Double Clove X hitch

[xarax]

   So, here comes another knot - a hitch  , which I had in my head a few years now, but I had never tried it before : The Double Clove X hitch - tied just as the Double Cow hitch, also very tight, and also TIB. ( We can also tie the "similar" Double Strangle hitch, but it does not become TIB ). It can be untied much easier than the Double Cow hitch, by just pushing one end inward, because its locking mechanism is not as effective as the opposed bights mechanism - nevertheless, this hitch, too, can accumulate a great amount of induced tension, and withstand a quite strong lengthwise pull by its one or both ends.  Whoever likes to compare it to the infamous Shephard s hitch, or other such much advertised, and sometimes even sold, mediocre multi-wrap hitches, will be much welcomed.
   I have to remind that we should tighten this hitch by pulling its ends against the pole the one after the other, alternately, just as we tighten the Double Cow hitch. 

[xarax]

   Two more pictures, for people who prefer A4 pictures. ( I am a great admirer of the 6 x 6 , but, unfortunately, I do not have a digital medium format camera (yet  ) - so, to show square pictures, I have first to shoot them without been able to align them as precisely as I would had wished, and straighten/crop them only later - often with so-so results ).

[Luca]

Hi xarax,

Tied in the bight this knot appears so simple,so obvious...Ingenious!

                                                                                                                           Bye!

[knotsaver]

Hi xarax,
very nice indeed.
Could the knot in the picture be considered a Double Cow X Hitch?
bye
Saverio

[xarax]

   Yes - but a not-so-good one ! 
   To improve it, you should pass the ends in between the tips of the bights and the "umbilical cord" which connects them. This way, you form "locking" mechanisms, which may be considered as more "light" variations of the opposed bights locking mechanism.
   If you do that, you end with the hitch shown at :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4035.msg33495#msg33495

[Dan_Lehman]

   Yes - but a not-so-good one ! 
   To improve it, you should pass the ends in between the tips of the bights and the "umbilical cord" which connects them. This way, you form "locking" mechanisms, which may be considered as more "light" variations of the opposed bights locking mechanism.

This is specious : loaded, the S.Part pulls the turn
away from that "umbilical cord" part and defeats
the apparent opposed-bights lock --a sad reality
to what otherwise looks so appealing.  (Similarly,
these snug hitches that depend on the smooth
flow of tension, of material, around the object
to effect the nipping of opposed parts will perform
badly on non-slick objects (such as larger rope
--a target I had in mind when fiddling such knots,
motivated by snood hitches to longlines of commercial
fishing).

But the double clove h. looks most intriguing, although
somewhat pointless in having apparently two S.Parts vs.
one and a tail --a later variation to work out, perhaps.


--dl*
====

[xarax]

these snug hitches that depend on the smooth flow of tension, of material, around the object to effect the nipping of opposed parts will perform badly on non-slick objects (such as larger rope)

Not true, for THREE reasons :
1. They perform fine on not-slick objects, because the tension able to reach to the need-to-be-immobilized Tail End is less. Of course, one should be able to PULL the ends and tension the wraps in the first place - but if the material is sooo rough that he can not, he does not need such a hitch, or he does not need a hitch at all !
2. On larger ropes, they perform fine as well - it is the relative diameter of the rope to the poll that matters, not the absolute one ! Of course, with a 10-inch rope, and a 100-inch pole, you can not PULL anything at all - so those hitches would be no exception...
3. Those hitches ( which are NOT "snug hitches" - but you need some more time to appreciate that, I guess...), those "tight hitches" as I have called them, are meant to be used ( when they are used qua hitches and not qua binders ) on slick objects ! Their purpose  is to be able to withstand a lengthwise pull when tied on slick objects - because, on not-slick objects, ANY hitch will hold... AND, to be able to do this : First,  WITHOUT n wraps ( because, with a large enough n, as, say, n= 12, anything holds anywhere...), and : Secont, without elongated, cross-gartered wraps ( like those we use in the rat-tail-stopper ).
   The interested reader is advised to read about the successive steps to the road to those hitches, in many posts in this Forum. The purpose of the "tight hitches", where both ends are locked, and both ends can be pulled, was to increase friction, in the case we have slick objects and we can not change this  , and in the case we need a hitch able to withstand a lengthwise pull with the MINIMUM length and number of wraps. By a curious turn of events, first came the TackleClamp hitch, then the Double Cow hitch, then the Locked Cow hitch, and now this Double Clove X hitch - although the temporal order could had been the exact opposite ! 

[knotsaver]

I'm an interested reader and I have to read many many posts!
thanks,
ciao,
s.

[xarax]

  In fact, the concept is very simple : If you increase the tension of a wrap of a hitch, you increase the friction forces between the rope and the surface of the hitched object. Therefore, to improve the gripping power of a hitch, instead of adding more wraps, you can use the ones you already have, and just increase the tension applied at their ends : you can "pretension" them. ( Same thing you do with "prestressed concrete" ). In order to "lock" the induced tension into the wraps, you have to "lock" their ends, so they will not be able to release the tension you have put into them during the pre-tensioning stage, if/when you do not pull their ends any more. Moreover, this "locking" should be self-locking, because you can not pull two ends, and tie half-hitches or stoppers on them at the same time ! 
   Obviously, if you find a way to pull the ends out of a knot, while this knot can not "swallow" them back, the tension inside it increases, and so its nipping / gripping action on any penetrating object or line increases, too. Of course, the disadvantage of those hitches is that they may be very difficult to untie, so they may only serve as semi-permanent solutions. The hitch shown in this thread can be released relatively easily, but the Double Cow hitch, for example, can not. A possible way out of this problem is to use slipped tails, but then their "locking" becomes less efficient, because, on the one hand, the end which should be immobilized is "protected", from the nipping/immobilizing action of the locking mechanism, by the interposed second leg of the tail, and, on the other, it can "slide" on the surface of this other leg, which runs parallel to itself.
    You can search the posts with the words " tight hitch" - you will see that I am just repeating the same few things over and over again in many posts, in order to maximize the chances ONE member of the Forum will read ONE of them...    

[xarax]

   The way this hitch is "double" , is twofold !    First, it is made from two Clove X hitches, placed side by side. Second, each of the two Tail Ends is secured under two riding turns : the initial riding turn of the Clove X hitch it belongs, and the U-shaped riding turn made from the umbilical cord which connects the two Clove X hitches. This way, the force with which the Standing / Tail Ends are squeezed in between the surface of the hitched object and the riding turns, is duplicated. Like it happens in the Double Constrictors, for example. Yet, - and that is its advantage in comparison to the Double Cow hitch -, it can be untied very easily : by PUSHING the Standing / Tail Ends !