And then there come the **multiples** of these two
binders, where I think one will find the constrictor
to be of diminishing appeal :: going "multiple" means
that the width/length --span along bound axis-- will
increase, and increasingly the C.'s had-been-perpendicular
(to axis) ends will be separated; whereas the S.'s will
remain parallel.
With the strangle, one can use several wraps for making
a whipping, and put in an extra crossing of the buried
ends :: I find that in mason line 4-5 wraps work well with
the extra crossing; with 30#? nylon monofilament fish line,
7-8 (and I usually will finish the knot with a bight from the
whipped-rope's end (i.e., bight'd whipping tail points INwards
along line) and put in a few wraps of sailmaker's whipping (is it?)
in that, then cutting both of the whipping tails short at the
end of the rope).
The strangle also can work nicely with a Gleipnir'd sort of turn
in the middle (i.e., one of its "multiple" wraps will wrap ONLY
the two ends of the knot, not the bound object) ; this serves
well when binding something that isn't nicely round/convex,
so the nipping of pure cord-on-cord is needed.
--dl*
====
