A binder variation base on ABOK 457

[enhaut]

A binder variation base on ABOK 457

In a recent post Xarax pointed to me the Gleipnir binder which is fun to do.

Here I propose a binder base on ABOK 457 (noeud de gueule de raie) sorry I use the french version of the book!

Maybe somebody somewhere came to the same result as this one, the senior members will surely know.

This bender grips well, is easy to untie; the locking mechanism is on top, a half knot for the moment seems sufficient.
The whole apparatus is easy to learn.

enhaut

[Luca]

Hi enhaut,

Some time ago I tried some "around an object-binders" of the same concept using among others the Girth hitch and other its derivatives:with my great surprise I found that in my experience the use of the mere,simple Girth hitch leads to more effective results in terms of the tension obtained around the object and the "bite" of the hitch component around the two diameters of rope that wraps!

                                                                                                                       Bye!

[xarax]

... the use of the mere, simple Girth hitch leads to more effective results in terms of the tension obtained around the object...

Do you mean this :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.msg31275#msg31275

[Luca]

Hi xarax,

No, I mean the same knot as shown by Enhaut, but using a simple Girth hitch: what I happened to notice is that,compared to how it are built the "real" Gleipnirs, these similar type binders do not have a fully functioning self-locking mechanism (it is easy that one has to tighten by hand the hitch component), but once this is set, seem to work well.
In the thread linked below there are a couple of similar binders executed following (wrongly!) some guidelines by Dan Lehman:performing both of those binders using a simple Girth hitch or a simple Clove hitch, both I liked more , if only because it is easier to tighten the hitch component.

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4631.msg29962#msg29962

                                                                                                                          Bye!

[xarax]

  You mean, the returning eye legs enter into the Girth hitch s nipping "tube" from two opposite sides, and not through the same side, as in the Bull Cow/Girth hitch I show. So, there is no difference in the nipping structure, but in the orientation of the Standing Ends when they penetrate it.
  I have tried those solutions, and I came to believe that they are less tight than the "asymmetric" ones I show- because, by pulling both Standing ends at the same time ( as you have to do, otherwise the hitch, as a whole, will be translated or rotated on the pole s surface ), you tend to "open up" the locking mechanism, if those Standing ends enter through it from opposite sides. On the contrary, if they enter through it from the same side, you benefit from the mechanical advantage of the Cow/Girth hitch, and you do not run the danger to open up the "lock".
   I express it with other words, too : It is better if the Standing end(s) are perpendicular to the axis and the surface of the pole - you can pull them against the pole, each one separately or both of them together, at the same time, and also you, by pulling the Standing Ends as they enter from opposite sides, or the Tail Ends, as they also enter through opposite sides, do not "open up" the locked nipping tube.

P.S.
I bet that SS369 will see his beloved Prussic in your hitch shown in the first attached picture ...

[SS369]

I do see prusiks everywhere! 
That aside I( am offering the bull hitch based binder.
The main thing about this binder and it can work reasonably well in two different orientations (loops parallel around something or with individual loops around two separate objects, like the pipes of a radiator    ), is that the bull hitch needs to be dressed tightly before the binding action is applied.

The hitch does not do well at all if it is flipped over from what is shown in the attached picture.

SS

[xarax]

   It is tempting to use the long-nipping-tube solutions like the one shown by Luca at (1), in the case of a binder, too. I have tried this with a triple overhand knot as nipping structure, and it worked perfectly well - up to a point.
   The problem with such long nipping "tubes", is that they can easily rotate towards the one or the other direction - and their grip on the penetrating Tail Ends can either be enhanced - because the angle of the Tails Ends in relation to the loading axis can become more acute, less than 90 degrees, so those ends will form a "hook" - OR it can be released - because the angle of the Tails Ends will become more oblate, more than 90 degrees, so those ends will be straightened up, and become able to slip through the tube more easily.
   In other words : A two-eyes / one nub handcuff-type binder has the shape of two acute angle triangles, joined at their acute angle vertex. Such a shape is a very stable, triangulated form. However, if the central nub is quite long, the shape of the binder becomes two trapezoids, joined at their small edge - a much less stable form. ( See the attached sketch ).
   
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4631.msg29978#msg29978

[xarax]

I am offering the bull hitch based binder.

  It is the same as the Luca s Girth hitch based solution, only it uses the humble Cow hitch in place of Luca s Girth hitch. Derek Smith calls the Prussik a "double Cow hitch", so there is no much difference, either in function or in nomenclature.
  The longer nipping "tube" of the double Cow/double Girth/Prussik has its advantages, re its gripping power, and its disadvantages, re. its balance ( as I tried to explain in my previous post).
  Also, a longer nipping "tube" has enough room to encircle a twist between the two ends, which enhances its gripping power much more - but then the pulling of the Standing Ends themselves becomes very difficult, and we run the danger to not be able to pre-tension the hitch as much as we wish, due to too much friction.
  Gentlemen, try the Bull Clove hitch again and again, and you will be convinced for the advantage of having both Standing Ends coming in/out from the same side of the nipping / constricting - and, in the case of the Clove hitch, jamming, too ! - structure. Or, if you find it time consuming to dress it properly, try the asymmetric, albeit very tight, Bull Girth hitch. To be able to pull the ends of the hitch against the axis and the surface of the pole, and not parallel to it, is a great advantage, that tightens the hitch without deforming the locking nub - a problem of the Constrictor, for example.
   Of course, if the application demands a hitch where we can only pull ends in a lengthwise orientation relatively to the pole, we should use solutions where the Standing Ends enter/exit into/from the nipping structure through/from two sides. Then, the 2U s hitches shown at (1) are also interesting.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3104.0   
   
 

[Luca]

  You mean, the returning eye legs enter into the Girth hitch s nipping "tube" from two opposite sides, and not through the same side, as in the Bull Cow/Girth hitch I show. So, there is no difference in the nipping structure, but in the orientation of the Standing Ends when they penetrate it.
  I have tried those solutions, and I came to believe that they are less tight than the "asymmetric" ones I show- because, by pulling both Standing ends at the same time

Is perhaps a little bit off topic here,since I speak now of knots that have the type of symmetry of the Clove hitch based binder  of the knots shown above,rather than the type of (a-)symmetry of the Girth hitch based binders shown in this thread by Enhaut and in the first diagram that you reproduce above(which,i admit,as regards the geometry shown there, is not exactly suited to reproduce and illustrate a "Prusik version" of the binder shown by enhaut),but the binders that you show in this thread http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4818.msg31377#msg31377 seems to me to fall into the same category of this "Clove-hitched" + "have to pull both ends" binders, I think it's the same mechanism/knot construction using both the Clove hitch(that you effectively cite there) and the Strangler/Double Overhand knot(with the ends of the rope oriented in the one or the other direction),I miss something?

[Luca]

Hi SS,

I( am offering the bull hitch based binder.

The Prusik,or the Bull hitch,or the Cat's Paw hitch,or the "Cloved Bull hitch"by xarax and estar, are better than the simple Girth hitch as hitches,but ,please, try the simple Girth hitch for this "two ends/arms pull around a(large?)object"-binder,and tell me something if you want(limits included)!Thanks!

                                                                                                                    Bye!

[xarax]

... the binders that you show in this thread http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4818.msg31377#msg31377 seems to me to fall into the same category of this ... "have to pull both ends" binders

   Yes, indeed, the more you approach the mechanism of the initial Gleipnir binder, which does not use a long nipping "tube", the less you are able to handle each of the two ends independently of the other. A longer nipping tube, be it a double overhand, a triple overhand, a single- or double-coil Clove or Girth / Cow hitch, offer more inner room, where each returning eye leg or Standing End can move, so it can be pulled and be re-adjusted, without influencing the state of the other leg or eye, without unlocking it.
   However, if you go too far towards this direction, you start having problems with the balance / stability of the mechanism ( if used as a mid-air binder ), as I tried to explain in my previous posts.
 
  We try to tie a shorter or longer nipping mechanism on the middle of the line, in the case of a mid-air binder, or on the surface of the pole, in the case of a tight hitch. We pass the ends of the returning eye legs or the ends of the wraps through this nipping "tube", and we adjust / pre-tighten the binder / hitch. An L-shaped deflexion of the Tail ends helps them take the shape and work as "hooks", so it helps the nipping "tube" to grip them and work as a "handle" - but a very acute deflexion can present difficulties in adjusting / pre-tightening. A "twist" of the Tail ends inside this "tube" is beneficial, as we already saw even in the case of the single-coil Gleipnir, in the simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir - but a too convoluted entanglement between them can also hinder the easiness with which we should be able to adjust or pre-tighten any mid-air binder or tight hitch.
   We are under the shadow of this huge Gleipnir tree, which leaves a very small quantity of new light to arrive on us, so a little room for any real, worth the trouble improvements - but which has enlightened our understanding of all our "old" knots so much - including our understanding of the bowline ! So, no wonder that the task of finding something well-balanced, in form, amount of material and moves required to tie it, security and efficiency, is not so easy.

[xarax]

  Luca, I suppose you have tried those three variations, shown again in Reply#5 here, for some time now. If you would like to evaluate them, what grade, from 1 to 10, would you give to them ?
  I prefer the first one, and, if the rope is very sleek, I entangle the Tail ends with one "twist" : the result seems a rock-solid hitch - the only problem is how one unties this thing !
 

[SS369]

Hi SS,

I( am offering the bull hitch based binder.

The Prusik,or the Bull hitch,or the "Cloved Bull hitch"by xarax and estar, are better than the simple Girth hitch as hitches,but ,please, try the simple Girth hitch for this "two ends/arms pull around a(large?)object"-binder,and tell me something if you want(limits included)!Thanks!

                                                                                                                    Bye!

Hi Luca.

I have tried the prusik, the bull , the clove and and the girth hitch bases. My take is that the prusik is not as suited to this configuration as the tube shape and the multiple coils don't actually cinch down on the tails as well as the other three.

Using the 6mm accessory cord shown in my picture above, the clove based binder does not dress and set well without furious jerks and rearranging of the coils. Too much work for very little gain and not great holding power, imo.

The girth hitch works a lot better, with this same cord and easily dressed and set.
The bull hitch base does as well as the girth with a bit more dressing.

I feel that these will not be good binders for any soft items to be bound. Or for large ropes around small diameters.

It is all an interesting exploration though.

To enhaut: Welcome and thank you for the cats paw based binder. Having tried it before adding to the discussion I found that it is very much material dependent. Try it out for yourself using a rope of stouter and stiffer construction.
It does perform well using solid braid nylon and laid 3 strand nylon. In poly rope it slips too easily.

[xarax]

It does perform well using solid braid nylon and laid 3 strand nylon. In poly rope it slips too easily.

  Perhaps because nylon is stretchy, and can accumulate any tension induced into it during a pre-tensioning phase. In other words, it "remembers" the pulling, and offers it back when it is needed.
  Have you tried the same knot, with two double instead of two single nipping loops ? I guess that the double nipping loops will offer some more grip, without any additional difficulty in tying. 

[SS369]

It does perform well using solid braid nylon and laid 3 strand nylon. In poly rope it slips too easily.

  Perhaps because nylon is stretchy, and can accumulate any tension induced into it during a pre-tensioning phase. In other words, it "remembers" the pulling, and offers it back when it is needed.
  Have you tried the same knot, with two double instead of two single nipping loops ? I guess that the double nipping loops will offer some more grip, without any additional difficulty in tying.

Hi xarax.

Part of the reason I believe the performance is better is because the rope is soft/deformable and so closes down to one diameter and smaller. The elasticity is another plus in some circumstances too.

I am unsure of which variation you are asking about? And I am specifically trying to remain using the binder(s) in the orientation as presented by enhaut in this thread. Not the "handcuff" design.

SS