If the diameter of "front" hitched / bound cylinder-shaped object becomes larger,
we tend to "see" a Strangle; if it becomes smaller, we tend to "see" a Constrictor.
I'm not sure I concur in this,
but either way, if the apparent
front object is seen newly
as the
rear --easily done in the lower image--, then the actual
knot necessarily changes from one to the other.
IMO, when used in this "transom" binding, the two distinct
binders
swap characteristics --the better binding becomes
less so, as the effective geometries of nipping
in relation to the
object are switched around !! --very interesting. (My initial
reaction to Ashley's assertion @#385 of the
transom knot being
"a modification of the
constrictor" was that he was mistaken;
but I see now that there is merit to this, despite the knot alone
being a
strangle (it *strangles* the away object, but *constricts*
against the near one).
Two or more knots can be geometrically very similar, and so they can "work" in a similar way,
yet they can be topologically different.
Here, though, one must realize that the geometry of curvature
significantly differs : for a (canonical)
strangle the ends run
parallel with the round-cross-secional object, vs. those of the
constrictor running perpendicularly. In the *transom* binding,
there is essentially a like object inserted perpendicularly to the
knot-defining object between the area of entanglement and the
original object, thus switching the physical mechanim via this
change to the immediate surface geometry.
As the diameter(s) of the hitched / bound object(s)
should not determine the kind of the hitching / binding knot itself,
we conclude that both knots are implementations of the same knotting mechanism,
therefore they are essentially the "same" knot.
Or we don't, and conclude something more puzzling!
.:. a fascination worth indulging, whatever!
--dl*
====