International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => New Knot Investigations => Topic started by: xarax on March 08, 2014, 07:03:32 AM

Title: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 08, 2014, 07:03:32 AM
   They are more secure than they look !  :)  Starting from the 1, and trying to avoid an arrangement where the Tail Ends will run the danger to "slide" on each other, we arrive at the 3.
  ( In those quick and dirty pictures, I show the central nub, tied on the middle of the line, a little loose - in fact, it can be dressed in a much more compact form.)
   The whole idea is to achieve a configuration where the returning eye legs of the two adjustable bights will be deflected at almost 90 degrees, already before they will enter into the (TIB) knot s nub - so they will form an L-shaped "hook", which will be griped easier by the corresponding "handle" made by the openings of the central nub.
Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 08, 2014, 06:20:25 PM
   Unfortunately, while the knot tyer sleeps after he has tied his day s knot, the sun continues making round turns - so I have to show pictures taken with the help of a human-made one, a flash, again.
   This time, the binder is tied on my laboratory s proper test rig - under room temperatures.  :)
Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: SS369 on March 08, 2014, 06:25:46 PM
Love the lab!  ;) I think I see Frankenstein's shadow.  :o

So how does this work on soft compressible material?
I will try it later when I can, too.

Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 08, 2014, 07:26:15 PM
  A slightly different variation, where the Tail Ends are driven through opposite sides of the middle segment which connects the two opposing crossing knots - so, in between them, this segment, squeezed upon them at a right angle, works as an additional blocking obstacle to the slippage.
  Now, the knot tyer is always wondering who is the real Frankenstein - "his" knots, or himself, who ties the knots made possible by whoever had tied this whole World in the first place...  :). I am also not sure, and this bothers me more today, about which one of the two variations would be more efficient under higher loads - I have only tested them with my own body weight.
Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 09, 2014, 01:04:44 AM
  If we wish to stick to a more symmetric variation than the previous, we can enhance the security of the binder by the well-known method of crossing the Tail Ends before they exit the knot s nub - as we did in the simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir, the Ashley s bend, or the less symmetric Zeppelin X bend. We can cross the tails in two ways, depending on which tail goes "over" or "under" - which variation is the more secure, I can not tell. Although these Binder X s (X = crossed tails ) are not side-symmetric, they can nevertheless be inspected very easily, due to their very simple "wavy" form.
Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 09, 2014, 03:33:14 AM does this work on soft compressible material?

  Tied on 10mm braided nylon of Home Depot s "quality" ( sorry I do not use Imperial units, as I do not see any imperial around... :)) , it carried my body s weight with ease. However, it takes more time to dress it properly, because this softish thing can be deformed towards ANY direction ! And, please, do not comment on the quality of the attached pictures, taken with flash, reflected on its glossy white surface...
Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 09, 2014, 03:40:02 PM
  Less tight variations can always be improved by the X = crossed tails trick. However, we must be careful not to entangle the tails too much, because then it would be difficult to adjust the binder by pulling them, while the whole mechanism would still be under some tension.
  Now, this class of binders may be one case where the idea of knots as "tools for a particular application", or "knotted materials" is less wrong - depending on the load the binder should withstand, and the friction coefficient and/or the stiffness of the rope in hand, we may/should choose the one or the other binder. The golden standard is still the magnificent Gleipnir, with its outmost simplicity and efficiency - perhaps enhanced by utilizing a double nipping loop, a Clove hitch or an overhand knot(1), if we need a more permanent arrangement. A disadvantage of the Gleipnir, especially in its one-wrap form, is that both tails should be adjusted at the same time - while, at the binders shown in this thread, the pulling of the one tail does not influence the other, or the overall locking power of the whole nub.

Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: Luca on March 09, 2014, 09:06:51 PM
Hi xarax,

They seem to be pure(very good) tensioners,but I can not get to use them as binders:wrapping  the two "binder components"  around a single object, the angles to 90 degrees disappear and the hitch component tends to crumble.

Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 09, 2014, 10:06:02 PM
   Luca, I use this word, "binders", just because I do not know any better !  :) They are NOT supposed to bind/wrap ONE object, they are supposed to bind/connect TWO, spatially separated objects. They have TWO bights - each one of the two bights is supposed to be wrapped around each one of the two objects, in order to keep the line between them tensioned. Moreover, the dimensions of the two objects and the distance that separates them is supposed to be such that the connecting lines are almost parallel to each other - otherwise, it is evident that the mechanism will not work !
Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: Luca on March 10, 2014, 12:13:30 AM
Thank you, sometimes I'm not very "quick", but in any case I wanted to take away the doubt that I had missed something about the functioning of the knot!
A little (I believe negligible in most situations)limit which a tensioner constructed in this way places, is that,in the case of two closed handles to be tensioned(for example two rings),or if the opening between the two handles is unreachable, then it is the same for any knot: one is always forced to go "on-site "to build, or to finish building the knot;but in the case of having to tensioning between two different points of  the same "closed handle"(EDIT: but there is also the possibility that due to the size, location etc. of this handle is not possible to deal with it as described below ...), this type of tensioner still forces  to go "on-site", while other types of tensioner in this case allow to finish to construct them,for example in a "comfortable place", to then reach the "uncomfortable place"  in which they have to be positioned only to put them in position and put them in tension.
But I try for the nit here!

Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 10, 2014, 12:47:42 AM
... if the opening between the two handles is unreachable..."uncomfortable" place...

   Along its entire length ? You are not forced to tie the knot at the middle of the distance that separates the two objects - you can tie it in any point of the line, and form a smaller/shorter eye at the one side, and a bigger/longer eye at the other. It is highly improbable that you would not have enough room to place your hands or the nub itself, in any point along the connecting line.
   Anyway, there are clearly two, at least, different types of such one-wrap / one-nub binders : those where the constricting / nipping nub is formed in the middle of the line, and then we pass and secure both ends through it, and those where the nub is formed at the one end, and we pass the other end through it. The binders I was seeking in this thread were of the former type. Although they may seem not so versatile as the probably more common binders of the later type, they nevertheless have their own advantages : They can be tensioned by pulling any of the two ends, so we can choose the end which is easier to access, and which we can pull towards a direction which is more "comfortable" for us, relatively to the position of our body and/or arms and hands at the moment. They can be inspected easier, because they are symmetric. And, if there is no room for a shorter eye at the one end, or if the eye at the one end has wrapped the object and can not shrink any more, we can always adjust/shorten the eye at the other end.
Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: Luca on March 10, 2014, 02:10:49 AM
Do not ask me what's that guy is doing there, I do not even know... looking at him face one can guess that the guy maybe is not quite "right"'s just a visual example of the "one(I repeat: negligible) hair in the egg" I wanted to describe it!(But from other points of view can also be an advantage!)
Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 10, 2014, 02:43:34 AM
  I have been in this guy s position !  :) Look at the picture of my test rig, at Reply#1. To fasten the binder there, where there is not much room in between the door, at the left, the wall, in front, and the central heating s radiator, at the right, I had to crawl myself in a "uncomfortable" position, indeed !  :) However, I could chose to pull either the returning eye leg coming from below, towards the floor, or the returning eye leg coming from above, towards the ceiling, and this was an option that I would nt have, had I tied a "common" binder in the same place. I would had been forced to pull the one, only, end, towards one, only, direction, and this would had been more difficult for me. The fact that one can choose what is more convenient to him, to pull the one end towards the one direction or the other towards the other direction, is an advantage of this type of binders the "common" binders ( as the first one you show at the left side of your sketch ) miss.
  Anyway, I think I understood what you mean - in some applications the handcuff-type, two-loops binder would not be suitable, indeed - but in some others it offers the advantages I had described in my previous post, which the "common", one-loop binders do not.
   However, the issue is not which binder, as a tool, is more versatile, in general, but if this knot, in particular, is a good tool, if we wish to tie this type of binder !  :)  Is it comparable to the single-wrap Gleipnir based on a Clove hitch, or an overhand knot (1), for example ?

Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 13, 2014, 02:49:53 AM
  It is perhaps not so easy for somebody that has not tied this binder a sufficient number of times, to appreciate its simplicity, and its symmetry. It may help if he/she has a look at a tying diagram, where the knot is shown in it "unfolded", loose form, before it becomes very compact. I do not know which is the mental picture of it one should keep in mind, to be able to remember and to tie it easier - because I have followed a zig-zag path to tie it, adding and subtracting parts all the time, and I am the last person in the world who can see it clearly, only in this final form. So I guess I will need some time to be able to digest it as it stands now, without remembering its origins and the various things I had in mind when I was trying to compose it.
Title: Re: Binder(s)
Post by: xarax on March 15, 2014, 10:15:45 AM
  I use my ( jumping and bouncing ) body weight, plus the weight of a heavy chair, loaded with myself and any other heavy object I can find around and can carry on board - the binder holds nicely, it is not deformed at all, and can be untied instantly, without any effort. If we do not need a mechanical advantage, like in (1), and have enough rope, this is a most simple and symmetric solution. It requires some attention during the first, at lest, times we dress and pre-tighten it, but once we have mastered this, its tying is a piece of cake.
  I would be happy if somebody would compare its security to the security of long-nipping-tube solutions, as the one based on the Prussic, tied by Luca (2)(3).


Title: Crossed and Re-tucked tails
Post by: xarax on March 20, 2014, 10:57:06 AM
  To secure the Tail Ends even further, we can first cross them, and then re-tuck them through the crossing knots, under the first curves of the Standing Parts. As it should have been expected, the re-tucked versions are much more tight than their parents - and it seems to me that, when tied on non-very-slippery materials, they might even be too tight ! A too-tight nub does not allow us to re-adjust the length of the binder, or use it as an adjustable tensioner : too much friction may prevent the slippage of the tails either way.
  The advantage of the not-side-symmetric binders, even of those with crossed and re-tucked tails, is that they can be inspected more easily than the more symmetric binder shown in Reply#1 ( which is my favourite, to this moment ). That may be a bonus to the inexperienced knot tyers, or during the first times one ties those knots. Also, the binder shown in this post is very secure, and it will forgive a somewhat careless dressing.
   With the present pace with which those binders are examined by the knot-tying community, I reckon that we will need 70 more years to test them, and learn which one is preferable - and I hope I will never hope I will live till then !  :)