Author Topic: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor  (Read 14242 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« on: June 24, 2011, 02:18:26 PM »
   As we grow older, we realize that there are some types of good-looking knots/women we never really liked, but we can not say why...( After some time, we do not even bother to justify our choices...). This is happening with me and the Double Constrictor, a simple, fine tough hitch. ( On the other hand, the Double Strangle was, right from the beggining, and stil is, one of my favourite knots). However, having included the common Constrictor in my bakers dozen, or dozen, or ten, or even six more interesting knots ( as it is a perfect example of the cooperation of two out of the five basic knot elements - the riding turn and the rope embrace-twist ), I felt that I should have a fresh look at her. Same old story, I still do not like it !  Instead, a close relative of her, a young beauty, captured my eye, and I post a picture of her here (See the attached picture) It is a another form/dressing/variation of a Double Constrictor, a knot I really do like. In a sense, it is more symmetric than the "old" Double Constrictor, more "balanced". I have not met her anywhere else, but it might well be the case that I was not careful enough, and I have not paid the attention she deserved. (*)

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2191.msg16556#msg16556
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2191.msg16938#msg16938

* P.S. Yes, that I exactly what is the case!  :) This beauty is siting on the Bible s throne, as ABoK#1253. I had been looking for her all around the place ( of my mind ), while she was just around the corner of the bookshelf... There is a saying going somewhat like this : I was searching for you in the heavens, and I found you on earth !
 
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 04:20:30 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2011, 06:45:15 PM »
Interesting, I'll have to try this, but I can't see how it's tied.

Anyway, you'd put the Constrictor in your top 6 knots?  What's are its attributes you like or need?  After the Gleipnir enlightenment, I don't even have the Constrictor in my top 50 knots.  I have 8 binders on my short list, and the Constrictor is not one of them.  I still know how to tie it in various ways, but I don't see myself going past my top 8 binders to settle on the Constrictor.  I also removed the Boa from my short list.

To each his own, I guess.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 06:46:48 PM by knot4u »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1796
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2011, 07:37:28 PM »
After the Gleipnir enlightenment, I don't even have the Constrictor in my top 50 knots.
On a bundle, the Gleipnir often fails to tighten at all.  Other times it holds loosely.  It was described as an "open air" binder in its introductory thread.  Depending on how it is formed, it may leave a leftover knot if slipped off the end of a bundle.  

In comparison, the Constrictor Knot holds immediately and tightly on a bundle and ties quickly on the bight or with the end of the rope.  It never leaves a leftover knot if slipped off the end of its bundle.

I'm still struggling to see where the low-tensioning, open-air-only (or nearly so), rope-hog Gleipnir is the knot of choice for any application.  But this is a diversion from the thread topic, so I digress.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 07:57:54 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2011, 09:17:40 PM »
I can't see how it's tied.

Very easily, my dear knot4u, very easily... :)
Follow her path...
(The three riding turns are "parallel" in the back side of the pole / transparnt glass tube.)(See attached pictures)

What's are its attributes you like..?

...it is a perfect example of the cooperation of two out of the five basic knot elements - the riding turn and the rope embrace-twist
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 09:42:25 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2011, 09:48:10 PM »
In comparison, the Constrictor Knot holds immediately and tightly on a bundle and ties quickly on the bight or with the end of the rope.  It never leaves a leftover knot if slipped off the end of its bundle.

I'm still struggling to see where the low-tensioning, open-air-only (or nearly so), rope-hog Gleipnir is the knot of choice for any application.  But this is a diversion from the thread topic, so I digress.

You made sense until you said a Gleipnir is a rope hog.  A Constrictor is roughly 2 wraps around the object, and so is a Gleipnir.  By the way, I prefer the Xarax Binder (a modification of the Gleipnir brand of knots).

If the goal is to conserve rope, I'd go with a binder requiring roughly a single wrap, such as a Tautline Reverse, a Reef, or Two Half Hitches locked.

The only advantage I see about the Constrictor is that it falls apart if you slip it off the object, and that's something I have never actually done in a real application.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 11:33:44 PM by knot4u »

TMCD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 257
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2011, 09:54:26 PM »
I find the Packer Knot to be a great binding knot, I often use it to bind ladders together on top of my van before tying them down using the TH. I'm not sure how well the Constrictor would work around ladders or for that matter any surface that's not convex. I can get as much tension as needed using the ole Packer Knot too, it's a great knot.

I haven't familiarized myself with the Gleipnir but if it's a rope hog, I don't want it around me. I've never learned the Boa, I'm sure the Double Constrictor would be sufficient enough for most practical applications.

TheTreeSpyder

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2011, 12:59:22 AM »
To me the Double Constrictor is harder to Cinch up, but once purchased into it's death grip, harder to likewise release it's tensions.

i think of a Clove as a base knot, a Bag Knot as almost a Clove, save the last tuck to bring the tail into the same lock position, 'squarely' saddled between the 2 rails as Constrictor.
(Groundline same but tail/bitter to outside, so not squarely trapped).

Constrictor as the Clove maid fully, then the same lock as mentioned in Bag, another Turn around same position to make Double Constrictor.

This trapping places the mainline/could be Standing, squarely on top of the Bitter/tail after line tension reducing Turns, and is symmetrical (Bag and Groundline wouldn't be same knot when pulled backwierds)

Leave the Constrictor loose some around a spar as host, and place another crosswise spar above that spar squarely under the cinch down of the Constrictor's lock right on top of that spar for Transom.
Because, the main thing here is that the lock is squarely  on top of the spar, i like the thicker spar on top, to give more room to achieve this.  So the smaller spar will be in the 'saddle' of the 2 simple loops, and the larger trapped squarely under the lock.

i favour True Constrictor form as Transom, Bag or slipped Bag for much other.  Sometimes nothing but Constrictor seems like it will do though, and is easier to place tension into than Double, the Double does have it's days!


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1796
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2011, 01:31:16 AM »
You made sense until you said a Gleipnir is a rope hog.  A Constrictor is roughly 2 wraps around the object, and so is a Gleipnir.  
For an open-air binder (which a Constrictor is not), the Gleipnir is indeed a rope hog.  It has to make two trips around the objects, whereas most open air binding systems take one trip, and use most of their rope in a tensioning system that actually amplifies tension.  The Gleipnir wastes rope without such amplification.
Quote
The only advantage I see about the Constrictor is that it falls apart if you slip it off the object, and that's something I have never actually done in a real application.
What of the advantage of actually holding tight around a convex bundle, and ease of tying?  The Gleipnir can't even be considered, as it usually doesn't not hold in such situations, where other open-air binding systems could, even if it would be a little awkward.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2011, 05:04:15 AM »
Does anybody besides me think this knot deserves a new name besides "More Symmetric Double Constrictor"?

First, a Double Constrictor is already symmetric.  So, I don't know what "more symmetric" means.  Second, although the concept is similar to a Double Constrictor, this knot is topologically different than a Double Constrictor.  It's not just a different dressing.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 05:04:56 AM by knot4u »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3772
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2011, 07:19:27 AM »
This has long been my preferred double constrictor to use for a quick
whipping, as the way the doubled overwraps (riding turns) tuck under
each other I think better resists rubbing against them unsettling
the knot.  Knot4U, one begins by tying a cloverhand around the
object, then taking one end around and making the appropriate
constrictorish tuck.  (A "cloverhand" is the sometimes seen
supposed --but in fact mistied-- clove hitch that is actually an open
("long"?) overhand --as if in tucking one end it ran on the wrong
side of the other.)

I just call it "Ashley's #1253"  for precision.  But why spoil that
new-knot smell when the hunt is on!  (For some it is history, for some
it's repeated history.)

 :)

I'm not sure what TreeSpyder's hinting at, but many sources describe
the transom (binder) as an application of the constrictor, but it's
in fact the strangle --though it does assume a sort of c.-like
disposition.  And I think that this grips better than the c. so used.

--dl*
====



xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2011, 10:46:43 AM »
"Ashley's #1253"[/i]

   Thank you, Dan Lehman. I am glad I can help you show some of your knowledge, because you do not seem to show many of your knots... :) And how good it must feel when you do it even in every 1 of 30 of the knots I present, (as knot 4u does), because I "toss them up" sooo often... Just kidding. Yes, the hunt is on, but I really do not believe there are many morte new, simple, potentially practical knots left out there to pray. If we could use a suitable computer program, that could produce all the possible combinations of knots with few crossings, and tighten them automatically, it would be a matter of weeks, at most. Now, it is a matter of years. With the few knot tyers that do not fear this sport, it could well take some more. But the end is in sight. If Ashley had lived a few more years, and was willing to offer them in the hunt, we would have been closer to the end. The great marine tradition of tying knots ceased to exist, and we depend only in a handful of armchair knot tyers. ( Rope manufacturing companies that could help, do not. )
   It really feels good when one "discovers" by himself something already known, if this is so elementary, simple, beautiful and useful as this form of Double Constrictor. For some she is offered for free, others will have to gain her after a long hunt...Guess who would appreciate more her conquered beauty !  :)
   I myself was not able to notice strength differences between the two forms, although I would expect that ABoK#1253 form would hold better. ( The distribution of forces into the riding turns configuration seem to be more "balanced"). So, TreeSpyder, this beauty should have fewer of "those days", than the common Double Constrictor !  :)
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 11:02:06 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2011, 11:57:17 AM »
  First, a Double Constrictor is already symmetric.  So, I don't know what "more symmetric" means.

   You are right. I used this vague characterization only to stir some interest on this knot...before I learn that the knot was already saved from oblivion, from its place in the ABoK. Of course, there are degrees of symmetry, shapes can be symmetrical, and others even more symmetrical than them, but we do not have such a situation here. The two riding turns are both inclined, in relation to the vertical, to one direction, but due to the fact that the riding turns in the ABoK#1253 are vertical to more than one third of their length, this "obliqueness" is less pronounced. ( So, "less oblique" is a better characterization than "more symmetric").

...although the concept is similar to a Double Constrictor, this knot is topologically different than a Double Constrictor.  It's not just a different dressing.

  True, but...it IS a Double Constrictor, because it there are two riding turns pressing the embrace/twist of the tails on the surface of the pole. That is the meaning of "Double"', in both variations.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 12:00:11 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2011, 02:20:32 PM »
"ABOK #1253" works for me here.  The knot in the original post should not have "Constrictor" in its naming.  (Note that ABOK doesn't call it a Constrictor either.)  This knot cannot be tied in the bight.  Second, this knot does not fall apart when you slip it off the end of an object.  These are two important features that I consider to be synonymous with the Constrictor brand.

Note that a Strangle Knot cannot be tied in the bight.  So, perhaps the knot here is better described as a more symmetric Double Strangle Knot.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 02:21:08 PM by knot4u »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2011, 02:43:47 PM »
   Your arguments have some merit, but you miss the essential element of the Constrictor : The way and degree that the tails are twisted around each other under the riding turn(s) ( differently, and more, than in the Strangle ). So, being as twisted as they are, they leave the knot s nub towards another direction than in the Strangle, i.e. (approximately) at right angles with the pole s axis, and not in parallel to it.
   The fact that some knot can be tied in the bight and some not, is not always important. We do not often use the Constrictor as we use the pile hitch. It is a very tight hitch, that is its main function. With the Double Constrictor, this is twice true, an extremely tight hitch, seldom needed and used. Being able to be tied in the bight is not so important a factor, that should dictate a change in name.
   I do not see any reason to name the Constrictor with its ABoK number ! The same we should do with the Double Constrictor, in its two variations.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 04:22:58 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2011, 03:02:50 PM »
   Your arguments have some merit, but you miss the essential element of the Constrictor : The way and degree that the tails are twisted around each other under the riding turn(s) ( differently, and more, than in the Strangler ). So, being as twisted as they are, they leave the knot s nub towards another direction than in the Strangler, i.e. (approximately) at right angles with the pole s axis, and not in parallel to it.
   The fact that some knot can be tied in the bight and some not, is not always important. We do not often use the Constrictor as we use the pile hitch. It is a very tight hitch, that is its main function. With the Double Constrictor, this is twice true, an extremely tight hitch, seldom needed and used. Being able to be tied in the bight is not so important a factor, that should dictate a change in name.
   I do not see any reason to name the Constrictor with its ABoK number ! The same we should do with the Double Constrictor, in its two variations.

I don't know about that.  If this were the Decorative Knots forum, then yes I'd call it a Constrictor because it kinda "looks" like one.  However, because of the fact that it can't be tied in the bight, that's already an important difference.  That difference is likely an indication there are important functional differences that would be revealed with further testing with objects of various sizes and shapes.  My guess is that this knot functions more like a Strangle Knot if I were to put it through the ringer.  (The fact that it doesn't fall apart is already a function that places this knot more in the Strangle Knot camp.)