A simple hitch "a la Gleipnir "

[xarax]

it'd be good to be tying Constrictor Knots and Slipped Constrictor Knots as points of comparison in the binder category.

  And after you do this, it d be good to be tying the "not so simple hitches a la Gleipnir," presented in the same thread, as points of comparison to the binder category where the Constrictor Knots and the Slipped Constrictot Knots belong. 

[dmacdd]

Is "Gleipner" its name?

  When I first presented this hitch, I used the modest description "a simple hitch a la Gleipnir" on purpose: this hitch is nothing else/more than a more or less obvious application of the Gleipnir knot.

I do not see this. (Literally and figuratively.)  The Gleipnir seems quite different and not to bind with anything like the ferociousness of the knot in your and my photos.  Can you point me to a picture of the Gleipner knot that is like this, or from which this is an obvious derivation.  For one thing, I understand the Gleipnir is supposed to be easy to undo, whereas this is quite difficult to undo. I should say, although it may be obvious from some of my other posts, that I have considerable difficulty visualizing knots from verbal descriptions, or understanding any kind of detailed talk about knots that does not make  frequent specific reference to pictures.

"Unnamed" seems more like an evolution of the strangle knot than the Gleipnir.

I have attached the photos again -- name changed to unnamed.

[dmacdd]

I took my own photos because I'm going to have my own web page on this knot, and for unambiguous reference. It certainly doesn't have any superiority in documenting the knot over xarax's photos.

Before you get too far, you might want to experiment with this on various size combinations of rope and objects.  As you do, it'd be good to be tying Constrictor Knots and Slipped Constrictor Knots as points of comparison in the binder category.

A simple test:  make each around a smooth wooden dowel and try sliding it up and down the dowel.   Multiple trials seem to show equal binding strength.   "Unnamed" seems to be easier to teach and remember than the constrictor, and seems to be undiminished in its binding strength when made around irregular objects.

"Unnamed" seems more like an evolution of the strangle knot than the Gleipnir.

[xarax]

  I understand the Gleipnir is supposed to be easy to undo, whereas this is quite difficult to undo.

  Yes, that was a surprise for me, too. I guess it has something to do with the fact that, in this "simple hitch a la Gleipnir", the nipping loop is in touch with / is squeezed on the pole s immovable, hard surface. Now it is not only a nipping loop, as in the case of the Gleinir binding knot, but a kind of riding turn as well. So, its gripping power is greater.
   The same happens also when we use this mechanism to keep the two ends of the Well Pipe hitch (1) under tension. I would say that, in this later case, the result is even more impressive, because, when the two ends of the Well Pipe hitch are kept under the tension the "simple hitch" can deliver, the effectiveness is "propagated" through out the multiple coils, so that, in a sense, it is multiplied  !     

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg16893#msg16893

[xarax]

... seems more like an evolution of the strangle knot than the Gleipnir.

  Certainly, it should compared more to the Strangler knot than to the Constrictor. What should be compared to the Constrictor is the "not so simple hitch", also presented in this thread.

[Hrungnir]

About the naming of the two turn gleipnir.

These were the two first representations Dahm made of the gleipnir:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962

The three turn gleipnir acts differently from xarax two turn gleipnir, but it's quite obvious that mr Dahm has experimented with different types of turns. Xarax was the first one to present the two turn gleipnir, but for all I know, mr Dahm may allready have tied this version without presenting it. The two first turns of the three turn gleipnir is like xarax two turn gleipnir, but the third turn goes in the oposite direction.

Credit to mr xarax for showing us this excelent knot, but I think we should keep the gleipnir name because of its relations to the two original gleipnirs.

[dmacdd]

About the naming of the two turn gleipnir.

These were the two first representations Dahm made of the gleipnir:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186
http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402358843674962


Credit to mr xarax for showing us this excelent knot, but I think we should keep the gleipnir name because of its relations to the two original gleipnirs.

You may wish argue that, but let us not get confused: the two turn gleipnir

           http://picasaweb.google.com/ardahm/Knots#5373402344759689186

is profoundly different from Xarax's "simple hitch"

           http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2075.0;attach=2568;image

Moving the binding turn from being topologically outside the gripping turns to inside (turning it upside down) makes the knot very different  topologically,  as does changing the way the ends pass through the binding turn from simply passing each other to being interlocked as in the  strangle knot and, necessarily then, passing through the gripping turns as well .  The two knots have only a superficial similarity. Their behavior is very different too. Xarax's "simple hitch" grips much more strongly, and is much more difficult to undo.

I believe a name not containing the word gleipnir is warranted, even if it turns out that Dahm invented the "simple hitch" and should have his name attached to it.  In the absence of evidence to that effect, Xarax should have his name attached to the "simple hitch", or better, the "simple binder" and its ilk.     Hmmm..., the  "Xarax simple binder"....

[Hrungnir]

This is what Dahm wrote when presenting the knot. He mentions making several loops in seiries and that they don't have to be twisted in the same direction:

Modifications
-------------------
1.  Finishing - It is most secure under constant pressure but can be finished off with half hitches or square knot.
2.  Multiples - In more slippery material instead of a single loop make several in series.  Multiple twists on a single loop weakens the grip of the knot.  The loops series do not have to be twisted in the same direction sense they are independent.  I often grab the bite in both hands and twist in opposite directions. 
3.  Making Slippery - By doubling the bitter ends back on themselves prior to passing through, you can make the knot slippery, but this does not hold as securely because the tension and friction of the knot is no longer working on just the bitter ends but also the pass back.


But if xarax wants a different name on his variant/invention, I agree he should be able to name the knot whatever he wants. Corned beef knot and Packers knot, Overhand loop and Halter hitch are examples of other similar knots, but with completely different names after a modification.

[dmacdd]

... seems more like an evolution of the strangle knot than the Gleipnir.

  Certainly, it should compared more to the Strangler knot than to the Constrictor. What should be compared to the Constrictor is the "not so simple hitch", also presented in this thread.

Interesting. Could you show loose versions of

    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2075.0;attach=3297;image

and

    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2075.0;attach=3301;image

I am most interested in these knots as binders.  In that respect I am more interested in the balance of binding strength and simplicity as compared to the constrictor and double constrictor, rather than any topological classification.

EDIT:Oh dear,  the loose version appears already in the photo above each tight version, as in the presentation of the simpler hitches....

[xarax]

  A(1)-A(4)

[xarax]

   A(5) - A(8 )

[xarax]

   B(1) - B(4)

[xarax]

   B(5) - B(8 )

[SS369]

Truly marvelous photography Xarax, thank you!

SS

[James Petersen]

While playing with the gleipnir buckle (yes, it's that time of year again), I began playing with the original gleipnir again, and it occurred to me that the variation in this thread is but a single tuck away from being a hybrid, TIB variation of the gleipnir/constrictor.

JP