Figure 8 nooses - hitches.

[xarax]

   A noose can always serve as a simple hitch, although many simple hitches can not serve as nooses. We can tie many different nooses using  the figure 8 knot as a "base". Ashley, on the relevant chapter, has only one of them ( the ABoK#1116). ( See the first attached picture ). If we interchange the pair of the ends of the bight with those of the standing end/tail, we get a similar knot, that can serve as a simple hitch (as) well, and perhaps even better. (See the second attached picture). I do not know why Ashley does not include this noose there, but I guess that he prefers a noose where the ends of the bight  stem out of the same point of the knot s nub. For a noose, this might well be true, but for a simple hitch, it might not.
   The most interesting figure 8 based noose is, for me, the one shown in the third attached picture. I have called it "Buntline extinguisher"  , to make people notice that it is tied just like the buntline hitch, ( so, as easily and quickly ), with the last tuck going through a different "hole" of the figure 8 "base". This configuration is, in a sense, even simpler than the first two, because it is more symmetric ( in relation to the pair of the ends of the bight, and this of the standing end/tail). I do not see why one would prefer to tie a Buntline hitch, and not this.
   There are many other ways to tie a noose or a hitch, starting from a figure 8 . The interested reader is advised to tie and try them all, and kindly requested to report his findings to us here.
    

[knot4u]

Third pic is not based on a Figure 8.  You cleverly dressed it so the optical illusion appears to be a Figure 8, but it's not.  I think you know that.

[xarax]

Third pic is not based on a Figure 8. 

   To my eye, it is a figure 8. Would you describe it as figure 7 ? Dress it any way you like, and see if it resembles another number !  ( Written with the characters we use now, not with Sanskrit !  )
   The essense is never the names, but the knots themselves. Which of the three knots is better suited for a noose, and which for a simple hitch ? Why one would prefer the Buntline from the hitch in picture 3 ?

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

Third pic is not based on a Figure 8. 

   To my eye, it is a figure 8. Would you describe it as figure 7 ? Dress it any way you like, and see if it resembles another number ! /.../

It deviates from the statement in the first post to use the fig 8 knot as a base, because when you withdraw the standing part of the noose from it, it disintegrates and hence it cannot be based on a fig 8 knot. Instead, it is a constrictor, differently dressed, which hides its nature. Of course a constrictor can be laid out to resemble the graphic form of the character 8, but even if it does, what we know as a fig 8 knot will not be akin to a constrictor and will still be a knot when foreign elements inserted into it are removed.

So the knot is not based on the fig 8, but on the constrictor.

[xarax]

   Thank you Inkanyezi,

  It deviates from the statement in the first post to use the fig 8 knot as a base, because when you withdraw the standing part of the noose from it, it disintegrates

   As in the case of the Buntline hitch - which is tied in exactly the same way, exept the specific "hole" through which we pass the working end in the last tuck - it is a hitch "based" upon the figure 8, or figure x, in this sense : we weave the figure 8, or figure x, around the standing part (with which we have already made a half turn, or more turns, around the pole). So, I do not see any deviation from the general definition.
 

...it is a constrictor, differently dressed, which hides its nature. Of course a constrictor can be laid out to resemble the graphic form of the character 8, but even if it does, what we know as a fig 8 knot will not be akin to a constrictor and will still be a knot when foreign elements inserted into it are removed.
   So the knot is not based on the fig 8, but on the constrictor.

   Having said that - about the weaving of a figure around the standing part that has already made a half turn around the pole - I think that the argument presented here is sound enough. The knot in picture 3 can very well be seen as a constrictor around the standing part. I can not imagine a proper name that can reveal this fact, without confusion with the usual, constrictor - based hitches ( where the constrictor constricts the pole, and not the standing part...) Any suggestions for a proper name are welcomed.
       Let us try to answer the essence of the matter: Which knot, out of those three, is better as a noose, and which as a simple hitch ?  Why should one tie a Buntline hitch, and not one of them ?

[Dan_Lehman]

"figure (of) 8/eight" is a commonly understood term
denoting the knot tied in A & B,
NOT C.  Let's not try to spit into this historical wind.
The point of having a defined, common-to-the-set base
is to explore what can be done with that.

There are all sorts of simple things that can be formed
in the greater set of noose-hitches.  For the A & B knots
here, I see a purpose/benefit to making round turns at
a couple points, of improved binding, integrity, and
maybe lessening of pressure from the knot on the noose's
SPart.  That of course moves those structures away from
the "fig.8-based" set.

--dl*
====-

[xarax]

   The "Buntllne Extinguisher"   or "Constrictor noose" presented in this thread is identical to the hitch pdc 39 ( = proximal - distal - clove (*), which also has been related to the Buntline hitch ), shown by Charles Warner and Pieter van de Grient at Knotting Matters 61, p. 44 ( Sept. 1998 ). The authors describe it as a "secure but rather clumsy hitch".

(*) The c of the clove should better be read as the c of the constrictor, in this case - but, in any case, the Constrictor itself is not but a Clove with an additional twist of the Tail Ends underneath the riding turn...

[tkoun]

   A noose can always serve as a simple hitch, although many simple hitches can not serve as nooses. We can tie many different nooses using  the figure 8 knot as a "base". Ashley, on the relevant chapter, has only one of them ( the ABoK#1116). ( See the first attached picture ). If we interchange ....
   

In this type of knots ABOK #1992 seems also relevant.

regards

[JohnC]

[...] If we interchange the pair of the ends of the bight with those of the standing end/tail, we get a similar knot, that can serve as a simple hitch (as) well, and perhaps even better. (See the second attached picture). I do not know why Ashley does not include this noose there, but I guess that he prefers a noose where the ends of the bight  stem out of the same point of the knot s nub. For a noose, this might well be true, but for a simple hitch, it might not.
 
   There are many other ways to tie a noose or a hitch, starting from a figure 8 . The interested reader is advised to tie and try them all, and kindly requested to report his findings to us here.
   

I found this post while searching for the name of a slide-and-grip knot based on a figure-8, which is in fact the same as the second picture in the original post, but with the standing part and working end reversed. In other words, make the same knot in the middle of a line and pull on one end for a noose and the other for a slide-and-grip.

In synthetic line (testing with paracord, coincidentally the same colour/size as the picture) it has just the right amount of grip whilst still being easy enough to adjust after having been loaded (though I didn't do any extreme tests).

I should imagine that in natural fibres it would be prone to jam. It cannot be adjusted under tension but needs only a brief moment of slack and to support the bulk of the knot with the thumb and forefinger while sliding the working end to loosen or tighten.

Does anyone know its name?

[Dan_Lehman]

Interesting, John.

I've noted that one can reeve the returning eye-leg /tail
straight through a fig.8 knotted SPart for a secure eye
knot --even tested a slight extension of this (tail now
brought back to tuck finally out between eye legs)
in (slippery) HMPE 12-strand line.
see pre-posted image, where the rightside knot would
be the quick8 were the B&W tail --used for distinction--
not collaring the SPart and turcked back towards the eye.
(The leftside knot is the Lehman8, designed
  (! vs. merely "fiddled"/discovered by accident...)
to somehow have fig.8 strength --which I thought
came from the *padding* of the SPart by its parallel part
(eh, maybe not just that)-- and bowlinesque easy untying.

 

Don't know a name ... .

--dl*
====