just double checked the michoacon, mine's different and sits sweeter.
I haven't encountered the exact formation that you present,
but in some sense it IS the
michoacon slightly altered on the
finishing tuck --on opposite side of the object rope.
But, then, the
m. is intended to be loaded on both ends,
not one, like the
Prohgrip (aka
"Blake's hitch"); this is quite
a difference.
What you present is thus more like the
Prohgrip (
Blake's) but with
the tail reaching back
and then tucking the opposite way
through (just) a single turn of the near-loaded helix (whereas
Prohgrip tucks up through two turns, in the standard
form of the hitch. So --though I'm yet to play with the hitch--,
I would expect your hitch to be well gripping on same-diameter
lines, which is a strong point of the
Prohgrip (and a common
arborist circumstance, one of two forms of climbing).
Heinz Prohaska --the earlier discoverer of
"Blake's hitch", hence my
invention of that name...-- points out that the number of coils
of the knot and extent of tucking the tail can be adapted
to conditions : more tucking for stiff ropes, more untucked-under
coils for slippery but flexible ropes. And, YMMV per person who
will be loading the knot.
Tuttle, thanks for sharing your invention and experience!
Cheers,
--dl*
====
