Author Topic: ♥gleipnir  (Read 26800 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2011, 09:02:47 PM »
a hitch is understood as a knot that (in basic form) is of one piece of flexible material tied to some object with one end loaded (in resistance to the object), one free.  

   To my mind, perhaps erroneously, a hitch is understood as a knot that enables one piece of (flexible) rope to remain bound at one (solid) object, ( at a pole, for example ), so that one can pull the object by the one or both free ends of this knot. A binder is understood as a knot that enables two or more pieces of (solid) objects, to remain bound together by means of one piece of rope. The "simple hitch a la Gleipnir" was meant as nothing else that such a hitch. I had only made the comparison between the "binder#35" as a hitch, in that sense, and "the hitch finally presented" in my original post. How else we can call/denote those two quite different knot types ?
   Now, comparing apples to apples, hitches with hitches, I have found that the "binder#35" , as a hitch, was-is somewhat inferior to the "the hitch finally presented", so I had not included it in my original post, which was about hitches, and hitches only. I am glad you brought it into peoples attention again, as a "mid-air" "binder". Your audience has, evidently, not as few people as mine... And I would be more glad if you try and discover and admit that the three coils variation that I had presented in my previous post, is better still, just because its coil "tube" is longer, and enables the tails to better twist around/embrace each other before they exit the knot s nub.  
   "Shown here" is, obviously, not a hitch , but a binder, too, around a soft pillow. ( I use this trick just to make sure that the hard surface of a (solid) object does not interfere with the knot s nub in any way, like this I had tried to explain.)
   Comparing apples to apples :
   As simple hitches, according to holding performance
1."the hitch finally presented"
2. The "binder#35",
3. The "Gleipnir hitch"
    As "mid-air" simple "binders":
1. The three coils "binder#35" variation  (need for a better, descriptive name )
2. The two coils "binder#35" (need for a better, descriptive name )
3. The Gleipnir knot
   As "mid-air" complex "binders":
X. The double coil "S binder" ( I prefer to call this S binder as the "Lehman binder")( dmacdd is kindly requested to post pictures f this great binder).
1. The double coil Versatackle-Gleipnir binder
2. The double coil Tucker s hitch-Gleipnir, that is presently named "binder#34" (need for a better, descriptive name )
(X= Unknown performance, to the time being. )

#35 should prove the more quickly tighter & surer structure.

(Compared to the " simple hitch a la Gleipnir" , "binder#35" , as a hitch around a solid, round object. i.e. a pole ).
Quickly, may be, tighter, definitely not, surer, (I doubt it but) it remains to be seen.
AGAIN, those are my findings about "binder#35" as a hitch, in the sense described above.

you show your structures around such relatively small-diameter objects

  Size matters !  :) And  95 % of them, poles or what else, are as "small" (?) as the ones shown in my pictures, due to the strength of common materials, ( wood, hollow metal tubes, etc.) and their common use in everyday life.
  Of course, with the same diameter rope, around a larger diameter pole, the advantages of the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir" over the other structures, are expected to diminish.

P.S. 1 : I apologize, because I forgot to include the reference (3) about the "S binder".  I had since edited my post.
P.S 2  : I noticed your recent comments about the "hitch finally presented", at the second paragraph of reply # 43. Your debt is now 2570 $ ( 80 worthless words-US dollars less. That is a great reduction=gain ! )
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 09:15:35 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #46 on: April 08, 2011, 07:24:24 PM »
I'm not conceding the argument over which binder is more effective
between the Gleipnir set vs. my bight-wise variation.  But I recently
used both --expressly for comparison-- in small cords binding a small
clump of ropes (folded to about a metre length, and maybe 4 inches
of rough diameter to this rope-cluster), arranged so that what I made
was a sort of carry handle --a broad bight going towards ends of the
ropes cluster like a handle on a carry bag, and loading the binders
qua hitches.

.:.  Both structures worked fine.  It seemed that the inverted Gleipnir
Xarax is championing tightened better, at times, but I'm not sure.
Again, for the task, both worked well --binding adequately (if not
so powerfully, given friction of surrounding the ropes), and then
serving qua hitches for the carry-handle.  --> "Port-a-Rope".   8)

And the one structure is the other with one half rotated
(just as the frustrator & constrictor are related).
(I took a photo, which I'll upload later.)


--dl*
====

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2011, 02:33:39 PM »
The Gleipnir and subsequent variants have been discussed at length on this Forum. I wonder if someone would like to write an article for Knotting Matters as most members never look at the Forum (about 20% do not have internet access anyway)? Contributions to editor@igkt.net would I'm sure be very welcome.

Barry
Hon. Sec.

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #48 on: April 10, 2011, 07:00:30 PM »
I agree wholeheartedly with Barry's suggestion to send an article - preferably something of one or two pages in length or about 500 words.  Please feel free to send to knottingmatters@igkt.net and it will quickly get to my in-box.  Photographs, if added, should be one to three MB in size and preferably 300 dpi.  Thanks!

Lindsey
Editor, Knotting Matters

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2011, 02:49:10 AM »
What's the secret code to get to the elusive Knotting Matters publication?

I did a Google search and still can't figure it out.

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2011, 04:23:19 AM »
Hi Knot

It is not an on-line publication - it is made the old-fashioned way - it is printed and sent once a quarter to each of the members of the IGKT.  To get your copy, join the IGKT (not the same as the web-site) and you will receive one in the mail every three months.  Looking forward to hearing from you with your membership application - details on the home page of this site!

Lindsey

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2011, 07:46:30 AM »
It might be helpful not to ask for images at a particular DPI, as DPI is a useless measure for images that are not yet printed, and which as well does not coincide with the pixels of a colour image that is reproduced on a computer screen or comes from a camera. The final printed size is crucial when calculating DPI, and each pixel might need up to about five dots, so pixel count may be much less than dots according to DPI size.

So the MiB size of images may be a better guidance, as it might be a limit for reception in the mail. It can also be helpful to tell more or less the pixelcount that is preferred within MiB limits for the bandwidth, for pictures that should be printed large. I would suggest that images should be at least about 2 megapixels for a full page and could carry less pixels according to the size on the page. The printer then can decide what DPI to use.
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #52 on: April 28, 2011, 08:01:22 AM »
I have just spent Easter weekend at a local waterways museum at Ellesmere Port and each day I took sandwiches for lunch in a plastic box with a clip fitting lid - on which the clip wouldn''t work. The lid has an edge so the top is slightly recessed but for ease of tying and in particular ease of tightening I found Dan's loop variation excellent - I used some thin polypropylene laid cord (really cheap furry stuff) and cut it off each day but it held the tension in the fridge overnight and it was really tight.  The big advantage was the lack of a need for the cord to travel around the box as it was tightened (which makes the original Gleipnir not quite so good on a square section item). I think I'll use this as standard from now on - certainly for throw away cord.

Barry

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #53 on: April 28, 2011, 08:27:44 AM »
I have just spent Easter weekend at a local waterways museum at Ellesmere Port and each day I took sandwiches for lunch in a plastic box with a clip fitting lid - on which the clip wouldn''t work. The lid has an edge so the top is slightly recessed but for ease of tying and in particular ease of tightening I found Dan's loop variation excellent - I used some thin polypropylene laid cord (really cheap furry stuff) and cut it off each day but it held the tension in the fridge overnight and it was really tight.  The big advantage was the lack of a need for the cord to travel around the box as it was tightened (which makes the original Gleipnir not quite so good on a square section item). I think I'll use this as standard from now on - certainly for throw away cord.

Barry

Do you have a pic or a link to the variation you mean?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 08:29:43 AM by knot4u »

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #54 on: April 28, 2011, 10:09:03 AM »
Attached is a photo of a similar box with a loosely tied binder using paracord. The arrangement is a bowline with a round turn formed within the loop and the cord passed around the box twice entering the "TurNip" from opposite directions. Hope this makes sense!

Barry

oneiros

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #55 on: July 03, 2011, 05:40:08 AM »
I'd like to share two Gleipner variants I found today while playing with the knot.

The attached image shows the first variant being tied in the bight.  If step 2 is omitted, then we get the original Gleipner knot instead.  At step 4, if the B loop is given an extra twist, then we get another variant.  Obviously, more twists could be added to either or both loops.

My apologies if these variants have been discussed before.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #56 on: July 03, 2011, 07:15:25 AM »
Hi, oneiros,
that's an interesting variant (depicted graphically), which I think
will lead me to further fiddling.  Nice illustrations!

 ::)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #57 on: July 03, 2011, 01:51:30 PM »
   Hi, oneiros. Welcome to the Forum.

   The shown variation of your hitch does not hold very tightly, but it can be improved immediately! Just invert the whole knot... take it out of the pole, put it upside down, and pass the pole again through the two riding turns. Now it looks more as a Gleipnir hitch  :) , and, what is the main thing that bothers us here, it holds much tighter, too. You can also reverse the order of the coils of the nipping loop. See the attached pictures for those two variations of your hitch.
   The element I find very interesting in those hitches is the U turn of the one free end as it goes through the nipping loop and under the one riding turn. Combined with the embrace/twist with the other leg inside the nipping 'tube", it secures both free ends quite satisfactory.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2011, 01:54:31 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

TMCD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 257
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #58 on: July 03, 2011, 03:59:45 PM »
The original Xarax binder seems a little harder to tie than the original Gleipnir. If I'm using the Gleipnir, I really like Inkanyezi's method of tying it, really simple and effective. I still don't understand why folks around here don't like the Packer Knot or Butcher's Knot that utilizes the WE in a fig 8 fashion around the SE. Just tie a slipped fig 8 around the WE and you talk about some tension...I can get more tension using this knot than the others.

Ashley shows this knot tied with a Fig 8, but if you go that route, it's hard to get undone. Slip the fig 8 and you're in business. The other knots are cool though but I personally get more tension using the old Packer Knot.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: ♥gleipnir
« Reply #59 on: July 03, 2011, 09:49:41 PM »
I still don't understand why folks around here don't like the Packer Knot or Butcher's Knot that utilizes the WE in a fig 8 fashion around the SE...

...because Two Half Hitches is simpler and more secure.  You can finish the Two Half Hitches with a Half Hitch lock at the standing end, just like in a Corned Beef Knot.  I don't get the need for the Corned Beef/Packer/Butcher.  I've tried these knots on various objects and various rope types.

Even better than Two Half Hitches is a Tautline Reverse.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2011, 08:17:23 PM by knot4u »