Author Topic: The "Derived Hitch"  (Read 15554 times)

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2010, 11:46:04 PM »
Quote from: dfred
"#1800: Check the illustration and description again. Actually #1800 and #1800-reversed are distinct. The key phrase is 'If the concluding hitch . . .' See #1857."

Yes, #1857 is much clearer.

#1854, #1855, #1856, and #1857 are probably the best descriptions of these knots in the ABOK. The description for the Awning Knot describes what the Midshipman's Hitch is really all about and tells of the main distinction between the Midshipman's Hitch and the use of the Rolling Hitch on the standing part. #1857 has only the final Half Hitch reversed to reduce the tendency of the knot to twist. Though the twisting is reduced by doing this, the tendency of the knot to grip is also reduced!

I have found that a Rolling Hitch (even an upside-down Rolling Hitch) on the standing part gives me nowhere near the amount of grip that I would like. A properly made Midshipman's Hitch, however, which has that peculiar jamming at its top, is much, much better at gripping (thanks to the peculiar jamming), but the peculiar jamming itself is somewhat dubious (and an upside-down Midshipman's Hitch cannot do the job reliably either). The final problem with these knots is that, since they are slide-and-grip knots, the more tension there is on the line, the harder they are to adjust to get greater tension (when achieving tension is the goal).

JCS

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2010, 04:47:03 AM »
The final problem with these knots is that, since they are slide-and-grip knots, the more tension there is on the line, the harder they are to adjust to get greater tension (when achieving tension is the goal).

But you have stepped towards the solution to this, already:
"stacking", or what I might better call "guarding" -- i.e., use
a pair (possibly more) of structures to achieve the grip, with
the first one being ideally completely non-jamming, which
guards the 2nd one from seeing all so much force.
So, whereas one can try adding turns to a Rolling Hitch
for improving the grip, it will be better to just put in a
half-hitch/turn or double that ("jammed" 'a la Midshipman's
or not), and then lead the end from this "guard" to the
finishing (full) hitch.  (Adjustment might become a 2-step
process:  giving slack from the final hitch or pulling in
line into the guard for tightening.)

--dl*
====

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2010, 05:48:08 AM »
There is an alternative naming scheme for the Derived Hitch and its constructs that may be used in order to (1) adequately identify the different constructs and (2) be more consistent with established knot terminology. This might be a better direction to take, rather than to attempt to expand or modify established knot terminology in order to accommodate the original naming scheme that evolved out of necessity:

- The "Derived-Hitch Loop" could be renamed the "Derived Hitch"
- The "Derived-Hitch Coil Hitch" could be renamed the "Component-Knot Coil Hitch"
- The "Derived-Hitch Tension Technique" could be renamed the "Component-Knot Tension Hitch"
- The "Derived-Hitch Wrapping Technique" could be renamed the "Component-Knot Tension Binder"
- The "Locked Derived Hitch" could be renamed the "Locked Component Knot"
- The "Stopper-Flush Derived Hitch" could be renamed the "Stopper-Flush Component Knot"
- The "Coil-Hitch Loop" could be renamed the "Adjustable Component-Knot Coil Hitch"

This arrangement allows also for the "Component-Knot Binder" and the "Component-Knot Coil Binder."

Before the readers of this topic will be able to give feedback on a new naming scheme for the Derived Hitch and its constructs, I will need to present all of the constructs in detail. This may take a few months.

JCS

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2010, 06:27:49 AM »
Quote from: Dan_Lehman
". . . no such thing . . ."

By which I mean the supposed derivation:  you are deriving
from a Clove (extending it), not the noose-hitch; it's a picky point
but as you distinguish "DH" from "DHL", it's a matter of matching
like functions.

Quote
You have made your disparaging remarks at a time before I have fully demonstrated the Derived Hitch and its constructs; therefore, how can anyone take your comments seriously?

Then I should choose my remarks carefully, for tastiness, in case
they become supper.  But I didn't just sit here, I got up and put
the structure to some test in handy rope; and as it slid, with some
solid (pulley-assisted) loading, I saw my fears manifest.

Now, again, I've put another rope --3/8" med.lay nylon, good condition
(but hardly "new" in years)-- to test with 2 "stacked" DHLs making eyes
at each end, turned through one 'biner (1cm) and a broader smooth hook.
And it seems to work pretty well, then!  (Turns of the DH went against
the lay, btw.)  Still, though it held for a fairly stiff pull in some slicker,
yachting double-braided PP sheathed (not sure of core) 5/16" rope,
a bounce got it to slide (again, 2 knots, just at one end; Dragon EK @other).
And what else?  Well, to be fair, I tried a Rolling Hitch, Oh-stoppered,
with a double-turn guard --less material I think than stacked DHLs.
Slipped readily the first go; then I set the RH better and it held better.
(But such things scare the willies out of me:  that their holding is just
about to yield and then ... wheeeeeeee e  e  e  comes a rope-melting
slide.)

Now, how do you expect to more fully demonstrate these structures?
We're still here (chastened or not).

Quote
They are spectacular structures that have served me well for years.
Details are wanted, here.  I just couldn't see the knot working well in
"real" (3/4", say) rope and loads; but maybe I'm jumping to conclusions
on the tightening of the half-hitches in the Clove --as to my testing
this evening I did see that they weren't so tight as I'd thought (but
the knot didn't move all so easily, either --and that bears on the point
about your experiences:  what materials, forces).

 - - - - - - - -

On naming:
0) knots nomenclature is a current mess & problematic ... ;

1) "Derived Hitch" could be anything, so I don't fancy taking
that name to be some particular "derived" knot;

2) I see structures such as Two Half-hitches & Midshipman's Hitch
as nooses --nevermind whether they might hold a fixed
eye, at some forces in some materials-- , and the knot contained
in them a hitch (to the structure's SPart).  This perspective
frees one of concern about behavior under various circumstances.

--dl*
====

Quote
ps:
       Prudence thrives on circumspection
    as oft', the patient mind, reflective,
  reveals ideals of some perfection
as mere illusions of perspective!


    -- Anon., II

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #19 on: May 29, 2010, 05:13:53 PM »
OK, I read this thread and searched the Internet.  I still don't know have much information about the derived hitch.  In fact, the most information I have is from the original post.  Does anybody have an external link so that I can cross reference?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 05:16:55 PM by knot4u »

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2010, 07:55:06 PM »
Quote from: Dan_Lehman
". . . as it slid, with some solid (pulley-assisted) loading, I saw my fears manifest."

The first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the component knot of the Derived Hitch is NOT supposed to grip like a slide-and-grip knot, so it is not expected to grip when tension is applied. This is why, when used for hitching, it is intended to be sized snug to the post, as is a Buntline Hitch. (This behavior suggests that the grip is a fixed grip, not a variable grip. This unique property is unusual, but when combined with the way the component knots "stack," makes for wonderful results.) There is but one way to stop the sliding, in order to turn the hitch into a loop: to form a new construct by adding one or more component knots to the standing part. This has so far been referred to as "stacking." This may need to be renamed also. Efficiency (for this particular structure in the collection) is not a big issue, because the performance gain is worth the expenditure of a little more rope. (A stacking of just three component knots will often be adequate. If you're using, say, hollow-braid polypropylene, you might want to stack four and wait for retention to set in.)

One problem is that the original presented naming scheme (in the first post) for the collection of related structures, which I am in the process of trying to improve, is somewhat confusing. The ways to achieve success with these structures may not be as clear and self-evident as I take for granted, as someone who's been using them for a long time.

Another problem is that, because I have not yet posted diagrams for all of the structures, or even better, posted links to, say, videos that clearly demonstrate how they all work, it's likely that readers may not be doing what needs to be done in order to achieve success. Readers certainly are NOT to blame for ANY lack of success. Trying to communicate subtle ideas successfully is one of the great difficulties of . . . living and takes time. . . .

At this point, I must beg for readers' patience as I begin to assemble the necessary details and materials that can expound on what has been set forth so far.

Once we determine a proper naming scheme that can serve to organize the collection of structures well, I will be able to rewrite the first post of this topic, so that clarity and proper interpretation can occur more readily.

JCS
« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 08:13:14 PM by jcsampson »

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2010, 08:04:09 PM »
Quote from: knot4u
". . . still don't . . . have much information about the derived hitch."

I've been using it for years and have recently decided to share it with those who appreciate knots. I beg for readers' patience as I begin to assemble the necessary details that can expound on what has been set forth so far. Readers may have valuable ideas on how to improve the naming and organization of this collection of useful structures that are all based on what we so far have been calling the "Derived Hitch."

JCS

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2010, 08:07:37 PM »
Here are the possible naming schemes considered so far:

Scheme I

- The Derived Hitch
- The Component-Knot Binder
- The Component-Knot Coil Hitch
- The Component-Knot Coil Binder
- The Component-Knot Tension Hitch
- The Component-Knot Tension Binder
- The Locked Component Knot
- The Stopper-Flush Component Knot
- The Adjustable Component-Knot Coil Hitch

Scheme II

- The Derived Hitch
- The DH-Component Binder
- The DH-Component Coil Hitch
- The DH-Component Coil Binder
- The DH-Component Tension Hitch
- The DH-Component Tension Binder
- The Locked DH Component
- The Stopper-Flush DH Component
- The Adjustable DH-Component Coil Hitch

Scheme III

- The Derived Hitch
- The DH-Knot Binder
- The DH-Knot Coil Hitch
- The DH-Knot Coil Binder
- The DH-Knot Tension Hitch
- The DH-Knot Tension Binder
- The Locked DH Knot
- The Stopper-Flush DH Knot
- The Adjustable DH-Knot Coil Hitch

It is useful to ask for at least some feedback now, so that I can more efficiently name knot diagrams.

Which of the three above naming schemes do you like the most? On a scale from 0 to 10 inclusive, where 5 is the exact midpoint, and 10 is the best possible naming scheme, how would you rate the one that you like the most?

JCS

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2010, 11:33:23 PM »
The file DrvdHtch100529na17331.gif shows what is temporarily being called the "Derived Hitch" (instead of the foregoing "Derived-Hitch Loop") in an attempt to be more consistent with established knot terminology. Though there was a "method to the madness," the original naming scheme was upsetting to some of the readers of this topic and is now in the process of being revised.

The file CmpnntKntBndr100529na16401.gif shows what is temporarily being called the "Component-Knot Binder." Its structure is identical to that of the Derived Hitch. The difference is that the Derived Hitch is made around a post or an object, etc., and has its standing part pulled-on or utilized in some way, while the Component-Knot Binder is used for binding, and has its standing part left hanging as a tail.

The file CmpnntKntClHtch100529na17031.gif shows what is temporarily being called the "Component-Knot Coil Hitch." This particular example is a Four-Coil-Ring Component-Knot Coil Hitch. This structure functions in a way that is similar to, say, "Three Round Turns and Buntline Hitch."

The file CmpnntKntClBndr100529na17241.gif shows what is temporarily being called the "Component-Knot Coil Binder." This particular example is a Two-Coil-Ring Component-Knot Coil Binder. This structure functions in a way that is similar to the "Component-Knot Binder," but offers greater gripping power, since it has two "coil rings" instead of just one.

Even greater gripping power for binding can be had by increasing the number of coil rings. Four coil rings is the recommended maximum. Going beyond four coil rings will begin to work against the knotter's getting good results.

Even greater gripping power for binding, which also includes tension, can be had by using what is temporarily being called the "Component-Knot Tension Binder." Knot diagrams for this, and other structures, will be shown in future posts.

JCS

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #24 on: May 29, 2010, 11:41:34 PM »
Quote from: Dan_Lehman
". . . as it slid, with some solid (pulley-assisted) loading, I saw my fears manifest."
The first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the component knot of the Derived Hitch is ...

a Half-hitch or Clove Hitch.  You are stepping on your feet with
these names.  The DH is what you've seen qua component
in these myriad structures, so speaking as you just did contradicts this.
And, to be clear, I used >>two<< DHs in my DHL tests (though in one
case it seemed that the part connecting the two was rather slack, as
though hitch-1 needed no help from hitch-2).

And with nice serendipity I found some 5/16" firm solid braid nylon
rope on a walk to the grocer, and I've just tried some pull tests
with it:  a 2-DH DHLoop slipped with maybe 350# ?  I was able
to get a ProhGrip/Blake's Hitch to hold (dressing to begin with
some milder helix of SPart on entry, to initiate gripping --as it
had otherwise been quickly slipping); and I got a double-turn
with an Adjustable Grip Hitch anchoring to hold for some
mild bouncing (500#?).  --scary to think it would continue
to hold such firmly stretched-thin line, though!

NB:  I regard this solid braid as a challenge for friction hitches.
The peculiar gripping of the DH merits further looking given
its performance.  But I really don't care to have to bring
a succession (> 2) of knots to effect a grip, where I think
a decent guard and anchoring hitch will work.

NB-2:  I tried a Midshipman's-like guard and that failed
to hold (!).

Quote
One problem is that the original presented naming scheme ...

Indeed.
Let's dispense with "Derived Hitch":  as noted previously, that is a general,
descriptive title both too subjective (in a chicken v. egg sense) and
too applicable to anything.

I'd suggest "Cross-hitched Clove hitch" to somehow point to the extension
with the Half-hitch, except that I really don't see the hitch aspect of
this knot much at all part of the supposed wonder -- it is only raved about
with regard to its being part of a "loop" (noose), and of some other
structures yet to be well presented.  The DHL seems worth likening to
Two Half-hitches, but perhaps its best I wait to see better the series of
structures before musing over some name.  For now, though, "DH"
can suffice.

As for posting diagrams, I'd prefer (or like, additionally) photos of tied
structures.  The former can make formation clear but the latter show the bias
in dressing for effect, which I take is fairly important.

--dl*
====

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2010, 01:22:13 AM »
Here are more possible naming schemes for consideration:

Scheme IV

- The Component-Knot Hitch
- The Component-Knot Binder
- The Component-Knot Coil Hitch
- The Component-Knot Coil Binder
- The Component-Knot Tension Hitch
- The Component-Knot Tension Binder
- The Locked Component Knot
- The Stopper-Flush Component Knot
- The Adjustable Component-Knot Coil Hitch

Scheme V

- The Fixed-Gripper Hitch
- The Fixed-Gripper Binder
- The Fixed-Gripper Coil Hitch
- The Fixed-Gripper Coil Binder
- The Fixed-Gripper Tension Hitch
- The Fixed-Gripper Tension Binder
- The Locked Fixed-Gripper Knot
- The Stopper-Flush Fixed-Gripper Knot
- The Adjustable Fixed-Gripper Coil Hitch

Scheme VI

- The Gripping-Slider Hitch
- The Gripping-Slider Binder
- The Gripping-Slider Coil Hitch
- The Gripping-Slider Coil Binder
- The Gripping-Slider Tension Hitch
- The Gripping-Slider Tension Binder
- The Locked Gripping-Slider Knot
- The Stopper-Flush Gripping-Slider Knot
- The Adjustable Gripping-Slider Coil Hitch

Which of the above naming schemes do you like the most? On a scale from 0 to 10 inclusive, where 5 is the exact midpoint, and 10 is the best possible naming scheme, how would you rate the one that you like the most?

JCS

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2010, 11:35:26 PM »
The file CmpnntKntTnsnBndr100530ns13351.gif shows what is temporarily being called the "Component-Knot Tension Binder" in an attempt to be more consistent with established knot terminology. Though there was a "method to the madness," the original naming scheme was upsetting to some of the readers of this topic and is now in the process of being revised.

The file CmpnntKntTnsnHtch100530ns17271.gif shows two perspectives of what is temporarily being called the "Component-Knot Tension Hitch."

The file CmpnntKntTnsnHtch100530ns15361.gif shows what is temporarily being called the "Component-Knot Tension Hitch" completely fastened in the recommended way. Using the Double-Loop Cow Hitch, a knotter can quickly and easily attach and detach the construct without having to untie any of the construct's component knots.

An optional Butterfly Loop may be made at a comfortable spot on the Tension Hitch's end loop, just before the first component knot, in order to have a "handle," which the knotter can then easily pull to achieve greater tension in the construct. The need for this will depend upon the application. The Butterfly Loop can be easily sized and repositioned on the line after it is made, though some may be unaware of this fact owing to the number of different ways by which the BL is often made.

How to make the Double-Loop Cow Hitch for this context: Use a favorite bend to make a circular line of an appropriate size. Then, thread one end of the circular line (as if it were a long bight) through the end loop of the Tension Hitch to form the double loops that will hold the Tension Hitch. Finally, take the two loops that are automatically formed at the other end of the circular line and put them around the post such that a Cow-Hitch structure can be quickly and easily formed by reeving the entire Tension-Hitch structure through them.

The file DblLpCwHtch100530ns17331.gif shows the Double-Loop Cow Hitch with further detail.

Knot diagrams for other constructs will be shown in future posts. Photographs of these constructs using, say, 7/16" solid-braid nylon, will eventually be posted.

JCS
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 12:09:35 AM by jcsampson »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1796
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2010, 04:54:10 AM »
The file CmpnntKntTnsnBndr100530ns13351.gif shows what is temporarily being called the "Component-Knot Tension Binder" in an attempt to be more consistent with established knot terminology. Though there was a "method to the madness," the original naming scheme was upsetting to some of the readers of this topic and is now in the process of being revised.

The file CmpnntKntTnsnHtch100530ns17271.gif shows two perspectives of what is temporarily being called the "Component-Knot Tension Hitch."

The file CmpnntKntTnsnHtch100530ns15361.gif shows what is temporarily being called the "Component-Knot Tension Hitch" completely fastened in the recommended way. Using the Double-Loop Cow Hitch, a knotter can quickly and easily attach and detach the construct without having to untie any of the construct's component knots.
...

It must take you a very looong time and a large amount of rope to perform these routine functions.  Each basic component is three tucks, multiplied three times in some cases.  This also makes untying a lengthy chore.  Many standard hitches have a couple wraps and just one final tuck, and are not expected to be multiplied.  I stand by my earlier friendly advice.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2010, 06:40:00 AM »
It must take you a very looong time and a large amount of rope to perform these routine functions.  Each basic component is three tucks, multiplied three times in some cases.  This also makes untying a lengthy chore.  Many standard hitches have a couple wraps and just one final tuck, and are not expected to be multiplied.  I stand by my earlier friendly advice.

Agreed, more or less.  (Number of things and difficulty aren't necessarily
linked:  it can be easier to be simply & thus quickly repetitive to some
numerical excess than otherwise (recall the era of "RISC" computing?!).)
But, yes, in working with just TWO Cross-Hitched Cloves for the "loop",
I found that I kept having to work more rope through knot-1 in order
to be able to tie some knot-2 (maybe a jammed double-turn, just
to give knot-1, the CHClove, its chance to shine)!

To my mind, the novelty presented here is the Cross-hitched Clove used
with a back-up (perhaps another CHC but not necessarily) in a noose
intended to make a fixed eye (maybe adjusted in use).  Tacking this
potential tensioner onto an eye in the opposite end of the line to
make some "binder" leaves me cold.  (And I see that as a binding
structure not a "binder" knot --its knot is a hitch.)

--dl*
====

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2010, 12:26:21 AM »
The file LckdCmpnntKnt100531nm13311.gif shows what is temporarily being called the "Locked Component Knot" in an attempt to be more consistent with established knot terminology. Though there was a "method to the madness," the original naming scheme was upsetting to some of the readers of this topic and is now in the process of being revised.

Edit: There are actually three ways to lock what we are now calling the Fixed-Gripper Knot, which is the component knot of the presented set of constructs. The way shown in the file LckdCmpnntKnt100531nm13311.gif, which uses two Overhand Knots to lock a Fixed-Gripper Knot, allows the knotter to clip the rope right up to the knot and is intended to be permanent.

The way shown in the file FxdGrpprLckdFxdGrpprKnt100607nm18591.gif, which uses another Fixed-Gripper Knot to lock a Fixed-Gripper Knot, requires tails (though they may be shortened) and remains easy to untie.

The third way--the Stopper-Locked Fixed-Gripper Knot--is the simplest and the best way. Its properties include these: It is quick, is comfortable, is efficient, is easy to untie, is able to endure repeated tugs on slippery cord with no degree of slipping, has a decent breaking strength, connects cords of different diameters with no trouble, allows the line to be precisely measured and positioned before the knot is locked, is able to be made stopper-flush, conveniently and attractively puts both stoppers on the same side, and looks good in all contexts. Simply take the right end and make a Stopper-Flush Fixed-Gripper Knot on the left end as if you were making a Fixed-Gripper Hitch; then, slide the Fixed-Gripper Knot until it is flush against the left end's stopper. Figure-Eight Stoppers are recommended, because they cannot slide. When making a stopper for locking after precise measuring and positioning, use two adjacent Overhand Knots--which also cannot slide--instead of a single Figure-Eight Stopper. The Fixed-Gripper will remain easy to untie. When connecting ropes of different diameters, the smaller diameter is used to make the Fixed-Gripper Knot on the larger diameter; a small tail on the smaller diameter will NOT lessen the security of the Fixed-Gripper Knot, but ensure that the knot will be able to be easily untied.

You can even reverse the direction of the Fixed-Gripper Knot, should you find it convenient to do so.

Incidentally, a Fixed-Gripper Knot can even function as a stopper. Just make a Fixed-Gripper Hitch and reduce the size of its loop until the loop becomes non-existent.

The easy way to untie any Fixed-Gripper Knot (when there is no tension on the standing part) is to lift the coil up that touches the standing part (usually the coil at the end that is opposite to the Fixed-Gripper's working end) in order to expose the standing part WITHIN the knot, pull that exposed piece of standing part out to a comfortable degree, move the middle coil towards the same direction as that of the first coil moved, and easily access and undo the coil that is made using the working end. . . . Fear not: This four-stage action can result only from a knotter's actively following the procedure.

The "Component-Knot Tension Binder" is appropriate when binding a large perimeter. When the perimeter of something to bind is too small to accommodate the Component-Knot Tension Binder, the "Component-Knot Coil Binder" (or the "Component-Knot Binder," if the application requires little power) should be used without locking. Increasing the number of coil rings is the recommended way to minimize or eliminate the possibility of component-knot slippage. However, you can even make Binders and Coil Binders using the Fixed-Gripper Slide-and-Grip Hitch, which is shown at another spot in this thread.

The file AdjstblCmpnntKntClHtch100531nm16181.gif shows what is temporarily being called the "Adjustable Component-Knot Coil Hitch." This is another slide-and-grip construct made possible by the Fixed-Gripper Knot.

The "Stopper-Flush Component Knot" requires no diagram. A knotter can make the appropriate Component Knot stopper-flush by loosening and moving the threading of the knot such that the knot winds up stopper-flush when it is finally retightened.

Photographs of the presented constructs in action should be made available in future posts. Other constructs based on the "Component Knot" exist and should eventually be shown in photographs also.

JCS
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 03:05:58 AM by jcsampson »