder. )

Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on January 16, 2014, 03:58:14 PM
  I take the liberty to exploit this opportunity, and show a very simple modification we can attempt in many multi-wrap hitches and binders, in general : In the case of this wonderful squarebanks-alaskian Hitch#4, in particular ( which, in contrast to the other four hitches/binders shown in the previous post, is not based on the Cow hitch ), this modification can possibly help us increase the tension we can insert into the wraps during a pre-tightening phase, and achieve an even tighter hitching / binding. It will also seem more tempting, at least, to apply it, if we will decide to use, as Standing end, the end initially used as Tail end.
  See the attached pictures : We have only to interpose an 180 degrees chiasm within the wraps. Doing this, we can gain some of the mechanical advantage offered to the Cow-hitch-based hitches and binders - without losing any of the benefits of the oblique riding turn ( which, on the one hand, helps the hemi-circular nipping loop remain perpendicular to the axis of the pole, and, on the other, squeezes the pair of the two ends onto the surface of the pole).
  Is this modification worth the trouble ? I can not say yet - we have to try it on ropes and poles of different materials and diameters first - and even then the results may be influenced by parameters we can not fix : the force we pull each end, the order we pull the one end after the other, etc. Squarebanks-alaskian Hitch#4, as it is, is a wonderful knot: it can be tied very tightly, unless the surface of the pole in not slippery at all, so any tension that we will try to insert into the wraps by pulling the Tail end, will not be able reach to the oblique round turn. In this case, this modification might be somewhat beneficial, indeed.
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on January 17, 2014, 01:07:16 PM
... bowline-like

   Half of the Gleipnir s nipping loop is half of the bowline s nipping loop, indeed. I called the locking tip of the bight "half of the nipping loop" and not "half hitch", because both ends of the semi-circular rim ( around the pair of the oblique riding turn and the Tail end ) are loaded. ( In a proper half hitch, there is one, and one ony, loaded end . So, "two half hitches" really means a "one nipping loop followed by one half hitch" ).
Title: Locked Cow hitch (B)
Post by: xarax on January 17, 2014, 03:47:16 PM
   I think I found a way to improve the "Locked Cow hitch (B)" ( shown at Reply#5 ) - which is a cousin of both, of the wonderful Squarebanks-Alaskian Hitch#4 and of the humble Cow hitch. How ? Elementary, my dear fellow knot-tyers - but I had first to try every trick I knew ( one of them presented at the previous post ) before I was able to realize something that should had been obvious to any knot tyer worth his salt right from the first moment !  :)
   After we pull the Tail end as hard as we can, we have to pull the Standing end against the pole - but, at the same time, we have to press the knot s nub on the surface of the pole - in other words, we have to pull the Standing end ( the key ) against its locking point ( the keyhole )  :).  If we do not do this, the nub may yield to the pull, and drag the wraps ( the door ) along the direction of the pull, releasing their grip, even in a unnoticed degree, on the surface of the pole ( the frame of the door ).
   The interested reader can actually see such a tightly tied hitch, at the attached pictures : the rope s cross sections have been flattened out - a sure sign of the force with which the wraps are squeezed upon each other and on the surface of the pole.
   By pulling the Standing end while holding the nub of the hitch on the surface of the pole, it seems that we can tighten this Locked Cow hitch (B) almost s much as the original Locked Cow hitch. However, I still believe that the later is simpler and tighter from the former { as I still believe that, qua hitch, tied on the surface of a cylinder of some diameter relatively to the diameter of the rope, the original simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir (2)(3) is simpler and tighter than Lehman s Hitch / binder #35 ( to be named soon, I hope...)(1). This might seem odd : after all, Hitch#35 is a closer relative to the Cow hitch, Locked or not, while the simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir is not. The answer lies in the major role played by the convex curvature of the pole, which acts as an additional, invisible and inversed, riding turn, multiplying the nipping potential of the Gleipnir s inverted nipping loop. }

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2981.msg17782#msg17782
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg30227#msg30227
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg30229#msg30229
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on June 02, 2014, 06:33:51 PM
  I had shown this tight hitch elsewhere (1), but I believe it belongs more to this thread, along with the nice Alaskan hitch, presented by Andrew / squarebanksalaska, and all its other hitching cousins.   
  Although it utilizes the zigzag path of the Standing Part on the surface of the pole, and so the mechanical advantage offered by a Cow hitch, it is not based on a "whole" Cow hitch. Perhaps because of this, it can not be tied in-the-bight, ( so, in comparison to the Locked Single and Double Cow hitches, it is less versatile ) - but, in-the-end, it can be tied very easily, especially if one follows the tying procedure illustrated in the two attached pictures.
  First, we form the "half" Cow hitch", shown by the blue rope. Then, we tie a half hitch around the Standing End, shown by the yellow rope. To set up and finish the knot, we push / translate this (yellow) half hitch through / beneath the ( blue) bight of the "half" Cow hitch, and we pull the (blue) Standing End against the pole, as hard as we can. ( When the Stranding End of a tight hitch, which also utilizes a mechanical advantage, can be pulled towards a direction perpendicular to the surface of the pole, we may use our hands and feet, like rowers  :) - and so we become able to induce, and "lock" within the wraps, an enormous amount of tensile forces, enhancing, in this way, their gripping power without increasing their number ).
   Now, the point I would like to make here, is that the locking mechanism of this hitch resembles the opposed bights locking mechanism, described and shown ( in a "simplistic" representation ) at (2). The first of the two bights is the U-shaped blue bight, and the second bight is the O-shaped yellow bight. So, here the second bight is not U-shaped - and it is not L-shaped either ( like the second bight formed by the sharp, 90 degrees deflexion of the Tail End around the Standing End at the Locked Single Cow hitch ). However, the way the Standing Part is immobilized in this tight hitch ( and that is exactly the meaning of a "tight hitch"/ binder : a hitch / binder where we do not secure only the Tail End, but the Standing End as well, in order to be able to pre-tension its wraps ), this way remains essentially the same : the straight, more or less, line, is squeezed in between two opposed tensioned bights, and the whole arrangement of all those segments of the rope works, regarding any induced tension during pre-tensioning, like an efficient ratchet-ing device ( in short, it is a rope-made ratchet ).
   To the curious reader, who might wonder how I had joined the blue and the yellow rope, I show the back side of the pole, too  :) : a flat, most simple, nice little tumbling thief bend, was enough.
 
  1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4845.msg31585#msg31585
  2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4906.0
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on June 29, 2014, 12:35:00 PM
   I have noticed that the (A) variation of the Oneiro s hitch is TIB, while the (B) one is not (1). Ceteris Paribus, a TIB knot is always a more versatile knot - for many reasons, one of which I had realized only recently : even if we can tie a knot in-the-end, it may be much easier, quicker and pleasing to tie it in-the-bight. If we have an easy to memorize, to remember and to execute TIB tying method ( like the "haltering collar" tying method of many TIB eyeknots, for example ), it is always tempting to "use" it, even if it is not strictly "needed". The almost ex nihilo creation of some of those marvellous rope-made mechanisms we call "knots", out of just a small segment in the middle of the continuous "line", without any involvement of the discrete "ends", even if it serves no "practical" purposes, is pleasing to us. We need knots, to make us happy, but we also need to be happy, to make knots !  :).
  It would be great if somebody out there would test all the 2-wrap TIB tight hitches we have ( a sample of which is shown at (2)) - but to test a hitch, is much more difficult than to test a bend or a loop. On top of the problem of how to measure the efficiency of the "locking" mechanism after pre-loading or loading, there is the problem of the ratio of the diameters of the rope and the pole, the variation of which may transform a fine knot into a "lemon", and vice versa.... 

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4739.msg30594#msg30594
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4739.msg30643#msg30643
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on July 03, 2014, 04:41:03 PM
   In the SquareBanks hitch ( shown also in (1)), in order to achieve a very tight grip, we have better to pull the Tail End before the Standing End. If we do this first, when we will pull the Standing End afterards, this already tight hitch will become much tighter - because the first U-turn on the Standing Part ( which looks like half of the nipping loop of the simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir ) will "revolve" around its axis a little bit, and the pull of its first leg ( = the Standing End ) will drag its second leg ( = the first end of the first wrap ) along with it. As the hitch would had been tightened already by the ( earlier ) pulling of the Tail End, the amount of ropelength that will be consumed by the ( later ) pulling of the Standing End will be small - sufficient nevertheless to securely "lock" the ends, and increase the gripping power of the hitch more than we might had anticipated. One has to tie the hitch and tighten the way I describe ( pull the Tail before the Standing End ), to appreciate what this small little "click" of the U-turn is able to do... ( Same thing applies in the hitch shown at (2), which also " locks" the ends by the same mechanism ).
   Pulling the Tail End simultaneously, or even before the Standing End ( as it is required in this hitch ) might be considered a disadvantage - a self-dressing hitch, which is tightened continuously as long as we pull the Standing End, and the Standing End only, is a very useful and pleasant knot to tie, indeed. However, I believe that this peculiar "winding","revolving" U-turn / half-nipping loop, which acts as an efficient lock and capstan at the same time, is a very interesting mechanism, and that was what made me mention it in this post.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4739.msg30603#msg30603
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4739.msg30595#msg30595
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on February 06, 2015, 03:08:43 PM
   
   If, on the Standing Part before the first round turn, you insert a 180 degrees turn = nipping loop, you can immobilize the Tail End...
 

   The nice and clever two-wrap hitch presented in this thread by squarebanksAlaska ( which I take the liberty to call SquarebanksAlaska hitch, or Alaskan hitch, in short ), and the similarly looking Locked Cow hitch shown at Reply#5 and Reply#15 (1)(2), although they work differently, they can nevertheless be tied in almost the same simple, quick, easy to remember and implement way. We have just to form a nipping loop before the first round turn, then drive the Working End around the stake ( following the same clockwise or counter-clockwise direction we had chosen for the nipping loop itself ), and reeve a second bight through this nipping loop. This is the common initial configuration for both hitches. To tie the Alaskan hitch, we have to twist this bight one time (= 180 degrees), and then pass it from the end of the stake, just like we do in the case of a Pile hitch. To tie the Locked Cow hitch, we have to twist it one more time (=360 degrees). Finally, we have to remember that, before the final tightening, both hitches should be pulled snug by pulling the Tail End, to eliminate any remaining slack.
   Just by reading the verbal description of this tying method, one can see that both hitches are TIB, because we have to tuck ( through the nipping loop ) only the tip of a middle-line bight, not the free end itself. However, I have to stress that, as it happens in almost all knots, one can tie those hitches in many other ways, too ( for example, one can tie them in-hand, and insert them on the stake only at the very end ) - the interested knot tyer should always try to tie any new knot he encounters by all tying methods he can think of, and at least a dozen of times each, and only then decide which one suits him most.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4739.msg30595#msg30595
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4739.msg30666#msg30666
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on February 13, 2015, 07:57:03 PM
   I can not say which of those two hitches is the most secure and/or tight - moreover, I suspect that it may well depend not only on how slippery is the rope itself, but how slippery is the surface of the hitched object as well. With slippery enough materials, which allow tensile forces to run along the wraps of the hitch without being hindered by friction too much, I think that the mechanical advantage offered by the Cow hitch / zigzag configuration would make a noticeable / measurable difference. However, I can not overlook the fact that the Alaskan hitch is more clever - and that perhaps explains why, although it is so simple, it was not discovered till now. Compared to this ingenious knot, the Locked Cow hitch (B) seems like an ordinary, straightforward implementation of the same idea which led to the TackleClamp hitch and the original single and double Locked Cow hitch : combine the mechanical advantage of the Cow hitch with the efficiency of the opposed bights locking mechanism (1). To me, a clever knotting mechanism has a merit per se : I can not but admire an ingenious tool, even if I do not use it !  :) Well done, squarebanksAlaska . 

 1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4906
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on March 31, 2015, 03:18:29 PM
   A great knot is a knot which, each and every time you tie it, you can not but enjoy it.
   The Alaskan hitch Squarebanksalaska has offered to us, is such a great knot - clever, unexpected, most simple, TIB, beautiful... The only reason I have not included it in my two lists of old and "new" best knots, is that I have already included another two-wrap tight hitch, the original Locked Cow hitch - which, although it is not as simple and beautiful as the Alaskan hitch, nevertheless it is more tight, so more versatile and useful ( because of the mechanical advantage offered by the Zigzag path of its Standing Part on the surface of the hitched / bound object(s)). Each and every time I tie the Alaskan hitch, I enjoy it so much that I feel I should, again, express my admiration and gratitude for the fact that it exists - as I do each and every time I tie a Gleipnir.
   [ On the contrary, I feel really sad that most knot tyers, even those who know the "similar", yet much inferior Ossel hitch, ignore or even snub this marvel - but I guess I have to live with this : in the history of knot tyers, it was always like that !  :) ]
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on May 01, 2015, 11:25:12 PM
   Using the same materials, diameters, and hand force, I had pre-tightened by their "main" end, and then loaded by either end, the Locked Cow hitch B, shown in Replies #5 and #15 ((1),(2)), and the more complex Locked Cow hitch II (EEL), shown at :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5250.msg34820#msg34820
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5250.msg34825#msg34825
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5250.msg34850#msg34850
   
   I had used a variety of slippery, easily "flattened" braided cheap/commercial ropes, with which those hitches can not be tightened as much ( I do not know why...) as with the climbing ropes, which are stiffer, and retain almost circular cross sections. I had thought that, if the simpler hitch presented in this thread ( the "B" ), can be EEL ( Either End Loadable ), and can be pre-tightened as hard as its more complex cousin ( the "II" ), why one would prefer to tie the later and not the former ?
   The nub of Locked Cow hitch B, when loaded by the "other" end, revolves around itself a little bit, and this may give the impression that the knot is unstable, and that it does not remain a tight and secure hitch. However, I had seen that this motion is a motion of the nub as a whole, and it does not transfigure it. Moreover, it does not influence the strength of the gripping power of the tensioned wraps, or the security of the locking mechanism of the ends. Therefore I had concluded that the Locked Cow hitch B is EEL, too. A very satisfactory result, which I had not predicted, because it was not my intention to load this hitch by the "Tail" end - up until now. After Moebius sent me back to the drawing board, I had to check many loops and hitches, and try to evaluate if they are suitable as EEL knots, or not - and that is what I did with this first cousin of the ingenious Alaskan hitch.
   Now, which of the two is mote tight ? I expected I would be able to answer to this question more or less easily, and decide.
   Unfortunately, regarding this issue I had NOT made up my mind, not yet... Both hitches seem pretty tight, both are TIB, EEL and easy to tie in-the-bight and in-the-end. To decide between the two, I have to actually TEST them, and MEASURE the tension that can be induced into the wraps during pre-tension, on the one hand, and the way they behave = how much and how fast they slip along the pole, when they are submitted to a lengthwise pull, on the other. Given my inability to perform decent experiments of any kind, of the quality I would had wished, this project will remain a thing of the remote future !  :)

1.   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4739.msg30603#msg30603
2.   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4739.msg30666#msg30666
Title: Re: hitching cousins
Post by: xarax on May 03, 2015, 03:43:45 PM
   There is this sad thing I have to notice, because we have to tell "the truth, and nothing but the truth"  :), even if we do no like it. Unfortunately, the ingenious Alaskan hitch, which is as amazing as the Gleipnir, is not EEL. On the contrary, the down-to-Earth, "easy" Locked Cow hitch B, is. Here we have a case where something is clever, and something is not, but evolution ( represented by the idea of EEL, by Moebius ), kills the clever, and let the "easy" live... Just another fact of life we have to take and not leave it, sad, but true nevertheless.
   Let us imagine a situation where, not only we do not need to tie a TIB hitch, but also we can not tie such a hitch easily, because, ceteris paribus, a TIB knot can be tied easily only if we have enough rope length at either side of the loose knot, and we may not have this option. What am I going to do ? Will I tie an Alaskan hitch in-the-end, because I need only a hitch in-the-end, and the one end is very short to allow me to tie a knot in-the-bight easily?
   Noope... I will still try to tie the same TIB knot I usually tie, either in-the-end or in-the-bight, which, because I tie it many times, I can tie it more quickly, and I can dress it more properly, and I can inspect it more easily. Therefore, if my preferred 2-warps EEL hitch is the Locked Cow hitch, I will tie this hitch, and not the Alaskan hitch - which, with time, will fade out of my memory s screen, and it may even be disappear=forgotten completely.
   This does not mean anything about the importance of the contribution of squarebanksalaska : had he not presented the Alaskan hitch, probably I would nt had presented the Locked Cow hitch B either - which Locked Cow hitch B, when the knotting environment suddenly changed, and the EEL idea conquered the KnotLand, was offered the possibility to live.