International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: enhaut on March 11, 2014, 07:53:24 PM

Title: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: enhaut on March 11, 2014, 07:53:24 PM
A binder variation base on ABOK 457

In a recent post Xarax pointed to me the Gleipnir binder which is fun to do.

Here I propose a binder base on ABOK 457 (noeud de gueule de raie) sorry I use the french version of the book!

Maybe somebody somewhere came to the same result as this one, the senior members will surely know.

This bender grips well, is easy to untie; the locking mechanism is on top, a half knot for the moment seems sufficient.
The whole apparatus is easy to learn.

enhaut
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: Luca on March 11, 2014, 09:55:32 PM
Hi enhaut,

Some time ago I tried some "around an object-binders" of the same concept using among others the Girth hitch and other its derivatives:with my great surprise I found that in my experience the use of the mere,simple Girth hitch leads to more effective results in terms of the tension obtained around the object and the "bite" of the hitch component around the two diameters of rope that wraps!

                                                                                                                       Bye!
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on March 11, 2014, 10:55:03 PM
... the use of the mere, simple Girth hitch leads to more effective results in terms of the tension obtained around the object...

Do you mean this :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.msg31275#msg31275
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: Luca on March 11, 2014, 11:34:06 PM
Hi xarax,

No, I mean the same knot as shown by Enhaut, but using a simple Girth hitch: what I happened to notice is that,compared to how it are built the "real" Gleipnirs, these similar type binders do not have a fully functioning self-locking mechanism (it is easy that one has to tighten by hand the hitch component), but once this is set, seem to work well.
In the thread linked below there are a couple of similar binders executed following (wrongly!) some guidelines by Dan Lehman:performing both of those binders using a simple Girth hitch or a simple Clove hitch, both I liked more , if only because it is easier to tighten the hitch component.

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4631.msg29962#msg29962

                                                                                                                          Bye!
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on March 12, 2014, 12:00:53 AM
  You mean, the returning eye legs enter into the Girth hitch s nipping "tube" from two opposite sides, and not through the same side, as in the Bull Cow/Girth hitch I show. So, there is no difference in the nipping structure, but in the orientation of the Standing Ends when they penetrate it.
  I have tried those solutions, and I came to believe that they are less tight than the "asymmetric" ones I show- because, by pulling both Standing ends at the same time ( as you have to do, otherwise the hitch, as a whole, will be translated or rotated on the pole s surface ), you tend to "open up" the locking mechanism, if those Standing ends enter through it from opposite sides. On the contrary, if they enter through it from the same side, you benefit from the mechanical advantage of the Cow/Girth hitch, and you do not run the danger to open up the "lock".
   I express it with other words, too : It is better if the Standing end(s) are perpendicular to the axis and the surface of the pole - you can pull them against the pole, each one separately or both of them together, at the same time, and also you, by pulling the Standing Ends as they enter from opposite sides, or the Tail Ends, as they also enter through opposite sides, do not "open up" the locked nipping tube.

P.S.
I bet that SS369 will see his beloved Prussic in your hitch shown in the first attached picture ... :)
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: SS369 on March 12, 2014, 01:05:43 AM
I do see prusiks everywhere!  ;)
That aside I( am offering the bull hitch based binder.
The main thing about this binder and it can work reasonably well in two different orientations (loops parallel around something or with individual loops around two separate objects, like the pipes of a radiator  :)  ), is that the bull hitch needs to be dressed tightly before the binding action is applied.

The hitch does not do well at all if it is flipped over from what is shown in the attached picture.

SS
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on March 12, 2014, 01:07:02 AM
   It is tempting to use the long-nipping-tube solutions like the one shown by Luca at (1), in the case of a binder, too. I have tried this with a triple overhand knot as nipping structure, and it worked perfectly well - up to a point.
   The problem with such long nipping "tubes", is that they can easily rotate towards the one or the other direction - and their grip on the penetrating Tail Ends can either be enhanced - because the angle of the Tails Ends in relation to the loading axis can become more acute, less than 90 degrees, so those ends will form a "hook" - OR it can be released - because the angle of the Tails Ends will become more oblate, more than 90 degrees, so those ends will be straightened up, and become able to slip through the tube more easily.
   In other words : A two-eyes / one nub handcuff-type binder has the shape of two acute angle triangles, joined at their acute angle vertex. Such a shape is a very stable, triangulated form. However, if the central nub is quite long, the shape of the binder becomes two trapezoids, joined at their small edge - a much less stable form. ( See the attached sketch ).
   
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4631.msg29978#msg29978
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on March 12, 2014, 01:28:05 AM
I am offering the bull hitch based binder.

  It is the same as the Luca s Girth hitch based solution, only it uses the humble Cow hitch in place of Luca s Girth hitch. Derek Smith calls the Prussik a "double Cow hitch", so there is no much difference, either in function or in nomenclature.
  The longer nipping "tube" of the double Cow/double Girth/Prussik has its advantages, re its gripping power, and its disadvantages, re. its balance ( as I tried to explain in my previous post).
  Also, a longer nipping "tube" has enough room to encircle a twist between the two ends, which enhances its gripping power much more - but then the pulling of the Standing Ends themselves becomes very difficult, and we run the danger to not be able to pre-tension the hitch as much as we wish, due to too much friction.
  Gentlemen, try the Bull Clove hitch again and again, and you will be convinced for the advantage of having both Standing Ends coming in/out from the same side of the nipping / constricting - and, in the case of the Clove hitch, jamming, too ! - structure. Or, if you find it time consuming to dress it properly, try the asymmetric, albeit very tight, Bull Girth hitch. To be able to pull the ends of the hitch against the axis and the surface of the pole, and not parallel to it, is a great advantage, that tightens the hitch without deforming the locking nub - a problem of the Constrictor, for example.
   Of course, if the application demands a hitch where we can only pull ends in a lengthwise orientation relatively to the pole, we should use solutions where the Standing Ends enter/exit into/from the nipping structure through/from two sides. Then, the 2U s hitches shown at (1) are also interesting.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3104.0   
   
 
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: Luca on March 12, 2014, 01:56:23 AM
  You mean, the returning eye legs enter into the Girth hitch s nipping "tube" from two opposite sides, and not through the same side, as in the Bull Cow/Girth hitch I show. So, there is no difference in the nipping structure, but in the orientation of the Standing Ends when they penetrate it.
  I have tried those solutions, and I came to believe that they are less tight than the "asymmetric" ones I show- because, by pulling both Standing ends at the same time

Is perhaps a little bit off topic here,since I speak now of knots that have the type of symmetry of the Clove hitch based binder  of the knots shown above,rather than the type of (a-)symmetry of the Girth hitch based binders shown in this thread by Enhaut and in the first diagram that you reproduce above(which,i admit,as regards the geometry shown there, is not exactly suited to reproduce and illustrate a "Prusik version" of the binder shown by enhaut),but the binders that you show in this thread http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4818.msg31377#msg31377 seems to me to fall into the same category of this "Clove-hitched" + "have to pull both ends" binders, I think it's the same mechanism/knot construction using both the Clove hitch(that you effectively cite there) and the Strangler/Double Overhand knot(with the ends of the rope oriented in the one or the other direction),I miss something?

Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: Luca on March 12, 2014, 02:11:04 AM
Hi SS,

I( am offering the bull hitch based binder.

The Prusik,or the Bull hitch,or the Cat's Paw hitch,or the "Cloved Bull hitch"by xarax and estar, are better than the simple Girth hitch as hitches,but ,please, try the simple Girth hitch for this "two ends/arms pull around a(large?)object"-binder,and tell me something if you want(limits included)!Thanks!

                                                                                                                    Bye!

Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on March 12, 2014, 02:37:04 AM
... the binders that you show in this thread http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4818.msg31377#msg31377 seems to me to fall into the same category of this ... "have to pull both ends" binders

   Yes, indeed, the more you approach the mechanism of the initial Gleipnir binder, which does not use a long nipping "tube", the less you are able to handle each of the two ends independently of the other. A longer nipping tube, be it a double overhand, a triple overhand, a single- or double-coil Clove or Girth / Cow hitch, offer more inner room, where each returning eye leg or Standing End can move, so it can be pulled and be re-adjusted, without influencing the state of the other leg or eye, without unlocking it.
   However, if you go too far towards this direction, you start having problems with the balance / stability of the mechanism ( if used as a mid-air binder ), as I tried to explain in my previous posts.
 
  We try to tie a shorter or longer nipping mechanism on the middle of the line, in the case of a mid-air binder, or on the surface of the pole, in the case of a tight hitch. We pass the ends of the returning eye legs or the ends of the wraps through this nipping "tube", and we adjust / pre-tighten the binder / hitch. An L-shaped deflexion of the Tail ends helps them take the shape and work as "hooks", so it helps the nipping "tube" to grip them and work as a "handle" - but a very acute deflexion can present difficulties in adjusting / pre-tightening. A "twist" of the Tail ends inside this "tube" is beneficial, as we already saw even in the case of the single-coil Gleipnir, in the simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir - but a too convoluted entanglement between them can also hinder the easiness with which we should be able to adjust or pre-tighten any mid-air binder or tight hitch.
   We are under the shadow of this huge Gleipnir tree, which leaves a very small quantity of new light to arrive on us, so a little room for any real, worth the trouble improvements - but which has enlightened our understanding of all our "old" knots so much - including our understanding of the bowline ! So, no wonder that the task of finding something well-balanced, in form, amount of material and moves required to tie it, security and efficiency, is not so easy.
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on March 12, 2014, 02:45:42 AM
  Luca, I suppose you have tried those three variations, shown again in Reply#5 here, for some time now. If you would like to evaluate them, what grade, from 1 to 10, would you give to them ?
  I prefer the first one, and, if the rope is very sleek, I entangle the Tail ends with one "twist" : the result seems a rock-solid hitch - the only problem is how one unties this thing !
 
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: SS369 on March 12, 2014, 03:01:32 AM
Hi SS,

I( am offering the bull hitch based binder.

The Prusik,or the Bull hitch,or the "Cloved Bull hitch"by xarax and estar, are better than the simple Girth hitch as hitches,but ,please, try the simple Girth hitch for this "two ends/arms pull around a(large?)object"-binder,and tell me something if you want(limits included)!Thanks!

                                                                                                                    Bye!

Hi Luca.

I have tried the prusik, the bull , the clove and and the girth hitch bases. My take is that the prusik is not as suited to this configuration as the tube shape and the multiple coils don't actually cinch down on the tails as well as the other three.

Using the 6mm accessory cord shown in my picture above, the clove based binder does not dress and set well without furious jerks and rearranging of the coils. Too much work for very little gain and not great holding power, imo.

The girth hitch works a lot better, with this same cord and easily dressed and set.
The bull hitch base does as well as the girth with a bit more dressing.

I feel that these will not be good binders for any soft items to be bound. Or for large ropes around small diameters.

It is all an interesting exploration though.

To enhaut: Welcome and thank you for the cats paw based binder. Having tried it before adding to the discussion I found that it is very much material dependent. Try it out for yourself using a rope of stouter and stiffer construction.
It does perform well using solid braid nylon and laid 3 strand nylon. In poly rope it slips too easily.
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on March 12, 2014, 03:21:38 AM
It does perform well using solid braid nylon and laid 3 strand nylon. In poly rope it slips too easily.

  Perhaps because nylon is stretchy, and can accumulate any tension induced into it during a pre-tensioning phase. In other words, it "remembers" the pulling, and offers it back when it is needed.
  Have you tried the same knot, with two double instead of two single nipping loops ? I guess that the double nipping loops will offer some more grip, without any additional difficulty in tying. 
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: SS369 on March 12, 2014, 01:45:17 PM
It does perform well using solid braid nylon and laid 3 strand nylon. In poly rope it slips too easily.

  Perhaps because nylon is stretchy, and can accumulate any tension induced into it during a pre-tensioning phase. In other words, it "remembers" the pulling, and offers it back when it is needed.
  Have you tried the same knot, with two double instead of two single nipping loops ? I guess that the double nipping loops will offer some more grip, without any additional difficulty in tying.

Hi xarax.

Part of the reason I believe the performance is better is because the rope is soft/deformable and so closes down to one diameter and smaller. The elasticity is another plus in some circumstances too.

I am unsure of which variation you are asking about? And I am specifically trying to remain using the binder(s) in the orientation as presented by enhaut in this thread. Not the "handcuff" design.

SS
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: enhaut on March 12, 2014, 06:40:02 PM
Thanks @ everybody for your pointers.

The Cat's Paw; thanks Luca, I was looking for the right english term.

@ Xarax; I have tested the double nipping loop, yes it gives good friction but takes away one knot's characteristic; the capacity to be loosen up efforlessly.

@ SS369 "I believe the performance is better is because the rope is soft/deformable and so closes down to one diameter and smaller."

So true!

I have tried a robust 12mm rope and found that it requires a stopping mechanism.  A good deformable rope will produce the best results.

Cat's Paw binder seems a good working name for this knot!

enhaut
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on March 12, 2014, 07:17:37 PM
I believe the performance is better is because the rope is soft/deformable and so closes down to one diameter and smaller.

  The poly is soft too ! I do not think that any small difference in stiffness between those two materials can produce such big difference in gripping power. However, your braided nylon may be much more deformable than a laid 3-strand poly - are those the ropes you tried ? 
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: enhaut on March 12, 2014, 08:04:54 PM
I have found a solution for bigger rope; the Cat's Paw has 3 "finger" :)
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on March 12, 2014, 09:32:46 PM
.
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: SS369 on March 12, 2014, 10:19:34 PM
Quote
The poly is soft too ! I do not think that any small difference in stiffness between those two materials can produce such big difference in gripping power. However, your braided nylon may be much more deformable than a laid 3-strand poly - are those the ropes you tried ?

I'm sorry that I didn't give an example with more specificity. The "poly" I was referring to is hollow braided polypropylene. Usually yellow in color. I have some in three strand laid also.
It is a waxy feeling plastic and not good for much.   :)  http://www.dakotaangler.com/product/invincible-marine-hollow-braided-polypropylene-rope-keeper-177825-1.htm#seitemdesc (http://www.dakotaangler.com/product/invincible-marine-hollow-braided-polypropylene-rope-keeper-177825-1.htm#seitemdesc)
It deforms plenty, but the slickness does not invite confidence and it proves itself to perform poorly here in this application.

SS
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: enhaut on March 13, 2014, 12:22:10 AM
@SS369
Thanks for the link, I see what your are talking about.
It makes me wonder, do I have to try all these kinds of rope to prove test a knot?
I must admit that I am not a connoiseur in this matter.

enhaut
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: SS369 on March 13, 2014, 01:11:07 AM
@SS369
Thanks for the link, I see what your are talking about.
It makes me wonder, do I have to try all these kinds of rope to prove test a knot?
I must admit that I am not a connoiseur in this matter.

enhaut

You're welcome enhaut, though I was primarily giving the link to clarify the rope to xarax.  ;)

I don't believe you need to try all these kinds of rope to proof test a knot, though it does help one to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the specimen.
One of the nice things about a worldwide forum is that others can be helpful with this sometimes.  :)

If you have an offering that you'd like input on using some other kinds of material, that you don't have access to, ask and let's see if we can give you some help.

Keep tangling!

SS
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on April 17, 2014, 06:01:28 PM
I am offering the bull hitch based binder.

   I have still not made up my mind about this : Does the Cat s paw nipping/locking neck presented in this thread is worth the added complexity to tie, dress and pre-tighten the hitch, in comparison to the humble Cow hitch-based one, or not ? In the mean time, see two new pictures of this hitch, taken while I was trying to answer to this question... However, I think that, as farmers, we do have a new problem : with so many bovines around, the nomenclature of the Cow- and Bull-hitch based knots became crowded, and perhaps it is time to consider the use of some names of other members of the bovinae subfamily : buffalo, bison, yak.... :). (1)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovinae

P.S. Since the time I wrote this, I had tried many Bull-like two wrap hitches, including various Cow-hitch based ones, placed "belly up" or "belly down" on the surface of the pole. The original, asymmetrically placed Double Ring knot is the simplest and the tightest of the Cow-hitch-based hitches - and it is TIB as well, so there is no reason to use any other.
 
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: SS369 on April 17, 2014, 07:22:18 PM
Quote
  However, I think that, as farmers, we do have a new problem : with so many bovines around, the nomenclature of the Cow- and Bull-hitch based knots became crowded, and perhaps it is time to consider the use of some names of other members of the bovinae subfamily : buffalo, bison, yak.... :). (1)


Would you like to go to ornithological or girding based names?  :D

I think less can be more in the case of these types of binders, but that is in consideration of the object(s) to be bound and the media to do the binding with.
If you were going to do a binder with say webbing, which form would you gravitate towards?
Or with a slippery material?

With the bull based (lol) binder the added complexity is not so very much. When you make the Larks head, just pass one loop through the other and take it around, then continue.

Does the enlarged nub offer anything real? Can the leverage imparted against the bound material in a sideways pull be of benefit?

SS
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on April 17, 2014, 08:08:24 PM
   If you were going to do a binder with, say, webbing

   I do not even know if we should talk about knots tied on webbing ! It seems to me that people are too fast to use the same word for two entirely different mechanisms, the first involving almost-1D flexible objects, and the second almost-2D foldable objects. When the material is sooo flat ( or when it can be flattened a lot, and becomes so flat ), the way the fastening works is completelly different from the ordinary knots - something like ori-gami ( folded-paper ), made of long strips... We do not consider an origami-made object to be a knotted object, do we ?
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on April 17, 2014, 08:25:23 PM
   Does the enlarged nub offer anything real ? Can the leverage imparted against the bound material in a sideways pull be of benefit?

   Yes ! The "enlarged nub" has a certain bulk, so when the wraps press it on the surface of the pole, it is forced to be squeezed a little did, and so, by its turn, it squeezes the ends, too, that penetrate it. That means its "locking" efficiency is enhanced - as we have seen in the case of the "simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir". A hitch where both ends can be locked more tightly inside the "nipping/locking" nub is a tighter hitch, it can be pre-tightened more, and so its ability to withstand a lengthwise pull is enhanced.
   By "leverage" I understand the effect due to the increased distance in between the entry point of the Standing End(s) into such an "enlarged nub" and the surface of the pole. Yes, this distance is always welcomed - and I have seen that effect in much simpler hitches, too. During the pulling of the end(s), the part of the nub in between the Standing end and the surface of the pole is squeezed by both sides, and this works like a brake, further inhibiting the slippage of the hitch along the axis of the pole.
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: SS369 on April 17, 2014, 09:07:45 PM
   If you were going to do a binder with, say, webbing

   I do not even know if we should talk about knots tied on webbing ! It seems to me that people are too fast to use the same word for two entirely different mechanisms, the first involving almost-1D flexible objects, and the second almost-2D foldable objects. When the material is sooo flat ( or when it can be flattened a lot, and becomes so flat ), the way the fastening works is completelly different from the ordinary knots - something like ori-gami ( folded-paper ), made of long strips... We do not consider an origami-made object to be a knotted object, do we ?

I don't necessarily feel we should be limited in this discussion, as long as it is germane to the OP.

Webbing gets tied and used many places. I am sorry (only here conversationally) that I view some things from a climbing use perspective and others may not... It is close to my heart and I am passionate about it.

A grass bend is in the realm of webbing and had its use, though maybe in olden days.

Some electricians use webbing to pull wire bundles through conduits and might actually have to use a knot.

To salvage a ratcheting web tie down that has been cut could use a knot too.

I'll do my best to not throw limits on this, the OP's thread, it could lead to an idea for a new thread!  ;)

SS
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on April 17, 2014, 09:48:59 PM
   A grass bend is in the realm of webbing and had its use

  My point is that the thing : (ordinary) knot = "grass bend", tied on rope, is an altogether different thing - mechanism / works very differently, than the (origami) "knot" = "grass bend", tied on webbing ! I know it sounds odd to people who read the past and current literature on knots, and can not "see" the entirely different distribution of tensile and friction forces inside and on the surface of the materials, the different way those 3D objects deform in space under heavy loading, etc. - but it is true nevertheless !  :)

 
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: SS369 on April 17, 2014, 10:26:06 PM
   A grass bend is in the realm of webbing and had its use

  My point is that the thing : (ordinary) knot = "grass bend", tied on rope, is an altogether different thing - mechanism / works very differently, than the (origami) "knot" = "grass bend", tied on webbing ! I know it sounds odd to people who read the past and current literature on knots, and can not "see" the entirely different distribution of tensile and friction forces inside and on the surface of the materials, the different way those 3D objects deform in space under heavy loading, etc. - but it is true nevertheless !  :)

No disagreement with rope and grass behaving differently or grass and webbing differing slightly. But, there are different types of webbing materials and construction styles and these do behave at least similarly to ropes and are used as (part of a system (maybe climbing or prusiking)  ;) ) with knots in them.

If this is an undesired tangent of the conversation, let it fall by the wayside if you please.

Since I have webbing and use it, I like to explore those possibilities. Along with rope.
I even try these constructs using laid rope to see if there are quirks with its use.

SS
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: Luca on May 10, 2014, 08:40:43 PM
Hi xarax,sorry for the extreme lateness of this reply

  Luca, I suppose you have tried those three variations, shown again in Reply#5 here[ http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4821.msg31427#msg31427 ], for some time now. If you would like to evaluate them, what grade, from 1 to 10, would you give to them ?
  I prefer the first one, and, if the rope is very sleek, I entangle the Tail ends with one "twist" : the result seems a rock-solid hitch - the only problem is how one unties this thing !


At this point I think you have done your trials, and have derived your own conclusions...
I personally have tried these binders using them around a bulky stack of old newspapers, and around some piles of large diameter with respect of the diameter of the rope used,so I have not yet tested them in a real "mid-air situation".
It is quite difficult,maybe especially as regards the two binders based on the Clove hitch,to make sure that the hitch component remains well compact:the problem is that, by pulling the free ends to tighten the binder around the object, the two "round-turned" components of the Clove hitch tend to stay loose,with consequent loss of time (and possibly also of patience ...) in searching the way to tighten ...
The Prusik version is perhaps a little faster and more intuitive to realize, but the described situation is not much improved(but I have to remember that these three binders are born from a precise request of Kieran http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4631.msg29976#msg29976 , so these binders have been designed to be realized only once, and then reused many times without ever having to untie and re-tie them).
In any case, at the time of that thread, to overcome the problem described above, I had thought of entrusting the "bite" around the tail ends exclusively to the round-turned components of the hitch, leaving slack the "bridge" that unites them,and using this same "bridge" by pulling it(unless one decides to use the knot upside down, with the "bridge" which in this case remains in contact with the surface of the wrapped object) in order to take the opportunity to unite and further tighten the two round turns ... do not know to what extent it is a good idea, but apparently it seems to work!
Or (but in this case the surface of the wrapped object must be large enough to allow it) the two round-turned components can be moved away from one another for than allows the length of the "bridge" ,to create two distinct points where the tail ends are nipped.
OK,I realize that I'm not answering your question ... well, the fact is that I can not do it!
The Prusik version seems a little more "easy" to dress and set,and the tail ends form angles of 90 degrees at the time of entering through the hitch component,but I am not able to quantify which of these binders maintains tension better than others, I think that depends a lot on how one succeeds to dress and set them(it's a struggle!) and the materials used.
Using the Prusik binder as described at the beginning of the post, I tighten this binder by pulling both the tails using only the(poor!) force of my arms,without using any sort of mechanical advantage,so I never found it difficult to untie it.
Trying to keep compact the knot's nub of the Prusik component, I think it's very hard to make sure that the two external turns of the Prusik are gripping at the same level of the two interior turns,so I do not know how much it's worth it compared to the use of a simple Girth hitch!

                                                                                                                        Bye!
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: Luca on May 10, 2014, 10:47:18 PM
Hi SS,

Hi Luca.

I have tried the prusik, the bull , the clove and and the girth hitch bases. My take is that the prusik is not as suited to this configuration as the tube shape and the multiple coils don't actually cinch down on the tails as well as the other three.

Using the 6mm accessory cord shown in my picture above, the clove based binder does not dress and set well without furious jerks

                                                                                                                 

and rearranging of the coils. Too much work for very little gain and not great holding power, imo.

The girth hitch works a lot better, with this same cord and easily dressed and set.
The bull hitch base does as well as the girth with a bit more dressing.

I feel that these will not be good binders for any soft items to be bound. Or for large ropes around small diameters.

It is all an interesting exploration though.

Thank you,It seems to me that my impressions regarding the difficulties of dressing and setting some of these binders are fundamentally similar to yours,so I do not have much to add.
My favorite remains the Girth hitch because it is the easier solution;personally I would not say that the use of the Prusik lead to a weaker result in terms of holding the tension, more than anything else requires more work IMO. Same speech regarding(also the simple) Clove hitch. To tell you the truth do not seems to me that the use of the Bull hitch leads to a superior result[maybe a little bit inferior? (but I have less ropes than you, and above all I have less experience as investigator of the behaviour of knots!(also, as you guessed, I'm a fan of the Girth hitch here, so this might affect the results of my poor experiments...))]

                                                                                                                        Thank you again!And bye!




Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on May 11, 2014, 04:39:15 AM
   It is quite difficult, maybe especially as regards the two binders based on the Clove hitch, to make sure that the hitch component remains well compact: the problem is that, by pulling the free ends to tighten the binder around the object, the two "round-turned" components of the Clove hitch tend to stay loose, with consequent loss of time (and possibly also of patience ...) in searching the way to tighten ...

   You tie them the wrong way !  :) Pass the OTHER ends through the Clove hitch s nub - or pass the same ends, through the opposite openings of the "nipping tube" of the Clove hitch. It matters, believe me.
   See the two (simple) Gleipnir Clove binders at :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4884.msg31968#msg31968
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4885.msg31991#msg31991
   Tie your binders as shown there - not the other way !
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on May 11, 2014, 05:08:31 AM
...leaving the "bridge" that unites them slack...

...the two round-turned components can be moved away from one another... to create two distinct points where the tail ends are nipped.

  Either of those two dressings look to me more like two separate knots, the one next to the other, or like one compound knot, rather than one single knot. Perhaps they will work in tandem, but by "addition" - we want knots that work by "multiplication" - that is, knots where the whole is more than the mere sum of parts...
   
   For a four-wrap tight hitch, which also works by "addition", I would prefer the Double Cow hitch - which is veeery easily tied, utilizes a mechanical advantage, secures the Tail Ends by locking them in between opposing bights, and which is TIB :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4035.msg24345#msg24345
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: Luca on May 11, 2014, 10:42:41 PM
Hi xarax,

   You tie them the wrong way !  :) Pass the OTHER ends through the Clove hitch s nub - or pass the same ends, through the opposite openings of the "nipping tube" of the Clove hitch. It matters, believe me.
   See the two (simple) Gleipnir Clove binders at :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4884.msg31968#msg31968
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4885.msg31991#msg31991
   Tie your binders as shown there - not the other way !



Is not clear to me what you mean here:as it seems to me,there are two ways, in general, to build (symmetrically), these binders based on the Clove hitch, those that should be visible in the diagrams at reply #5 linked at the top of this page.
That said, I thought that for each of the two ways of constructing the binder, there was only one way(or two, if one places the knot's nub upside down on the surface of the wrapped object)to use the pair of binding components (the loops) for wrapping the object;but it is clearly not true, as you teach me in the first of two link that you put up here, because the binder represented there is loaded in a way that I had not really thought about, and also the topology changes slightly (it is a matter of tail),then there is at least a third way ("tails" of the Clove component both "down"), and then,also a fourth(both tails "up")!
Apparently, the general construction of the binder is such as that of the third diagram of the reply #5(it's right?I am not 100% sure!) (but obviously loaded in a different way),while the binder to which it refers your second link seems to be built and "installed" as in the second diagram of the reply #5(but with the tails twisted).
In conclusion, I have tied these binders is in the right way and in the wrong way,and today I tried some of the binders of this thread as mid-air binders, including the one you have installed in your binder-test-laboratory(if I did it right, however I have also tried using the same "sructural" orientation of  the binder of your second link, but "installed" in the same way of the one in the first link),and the only one who fully convinced me (in addition to the binder of this thread of which I am an avid fan, ie the Girth(or Cow?)double wrap binder) is ...the Double Cow hitch version!
I do not know if you meant this when you  mentioned this hitch..but after trying for these binders the Clove,the Prusik,the Cat's paw ,the Bull,for me,in my(limited)experience,there is no comparison!(I tried it just as mid-air binder so far)

                                                                                                                       Bye!
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on May 12, 2014, 12:28:01 AM
   First, those three binders are NOT "based on the Clove hitch" ! There is nowhere something like a Clove hitch : the two aligned, separate nipping tubes ( which are connected only by the "bridge", and through which we pass the two tails of the hitch after they have wrapped the object ) are two double nipping loops : each double nipping loop is made by segments of the line that make one 540 degrees UUU turn ( = three 180 degrees U turns ). On the contrary, the Gleipnir Clove binders I had shown are based on one genuine Cove hitch, tied around the penetrating pair of ends.
  Why a Clove hitch, and not just a double nipping loop ? I have seen that the Clove hitch behaves like a rope-made ratchet mechanism, "locking" any tensile forces which happen to be inserted within it during a pre-tensioning stage : so its gripping power on the penetrating tails is greater and more permanent, and will prohibit any slippage of the tails, even if/after they will become unloaded at some instance.
  We can replace the two aligned, separate double nipping loops in those hitches, with two aligned, separate Clove hitches, and see what happens.
   As you mention, we can place the nipping tubes as you show in the pictures, or upside down, so the "bridge" which connects the two nipping tubes is in contact to the surface of the object.
   Now, we can insert each of the two ends that we want to "lock" inside the nipping tubes, through the one or through the other opening. It is true that, if we insert them "the other way" of the way you show, the two wraps will cross each other, so the binder/hitch will not be 100% "symmetrical" - but that is only a minor deviation from the 100% symmetrical way you show, a deviation which does not have any consequence in the efficiency of the knot - especially in the case of a mid-air binder.
   I have seen that, curiously, the one, the "correct" way, can be quite easier to pre-tension than the other, and that is what I mentioned in Reply#32. ( See the two "ways", in the case of a "handcuff", one-line mid-air Gleipnir Clove binder, tied in between two objects, at the attached pictures. The same happens in the case of the two-line, mid-air or not, "common" binder / hitch, tied around one object. ) So, till now, we have four variations of the hitches you show.
  Moreover, if we make the line to turn 360 degrees or 720 degrees ( = two 180 degrees U turns, or four 180 degrees U turns ), the two limbs of the nipping tubes will leave them, and will turn around the object, following opposite directions, so we have a new quadruplicating of the number of possible binders/hitches - although the form of the ones with the shorter or longer nipping tubes are a little different from the ones you show, and one would argue that, in those 4 "new" cases, we have something like two connected, through a "bridge", single or double, inverted or not, "simple-hitches-a-la-Gleipnir" in a row, aligned on the surface of the pole...
   
Title: Re: A binder variation base on ABOK 457
Post by: xarax on May 12, 2014, 12:36:53 AM
...the only one who fully convinced me (in addition to the binder of this thread of which I am an avid fan, ie the Girth (or Cow?) double wrap binder ) is ...the Double Cow hitch version !

   Welcome to the Land of the locked Cow hitches  :) : the single "Locked Cow hitch", and the "Double Cow hitch".
   They become tight, because they utilize the mechanical advantage of the Cow hitch - and they remain tight, because they utilize the opposing bights locking mechanism.