One of the most practical properties of the Gleipnir is the ease of undoing the knot. The nip disappears almost instantly, when you spread the two parts either side.
... The double nip/ the two interlocked nips dissapear almost instantly, when the two tails are pulled out of it/of them.
I don't follow your words, Inanyezi : in a tightened
Gleipnir, two lines
run away from the turNip on each of opposite sides along the axis of tension,
and the tails are at a slight angle to these; spreading the tensioned lines
can
pry out some of the tailsl, but also
increases tension into
the turNip. Yes, of course the nipping structure which is "TIB" evaporates
absent the tails.
I have a couple of objections ...
A fundamental objection to employing the
Constrictor is that
one then increases frictional resistance to tightening the turNip
of the
Gleipnir -- a bad thing. (I sense that there is some
added resistance on the tails from the bulk of the
Constrictor'scrossing part, but that comes into play only after tightening.)
I don't think it would benefit from any more complication.
You should nt use the word "more" !
There is no complication in the Gleipnir whatsoever, ...
You forget or don't count the subtleties of the structure that led
to a sad & protracted effort to squeeze details out of you re those
"Xarax transformations" that begot Eskimo Bowlines & other things
-- that took my revelation of 4 orientations to this structure with
"no complication" to mind! I find the original (upper-left of the
four orientations I presented in a photo'd sketch) to be one that
enables better tightening, hauling tails at somewhat 45-degree
angles to the axis of tension against themselves.
And that has been my complaint with the
Gleipnir from the start :
that it doesn't tighten so well --doesn't transfer tail-tensioning so well
around the bound object(s) to the turNip. (Which, yes, means I'm
somewhat puzzled at how well Inkanyezi gets on with it!)
As for improvements vis-a-vis this shortcoming, I have presented
some in the original thread, p.7? (cf
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.60and have another couple to share as of this reading & mulling over.
One structure can be illustrated verbally simply:
"Middle" the binding cord (i.e., make it into a bight),
and wrap it around the objects to be bound;
form a
round turn in the bight end,
and reeve the tails through this from opposite sides;
pull the tails roughly perpendicular to the wrapping
to tighten; one can also pull the tails in opposite
directions aligned with the wrapping, alternating
the direction of the tails (my sense is that one will
be really holding/resisting pull with the tail pulled
straight, while hauling to tighten in a sort of 2-to-1
pulley effect with the tail making the U-turn through
the
round turn ).
(For the particular structure Inkanyezi has shown on his
bike rack, this one of mine just presented would need
TWO cords to implement -- a closed sling on one side
in which the
round turn would be formed, and
then the other would be reeved through.)
--dl*
====