Author Topic: hitching cousins  (Read 10492 times)

squarebanksalaska

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
hitching cousins
« on: January 11, 2014, 12:21:52 AM »
Dear Fellow knotters,

So I was playing around with some double loop hitch knots made with a bight on the working end, and changed the bight around to the standing end, and I don't know what they are (which surely shows my ignorance).  But I thought that there interrelatedness was interesting, and how small changes make big changes.  I am trying to figure out if they can be tied in the bight.  I am sure that if you reverse working and standing end some of them can be, but I don't know if these can.  Are these related to the cow hitch?  Or the clove?  Or what family do they belong to?  And what are they called?

  Keep on truckin'

    Andrew

squarebanksalaska

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2014, 12:23:00 AM »
hitch 3

squarebanksalaska

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2014, 12:24:04 AM »
hitches 2 and 1

squarebanksalaska

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2014, 12:50:11 AM »
hitch 5 = hitch 3 with the working end tucked through the bight.  much tighter.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 06:28:42 AM by squarebanksalaska »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2014, 01:43:59 AM »
  Congratulations ! Hitch #4, at the first post, is a fine two-wrap hitch. ( It was unknown to me, but that does not mean much, because my knowledge of the knotting litterature is more limited than yours, that is for sure !  :) However, although I believe that I have tied many two-wrap hitches, I have not met this one ). It reminds me a hitch presented some time ago by Oneiros (1)-(2), shown at the attached pictures - but it is much simpler. It has no relation to the Cow hitch, none whatsoever, and I doubt it has any relation to the Clove hitch either. It goes sttaight into my favourite 2-wrap hitches file, along with your previous, Timber-hitch like one.
 
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2981.msg19078#msg19078
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2981.msg19081#msg19081
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 04:18:01 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2014, 03:21:03 AM »
   Now, if you really wish a Cow hitch cousin, resembling some hitches you show in this thread, you can implement the "locking" mechanism described at (1) - based on the great nipping potential of two loaded opposing bights on any line that goes through them - and arrive at the hitch shown at the attached picture. It is not as tight as the Locked Cow hitch presented at (2),(3), but it is a simple and secure two-wrap hitch nevertheless. To facilitate its release when the Standing end is still under some tension, and to gain some additional stiffness, the Tail end can be slipped.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4735.msg30582#msg30582
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4035.msg24785#msg24785
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4441
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 03:38:50 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

squarebanksalaska

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2014, 06:23:48 AM »
That cow hitch is pretty wonderful, I also have been trying the simple hitch a la gleipnir.  I actually started playing around with these 5 hitches after reading your post in the one with the lifting hitch, trying to find other simple mechanisms to finish that triple wrap and also trying some pile hitch like things.  One of them, I think it was #4 looked pretty promising, but it looked like the working end would be a better knot, so then I had to reverse engineer it, and as a novice (at best) knot tyer, it took me a while.  I also cut a good chunk of my thumb off at work a few weeks ago which makes me an even worse knotter. 

But then I kind of liked the structure with the bight (or would that be a turn?) in the standing end, and then wrapping back around.  They seem almost too simple to be new knots, but I don't have Ashley's Book of Knots, but I with being on workers' comp for the last couple of weeks, I have had a chance try my hand at some knotting again.  I have read a ton of your posts, and have been enjoying my couple weeks of "retirement".  I also highly enjoy your and Mr. Lehman's lively banter, it brings out the color in the world of knotting that I never would have guessed existed. 

Anyway, thanks much for your input, if you think that there is a chance that any of these is new, maybe I'll post it in the new knots forum.  I just found the structure of the knot interesting, and how the variations interact with one another with some real simple changes.  Thanks again for your time.

  Keep on truckin'

    Andrew
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 07:31:00 AM by squarebanksalaska »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2014, 01:08:06 PM »
...I was amazed that there are still knots out there that have yet to be discovered.
...it is amazing how fast the number of variables increases and how there are even very simple knots out there waiting to be discovered...

   I suppose that everything of so simple a nature has already been discovered. Clifford Ashley, ABoK.
 
   Look at the Rolfsen table of knots : Step by step, as the crossing number increases by one, the number of possible knots jumps out of the window ! For hitches, you should also have to penetrate any of those knots with a pole, in all possible ways.
   http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/The_Rolfsen_Knot_Table
   http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/The_Rolfsen_Knot_Table_Mosaic
  Permutations is God s way to create complexity out of a small number of things, I believe  :) - be them electrons, protons and neutrons, or tucks. The number of permutations of the Gordian Knot take-a-part puzzle - or, for that matter, of the Rubik s Cube- is bigger than the number of atoms in the Universe. Of course, practical knots can not be very complex - because evolution had knot selected the human brains that were able to tie complex knots, and I suspect it does not favour them even now  :) - so we can say that their number is limited and relatively small, indeed, and we can even argue that we already know most of them (? ?).     
   Anyway, me, for one, I do not remember to have tied your Hitch #4 - which I find pretty wonderful ! If it is not published already, you should name it somehow...
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 03:24:29 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3719
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2014, 02:24:28 AM »
I am trying to figure out if they can be tied in the bight.
??
Just slide the hitch off of the end of the
object : if it dissolves into unknotted rope,
it is TIB, else ... not.
(Your first one, at least, is TIB.)

Quote
Or what family do they belong to?
The ossel hitch came to mind, loaded in reverse.
(I should note that if one doesn't set your first knot
by hauling hard on the tail, its SPart will straighten,
instead of turning bowline-like around parts.)

--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2014, 06:27:38 PM »
   I can not see how this hitch ( Hitch #4 - to be named soon, I hope ) is related to the Ossel hitch- the "locking" mechanism of its two ends is completely different, IMHO. To set it as tight as possible, one has to pull the Tail end before the Standing end, but this is also required by many other multi-wrap hitches - even by some that are not tight, or they are not as tight as this.
   The only hitch that is somehow related to Hitch#4 is the not-so-simple hitch a-la-Gleipnir, shown at the attached pictures - which is identical to TWO Hitches#4, so it is HALF as clever as ONE Hitch#4... :). In other words, Hitch#4 proves that the truly indispensable elements of the not-so-simple hitch a-la-Gleipnir are the one, and the one only, of the two oblique riding turns - and half, and half only, of the rim of the Gleipnir s nipping loop. By cutting off the redundant half part, the Standing end is now able to reach and to load the remaining half of the Gleipnir nipping loop s rim directly, without having to first make one turn around the pole. When I tied the simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir, it seemed natural to me to try to enhance it by duplicating it - while I should better had attempted to simplify it more, and arrive at the Hitch#4... As Ashley said :There are always people who believe that if a single thing is good, two are bound to be better. So they overburden their knots with extra turns and flourishes.   
   Hitch#4 is an ingenious most simple 2-wrap tight hitch - a distinguished descendant of the great Gleipnir knot. 
 
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3719
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2014, 07:09:36 PM »
   I can not see ...
 how this hitch ( Hitch #4 - to be named soon, I hope ) is related to the Ossel hitch
--the "locking" mechanism of its two ends is completely different, IMHO.
To set it as tight as possible, one has to pull the Tail end before the Standing end,
but this is also required by many other multi-wrap hitches
--even by some that are not tight, or they are not as tight as this.
Maybe you have encumbered your vision with
a disagreeable condition!   :P

For the approach of the tail of #4 is quite reminiscent
of the ossel hitch on cursory glance, only to be
distinguished then in the over/unders.

Also, "one has to pull the tail end before the S.Part"
has assumed a conclusion as well; whereas if one
pulls the S.Part ... , a different result obtains.
Who is to say which is intended?  --that much
was left to the viewer to guess.  In the case of
your setting, one indeed casts a loop into the
S.Part and has that difference; otherwise, there
is the resemblance I noted, where the turning
of parts around the straightened S.Part will nip
the tail for security --as a reverse ossel hitch
(which makes the hitch usable beyond a mere
*ring* also on *spars*, the knotting/binding being
of rope purely, not needed the object for pressure).


--dl*
====

ps : Happy New Year Knotting 2014, X. !   :)


xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2014, 10:48:57 PM »
  Thanks. To all members of this Forum, Happy New Knotting year - with New Knots ! Each time I suppose that everything of so simple a nature has already being discovered, here comes a squarebanksalaska with his Hitch#4, out of the blue, to make us add another file into our knotting toolbox !

  For the approach of the tail of #4 is quite reminiscent of the ossel hitch on cursory glance...

 On cursory glance, perhaps... On a careful glance, absolutely not. The locking mechanism of the Hitch#4 is identical to the mechanism of the so-called simple hitch a-la-Gleipnir  - although I have to admit that one should pay some attention to see this, indeed  :). If the Standing end had continued its winding around the pair of the oblique riding turn / Tail end for another half turn (=180 degrees more ), and if, after forming this 360 degrees Gleipnir nipping loop, it had completed one more round turn on the surface of the pole, the Gleipnir mechanism would had been obvious to everybody - although all the essential elements of the core Hitch#4 would had remained the same. From a complete Gleipnir hitch, Hitch #4 retains only the one half, the most essential part - which nevertheless is adequate to keep the Tail end firmly squeezed on the surface of the pole by the oblique riding turn, and firmly locked within the hemi-circular rim of the - halved - Gleipnir nipping loop, formed by the Standing end. The Ossel hitch does not work like this : 1, It has no oblique riding turn, to squeeze the crossing point of the Tail end and the Standing end on the surface of the pole - as it also happens in the case of the Strangle and the Constrictor, for example. 2.  It can be considered as a "locked" variation of the Cow hitch, while the Hitch#4 has no relation to the Cow hitch whatsoever. ( This means that there is some sort of mechanical advantage present in the Ossel hitch, which is absent in the Hitch#4 ). 3. To reach the locking mechanism, the Standing end of the Ossel hitch has first to make a full round turn, so it has to overcome the friction forces it encounters along this path - while in the Hitch#4 any pull of the Stranding end is transferred to the locking mechanism directly, without any power loss due to friction. 4. Last but not least, in the Ossel hitch the locking half-rim remains almost tangent to the surface of the pole, while in the Hitch#4 it remains almost perpendicular to it - just as it happens in the case of the simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir. This means that the perpendicular to the axis - halved - nipping loop is squeezed on the curved surface of the pole, so it  squeezes anything that penetrates it more forcefully. ( I believe that the knot tyer had this particular dressing in his mind - the nipping half-turn being perpendicular to the axis of the pole -, because this is how his hitch is shown at the first post of the thread. )
   Having said that, I do not doubt that, on a cursory glance, there is some relation between the Hitch#4 and the Ossel hitch, indeed  :). However, I believe that if we wish to "lock" both limbs of the Cow hitch, we better use the mechanism of the Locked Cow hitch (1)-(4) - which is the most tight two-wrap hitch we have. Now, even if it is not so tight ( perhaps because of the absence of the mechanical advantage present in the Locked Cow hitch ), Hitch#4 seems also a more tight hitch than the Ossel hitch. The -halved- Gleipnir mechanism locks the Standing end much better - so any tensile forces induced into the oblique riding turn can be accumulated there and remain in place, even when / while the Standing end is not loaded.

1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4035.msg24785#msg24785
2.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4155
3.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4441
4.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4673
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Five two-wrap hitches
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2014, 10:51:37 AM »
    Placed with no particular order, from the left to the right  :) :

1. Locked Cow hitch
2. Modified ABoK#1683
3. Hitch#4, presented in this thread ( to be named soon ).
4. A hitching cousin of the Ossel hitch, shown at Reply#5.
5. Ossel hitch

   ( I believe that Hitch#4 is a hybrid between the hitches derived from an effort to "lock" the Cow hitch, and the hitches based on the Gleipnir binder. )

This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2014, 03:58:14 PM »
  I take the liberty to exploit this opportunity, and show a very simple modification we can attempt in many multi-wrap hitches and binders, in general : In the case of this wonderful squarebanks-alaskian Hitch#4, in particular ( which, in contrast to the other four hitches/binders shown in the previous post, is not based on the Cow hitch ), this modification can possibly help us increase the tension we can insert into the wraps during a pre-tightening phase, and achieve an even tighter hitching / binding. It will also seem more tempting, at least, to apply it, if we will decide to use, as Standing end, the end initially used as Tail end.
  See the attached pictures : We have only to interpose an 180 degrees chiasm within the wraps. Doing this, we can gain some of the mechanical advantage offered to the Cow-hitch-based hitches and binders - without losing any of the benefits of the oblique riding turn ( which, on the one hand, helps the hemi-circular nipping loop remain perpendicular to the axis of the pole, and, on the other, squeezes the pair of the two ends onto the surface of the pole).
  Is this modification worth the trouble ? I can not say yet - we have to try it on ropes and poles of different materials and diameters first - and even then the results may be influenced by parameters we can not fix : the force we pull each end, the order we pull the one end after the other, etc. Squarebanks-alaskian Hitch#4, as it is, is a wonderful knot: it can be tied very tightly, unless the surface of the pole in not slippery at all, so any tension that we will try to insert into the wraps by pulling the Tail end, will not be able reach to the oblique round turn. In this case, this modification might be somewhat beneficial, indeed.
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: hitching cousins
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2014, 01:07:16 PM »
... bowline-like

   Half of the Gleipnir s nipping loop is half of the bowline s nipping loop, indeed. I called the locking tip of the bight "half of the nipping loop" and not "half hitch", because both ends of the semi-circular rim ( around the pair of the oblique riding turn and the Tail end ) are loaded. ( In a proper half hitch, there is one, and one ony, loaded end . So, "two half hitches" really means a "one nipping loop followed by one half hitch" ).
This is not a knot.