Author Topic: The "Derived Hitch"  (Read 15505 times)

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2010, 12:35:54 AM »
Quote from: Dan_Lehman
"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)!"

You might find yourself in that position now only because you haven't worked with these constructs for very long.

Another thing about these constructs is that you don't have to keep tying and untying stacked component knots. Once the constructs that use stacked component knots are set, the constructs can be quickly and easily put into, and removed from, an application.

All of the problems have solutions, so no problems remain. Then, there are . . . imaginary problems, which turn out to be no problems at all.

Once you discover WHY the constructs (as I am presenting them) are valuable, you might find yourself liking them. My job is merely to introduce them to you--you know, to lead the horse to water.

Quote
"And I see that as a binding structure not a "binder" knot --its knot is a hitch."

Yes, the "Tension Binder" is the structure, and the Tension Binder's "Component Knot" is the knot, specifically a hitch, which is why I originally called the component knot the "Derived Hitch" and the "Component-Knot Hitch" the "Derived-Hitch Loop." Knot terminology is a mess because it has evolved over long periods with contributions from many, and because there are many nested structures and functions. I am probably wrong for wanting to attempt to influence an improving of it. So, since others will just call the knot and its constructs whatever they want anyway, I should probably just call it what I want. What's important is whether the contribution to the knot world has been made, because the whole point for the existence of the knot is its use by humans. Favorably, I am the only one who needs to know that the contribution has been made.

I will be calling the component knot the "Fixed Gripper." This is bound to incite an awful lot of comments like, "The Fixed Gripper? Why'd ya fix it? Was it broken?" and, from those who don't understand it, "The Fixed Gripper? If you ask me, you should call it the Broken Gripper, because I can't get it to grip at all." But, this situation will be useful.

JCS

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2010, 11:47:44 PM »
The file FxdGrpprSldAndGrpHtch100603nh14051.gif shows the "Fixed-Gripper Slide-and-Grip Hitch." This is a quicker and easier alternative to the "Adjustable Fixed-Gripper Coil Hitch."

This hitch can be considered either a significantly extended Rolling Hitch on the standing part, or an Adjustable Grip Hitch with a Fixed-Gripper anchor instead of the AGH's anchoring method. The anchoring method of the Adjustable Grip Hitch necessarily results in a pear-shaped loop; this Fixed-Gripper Slide-and-Grip Hitch allows for a rounder loop.

Additionally, the Fixed-Gripper Slide-and-Grip Hitch has the ability to bind very well.

The file FxdGrpprSldAndGrpHtchVrtn100605na13561.gif shows the "Fixed-Gripper Slide-and-Grip Hitch Variation."

Like the Fixed-Gripper Slide-and-Grip Hitch, this Fixed-Gripper Slide-and-Grip Hitch Variation has--in addition to its ability to function very well as a slide-and-grip hitch--the ability to bind very well.

Edit:

When binding using just a single line, the hitch should be used; when binding using a coil binder, both the hitch and the hitch variation can effectively be used. The hitch variation may perform slightly better than the hitch in the context of a coil binder; but, oddly enough, in the context of a single line, the hitch may perform slightly better than the hitch variation.

Warning: If, for the hitch, you decide to make a two-ring hitch instead of the usual three-ring hitch (which would be the equivalent of making a single-two-ring hitch variation instead of the usual double-two-ring hitch variation), then you should NOT bind using just a single line. And though binding in the context of a coil binder is the best way to increase and maximize binding power, I would further recommend that such a two-ring hitch be restricted to just hitching and bending [sic].

Finally, reversing the direction of the hitch's knot (or the hitch variation's knot) in the context of a binder or a coil binder will allow for even greater binding power.

JCS
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 02:52:22 AM by jcsampson »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #32 on: July 01, 2010, 01:44:54 AM »
Here's a photo, at last, for this thread;
something seen at the Smithsonian Folklife Festival
on a tent guy line anchored by a Clove Hitch (pulling
in Bunt-line orientation, on some stout re-bar).

(-;

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2010, 11:48:22 PM »
In response to Dan_Lehman's Fixed-Gripper pic:

See? I told ya it works. Glad to finally see that someone else thinks so, too.

So simple, yet so useful.

JCS

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2010, 09:41:44 PM »
In response to Dan_Lehman's Fixed-Gripper pic:

See? I told ya it works. Glad to finally see that someone else thinks so, too.

Mind you, "works" here was just tying off the loose tail!

 ;)

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: The "Derived Hitch"
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2010, 10:01:44 PM »
That goes to show you how versatile the Fixed-Gripper Knot is!
[insert winking smiley face here]

JCS