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.
To my mind, perhaps erroneously,
a hitch is understood as a knot that enables one piece of (flexible) rope to remain bound at one (solid) object, ( at a pole, for example ), so that one can pull the object by the one or both free ends of this knot.
A binder is understood as a knot that enables two or more pieces of (solid) objects, to remain bound together by means of one piece of rope. The
"simple hitch a la Gleipnir" was meant as nothing else that such a hitch. I had only made the comparison between the "binder#35"
as a hitch, in that sense, and
"the hitch finally presented" in my original post. How else we can call/denote those two quite different knot types ?
Now, comparing apples to apples, hitches with hitches, I have found that the "binder#35" , a
s a hitch, was-is somewhat inferior to the
"the hitch finally presented", so I had not included it in my original post, which was about hitches, and hitches only. I am glad you brought it into peoples attention again, as a "mid-air" "binder". Your audience has, evidently, not as few people as mine... And I would be more glad if you try and discover and admit that the three coils variation that I had presented in my previous post, is better still, just because its coil "tube" is longer, and enables the tails to better twist around/embrace each other before they exit the knot s nub.
"Shown here" is, obviously, not
a hitch , but
a binder, too, around a soft pillow. ( I use this trick just to make sure that the hard surface of a (solid) object does not interfere with the knot s nub in any way, like this I had tried to explain.)
Comparing apples to apples :
As
simple hitches, according to holding performance
1."the hitch finally presented"
2. The "binder#35",
3. The "Gleipnir hitch"
As "mid-air"
simple "binders":
1. The three coils "binder#35" variation (need for a better, descriptive name )
2. The two coils "binder#35" (need for a better, descriptive name )
3. The Gleipnir knot
As "mid-air"
complex "binders":
X. The double coil "S binder" ( I prefer to call this S binder as the
"Lehman binder")( dmacdd is kindly requested to post pictures f this great binder).
1. The double coil Versatackle-Gleipnir binder
2. The double coil Tucker s hitch-Gleipnir, that is presently named "binder#34" (need for a better, descriptive name )
(X= Unknown performance, to the time being. )
#35 should prove the more quickly tighter & surer structure.
(Compared to the
" simple hitch a la Gleipnir" , "binder#35" , as a
hitch around a solid, round object. i.e. a pole ).
Quickly,
may be,
tighter,
definitely not,
surer, (I doubt it but)
it remains to be seen.AGAIN, those are my findings about "binder#35"
as a hitch, in the sense described above.
you show your structures around such relatively small-diameter objects
Size matters !
And 95 % of them, poles or what else, are as "small" (?) as the ones shown in my pictures, due to the strength of common materials, ( wood, hollow metal tubes, etc.) and their common use in everyday life.
Of course, with the same diameter rope, around a larger diameter pole, the advantages of the
"simple hitch a la Gleipnir" over the other structures, are expected to diminish.
P.S. 1 : I apologize, because I forgot to include the reference (3) about the "S binder". I had since edited my post.
P.S 2 : I noticed your recent comments about the "hitch finally presented", at the second paragraph of reply # 43. Your debt is now 2570 $ ( 80 worthless words-US dollars less. That is a great reduction=gain ! )
