Okay, that's one bit of feed-back. Thank you Roo. Let's have some more from other people.
The thread has considerable information it it, already.
On the name, I think of it as
"the Gleipnir ", happily. I don't mind
that pronunciations will differ; they do on most things (a local radio traffic
announcer or a cycling friend of mine say "bay-ack" for "back" or "cray-ash"
for "crash" and so on; or the peculiarities of those New Englanders or NYCity;
and sugary Southern states sweet "thank-eee-yew" still tickles my memory
heard in a fast-food joint between manager & waitress (each to other)
somewhere in Carolina?). It is certainly a unique/distinctive name to my
American ear. --and it carries less of a personal sense then would "Dahlm
Twist" or some such.
(My once-suggested "turNip" I favor being the name of the turn so
used to make a nip, seen in many manifestations, no particular "knot".)
On the working & supposed MA: I think that there is none -- rather, as
I stated, it's a "Paul Bunyan (giant) knot", requiring over-exertions for
what is ultimately delivered, but working to lock & hold the gain. But
you will have differing effect in different circumstances. Just consider
that all that frictional gripping that must be done to lock the tensioned
ends pulled through it must be resisting their tensioning pulls as well
(with some caveat about differences in frictional effect on moving
parts, which I won't pretend to understand (one can quote CLDay's
famous remark about friction)). But I have found much LESS favor
in the structure than has Inkanyezi, surprisingly. Just yesterday, out
"in the wild" and using a 3mm kernmantle old bit to bind a newly
harvested coil of rope to another one already dangling from my
belt, I thought to try the
Gleipnir : it was impossble to get
much tightening to the turNip; it worked okay, but far from the
glowing reports Inkanyezi brings. So, YMMV.
(One could try to test this with weights & pulleys (for redirection).
And, given your insistence on not trusting things voiced in the
thread on a knot mystery, I'd think that before you devoted an
iota of PR to this novelty you would insist on giving it a full testing
yourself, to better understand it. Please take a shot at this, using
both slick (metal) objects and then something less so -- bit tough
to think of working out how to assess binding tension around a box,
though (essentially, around 4 cardboard corners).)
This thread contains a couple of similar structures that employ
a turNip and which might better tighten, in some instances.
I'm playing around with one now where the turNip feeds its
end through a bight to pull back through the turNip, and so
in limited spacing (typically) to have that apparent 2:1 pull
on a bight, the anchoring end of which (the pulling line, i.e.)
is the turNip and so worked tighter. This structure should do
well on convex surfaces, with lessened space to delivering
tension to the turNip.
--dl*
====
