A simple hitch - Double noose

[xarax]

   I have met this very simple double noose, that can also serve as a very tight hitch. I was really  surprised by the force that can be accumulated in the overhand knot neck, through which the free ends pass and get themselves secured by its nipping action. I suppose that it has to do with the complex interaction of the overhand knot and the pole s hard surface, and not only on the nipping force of the overhand knot.
   The harder we pull the free ends, the tighter the two riding turns grip the pole. A simple overhand knot pressed upon the hard surface of the pole...achieves a very tight hitch. (Relevant ABoK numbers or suggestions for other names are welcomed).

[xarax]

That's very attractive.

   Thank you, Kogan,

   Pull the one and/or both the free ends as hard as you can !   And try to pass them from different paths through the twisted 8 shaped overhand knot, and/or cross them before they exit the knot s nub. You might discover a better, tighter configuration, depending upon the material you use, but also upon the relative ratio of rope-to-pole diameters.

[xarax]

   The closest relative of this simple overhand-knot based hitch-double noose is its "inverted" version.( See attached pictures). It holds very well, too, but I do not know if it is tighter than the previously posted version.

[xarax]

It's like a doubly-slipped overhand.

 As a double loop, it is known as the "Tom Fool s knot" ( ABoK#1133)(1). I beleve that, as a two wraps hitch, the inverted form holds much better, because of the complex interaction of the knot s nub on the two free ends / riding turns, asthe knot is squeezed upon the hard surface of the pole.

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty7ov-K3DRA&feature=related

[X1]

   Another 2-wraps hitch that can be tied in the bight, and can be tensioned by pulling the standing end and/or the tail against the pole ( i.e., perpedicularly to the pole s axis, so a greater force can be applied in the first place, during the pre-tightening phase) has been presented recently :
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShFA4CMyhNA&list=UUILfSVV5Dr_qk5i2snM6uJw&index=1&feature=plcp

  It would be nice if the inventors of the Andalusian hitch would compare their invention with the hitch based upon the Tom Foul s knot ( ABoK#1133) - the Tom Foul s knot, not the Handcuff s knot ! -, presented in this thread, at Reply#2 :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3197.msg19074#msg19074

[Dan_Lehman]

I think that I've played with structures similar to this,
looking for something that would form a non-sliding
(out of attachment location) grip on e.g. a carabiner,
and wouldn't loosen (w/o deliberate effort) --with regard
to arborist or rockclimber use (who otherwise beware an
attachment to a 'biner for fear that the location of it can
change to make for "cross loading", not aligned with its
major axis.

I just fiddled such a structure in which there is a central
overhand as shown here, but the material feeds into
it such that the "belly" is against the hitched object not
the (crossing part of ends) "spine", so that the force running
around the object leads without mitigation to a nipping task
around one of the SParts.  (Pulling out the object and then
pulling ends/SParts one finds that the knotted structure
reduces to a fig.8 (in mid-flype orientation of interlocked
loops) !  --well, not quite down to a non-knot, Tiable Inthe Bight.

(I first looked at taking X's structure but folding the object-encircling
loops towards rather than away from the viewer; this, though,
didn't look good (but might itself lead somewhere).


--dl*
====

[X1]

something that would form a non-sliding (out of attachment location) grip on a carabiner, and wouldn't loosen (w/o deliberate effort) --with regard to arborist or rockclimber use

  I do not know much about hitches tied around rings, hooks, or carabiners ( I have only played with some forms of Double Blackwall hitches for a while (1)), so my initial purpose was different. I was amazed by the fact that a simple overhand knot, when it is squeezed on the hard surface of the pole, can nip the free end(s) that penetrate it in a quite unexpected degree. (That had also happened in the 1-wrap " Simplest hitch", shown at (2)). So, I have always looked for a double noose with some kind of knot tied in the middle, that, when pressed on the pole, would somehow deform, and lock the free ends of the hitch. I have tried all the double loops and double nooses that I know, but I have not found anything better than the humble Tom Foul s knot...However, I might well have missed something.

1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3791.msg22184#msg22184
2.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3288.msg19765#msg19765

a structure in which there is a central overhand as shown here, but the material feeds into it such that the "belly" is against the hitched object not the (crossing part of ends) "spine"

  The " inverted'" of the hitch shown in the first post, of the original "overhand knot based hitch-double noose", is such a knot. ( The 'belly" of the overhand knot is adjacent to the surface of the pole - not the "spine"). Now, it turns out that when the standing parts make their 90 degrees turn close to the surface, (from being perpendicular to the pole, become tangent to it, and then follow its curved surface to complete their round turns ), this turn is necessarilly more sharp, so the ends of the hitch can be nipped harder and locked easier there. That was the lesson from the Tom-Foul s-knot-utilized-as-hitch, which seems tighter than the inverted of original hitch.

[xarax]

   For some reason I may had never realized ( or, even if I had, I do not remember which was any more - this knot was tied four loooong years ago... ), I had arranged the legs of the wraps of the "inverted" version of this two-wrap hitch ( which can be considered as a "tight hitch" based on the Tom fool s knot, or as a Bull doubly-slipped overhand hitch ) the wrong way ! ! ! !  As they are shown in Reply#2, the two legs of each wrap are twisted around each other 90 degrees. This may increase friction on/between them, but it costs more than it pays : it enhances friction on the legs of the wraps which are the direct continuations of the ends of the hitch ( and this is a good thing, because we want to immobilize / lock those ends as securely as we can ), but at the same time it also increases friction on the legs of the wraps which are the direct continuations of the legs of the overhand knot ( and this is a bad thing, because we want this gripping / nipping overhand knot to become and to remain as tightly woven around the ends of the hitch as possible ). If we just pull out the pole, twist the whole wraps 90 degrees ( so their legs do not embrace each other any more ), and then insert the pole again, we get a hitch where the overhand-knot-based locking mechanism becomes very efficient - perhaps more efficient even from the Clove-hitch-based mechanism of the Bull Clove hitch. Moreover, the nipping structure of this hitch ( and of the Tom fool s knot ), which looks, as a Korgan mentioned, like a "doubly-slipped overhand", is not only obviously TIB, but it can also be tied in-the-bight almost instantly. This may be an advantage over the Bull Clove hitch - simply because nobody would ever read and try to understand the easiness and the quickness the "haltering the collar" method by which the Bull Clove hitch itself can be tied...(2).
 
   1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3197.msg19074#msg19074
   2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.msg36678#msg36678

P.S. 1. At first I was reluctant to call this hitch "Bull doubly-slipped overhand hitch", because I thought it was too long for a knot name - but I am afraid I can not call it "Bull Overhand hitch" either, because the name "overhand knot" may mislead some people to think that the hitch is not TIB, although one of its biggest advantages ( as well as of the Bull Clove hitch ) is that it IS TIB ! Perhaps the name "Tom Foul s hitch" would also be OK. However, personally I always prefer descriptive than historical names. Any other suggestions will be welcomed.

P.S. 2. I decided to drop the adjective "Bull", and retain only the rest of the name - "Doubly slipped overhand hitch" - because I think it is better to reserve the "Bull" moniker for hitches where the continuations of the ends run both clockwise or counter-clockwise on the surface of the pole ( as in the Bull Clove hitch and the Bull Pretzel hitch ).
   This difference in the two classes of hitches in not insignificant. When both continuations of the ends follow clockwise or counter-clockwise paths, during their alternating pulling, the dragging and tightening of the one wrap does not drag the other in an unfavourable, untightening way, because the nub of the hitch is always crawling on the surface of the pole towards the same direction, and the two ends can not "open" it up and loosen it.
    Anoother difference is that the "Bull" hitches can easily be transformed into "Tackled" hitches, where the mechanical advantage is exploited more efficiently.

[xarax]

   Here are some pictures of this hitch - not that they are needed : the knot tyer should only remember the name of this hitch , or that it is nothing but the Tom Fool s knot / double noose turned into a hitch. He can place on the surface of the hitched object the one or the other way, and decide with witch he is able to tie a tighter knot - but a good breakfast would also help, I believe. As it happens with all those hitches, one should tighten them by pulling, against the pole, the one end after the other, alternately, a number of times.
   Perhaps somebody will try both those two tight Bull-like hitches, the Bull Clove hitch and the Doubly slipped Overhand hitch shown in this thread, and report his findings...

[Ruby]

how about this:

[xarax]

  You waste it if you tie it around a not-round / not-slippery object ! (*)
  The best indication/measure of how tight a hitch can become ( so, how efficient a "tight hitch" is ), is its resistance to a lengthwise pull, when it is tied around a slippery pole and pre-tensioned as much as it can take ( or we can give ! ).
  Do not be seduced by how quickly you can tie it - there are many things in a hitch which one should consider, besides this. You will probably need some more time to tie a Bull Clove hitch, because you will need to dress it after you form it, but it may be a tighter hitch ( ? ? )

   (*) Notice how the two ends , in the recent pictures of the hitch I show, "kiss" each other as they enter/exit the nub - meaning that the knot has been "closed" around itself much more tightly ).

[Ruby]

http://blog.naver.com/hang2rang/50139811422

I saw it here.

Compare to your latest knot, the difference is only a twist of the right loop. But your knot is much tighter. (too tight?)

Tom fool method is much quicker.

[xarax]

   There is no difference - if you want to tie it more symmetrically, with the line of the one wrap turning clockwise and the line of the other wrap counter-clockwise, you would tie it either as shown at Reply#2, or as shown at Reply#7. If you want to tie less symmetrically, you will tie it with both lines of both wraps turning clockwise or counter-clockwise, as in the "Bull Pretzel hitch", shown at (1),(2).
   Which is the most tight of them - that is the question...
   There is no "too tight" "tight hitch" !   They are meant to be as tight as possible - to securely immobilize both Ends, the Tail End ( as all hitches do ) and the Standing End.
   The interesting thing is to compare all those three hitches, and find out which is the tightest - and then try to understand why, because the differences are very small, and we can not predict which effects they may have.

1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5250.msg34395#msg34395
2.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5250.msg34410#msg34410

[xarax]

   One overhand knot, is a very simple thing - although not as simple as many people think, if they have not yet realized the many distinct geometrical forms it can have ( and as we know, it is the geometry that matters most in practical knots, not the topology ).
   One overhand knot tied around ONE tensioned line, is not a simple thing any more ! The penetrating line may go through any one of the three different "openings" of a tightly closed overhand knot, the angle between its axis and the axis of the line the overhand knot is tied on may vary, and it can be pulled towards the one or the other direction. So, if we are going to use one overhand knot to nip and immobilize such a tensioned penetrating line, we have to think a little bit .
   One overhand knot tied around TWO tensioned lines, becomes a complex thing, because it can take many different, geometrically, forms - therefore there are many ways - some more and some less efficient than the others - to use an overhand knot as the nub of a two-wrap tight hitch. I will try some housekeeping, continuing this thread, where I had first realized how effective an overhand-knot-based nub of a tight two-wrap hitch can become.
   Those hitches belong to one of two general classes, depending on the orientation of the overhand knots. In the first the overhand knots are laying on the surface of the pole "belly up" (bu), and in the second "belly down" (bd).
   Let me show some pictures of hitches belonging to the second class, and I will tell more about them in another post.
   For the moment, the one very important thing that I would like to mention, right from the beginning, is that the hitches which can be pre-tensioned by pulling their ends against the pole ( = perpendicularly to the surface of the hitched object ), without this resulting to any major deformation of their nubs ( which deformation may result in their loosening ), are the most useful, because they can become the most tight. This was the reason I had abandoned the simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir, and all those Gleipnir-like hitches ( some of them shown in the attached pictures ) where the nipping loop of the Gleipnir has been replaced by an overhand knot : the orientation of their ends as they enter/exit their nubs is not what we would had wished. The same happens with hitches where the overhand knot has been used to enhance the gripping power of a Clove hitch, a Strangle, or a Constrictor ( see the third attached picture ). When we pull the one end against the pole, the whole nub is set in motion, it loses its stable position on the surface of the pole ( or even, as it happens in some cases, it is severely deformed ), and we lose some of the tight grip which we have managed to gather by the pulling of the other end. All those hitches are meant to be pre-tensioned tightly by pulling the one end after the other, so we do not wish the next pulling, of the second end, to interfere to what we had already achieved by the previous pulling of the first end.

[xarax]

   At first I thought that the more compact and tightly woven around the continuations of the wraps the overhand knot would be, the tighter its grip, and the more secure the locking of the hitch s ends. Therefore, I was under the impression that if I would manage to arrange the two penetrating lines inside the overhand knot, in a way that the whole nub has the fewer "voids", and becomes as compact as possible, a rock-solid mass or rope, I would tie the tightest nub... Wrong ! Classic mistake : a knot is not only what we can see, it is also the tension, compression and torsion acting on the passive material from which it is made - which tension, compression and torsion are, unfortunately, invisible !
   If the ends are going through the overhand knot in such a way, that, when we pull them against the pole, they tend to elongate / loosen / tear apart the nub, the nub itself, even if it is dressed tightly initially, it will not remain so for long. The tension induced and "locked" into the two wraps will not cease to exist, and, eventually, it will loosen the nub, dragging the two "leaves" of the "belly down" overhand knot towards opposite directions, and loosening the "lock".
   A good example of such a nub is shown in the attached picture. Although, with the proper pulling and pushing, it can be dressed tightly, this nub can not serve as a secure "lock" for a tight hitch.     
   Regarding this property, the most tight nub is the most simple "blue" nub shown at the first picture of the previous post - and, of course, all the three nubs shown in the fourth picture, where the end leave the nub perpendicularly to the surface of the hitched object.
    The enhanced Clove hitch, Strangle and Constrictor, shown in the third picture of the previous post, all suffer from the same problem. As in their ordinary versions, the Strangle is much better/versatile than the Constrictor - its ends can be pulled from more directions, without disturbing the nub too much. The "enhanced Clove" seems to be the tightest of the three.