Author Topic: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor  (Read 14146 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2011, 03:12:33 PM »
If this were the Decorative Knots forum, then yes I'd call it a Constrictor because it kinda "looks" like one.

You are a little confused here...When I was saying:
The way and degree that the tails are twisted around each other under the riding turn(s) ( differently, and more, than in the Strangle ).

, I was not describing pictorial elements !  :) The way and the degree the tails are twisted make the Constrictor a tighter practical hitch, and a harder to untie practical knot, than the Strange. Have you swallowed any roo s nostrum/opinion, to make you tell that I am talking about " Decorative" knots and knot characteristics, and should better post in the "Decorative knots" forum ?  :) If yes, I hope you will recover soon ( Indeed, roo hmself seems to be cured by this mania lately, but it might take some more time... :))


« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 04:23:59 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2011, 04:14:24 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 guess I don't get the purpose of the Packer's Knot or the related Corned Beef Knot.  Based on my testing, I get better results from Two Half Hitches, which is also much simpler to tie.

Two Half Hitches as a binder?...Yes!  I know it sounds awkward or boring, but it works for applications where you could tie a Packer's Knot.  Note that the Two Half Hitches provide more surface friction onto the standing end.  When done tightening down, I can lock the Two Half Hitches with a Half Hitch at the standing end, just like in a Packer's Knot.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 04:16:34 PM by knot4u »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2011, 04:19:42 PM »
I'm not sure how well the Constrictor would work around ... any surface that's not convex.
   However, TMCD is right in this comment ...
This is not a knot.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2011, 04:28:34 PM »
If this were the Decorative Knots forum, then yes I'd call it a Constrictor because it kinda "looks" like one.

You are a little confused here...When I was saying:
The way and degree that the tails are twisted around each other under the riding turn(s) ( differently, and more, than in the Strangler ).

, I was not describing pictorial elements !  :) The way and the degree the tails are twisted make the Constrictor a tighter practical hitch, and a harder to untie practical knot, than the Stranger. Have you swallowed any roo s nostrum/opinion, to make you tell that I am talking about " Decorative" knots and knot characteristics, and should better post in the "Decorative knots" forum ?  :) If yes, I hope you will recover soon ( Indeed, roo hmself seems to be cured by this mania lately, but it might take some more time... :))




If you're comparing tightness/security, a better comparison is a Double Strangle Knot.

Look.  Whatever you personally want to call it, I don't care.  For my purposes, I won't be calling it any type of Constrictor because, again, a Constrictor to me is synonymous with tying on the bight and being able to fall apart.

Regarding practical knots, I do wonder the practical purpose of every knot here.  For you to be defensive about the questions, while in the Practical Knots Forum, makes you the oddball out.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 10:17:49 PM by knot4u »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2011, 04:44:12 PM »
If you're comparing tightness/security, a better comparison is a Double Strangle Knot.

No. We should compare the Constrictor to the Strangle, and the Double Constrictor to the Double Strangle.

I do wonder the practical purpose of every knot here.

   Practical purposes differ from user to user. You could not possibly figure out if, and how many practical purposes a simple knot might have, to another user, on another material, in the past, now or in the future ! If you think you could predict anything about the possible practical uses of a knot or not, think it again... :) Do wonder, but do not be sure.

For you to be defensive about the inquisition, while in the Practical Knots Forum, makes you the oddball out.

   Oh, I like teasing roo, and trying to teach him something about new knots, and some elements of Homer s language. ( He tries to teach me elements of Shakespeare s language, and how to use Google translator !  :)
   I have been accused as being offensive, not defensive... :) I am not counting votes or sell anything. So, I guess "I will live" being the "oddball out".  :)
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 04:25:00 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2011, 05:23:56 PM »
If you're comparing tightness/security, a better comparison is a Double Strangle Knot.

No. We should compare the Constrictor to the Strangler, and the Double Constrictor to the Double Strangler.

???  I'm talking about comparing the knot in the original post to the Double Strangle Knot (and to the Double Constrictor).  Um, yes, that makes sense to me.

The (single) Constrictor and the (single) Strangle Knot are mostly just background information here.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 05:31:51 PM by knot4u »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2011, 07:25:00 PM »
???  I'm talking about comparing the knot in the original post to the Double Strangle Knot (and to the Double Constrictor).

   OK. I was deceived by the wording. The knot in the original post should be compared to the Double Strangle, of course, because it is the Double Constrictor !  :) Well, the non-TIB variation of it, but this is only of secondary importance. We have other cases where two knots are topologically different, because of a variation in the path of the tails in their final tuck, but still called by the same name. We have seen such an example recently, with the two variations of the Double Harness bend.(1)
   I was not aware of this Double Constrictor until some days ago. If I was, I would have called THIS as THE Double Constrictor, and the "old" Double Constrictor as a more oblique, less balanced, atthough a TIB, variation of it. I do not know who called the uglier sister with the family name, and left the pretty one in the shadows all those years till now !  :) It is only a historical accident, I believe.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2851.0
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 04:25:42 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

TMCD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 257
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2011, 09:26:45 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 guess I don't get the purpose of the Packer's Knot or the related Corned Beef Knot.  Based on my testing, I get better results from Two Half Hitches, which is also much simpler to tie.

Two Half Hitches as a binder?...Yes!  I know it sounds awkward or boring, but it works for applications where you could tie a Packer's Knot.  Note that the Two Half Hitches provide more surface friction onto the standing end.  When done tightening down, I can lock the Two Half Hitches with a Half Hitch at the standing end, just like in a Packer's Knot.

Oh my gosh, the Packer's Knot is awesome. Just wrap a piece of rope around an item, in my case two 24foot ladders, take the working end and tie a fig 8 around the standing end and pull tight. Lock the knot with a half hitch to finish it off. It's ABOK 187 and Ashley has a fairly high opinion of this knot. I can get much more tension using this knot than say the Gleipnir. ABOK 191 looks even better, the Corned Beef and Salt Pork knot is tied using a buntline around the standing end instead of the fig eight.

I prefer to have just the right amount of rope when using these knots, maybe that's a drawback.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2011, 03:55:49 AM »
"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.

Hmmm, rather than two, I see only the one aspect, put into
reciprocal behaviors (TIB).

  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[r] ). So, ...

   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.

I concur in X.'s noting K's point, yet resisting that and leaning
towards "constrictor" naming for the reasons given above.
(But I classify it NOT as a hitch, but as a binder --both ends are
untensioned; all tension is in the knotted material around some object
(which suggests a difference with the strangle (no 'r') binder when
it is devoid an object, perhaps serving qua stopper (as e.g. is
promoted in rockclimbing, and there named "double overhand").

In any case, are we agreed that the #1253 is in some sense "double"?
The strangle series, e.g., can be seen as beginning only with
a double overhand --getting thus the single overwrap
(riding turn, a security element), and progressing with additional such
wraps as desired --and, i.p., I use the variations that usually include
an additional *twist* of the ends beneath some 4-8 overwraps,
depending upon material.  (Egads, though, this then confounds
the simple nomenclature of matching overwraps count with the
"strangle" modifiers "double, treble, quadruple ..." and a direct
relationship to overhands --so should call for some kind of
indicator of the twist count, as well.)

Similarly, the constrictor can be *built up* with additional overwraps.
Knot4U, do you concur in that?  --e.g., that beyond double constrictor
(meaning #1252, for the moment!), come treble/triple, quadruple, ...
versions of the binder?  (To my mind, though, they don't build up so
nicely as does the strangle series.)  (Ashley stops at "double"
--perhaps he saw no need in then common materials to go further--;
but we can project beyond that, by a simple tying algorithm.)

And this comes back --now, in K.'s favor, we might suggest-- to show
another contrast with the #1253 "d.c." : that it does not lead to any
obvious "triple c.", and only rather dubiously to a "quad.c." !!
For the manner in which the riding turns lay into each other
in a sort of *opposition* rather than *repetition* doesn't indicate
a place for one (three (five))) additional turn(s)_ --no, they must
come in even numbers to maintain the balance of this opposition!
.:.  Well, that is thought to ponder for further exploration, in the
face of which, I think it's time to go seek a nibble of something.

 :P

--dl*
====

ps:  Has it been noted that if the double constrictor (#1252)
is brought off of the object and laid riding-turns-down on a table,
folding the out turns back down and (lifting off of the table) then
brought together (180deg from their c. orientation) so that
the 3rd/central turn remains pointing up, that one has then a
gleipnir version!?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 12:54:48 PM by Dan_Lehman »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2011, 04:45:55 AM »
For the manner in which the riding turns lay into each other in a sort of *opposition* rather than *repetition* doesn't indicate place for one (three (five))) additional turn --no, they must come in even numbers to maintain the balance of this opposition!

   Not a completely dull argument, but not a very convincing one, too. OK, the pretty Double Constrictor sisters come only in even numbers, while the ugly ones in even and odd numbers...So what ? We use the small-numbers known truths to prove the large- numbers truths, not the opposite.

No, I have not noticed the ugly Double Constrictor turned into a Gleipnir beauty, but this operation looks more than a simple cosmetic surgery to me...
This is not a knot.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2011, 07:13:50 PM »
Just wondering, if you invented a knot similar to the Butterfly Loop that could NOT be tied in the bight, would you consider putting the word "Butterfly" in the name?  I definitely wouldn't because the name "Butterfly" is, to me, synonymous with being able to be tied in the bight.

That's how I feel about the Constrictor knots.  I can tie these knots (Constrictor and Double Constrictor) quickly and easily in the middle of the rope.  If you also can do this, then you should readily see my point.  If another knot comes along with the word "Constrictor" in the name, it's reasonable for me to assume I should be able to tie it in the bight.

Knot names are not necessarily descriptive for practical knots.  They're mainly for identification.  What's happening here, I think, is that folks have fallen in love with the word "Constrictor".  After all, it is a cool name for a knot.  Enough already though.  Think of another name for this knot!!!  I like it, but let's not call it a Constrictor!
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 07:20:51 PM by knot4u »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2011, 07:52:18 PM »
   Knot4u, I already said that you have a point with the TIB argument, as Dan Lehman has with the even-only counter argument. I myself do not pay much attention to names, as to geometry. So, it would be very comfortable for me, if I had adopted a "purist" stance right from the beginning, and I had denied to call with the same name two knots with different topology. I would also feel comfortable with a distinction based upon the Ashley numbers, i.e., Double Constrictor(ABoK#1252) and Double Constrictor(ABoK#1253). I leave the matter of the name to you guys, and I will happily swallow any pill , sweet or bitter, you give me !  :)
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2011, 04:47:08 AM »
Just wondering, if you invented a knot similar to the Butterfly Loop that could NOT be tied in the bight,
would you consider putting the word "Butterfly" in the name?

Well, I have considered that name for Ashley's #1408, which seems
similar in structure to the lineman's loop, but is symmetric
--not bound by the TIB constraint.  But I take your point.
On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable naming something
"butterfly" it it differs much in structure, even though it might
serve the same function.

Quote
I can tie these knots (Constrictor and Double Constrictor) quickly and easily in the middle of the rope.  If you also can do this, then you should readily see my point.  If another knot comes along with the word "Constrictor" in the name, it's reasonable for me to assume I should be able to tie it in the bight.

But many times, the constrictor is tied by a different tying algorithm
which uses the ends; and this method provides a step to achieve the
double constrictor --the overwrap is repeated.  This can be seen
as a factor in generating a constrictor binder series.  But you don't
agree with this, then?  What should one call the successor knots of
this series, beyond the "double constrictor" ?!


--dl*
====

TheTreeSpyder

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2011, 12:21:19 PM »
i guess i read that Transom was Constrictor and tied it that way (though in small stuff) for years now.

To me all of this is best de-scribed by it's particular mechanical form, not visual form.

Strangle to me is a Double Marl in rigging, the ends come together seated under the Turn for best lock; like the Constrictor lock.
To me the knot shown at start of the post, doesn't fit that description.

When i've needed a Dble.Constrictor type form, i went off more of a Tautline of 1 Turn over a Round Turn; then Constrictor Lock as easiest one to cinch down IMLHO.


http://www.mytreelessons.com/ks/other_Double.swf

Can drag cursors, to freeze motion, drag off and release larger cursor/slider on bar.  Click it or drag again and release inside cursor to make movie play again.

Most symmetrical in this form would be a Round Turn over Round Turn Tautline type lacing; then lock.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Another, more symmetric, Double Constrictor
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2011, 01:37:31 PM »
    Thank you, TreeSpyder,

   As much as I appreciate the presentation, I have to say that this knot is not a Constrictor-type knot at all, either single or Double ! The central "chiasm", the embrace/twist of the two free ends is not right underneath the riding turn(s), which is what makes the Constrictor a constrictor... The tail, before is gets out of the knot s nub, is twisted around two riding turns, not only the other free end, and this prevents the twist of the two ends to be just underneath the riding turn(s), squeezed in between the riding turn(s) and the pole, and so enjoy a tighter lock, by an enhanced friction effect. If you wish a proper name for your knot, there are other types of constricting snakes besides Boa, like the Python, the Anaconda, etc.   :)
   Now, if you make a modification of your knot like this shown in the attached picture ( only one tuck different than yours), you can have a more Constrictor-like knot, that can also viewed as a variation of a Double Constrictor... and a more good-looking knot, too !  :)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 01:44:14 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.