Hi I "invented" this knot yesterday

[djh860]

It was suggested to me that this should be called a hitch bend.  Since my last name is Hoban how about the Hoban hitch bend. What do you think of that name?

[djh860]

I don't think you can tie a Lapp bend and then convert it into this knot.

It certainly is not a lapp bend with and extra tuck nor is it a sheet bend.  Please tie it.

I did.  It is a wrong-side Lapp bend ... then --reddish rope
(of your later photos) crossing over around the black SPart
instead of its tail, as is the "right-side" Lapp bend (and
then the tuck of the bight's tail).

Cute little knot by whatever name.

--dl*
====

[X1]

   Hoban Hitch bend.
   Hitch - Hitch bend.
 *H* - Hitch bend. ( the one link works as a *H* shaped rope segment )
   Hi I bend ( the first words of the title of this thread, the second link works as an *I* rope segment  )   
   HH bend or HI bend... Perfect ! 
 
   I cast my vote for HH bend or HI bend.

[Luca]

Hi X1,

   There is a number of OTHER knots that can also be considered as Lapp or anti-Lapp or wrong-side Lapp knots, with an extra tuck ! This description means nothing. In such a scale, in such a simple knot, one extra tuck is too many.
   Moreover, this description is wrong ! Because it does not reveal - rather, it hides - the fact that the mechanism which locks the pair of tails in place is completely different in this knot, from any Lapp-ish knot...

O.K.!

Because any small change to a simple configuration is capable to create a totally new situation. In other terms, it is most probable that a new thing will emerge.

I agree!

"anti-Lapp knot(/bend)" with an extra tuck:

The Luca who wrote this,I,personally,do not know;by the way, is not that I am totally disagree with what he writes, but personally I recognize myself better in the Luca that wrote this one:

The (interesting) bend that you show us, is(in shape) an "anti-Lapp knot(/bend)" with an extra tuck

Mind you, this also is not a big deal, but I recognize it better, because it contains some words like "(interesting) bend" (with the meaning of true bend, true end to end junction knot), and like "is (in shape) an "(in the sense (perhaps too implicit?) of" in shape, but not in function/mechanism ").

                                                                                                  Bye!

                                                                                                                   Luca

[X1]

I recognize myself better in the Luca that wrote this one:

The (interesting) bend that you show us, is(in shape) an "anti-Lapp knot(/bend)" with an extra tuck

I stand corrected.
However, I argue that we should not judge knots only by the things that can be seen ( the shape ), but also by the things that can not ( the distribution of forces ). Moreover, in such simple shapes, there is no point to say that something is something else, with an extra tuck - exactly as we can not say that a square is a triangle with an extra side, or number 2 is number 1 with an extra 1...

[Dan_Lehman]

It was suggested to me that this should be called a hitch bend.

That was an unwise suggestion.  There's no good reason
to cast this as a hitch --unlike there is for the sheet bend
& Lapp bend (in their simple forms : one part *knots* around
a simple *hitched-to* form of a bight).  (Going much beyond
acceptance of a bight as an *object* to be hitched to by seeing
all manner of structure being also vulnerable to such conception
begs the question of making the point at all!)

Since my last name is Hoban how about the "Hoban hitch bend".
What do you think of that name?

For now, "Hoban's bend" suits me.
(And please understand what I've said about the Lapp bend
---orientation of the bight (loading the other side from what
is loaded in the Lapp bend, then making a tuck of the bight's
tail.  This should not be a point of contention at this time!))


--dl*
====

[X1]

one part *knots* around a simple *hitched-to* form of a bight

  That is exactly what I see !  One part, the most convoluted one, "knotted " around a simple "hitching-to-something" form of a bight (around the less convoluted part). Or, one part, the less convoluted one, a "hitching-to-something" form of a bight, "knotted" within the other, more convoluted part.
  At the pictures I had shown ( provided we are talking about the same knot... ), the right-side, white-rope part is the less convoluted part, a form of a half hitch. The left-side, red-rope part is the more convoluted part, a form of an overhand-knot-looking shape, able to "knot" around the "hitching-to" it form of a half hitch.
  Of course, if one does not wish to see something, for whatever reason, he does not see it (and vice versa...) 
"The mind sees and the mind hears. The rest is blind and deaf."

[X1]

   Two more variations on the same theme. A Pretzel-like link, and a single hitch ( ABoK#49) attached on it, around its belly/spine, so that the two tails constitute a rope-made pivot.
   As it happens with the Sheet bend(s), we cannot predict which variation will be proved to be less slippery and more robust - we need detailed experiments, over a broad range of loading patterns and materials.
   

[X1]

   A friend of mine has drawn my attention to the fact that the family of bends presented in this thread are, in a general sense, similar to a marlinspike hitch. ( I had not thought of this correlation, but now it has been pointed out to me, I think that it reveals some common elements indeed - in the aspect as well as in the mechanics - of those bends and the marlinspike hitch, that are worth exploring father).
   I have not been able to figure out a simple(-er) initial configuration of a loose knot that would be easy to remember and set up, in order to tie those bends. I am not satisfied with the original tying method, because it starts from a more or less ordered, balanced configuration of the two links, yet the final result is obviously a very asymmetric knot. Somewhere at the course of the tying procedure, the two links are folded quite differently, but tying the bend(s) this way we can not follow thei individual course of each one of them. ( It reminds me the "miracoulous" folding of some knots to their completely differently-looking capsized forms.) I would prefer a tying method that would retain the general final aspect of the knot, be it symmetric or asymmetric, right from the start of the tightening of the loose knot, to the end, to the compact knot.
  So, I am asking this question here : Are those bends "similar" to a marlinspike hitch ? In what sense ? If yes, does this similarity help us to remember how to tie or to tie those bends, and/or to explain their mechanism ?

[X1]

  Those four variations of the H bend ( Hoban s bend, or Hitch bend ) come in two pairs. Let us call them A1, A2 and B1, B2. Each member of each pair is topologically equivalent to the other, and can be transformed into the other by a simple re-arrangement of the tails into the knot s nub. To indicate this fact, I decided to change the provisional labels I have used, in this way : A ( previous)=> A1 ( present ), D => A2, B => B1, C => B2. See the attached pictures, for the new labels. At the "1" pair, because of the particular location of the two tails into the knot s nub, the tail of each link is pushed against the tail of the other link. So, at the "1" pair, the "white" tail of the less convoluted hitch component ( the "white" rope ) is "first" pulled by its own standing part, and "then" it is pushed onto the "orange" tail - and, finally, it is secured by the friction forces generated along its mutual contact area with this "orange" tail -, while at the "2" pair the "orange" tail is the one which is "first" pulled by the "white" standing part, and "then" it pushes the "white" tail ( which, finally, by this sequence of pulling and pushing, it is squeezed in between the two legs of the "orange" standing part s first curve, on the one hand, and the straight segment of its own "white" standing part, on the other). The way the tails are secured resembles the Double Harness bend, in the first case, and the Angler s loop, at the second. 

[X1]

   The B1 and B2 variations of the H bend.

[X1]

   The way the tails are secured in the H bend is, in fact, not very different from the way the tail is secured in the Angler s loop. This can lead us to "connect the dots", to connect the tail of the one link to the standing end of the other - in the same not-so-clever way any bend can be "transformed" into a loop. However, the bends where the links are topologically equivalent to the unknot ( and not to the overhand knot, the fig.8 knot, etc.), generate, by this ad hoc transformation, post-eye-tiable ( bowline-like ) loops, which are more useful and, regarding some applications, safer knots, too. ( After the release of the loop, there is no 'relic" of the previous knot s nub that remains tied on the standing part, and can become a source of a safety problem, if it is caught somewhere ). So, we can turn the H bend(s) presented in this thread into post-eye-tiable loop(s), and see what happens.
   Of course, the original simplicity of the parent bend is always lost, and the knot becomes another animal - not only because its shape is changed, but because its loading is very different. When we look at a knot, we can not, unfortunately, see deep enough, watch the the tensile forces running through the tangled segments of the rope. That has been a cause of confusion, and many knot tyers do not understand how different are two superficially "similar" knots, that "look" the "same" - the common bowline and the Sheet bend, for example...
   Regarding the general mechanism and the particular way the tail is secured, the H loop based on the A2 variation of the H bend reminds me the Fontus bowline, presented some time ago at (1) ( See the third attached picture).

 1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4116.msg26738#msg26738