Single Locked Cow hitch II

[xarax]

   A disadvantage of the (Single) Locked Cow hitch is that, although it is TIB ( in its slipped-tail form, (1) ), it can only be loaded from the one end. Trying to deal with this, I had tied the "tight hitch" shown in the attached pictures. It is TIB ( and it can be tied in-the-bight, starting from the Cow hitch, very easily ), and, once pre-tightened, it can be loaded by any end, or by both ends.
   Its disadvantage is that it can not be untied as easily and instantly as the original Locked Cow hitch - and perhaps that, at the first sight, to tie it in-the-bight may not seem so intuitively simple and obvious. 

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4673

[enhaut]

"it can be loaded by any end, or by both ends."

I had to take a try at that considering it's a excellent characteristic for an hitch.

Again maybe this was done before; from the base at picture 1, simply go around the spar and pass through openings.
One can use opposite opening (x) but I dont see any advantages.

Sadly it's not TIB but I believe this hitch can be loaded both ways.

Picture 1 the base
Picture 2 different states of the hitch

[enhaut]

 The disadvantage of your hitch is that the initial symmetry is distorted under heavy loading, so, at the end, the two locking openings, the "keyholes", do not nip the penetrating lines with equal force. Moreover, pre-tensioning the nub while it lays on the pole tends to widen it, rather than shrink it, so one has to pre-tension it in-the-hand, and then he can not utilize the mechanical advantage offered by the Cow / ZigZag configuration.

I just tried using the "central" opening (it's not an opening you have to widen the torsion in the middle of the base to access it)
Now the hich is more tight some deformation yes but much less. Try it!
Sorry no lux enough here for good photos believe me the hitch is tight enough now that I use this new solution.

[xarax]

.

[xarax]

   I can not predict which of the two can be pre-tightened by bare hands more tightly, this Bull Pretzel hitch, or the Bull Clove hitch (1) - because it seems that, although the Clove "lock" is tighter, the "Pretzel" configuration enables, perhaps, a more efficient utilization of the mechanical advantage offered by the underlying Cow / ZigZag U-turning path of the Standing Part on the surface of the pole. 

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.0

[xarax]

   One may wonder, why we had to wait 4 years, from the time those similar hitches ( in the way their "locking" mechanisms work ) were presented in (1), until we were able to find the Bull Pretzel hitch - which is even simpler than them ? I mean, I reckon that if I had waited a little longer, I would had probably learned this hitch from its creator Himself ! 
   It was not the nipping and "locking" properties around penetrating lines of the overhand knot, or the Pretzel, or the axially or point symmetric "fig.8" knot, or the Clove, that were overlooked or were underestimated. The most essential element that I had not realized at that time, was that I had to start from the Cow hitch - that is, the penetrating lines, the continuations of the ends, should, right after they enter into the nipping / locking structure, move around the pole in a symmetric regarding themselves way, in the same clockwise or counter-clockwise direction - and not in a symmetric regarding the pole way, the one clockwise and the other counter-clockwise, as I had thought they would better do, in order to be weaved into a more balanced, stable knot. The nub of a "tight" 2-wrap hitch does not need to be balanced by the pull of each of the two wraps from a different side of the pole ! As the ends of the wraps are "locked" into them, the nubs are balanced, even if both the on-going and both the returning legs of the wraps leave the nubs from the same side. Moreover, what is paramount for a really "tight hitch", is not only to incorporate a tight nipping/locking structure, and remain tight, but to allow us to pre-tension it as tightly as possible, and become tight, right in the first place - and that is only possible if we utilize the mechanical advantage offered by the zigzag path of the Standing Part on the surface of the pole, of the humble yet marvellous Cow htch.
   So, the "key" which enabled us to solve this problem was not a particular tight "locking mechanism" of the Standing and the Tail Ends, but the mechanism which helps us to pre-tighten the hitch as tightly as possible by pulling those ends - and this was the mechanism of the zigzag-like Cow hitch.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3197

[Dan_Lehman]

   Congratulations, enhaut ! 
   We have found what we were searching for : a simple," tight" and TIB hitch, [that] can be loaded by any end, or by both ends.

Yea!

Several years ago, I found, in a small maritime museum on the
Chesapeake Bay of Maryland, USA, an exhibit with a net having
brick weights tied by Ashley's #1696; but as they had a square
(reef) knot joining ends on the around-the-brick wrap, presumably
the tyer --and I think also Ashley-- didn't realize that the knot
was TIB!  It led me to fiddle around with other structures
that might suit such gearing, and I came up with Ashley's #1695,
a cow hitch noose; and I theorized that any such noose that
had a TIB *hitch* component was itself TIB --and I think
that this is proved by the possibility of flyping the hitch around
a twin bight of the structure's S.Parts drawn through it.

In any case, the knot just presented here will serve the function
nicely, as well; it's more surely tightened than #1696.


--dl*
====

[xarax]

it's more surely tightened than #1696.

   Hmmm... I am not so sure about that.
   Mind you that all those tight hitches should better be pre-tightened by pulling their two ends in an alternating way, the one after the other - so we can deliver all the force of our bare hands on each one of them, and exploit the mechanical advantage offered by the Cow - ZigZag mechanism more efficiently.
   THAT judgement is now my current problem : which one of the three TIB Jam knots / "tight" hitches / binding knots, the "new" Bull Clove hitch (0), the "recent" Bull Pretrzel hitch, or the "old" ABoK#60 hitch / ABoK#1126 ( double Ring knot, Tag knot, double Running knot ) / ABoK#1695 ( double Strap hitch )(1)(2)(3), is preferable ? ( I think I will better start a new thread on this issue...)
   
0.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748
1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.msg31275#msg31275
2.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.msg31771#msg31771
3.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.msg33153#msg33153

[enhaut]

A job well done Xarax, hats off to you (or your mouse!) for finding the correct openings leading to the "TIBility"

Concerning this feature I am not sure if I did it the right way, have a look please at the picture and tell me if my slipped overhand (pink rope) is correctly done.

On the same frame at the left lies the Bull Prezel hitch made of Dyneema on a slippery pole, I was thinking maybe... but no it is very stable.
Just good news.

[xarax]

   It should be mentioned that this hitch can be tied very tightly, even around a pole of a small cross section - or around a "hitched" / main line of the same diameter as the "hitching" / attached line. Therefore, it can be used in some applications where we want a semi-permanent such joint, which will be able to remain firmly attached in its initial position on the main line even if/when the end(s) of the attached line are not pulled any more - as a substitute to the less tight Prusik, for example.
   

[xarax]

   Given the ability of this tight hitch to grip even a same-size penetrating line very efficiently, I had tried to use it as a nub of an adjustable loop. It works, but since we have the much more easily and quickly tied, and tied-in-the-bight, Pretzel loop, I do not see what more this hitch can offer in this role. 
   Now, in such an adjustable loop, one can pass the continuation of the returning eye-leg through the two openings of this nipping structure the correct-more secure way, from the "higher" to the "lower" openings ( that is, from the opening near the Standing End to the opening near the tip of the eye ), or the wrong-less secure way ( which we can also denote as "Dan Lehman s Quick8 way"  ). However, I see no compelling reason we should load our toolbox with those two knots.
   ( Nevertheless, I had taken some pictures of them, where I had forced them to capsize and be turned into double bowlines. See the attached pictures, posted here for the record )   

[xarax]

   I would like to return to the hitch presented in the first post of this thread, and show a variation of it, which seems to me more satisfactory, if we want a hitch which is Either End Loadable (EEL).
   I had noticed that, in the knot shown in the first post, there are some angles of the "second" end ( relatively to the "first" end and to the axis of the pole ) which lead to some instability. In particular, when this "second" end is the one which is loaded, and if it is pulled hard and from some unfavourable orientations, the nipping turn around the leg of the bight ( which is formed in its continuation ) may rotate, and the angle between its own free end and the "locked", "first" end may cease to be close to the optimum, "right" angle ( 90 degrees ).This may lead to a weakening of the locking mechanism, because the two ends may slide the one on the surface of the other ( as their contact area will be increased, they will not "bite" each other deep enough any more ), the "first" end will slip through the "lock", and the corresponding wrap will release its tight grip on the hitched object.
   I think I had addressed this issue, by changing the path of the second leg of the nipping turn, as shown in the attached pictures. The hitch in this variation of the original Locked Cow hitch remains TIB, and also remains EEL, it is as easily tied in-the-bight as the variation shown in the first post, and its ends are locked equally well. Moreover, I think that now the orientation of each of the two ends relatively to the orientation of the other, and to the orientation of the axis of the pole, does not play any significant role : once locked, both ends remain locked, and any influence the pulling of the one may have on the other, does not weaken the locking mechanism, whatever the angle between them and the axis of the pole might be.
   By coincidence, just a few hours ago I had read some comments of dan Lehman, on the original Locked Cow hitch, which made me mad, as always...   However, I believe that this new variation will address, to some degree, an issue he has pointed out there, that it is better if the locking mechanism of the ends does not require their "squeeze" by the surface of the hitched object.

I continue w/doubts and want... independence of pinning tail vs. object, please!  Let's pin tail with cordage alone, and be sure!)   

   
   Of course, such independence can be achieved 100% only in the hitches-nooses, like the Bull Clove hitch, not in the snug hitches, like the Locked Cow hitch - but I believe the variation shown in this post is more satisfactory regarding this matter.

   Note 1 :
   Although those variations can be loaded by both ends, indeed ( i.e., they are EEL = Either End Loadable ), they can not be pre-tightened by both ends ! The continuation of the "second" end contains a nipping loop, which does not allow any further transfer of the tension to the corresponding wrap. If one demands such a feature, he should tie a tight hitch-noose, like the Bull Clove hitch.
   Note 2
   The first time I tied this hitch was when I tried to modify the original Locked Cow hitch, so it could "work" even if it was tied around a Gargantuan pole !    After the recent discussions on the versatility of an EEL TIB knot, be it a loop or a hitch, I got rid of the overhand knot tied on the "second" end, so the hitch, even when/after it will be loaded by this end, will remain easy to untie ( overhand knots and fig.8 knots clinch tightly around themselves, forming rope-made ratchet mechanisms which accumulate tensile forces, and eventually jam ). It was the general geometry of the overhand knot that was needed to form the nipping "neck", not the toplogy - so, the simple nipping loop used in the hitch presented in this post is enough - and allows the knot to remain TIB.
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4975.msg32850#msg32850

[Tex]

It seems to me that the better a hitch is at securing its tail, then the worse it may be at binding and that's especially true if you require it to be secured without use of the object. 

To be good at binding you need as much unhindered rope tansferring tension for as many turns as possible.  The ideal binding hitch is a staple driven into the tail of the rope, after passing it around the object a few times.  If however, you must use friction, to bind it, then you must use friction from upstream rope to bind it you will partially lock out the tension not just at the tail but farther upstream.  To get any tension you must lock the rope eventually, but cutting off turns early, cuts off mechanical advantage. For continuous unkotted(no true versatackle) rope, mechanical binding advantage is all about turns, zigged, zagged, or circled ones.  This is all a balancing act.  The advantage to pinning the tail against the object seems to be that you use less friction budget from the rest of the rope. You can snag twice as hard on the tail as the upstream that way and cut 1/3 of your tension off upstream and 2/3 at the tail (closer to the staple method).

 On the other hand, and I think this is dl's point maybe?  How good does a tight hitch really need to be at binding?  That depends a bit on what angles you're tugging at probably. Obviously you want some binding or you'd use a fixed loop instead.  Still there's a scale probably between binding and security.

[xarax]

   More pictures of this EEL Locked Cow hitch.
   In order to tie it in-the-bight, I believe that it would be easier for the knot tyer to "see" it as a Cow hitch with an added, third wrap, which first "swallows" one of the other two, and then shrinks, to become a nipping loop, encircling the end leading to the other wrap and the tip of the Zig Zag ( the tip of the U-turn of the path of the Standing Part on the surface of the hitched object ). Once again : The "third", added wrap, swallows one of the other two, and then shrinks, and becomes the locking nipping loop.
   Of course, the tying in-the-bight of the original Locked Cow hitch is more conceptually simple and straightforward, because all one has to do, is to tie a common Cow hitch in-the-hand, then insert it in the pole, and then pass the one end "under" the other, around the one leg of the bight, and finally under the two wraps. However, I believe that if, in this EEL variation, one visualizes the nipping loop as a shrunk third wrap, he can easily figure out how to tie the knot in-the-bight, starting fro a Cow hitch, without having to remember anything else.
   There is another way of tying this hitch in-the-hand and in-the-bight, in which we do not start from the Cow hitch, but from the bowline ( the "Eskimo" bowline ). If we "see" the nipping loop as an "Eskimo" bowline s nipping loop, it becomes immediately obvious : all we have to do, is to form a bight on the returning eye leg of an "Eskimo" bowline, twist it 180 degrees, and then reeve it through the nipping loop. The eye of the "Eskimo" bowline, and the eye of this reeved bight, become the two wraps of the hitch. Tying the knot this way, we may claim that it can also be considered as a two-eye noose, which encircles the object, shrinks, and forms a two-wrap hitch. Unfortunately, the inherent structural relation with the Cow hitch is concealed / lost that way - but the tying of the knot become so easy, that it will be difficult to persuade a knot tyer to use the tying method which starts from the Cow hitch, just because it is conceptually, only, simpler !     

[Tex]

Ok, I withold application of my last post.  While the tail is restricted  by a previous wrap, it's not clear here how much the previous wrap is restricted by the tail.