♥gleipnir

[TMCD]

dmacdd,

That's how I'm tying the Gleipnir except it looks like you're pulling the bitter ends parallel with the bound object...I'm pulling perpendicular. Regardless, this is an amazingly simple and effective knot but I think it works better in rope that's not particularly slick. I can get one heck of a lock just by pulling the bitter ends with my hands. This would be very effective in tying off four or five logs to be carried into the house for the fireplace! I'll use it for my fishing poles when in transport to the lake.

I can't seem to get the proper result tying the xarax binder, even though I'm following your pictures closely. The end result I get is nothing like the end result in your picture.

[dmacdd]

dmacdd,

That's how I'm tying the Gleipnir except it looks like you're pulling the bitter ends parallel with the bound object...I'm pulling perpendicular. 

I'm amazed you get a satisfactory result by pulling perpendicular to the bundle.  You have to pull parallel to the bundle, at least for the final pull, in order to allow the seizing turns to close fully.

[dmacdd]

Definitive (I hope) comparative assertion of the structures of the Xarax binder and the Gleipnir binder, in the attached photographs.

[Dan_Lehman]

The Gleipnir and Xarax's inverted Gleipnir are essentially
the same structure if not pressed against a surface --they differ
only in the orientation of the turNip to the circle of the binding
structure.  To this, there is then the orientation of the tails being
passed through the turNip --both in relation to each other
and to their approach to the turNip.  None of these structures
impresses me as binding very well around a solid, round object
--they shine when surface contact is slight.

In the original thread on this structure
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.75
--which I'd think would be the reference for "correctness"--,
I presented four possible orientations of the structure, in post#84/pg.6.

As I pointed out above, a faster-/tighter-binding like structure
is formed by passing a bight around the object/bundle
and forming the turNip in this bight tip, through which the
two ends --coming to it from the opposite direction to close this
binder-- pass through the coil/turNip from opposite directions
--to be hauled tight pulling against each other and perpendicular
to the axis of binding.  Doing this will see tension delivered
immediately to the turNip as the drawing out of tails
pulls the bight-end (turNip) ever farther in tightening the binding.

(I'll leave it to someone photographically inclined to quickly post
a photo of this structure.  It should be easily (con)figured, and of
interest, esp. to those realizing the inadequacy of the Gelipnir
in some cases.)

This variant structure might be best at setting tight, but it suffers
also from the charge of *material inefficiency* --that it isn't possible
to make a binding with minimal material : one of the hauled-out
ends will be left as waste (the other can be cut short and its stock
taken away for other use, e.g., binding the other end of some
bundle of trash-pick-up cuttings).

There are some *material-efficient* binders, however.  I showed
(also in the original Gleipnir thread --op. cit.) a structure
used for a temporary tensioner on a shelving frame, which if
seen as a continuous-circle binding gives an efficient binding,
with a lone end to be trimmed short, and incorporating some
eye knot.  The turNip is formed in the eye-knot's eye, and
its S.Part circles the bound object to pass through this turNip
and then around again to pass through again but in the opposite
direction; it is hauled tight possibly by pushing against the
turNip with one hand to help keep the binding from just
rotating around the bound object instead of tightening.


--dl*
====

[dmacdd]

The Gleipnir and Xarax's inverted Gleipnir are essentially
the same structure if not pressed against a surface --they differ
only in the orientation of the turNip to the circle of the binding
structure.  

Yes. I had not recognized this myself until yesterday when working on really understanding the Gleipnir. I chose the way of presenting the two in the photographs in the preceding post so as to make the similarity clear.

To this, there is then the orientation of the tails being
passed through the turNip --both in relation to each other
and to their approach to the turNip.  None of these structures
impresses me as binding very well around a solid, round object
--they shine when surface contact is slight.

I find that the Xarax inverted Gleipner grips slightly  better than the correct Gliepner when they are both pressed firmly against a round object -- about as well as the constrictor. This may be due to its being easier to tighten the XiG in this case.

My incorrect belief that the XiG bound much tighter than the G was dues to mistying the G in the way that the Layhands site ties it -- in a way that makes one of the turns that binds the bundle ride on the other, making it difficult to properly tighten the "G". (Someone may debate the scare quotes -- topologically it was a G.)  I don't know why I extend this incorrect impression that G was inferior to the case when G is floating in air.  Sheer thick-headedness probably.

In the original thread on this structure
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.75
--which I'd think would be the reference for "correctness"--,
I presented four possible orientations of the structure, in post#84/pg.6.

I cannot understand that post. I note that the line drawing attached to it does not show the Xarax bnder.

As I pointed out above, a faster-/tighter-binding like structure
is formed by passing a bight around the object/bundle
and forming the turNip in this bight tip, through which the
two ends --coming to it from the opposite direction to close this
binder-- pass through the coil/turNip from opposite directions

I don't understand this. My mental picture at this point is of the ends
coming from the same direction since the cord was doubled to form the bight passed
around the bundle?

--to be hauled tight pulling against each other and perpendicular
to the axis of binding.  Doing this will see tension delivered
immediately to the turNip as the drawing out of tails
pulls the bight-end (turNip) ever farther in tightening the binding.

(I'll leave it to someone photographically inclined to quickly post
a photo of this structure.  It should be easily (con)figured, and of
interest, esp. to those realizing the inadequacy of the Gelipnir
in some cases.)

I'll photograph it when I understand it.

This variant structure might be best at setting tight, but it suffers
also from the charge of *material inefficiency* --that it isn't possible
to make a binding with minimal material : one of the hauled-out
ends will be left as waste (the other can be cut short and its stock
taken away for other use, e.g., binding the other end of some
bundle of trash-pick-up cuttings).

There are some *material-efficient* binders, however.  I showed
(also in the original Gleipnir thread --op. cit.) a structure
used for a temporary tensioner on a shelving frame, which if
seen as a continuous-circle binding gives an efficient binding,
with a lone end to be trimmed short, and incorporating some
eye knot.  The turNip is formed in the eye-knot's eye, and
its S.Part circles the bound object to pass through this turNip
and then around again to pass through again but in the opposite
direction; it is hauled tight possibly by pushing against the
turNip with one hand to help keep the binding from just
rotating around the bound object instead of tightening.

Cool! See attached photos.

EDIT:  The binder may be loosened by pushing toward each other the
turnip and the knot which provides the loop in which the turnip is formed.

[dmacdd]

As I pointed out above, a faster-/tighter-binding like structure
is formed by passing a bight around the object/bundle
and forming the turNip in this bight tip, through which the
two ends --coming to it from the opposite direction to close this
binder-- pass through the coil/turNip from opposite directions

I don't understand this. My mental picture at this point is of the ends
coming from the same direction since the cord was doubled to form the bight passed
around the bundle?

" through which the two ends --coming to it from the opposite direction "

Ding! Lights go on. Pennies drop. -- Reading comprehension grade 3.

Nice little, e.g., bag closer.  This one is almost indistinguishable in appearance from the Xarax inverted Gleipnir, in spite of being quite different in its structure. You can really tighten it hard by pulling at right angles  to the plane defined by the turns that bind the bundle.

EDIT:  May 16, 2011: This does not tighten or bind nearly so well as when the two working ends are wrapped together in a half knot (not shown), like the start of a reef knot, inside the two nipping turns.  When tied this way it is very hard to untie unless slipped.   It's advantage is, of course, that the doubled cord is passed only once around the bundle to be bound, while the other binders discussed in this thread require two passes around the bundle.

[xarax]

...binder should also be difficult to untie by just pulling one of the legs.

  In fact, this binder is easier to untie than the "Gleipnir binder" - because the two ends of the nipping coil are not in touch with the surface of the object in the vicinity of the knot s nub. So, we can easily pass one tail underneath one riding turn, pull it, and the knot is loosened immediately. (See attached picture) 

[knot4u]

The binders in Reply #35 & #34 are a winners, worthy of new threads.

The binder in Reply #34 is sort of like a Trucker Hitch.  At first I didn't like it because it requires more rope.  However, the more I tested it, I realized it's easier to get this binder tighter than the other binders in this thread.

[xarax]

   I had tried the "binder#35", as a hitch, ( along with some other, more complex, similar variations), but I had decided that it was somewhat inferior to the one finally presented: Now, if one wishes to use it as a free, "mid-air" binder, I suggest he uses it in the triple / threefold coil "tube" version ( actually, a coil tube with two and a half whole turns). I think that this longer length of the "tube" is required, so the tails have more room to better twist around each other/ embrace each other (See the attached pictures)

[Dan_Lehman]

   I had tried the "binder#35", as a hitch, ( along with some other, more complex, similar variations),
but I had decided that it was somewhat inferior to the one finally presented

What is it to try it qua hitch ?!
--that what would be here the "bound object(s)" is an object
the structure's snugged around and then the ends (both?)
are in tension with this object resisting?
But "the one finally presented" I take to be what is being
called the "Xarax G." and show here, and not qua hitch.
(You found the apple inferior to the orange?)

As for as binding force, I cannot see any comparison of the
prior structures to what I've presented and is here quickly
labeled "#35" --this latter one hauls tight and firmly nipped,
quickly, as was the design goal.  One of the shortcomings
of the Gleipnir (not always realized, mind) is that the
ends must transmit their tightening tension all the way around
the bound object(s) in order to deliver tightening force to
the turNip --I wanted something that sooner tightened
that component, and #34 & #35 do so directly/immediately.
(Think of binding boards:  in the G. the lines in setting
pull around all 4 corners to deliver tension to the turNip
whereas in #35 there are no corners between the hauled-out
ends and the nipping coil!)

But now I wonder at the above difference : if that "immediate"
tightening occurs w/o delivering force around the four corners,
then are the 3 *protected* sides too much losing out in this
tensioning?  Well, if the transmission is not so much impeded,
note that there is a theoretical *mid-point* between the twin
ends being hauled out and the coiled bight-end being drawn
towards the exiting ends --so that the tightening runs in opposite
directions only *half*-way around the bound object(s), not the
full circumference; at the *mid-point*, tension one direction
meets an opposite pull --each line's further *half* is being
tensioned from the other direction!

Now, if one wishes to use it as a free, "mid-air" binder,
I suggest he uses it in the triple / threefold coil "tube" version
( actually, a coil tube with two and a half whole turns). I think
that this longer length of the "tube" is required, so the tails have
more room to better twist around each other/ embrace each other

Pfft : I think you should tie it as shown previously around your
fingers and that would stop this wild conjecture !  Really, are you
finding the binding failing?  I'm concerned about putting in that
twist of ends, as it's friction to overcome to achieve tightening,
though present to resist loosening --the barter between what
one can overcome to get a firmer grasp, I guess.  (In a small
braided (3mm?) cord tied around a thigh, I got it darn-tootin'
tight w/just the 540deg turNip, and quicly so (the point
about a "*mid-point*" to the tensioning, above) !!  o0O0uch! )


 

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

In either the Gleipnir proper or the "xarax binder" form, for a perpendicular pull, it is necessary to cross the two ends that one will pull, in order not to open the turNip while pulling. This also implies a bit more friction to overcome, which is mostly not important, as it is not primarily intended to strangle the bundle, but to keep it bundled.

I don't really see a need for improving the Gleipnir more than Anthony Dahm suggested, by placing a row of turNips in sequence, which is rather easily done also in the way I usually tie it now. However, this is only needed where the friction is poor, so mostly I need not do it. Those "improvements" suggested so far are in my opinion not really improving the knot, but only complicating it. And I don't see an inverted form as different from the original form; when suspended in mid-air, it is just the same but upside down. As it does not need the support of another object, the supposedly harder binding by contact with the object is not an improvement in my opinion, it can only make the loosening more difficult. I haven't yet seen the Gleipnir fail, so for its original purpose, I regard the ease of untying as a boon, not a problem.

And of course the Gleipnir bites well in mid-air, that is its primary purpose, compared to the constrictor that needs the bound object's convex surface to provide nip.

I have used Gleipnir for various tasks around the house. For example, a sunshade that I put on the balcony was attached to one of the stanchions with Gleipnirs, and I have bound other objects too, as the electric outlet strips for the computer, that I bound to the feet of my table to hold them in place. In those places, the objects are rather square, and the nip is not supported by anything firm. In most places where I have used it, it has replaced variants of butcher's or packer's knots (as #187). The main virtue over those is that it is undone easily and the string can be used again.

But I also use it for rather permanent bindings, like the ones for the sunshade, where I cut the string when I take it down after the summer season.

Other variants of binders, like the one with a 540 degree turn in the bight that is passes are practical, but different from the Gleipnir, and not practical on the bike rack, as there is also the element of simplicity when making the knot with two splayed loops, just passing it over the load and around the rack both sides and then back to the top where the turNip is formed by making two opposing parallel intertwined half hitches which are collapsed into the turNip. The beauty of this knot is its simplicity and ease of both tying and untying, combined with just as much security as needed. Any expansion might make it more secure, but at the same time it loses a few of its desired features. I don't need it to be more secure, but I appreciate that it is so easily tied as well as easily opened.

[xarax]

  I had tried the "binder#35", as a hitch, ( along with some other, more complex, similar variations), but I had decided that it was somewhat inferior to the one finally presented:

What is it to try it qua hitch ?!
--that what would be here the "bound object(s)" is an object the structure's snugged around and then the ends (both?) are in tension with this object resisting?
But "the one finally presented" I take to be what is being called the "Xarax G." and show here, and not qua hitch. (You found the apple inferior to the orange?)

  As a hitch, around a round pole.
  "The one finally presented" refers to the original "simple hitch a la Gleipnir"(1), not the one shown in my previous post ! I have found the "binder#35" as a hitch around a round pole, inferior to the one finally presented in (1), so I did not published it. I am glad you managed to arrive there, too, so now we can compare apples to apples.  
The one shown in my previous post is a binder around a soft pillow, where the surface  does not presses/squeezes the coils tube. It is a "mid -air" "binder#35" with a three turns coil tube.  

  As for as binding force, I cannot see any comparison of the prior structures to what I've presented and is here quickly labelled "#35" --this latter one hauls tight and firmly nipped, quickly, as was the design goal.  

  The "binder#35" is OK as a mid-air binder.( And it is better still in the three-turns coil tube configuration I show in my previous post. Try it and you will see it at once.)  As a hitch - because the one end of the coil structure/tube leave it in different angles, than in "the one finally presented"-, it is somewhat inferior. The end of the coil structure/tube that remains in touch with the surface of the pole, does not contribute in the knot s nub being squeezed/pressed upon the hard surface of the object/pole. So, the knot s nub is not pressed/squeezed on this surface as hard as there, so the nipping force on the tails that are going through it is not as great. That is my attempt at a simple "theoretical" explanation of what I found in practice : Of course, there are many other things that should be taken into account. Your explanations of the differences in the different structures are interesting. You should have also considered the interaction of the knot and the pole, in the case of a hitch bound with those structures. Compare hitches to hitches, and "mid-air" binders to "mid-air" binders, that is, apples to apples.

  Pfft : I think you should tie it as shown previously around your fingers and that would stop this wild conjecture !  Really, are you finding the binding failing?

  I see you use my line : Remember the "Dan Lehman s finger" , or else, that I suggested putting into the Pretzel bowline ? I do !
  Why you do find such pleasure in twisting other people s words, is beyond my limited analytical powers...Perhaps it has to do with too much knot tying... I never found this "binder#35" "failing", and, of course, I never said something like that. Try to read my written lips, as I try to read your unpublished thoughts/notebooks...The  "binder#35"  is a nice variation of the Gleipnir, obviously, and it might hold better than the original Gleipnir, just because its coil tube is longer. The three turns variation I shoe my previous post is, for the same reason , better still. I had made the comparison of an apple to an apple, of the "binder#35", as a hitch, to the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir", presented in (1). Do this first, and then you can Pfff later, as much as you wish !    
   Now, the "binder#34" is not even an orange, it is a bunch of bananas !   Good binder, without any question, but we should compare it to the trucker s hitch, not to the Gleipnir, or the other similar simpler binders. I had tried a symmetric variation of it, in the way of the binder presented at (2). I think it is better still than "binder#34", but, again, we should compare apples to apples, and the binder presented at (2) should be compared to Versatackle, not t the trucker s hitch or the "binder #34".
   I think that those binders, #34 and #35 are good, but your binder presented at (3), is great. I suggest you try it with double, Gleipnir-like coils, and then ask dmacdd to post pictures of it !    
  

1).http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.0
2).http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.msg17414#msg17414  
3).http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1451.0

[Dan_Lehman]

What is it to try it qua hitch ?!
--that what would be here the "bound object(s)" is an object the structure's snugged around and then the ends (both?) are in tension with this object resisting?
But "the one finally presented" I take to be what is being called the "Xarax G." and show here, and not qua hitch. (You found the apple inferior to the orange?)

  As a hitch, around a round pole.

I would prefer you drop this mis-use of "hitch" : a hitch is understood
as a knot that (in basic form) is of one piece of flexible material tied
to some object with one end loaded (in resistance to the object), one
free.  Apparently, you want "hitch" to denote the nature of the object,
both ends still free.

  As for as binding force, I cannot see any comparison of the prior structures to what I've presented and is here quickly labelled "#35" --this latter one hauls tight and firmly nipped, quickly, as was the design goal.  

  The "binder#35" is OK as a mid-air binder.( And it is better still in the three-turns coil tube configuration I show in my previous post. Try it and you will see it at once.)  As a hitch - because the one end of the coil structure/tube leave it in different angles, than in "the one finally presented"-, it is somewhat inferior. The end of the coil structure/tube that remains in touch with the surface of the pole, does not contribute in the knot s nub being squeezed/pressed upon the hard surface of the object/pole. So, the knot s nub is not pressed/squeezed on this surface as hard as there, so the nipping force on the tails that are going through it is not as great. That is my attempt at a simple "theoretical" explanation of what I found in practice : Of course, there are many other things that should be taken into account. Your explanations of the differences in the different structures are interesting. You should have also considered the interaction of the knot and the pole, in the case of a hitch bound with those structures. Compare hitches to hitches, and "mid-air" binders to "mid-air" binders, that is, apples to apples.

 Why you do find such pleasure in twisting other people s words,
is beyond my limited analytical powers...Perhaps it has to do with too much
knot tying... I never found this "binder#35" "failing", ...

I didn't twist your words --you over react.  Simply, you suggested that
the #35 performed less well than others, that is all my "failing" means;
and that contrasts with my finding it noticeably better (in gaining grip
--it still suffers from wastage of material in its end(s), unlike #34).
And I find this gripping around semi-solid objects (my thigh); you show
your structures around such relatively small-diameter objects I wonder
at their viability there.  Even so, though, #35 should prove the more
quickly tighter & surer structure.

Now, the "binder#34" is not even an orange, it is a bunch of bananas !   Good binder,
without any question, but we should compare it to the trucker s hitch, not to the Gleipnir, ...

But it's a competition for the task of binding, and in the original
case the Gleipnir was put forward to bind things such as cut-up
twigs/branches, where the lack of a continuous convex surface
enables the frictional security of the structure (e.g., for the constrictor).
#34 is exactly to that task, sparing the wasted hauled-out end
(one or other of two, of the G. ), and giving immediate
tightening of the turNip, as its connection to the hauling end
is directly tightened, not waiting for transmission of force to circle
the object, overcoming the friction of all that.

but your binder presented at (3), is great. I suggest you try it with double,
Gleipnir-like coils, and then ask dmacdd to post pictures of it !    
  
1).http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.0
2).http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.msg17414#msg17414

Your list runneth under --there is no "(3)" : should I look at both
1 + 2, for 1+2 = 3 ?

 

[Dan_Lehman]

dmacdd,

That's how I'm tying the Gleipnir except it looks like you're pulling the bitter ends parallel with the bound object...I'm pulling perpendicular. 

I'm amazed you get a satisfactory result by pulling perpendicular to the bundle.  You have to pull parallel to the bundle, at least for the final pull, in order to allow the seizing turns to close fully.

This depends on the exact orientation of the ends:
if they turn (bend) around each other, then they
will be effectively *redirecting* the tension at this point
within the turNip and there should be little problem
--the force is against each other, and aside from the frictional
reduction of effect to the binding, the turNip can still
tighten around the tensioned ends.  But if the ends pull
against the turNip, then --yes-- it would be hard to get
a good tightening as the hauling would be working against
the turNip closing.

 - - - - - - - - -

Now, another observation about orientation:  Xarax's Inverted Gleipnir
should tighten better (note how he orients the ends, e.g.) around
a pipe e.g. because as he noted in reply to me the line leading
into the turNip are off of the object and pull hard into it
and also press the ends against/towards the (firm) object;
whereas in the (uninverted) G. there is friction bearing
against the feeds into the turNip of ends pressing them against
the object, giving some frictional impeding to the tightening.


--dl*
====

[dmacdd]

dmacdd,

That's how I'm tying the Gleipnir except it looks like you're pulling the bitter ends parallel with the bound object...I'm pulling perpendicular.  

I'm amazed you get a satisfactory result by pulling perpendicular to the bundle.  You have to pull parallel to the bundle, at least for the final pull, in order to allow the seizing turns to close fully.

This depends on the exact orientation of the ends:
if they turn (bend) around each other, then they
will be effectively *redirecting* the tension at this point
within the turNip and there should be little problem
--the force is against each other, and aside from the frictional
reduction of effect to the binding, the turNip can still
tighten around the tensioned ends.  But if the ends pull
against the turNip, then --yes-- it would be hard to get
a good tightening as the hauling would be working against
the turNip closing.

I think we were both wrong. The direction of pull for tightest result is about 45 degrees. This is the angle at which the turnip winds up perpendicular to the two ends it is binding -- in other words, this is the angle at which  the turnip winds up as small as it can be = as tight as it can be.