Author Topic: 69 (tight) Hitch  (Read 767 times)

knotsaver

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 281
69 (tight) Hitch
« on: April 22, 2018, 07:25:07 PM »
This is a discovery by Xarax.
The 69 hitch is a quite simple, regarding its structure, symmetric, tight, self-locking 2-wrap hitch. It is named "69" for the shape formed by 2 nipping loops.
 The easy ( to memorize and execute) way to tie it , shown in the attached pictures, is by starting from the opposite side of the pole with a "96" initial shape then by inserting the tails through the nipping loops and then  by pulling the two ends of this "loose hitch", the one after the other. After that we end with a tight 69 hitch, now transported on the opposite side ( the antipodes ) of the pole.
Please try tying it!
Hope this is interesting.

Ciao,
s.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 12:41:52 AM by knotsaver »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3719
Re: 69 (tight) Hitch
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2018, 09:39:14 PM »
This is a discovery by Xarax.
The 69 hitch is a quite simple, regarding its structure, symmetric, tight, self-locking 2-wrap hitch
Beware a certain amount of sophistry in this knot ::
i.e., conceptually, one can see that the tensioning
can simply *migrate* the turNips apart without adding
any real tension --a sort of thing I had to admit was
happening in some of the binder structures I explored.

--dl*
====

knotsaver

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 281
Re: 69 (tight) Hitch
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2018, 04:38:55 PM »
...conceptually, one can see that the tensioning
can simply *migrate* the turNips apart without adding
any real tension

Thanks Dan for your comments.
Did you try to tie the hitch by using the 96 initial shape tying method?
Because that method reduce/eliminate that problem of migration/walk of the nipping loops and it was thought and shown for that reason. With that method you can experience the opposite problem (the nipping loops don't move at all! they lock too early) if you start from a too tight  initial 96 configuration.
Please try. After one ore two trials, one can manage to start from the needed LOOSE "96"shape, so to achieve a proper "locking"of the hitch with the two nipping loops of the "69"shape close to each other.
Hope this helps.
Ciao,
s.


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3719
Re: 69 (tight) Hitch
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2018, 12:02:36 AM »
Thanks Dan for your comments.
Did you try to tie the hitch by using the 96 initial shape tying method?

I've not tied & tried.  And now I see that there are TWO
knots presented above --one w/tails aimed AT ... and
the other with them aimed away from each other !?

(The most recent binder I've tried is the floating-binder
construction where one centers a coil (just a 540deg. turn)
and takes the legs around the to-be-bound object(s)
and passes the ends through the coil from opposite
sides.  Then, pulling on the ends will draw the coil &
its legs towards the ends's side which of course puts
tension in that.  --also tried replacing the "coil" with
a larkshead, which seemed to work okay --though
that didn't keep me from getting maybe too clever
by half and taking a further adventure.   ::)

 ;)

knotsaver

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 281
Re: 69 (tight) Hitch
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2018, 08:59:11 AM »

I've not tied & tried.


if you try you will see it.

Quote
And now I see that there are TWO
knots presented above --one w/tails aimed AT ... and
the other with them aimed away from each other !?


no, no it's only one knot...I added the picture in green because it is better seen the "69" shape... and in the multiframe picture is shown the tying method, in the first frame you can see (from a lateral view) the "96".
By the way, as a binder, Xarax tested it is maximally secure ( it will break rather than slip ).

Ciao,
s.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 09:22:36 AM by knotsaver »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3719
Re: 69 (tight) Hitch
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2018, 07:32:01 PM »
Quote
And now I see that there are TWO
knots presented above --one w/tails aimed AT ... and
the other with them aimed away from each other !?


no, no it's only one knot...I added the picture in green because it is better seen the "69" shape... and in the multiframe picture is shown the tying method, in the first frame you can see (from a lateral view) the "96".
Again, in the lower two images, the tails point
TOWARDS each other, leading directly into a hard
turn in the knot; but in the top photo, the tails
pull away from each other, and pull through
the turNip and run around the object to respective
turNips.

I suppose that the opposed forms are producible
by separating the turns or not --that the upper
state which has a great expanse of 3 wrapping
parts vs. 2, then opened to about 50/50 of each,
could be further oriented so that the 3-parts part
lay in the short span between turns.  Well, this
goes to my note about **apparent** tightening
that can come vice actual tightening.


--dl*
====

knotsaver

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 281
Re: 69 (tight) Hitch
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2018, 10:36:57 AM »
...
the first multiframe picture shows the tying method:


the first frame (top left) is of the first STAGE of the tying method, where the "96" hitch has NOT being completed, and has only 1 wrap, as shown. The second frame (top right) is of the second STAGE of the tying of the "96 hitch - so, NOT of a second knot ! In this second stage, each end continued to wrap the pole, and has now passed behind it for a second time ( so each end has formed another wrap, and the hitch now has the initial 1 wrap, plus two more, = 3 wraps in total, as shown ), and has also passed through the shown nipping loops for a second time. So, this is not a picture of a second knot, it is a picture of the completed, but not yet pre-tensioned, initial "96" hitch, by which we tie the final "69" hitch.
By starting from this complete but loose "96" hitch, shown in this second picture, and by pulling the ends the one after the other a number of times, we force the nipping loops to migrate, to slide on the surface of the pole. Doing this, they  distance themselves on the one side of the pole, but, if they pass the "equator", they approach each other on the other. In the third and fourth frames (bottom left&right), the nipping loops went only to about half the required / optimum distance, so the hitch "closed" and "locked" before the two nipping loops start to approach each other on the other side of the pole. In some sense, the hitch closed/locked too early, before the two nipping lops migrate as far as we would had wished. However, If we arrange the segments of the initial "96" hitch more loosely than they were in the first picture, or if the diameter of the pole is smaller,we can manage to allow them migrate more, and approach each other on the other side of the pole. In this case, we get optimally pre-tensioned "69" hiches  - the initial 3-wrap loose "96" hitch, on the one side of the pole, has now been transformed into a tight 2-wrap "69" hitch, on the other side of the pole , (as shown in the last two pictures, in red and golden-green).





Hope this helps.

Ciao,
s.