Transom Knot

[stebold]

Hey folks, first post from a beginner knotter.    I just wanted to express some thoughts on the transom knot.  First, I've seen several different sources say that the transom knot is related to the constrictor knot, but isn't it really a strangle knot fixing crosspieces together, and not a constrictor?  You could use a constrictor knot for the purpose, or a frustrator knot would work just as well, but a transom knot sure looks like a strangle knot to me.  Second, why employ lashings when you can just use a simple strangle/constrictor/frustrator knot?  Lashings use up so much rope and seem to me to be much more difficult to get as tight.  If I want to fix two sticks together very securely I think I'll go with two constrictor/transom knots, for front and back.

[Erickson]

Just a couple of thoughts on lashings:

Lashing generally uses much thiner (and much cheaper) cordage than a single binding knot solution. Lashings are best left for semi-permanent bindings where you need a long lasting, stable connection. If you consider (probably incorrectly) that the many wraps of thin cordage in a lashing equals the tensile strength in the rope used for a single binding knot, then the difference comes down to friction and tightness. A lashing wins hands down in friction and with frapping turns you can tighten it until you can play it like a harp. Not a particularly good harp, but a harp 

K-

[Dan_Lehman]

There's a sort of "you're both right" answer to the question about
whether the Transom Knot is like the Constrictor or Strangle:  as you've
correctly noted, it is a Strangle knot (remove the objects:  the C.
would *evaporate*, but the Transom knot doesn't); but its geometry
is much like the Constrictor, with the objects in place.  AND, for that
matter, I think that a C. would work as well -- try it.

As for lashing, that is the proper/best structure for sure binding, in
many cases -- strength, security, and grip on the objects come from
the many wraps.  And you should be able to haul each wrap tight, much
tighter than the Transom knot.  But maybe some circumstances make
for easier tying & tightening with the simpler structure.

Inspired by this question, I just "invented" a new binder.  So, perhaps
I should go enliven the old, poorly patronized binders thread I began
circa the time of the Gleipnir awakening.

--dl*
====

[stebold]

Thanks for the great answers!  I'm satisfied, and I will check out the Binders topic that Dan mentioned.   

[Dan_Lehman]

Inspired by this question, I just "invented" a new binder.  So, perhaps
I should go enliven the old, poorly patronized binders thread I began
circa the time of the Gleipnir awakening.
--dl*
====

Or not:  as the particular novelty is envisioned as binding two cylindical
objects as does the Transom knot.  So, let me verbally illustrate it:

Use a bight / doubled-material,
and have the bight-end come up just on the one side of the lower object;
the bight legs run back around this object and across the top, cross-object,
and down around this other side of the lower object,
and up back across the cross-piece to reeve through the bight-end
and haul back up beneath the first crossing of the cross-piece
--which is the locking nip for the ends.  It might help to bring the ends
up through their legs, as it were, to help position them for being nipped
against the cross-piece.
Eh, it's an idea -- an ELFEK (Empirically Less-Frequently Encountered Knot-structure).

There is a problem:  if the two objects are of fairly low friction,
it's possible to haul the entire material around without it really
tightening (it just flows around the objects)!

--dl*
====

[stebold]

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Photo, please.

[Dan_Lehman]

Words need to be given use/worth, lest they always fail us.

This is a simple structure.  Essentially, it's a fig.8 of material
(doubled, so to have that bight-end (well, otherwise one could
make an eye there)) laid atop the upper cross-piece and the
halves of the '8' looping down around the lower piece.
And on one side the bight-end points is drawn upwards
by the tail-ends reeved through it, and those being pulled
back beneath a crossing at the center of the '8' to nip them.

UPDATE WHILST TYPING:
One can sort of Gleipnirize this by incorporating a TurNip for
the nipping, and thereby remove dependence of the aforementioned
structure upon having convex surfaces to nip against; and one can
change the overall shape of the binding material from an '8' to an 'O'.

Again using doubled material (long bight), with the bight generally
set to be pulled from coming around one object,
reeve ONE of the ends through the bight, and form a TurNip in it
with both ends passing through this.  The one end will (make a TurNip
and then ...) pull 2:1-ishly through the bight and both will go through
the TurNip (in opposite directions).  Thus, the TurNip will be given
tensioning force pretty directly.

--dl*
====