Help identifying this knot

[James Petersen]

James, One of the key characteristics of Ryan's constrictor nock is that you can spin it up and down the string to adjust your nocking point.  X1 did not show the back for the constrictor nock, but if you tie one you will notice that all four wraps, opposite the constrictor,  lay flat.  The advantage of having all four lay flat is so it will screw up and down the serving easily and be more secure.

I did notice that. My intention in using the overhands on each end was to increase the bulk of the knot on the back side and hopefully make it (nearly) as high as the front side, but this may not be necessary. It seems to work well as it is. As to screwing the knot up and down the serving, I think it will still work, but I am not in a position to test it out -- bows and arrows, etc. are all strictly controlled where I now live.

[roo]

Actually, the serving on the bowstring where the arrow nocks acts as threads. In the video this is precicely how he moves the knot up and down -- by screwing it in either direction.

There's an easy way to test this theory.  Just twist without applying any other force and see if the binder has a tendency to travel in one direction like a nut on a bolt.

[X1]

X1 did not show the back for the constrictor nock, but if you tie one you will notice that all four wraps, opposite the constrictor,  lay flat.

   If they would not, I would have shown it ! 

[X1]

I think it would be more useful if the question being asked about so-called "new knots" in this forum was whether a particular knot already has a name.

   THIS would be the least useful question, indeed !  The less important thing in a knot, is its name ( and the name of the person(s) who happened to tie it...).

  The only negative is that it could cause confusion because of how similar it sounds to the original.

  On the contrary, this is positive, because it refers to the real similarity of this hitch with the Constrictor. Perhaps an even more similar name, would be an even better choice ! I have thought of the " 4 wraps Constrictor ".

[Davesea]

How about "quad constrictor" since there is already a "double constrictor"

[X1]

How about "quad constrictor" since there is already a "double constrictor"

   I think this would be a misleading name. The "Double" refers to the two riding turns, that push/squeeze the "embracing" pair of tails underneath them, and so they help them being secured / locked in place. The hitch presented in this thread is a variation of the "single" Constrictor - a "single" Constrictor with two "side" riding turns - which do not lie over the twisted pair of tails, at the middle of the knot.
   

[Dan_Lehman]

Would it be considered "new"?

To paraphrase someone who knows more on the subject than I do...  It is difficult to sustain claims of any simple knot being "new" given the tens or hundreds of thousands of years humans (and other animals) have been knotting.^1
1Charles Warner in History and Science of Knots, p. 28.

This is what would colloquially be regarded as a "cop-out"
by someone who wished to deny discussions of "new"ness!
Rather, by the supposed Predominance of Evidence theory
this amounts to, one should examine to the better ability
with current communications effectiveness of modernity
how many simple knots are in fact **apparent/presented**,
and I think that then the inference would be that there
really aren't so many, and esp. going back in history with
less-than-happily-knottable materials there are likely not
so many missed!
 

That said, "new"ness is a troublesome attribute especially
relative to its worth!

It has been my observation that once a knot user reaches
a certain level of knowledge a synthesis begins that regularly
leads to the tying of novel knots.  And by "novel" I mean in
the sense that the user has never seen it before.

OTOH, one can visit forums of knot users --canyoneers,
cavers, SAR-ers, rock-/tree-climbers, ...-- and see quite
obvious ignorance of what many should regard as basic
knotting, even !  --and failure to recognize what is put
smack before them, if done.  That doesn't fill me with
conviction that the world of knots is well mapped to
some even minimal extent.

I think it would be more useful if the question being asked about so-called
"new knots" in this forum was whether a particular knot already has a name.
If it does not, then a new one can be chosen.  This is probably the most useful
function the experienced members here can provide.

"new" could be given an objective definition of
"not included in the <IGKT or ...?> Directory of Knots".
Then there could be a question of whether the maintainers
of such exalted Directory cared to include it, or how soon
they might do so --something one would hope would be
based on the estimated value of the candidate knot.  (One
would not answer to every whim to have "Inventor" label
granted by the cataloguing organization!)

As for naming, hmmm, one could argue that names come
about in other ways more helpfully, though also such
origination can lead to difficulties.  But as the number
of to-be-named knots grows, there is no happy solution,
so far as I'm aware.  I've tried to stamp out what I've
thought to be actively harmful names --the "double
fisherman's" or even "fisherman's" applied to the
strangle noose (scaffold knot), and so on, but I'm yet
to figure out a good way forwards, in general.  (For the
sake of study, I suggest some **knot-ID** system,
which isn't so happily conversant as *names*.)


 - - - - -

I think this would be a misleading name.

+1, yes.  The sequencing of "double, triple, ..." is already
implied by extant naming.

--dl*
====

[X1]

   Two quick observations regarding the "Constrictor+ 2 side overhands" presented at Reply#8 and #9 (1)
   a. There are two variations of this variation !  And they are not so similar to each other, as one might think they should have been. We can have an overhand knot + overhand knot, and an overhand knot + underhand knot. I believe that, besides the problem with the reduced contact area between the round turns and the surface of the pole, both have the following disadvantage in comparison to the original hitch :
   b. At the Constrictor(s), the pair of tails is squeezed by the riding turn(s), but each single tail is also squeezed by its pair. At the " Constrictor + 2 side over/underhands " variations shown at Reply#8 and #9, the continuation of the tail does not squeeze its pair so forcefully, because it goes over another riding turn as well - so its inclination with the surface of the pole is smaller, and the squeezing force that is able to apply on its pair is also smaller. One can also see as a disadvantage to the security / locking of the tails, the much greater angle of the two "legs" that surround each one of them, as it leaves the knot s nub. I feel that the tails are not as efficiently locked at this final point, as they are at the common Constrictor and at the original hitch presented at this thread.   

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4256.msg26408#msg26408
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4256.msg26409#msg26409

[X1]

But to illustrate my point about knots probably having been tied before...  I happened upon a similar knot...  It is sort of the version of the knot being discussed here

  Beautiful illustrations - but they do not illustrate your point, I am afraid !  The knot being discussed here, has a "single" Constrictor at its middle, plus one sort-of-a-Clove-hitch (one riding turn ) at each side. Those riding turns play a certain role on the further "locking" of the tails. I see not such a feature at the Transom version of a "Constrictor plus one round turn at each side" knot you show us. Practical knots are, by definition, "simple" knots . Even a minor change can transform a simple thing to another still simple, but very different thing nevertheless.
   ( I have seen that at the case of the Multi-wrap Clove hitch. One would think that if we add more turns at a common Clove hitch, it would remain the same knot. Not true...When more turns are added, the length the hitch occupies on the pole ( the "width" of the hitch ) becomes greater, so the diagonal riding turn that connects the two side round turns tend to push all the other the one on the other. This transforms the hitch, which is now able to be pre-tensioned, since the "rims" of the adjacent riding turns, being sqeezed upon each other, can not rotate - so the Multi-wrap Clove hitch is able to accumulate tensile forces, the common Clove hitch can not...That enables the Multi-wrap Clove hitch to be able to withstand a lengthwise pull, much more efficiently than, say, a sum of single Clove hitches of the same total contact area, put the one next to the other. The "more" itself is not different from the sum of the parts, but something else that apparently had remained the same ( the riding turn), is now endowed yet another role ).

[Davesea]

I have answered my question about Ryan's nock knot.  It does in fact seem to be a constrictor that is not in common use.  Thanks for everyone's comments.