A functional and beautifully symetrical EndBound of the Ezelius Eye Hitch / Loop

[KnotLikely]

It is an absolutely amazing knot.  I love it.  I haven't stress tested it to see what it holds up to in different ropes, yet.  I gave it my usual test on an old chunk of Edelrid Boa Gym rope which is the slipperiest that I have and my preferred rope for testing.

I found that leaning hard to one side could cause the knot to, through friction on one side of the eye or the other, not fail, because it simply cinches tighter, but to... Cinch tighter than I wanted.  But only sometimes.

I didn't like that.  It is an obscure case of me not leaving enough tail to truly yank on and movement loosening the knot.  This is a hitch that fights shrinking, after all.  It should do that a litter better.  That tail almost needs extra tension.

I thought about how to increase the bend radius of the almost straight standing line and I thought about keeping the tail tensioned more thoroughly.  I did what I have always gone to first for my previous knot experiments and I played with binding the tail end.

I present the beautifully symmetrical end bound version of the Ezelius adjustable eye hitch / loop.

https://ezelius.eu/knopar/ezeliusoegla/en.html

https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=6724.0

Images to follow shortly when I can shrink them to forum size.

[KnotLikely]

As tied on the website.  Oof.  100kb is a bit rough.

Front

Back

The hole I am putting the tail through for the End Bound move.

[KnotLikely]

Tied in reverse

Front

Back

Back again

Locked down tight.  Not as pretty, but stiffer on the movement than the original Ezelius knot.  The tail moves the loop tighter easily.  It is a handle.  Leave it longer.  The knot still slides up (open, larger loop) easily when tension is removed.

-I like the two mirrored bowline-like collar forms.  I tied it.  It was more stable and resistant to flogging, shaking and tension release than the original form.  It grips slightly harder in 2 of my climbing rated ropes and shows no change in the other three.  It bends the standing line slightly farther to the side meaning that it should take more pulling down the center line to cause a failure into a self tightening loop.  It looks so much more beautiful than the original and functions much the same or maybe slightly better.

Nothing much to see here except a pretty (unloaded) form and a possible small gain in functionality in specific ropes.  Maybe the tail is slightly safer.  I'll test it soon.  I'll likely forget to report back.

Personal Note: I'm at 3.5(?) years of using exclusively the End Bound Reverse Girth Hitch harness tie-in.  I took 12 falls today on a 5.12b and I untied.  I would have asked for help with my retraced 8.  Fingers were toast.

[agent_smith]

Hello KnotLikely,

I present the beautifully symmetrical end bound version of the Ezelius adjustable eye hitch / loop.

Presumably you are making a claim of originality - Yes?

The images presented in your opening post are a noose (which is a type of hitch).

I haven't as yet closely examined the structures in your reply posts... are they the same?

...

I did zero-in on something you typed:

Personal Note: I'm at 3.5(?) years of using exclusively the End Bound Reverse Girth Hitch harness tie-in.

Are you tying-in with a noose?
Are you able to confirm if you are tying-in with a noose?
Its a genuine question...

[Dan_Lehman]

[I'm a little unsure of the structure of this knot
from the nice but-knot's-too-sell-set-to-see-all
images --an exploded view would be good.
]

The images presented in your opening post are a noose (which is a type of hitch).
...
I did zero-in on something you typed:

Personal Note: I'm at 3.5(?) years of using exclusively the End Bound Reverse Girth Hitch harness tie-in.

Are you tying-in with a noose?

Given that the Tarbuck knot --also a noose-hitch'd eye--
is said to damage kermantle rope, and that knot has more
gripping contact with the main line than this noose-hitch's
single turn, I'm skeptical about this knot surviving serious
drop tests.

Should it have some slippage-tightening,
that raises a question about rope movement through
the tie-in points on the harness.

!?

--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

With specific regard to my questions at reply #3 and also Dan's post:

NOTE:
None of the following commentary is intended to be insulting or
disparaging. This is a technical knot geek forum - where complex
topics can be explored. I am proceeding on that basis.
(mere disagreements is not hate speech - disagreements are allowed).

The implication is that 'tying-in' to a rock climbing harness with a noose
for lead climbing applications is not optimal and can have damaging
effects to both to the harness and the rope itself.

As a general rule, in the entire history of climbing and mountaineering,
the recommended and optimal knot to use for 'tying-in' has been an
'eye knot'.
Eye knots have a non-slipping 'eye' (it does not slip and shrink when loaded).
Example:
A #1047 Figure 8 eye knot (aka Figure 8 loop) is regarded as an optimal choice
for tying-in a dynamic rope to a climbing harness.
Various inherently secure 'Bowlines' can also be used in lieu of #1047 Figure 8.
(eg the 'EBSB Bowline' is also a satisfactory choice).

A noose is a type of hitch.
A noose has an 'eye' that slips/shrinks when loaded.
A classic example of a noose is #409 Poachers noose (Double overhand noose).
Link: https://www.animatedknots.com/poachers-knot
The link above provides a good overview of the function of a noose.
EDIT NOTE:
The 'eye' of a noose might resist slipping/shrinking under load.
However, this resistance will only be valid up to a certain threshold of force.
This is true of a 'Purcell' - which will slip when a threshold of force is exceeded.
Link: https://www.animatedknots.com/purcell-prusik-loop-knot
By definition, all nooses have the inherent ability to adjust the size of the 'eye'
without untying the core of the knot.
The 'eye' of some nooses will slip immediately as load is applied (eg Poachers noose #409).
The 'eye' of other nooses will resist slipping/shrinking when load is applied - but only up to
a certain threshold of force. This is due to force being divided along each leg of the 'eye'.
The 'eye' is generally formed around its own S.Part.
And so load is divided 50% across each 'leg' of the 'eye'.
In some nooses, this 50% loading allows the 'eye' to resist slipping.
But this will only be true up to a limiting threshold.

The structure submitted by 'KnotLikely' at his opening post appears to be
a noose.
In a subsequent post, 'KnotLikely' suggest that he ties-in with a noose
for the purposes of lead climbing.

The question is one of intent.
That is':
"Is 'KnotLikely' intentionally tying-in with a noose (via a deliberate and willed act)?
If yes, this is exposing himself to high levels of risk, and goes against all
harness manufacturer recommendations.
Please refer to the attached images below.
Black Diamond and Petzl are both major manufacturers / suppliers of climbing harnesses.
I have extracted images from their user instructions.
Note that both recommend an 'eye knot' for tying-in.
The 'eye' is non-slipping under load.

...

Commentary:
'KnotLikely' might make the argument that his presented knot does not act
like a noose - and has a non-slipping 'eye'.
The evidence for this is tendered in the form of "life experience".
However, the evidence is not peer reviewed (not tested by others).
Also, there is no data showing how testing was conducted as part
of a verification process to confirm that the 'eye' is non-slipping under
free-fall arrest conditions.
The EN892 test requires an 80kg mass to be dropped on a sample length of dynamic rope as per the link below:
Link: https://www.theuiaa.org/documents/safety-standards/Pictorial_UIAA101%20Dynamic%20Ropes.pdf
The test sample must survive 5 falls.
NOTE:
The test is not assessing a climbing harness - only the rope.
In the EN892 test, a #1047 F8 eye knot is specified (not a noose).
It is unknown if a rope would survive 5 test falls using a noose.

I don't know of any manufacturer that would recommend a noose as a tie-in
knot to a climbing harness. In my lifetime, I've never seen any user instructions
that recommend using a noose as a tie-in knot.

In fairness to 'KnotLikely', he may make the argument that his presented knot
isn't a noose. He may have a different definition of what a noose is.
Or, he might argue that his 'noose' actually has an 'eye' that is non-slipping
under dynamic/shock loading. He might insist that it is non-slipping.
However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Kost_Greg]

For the sake of avoidance of any misconception, and provided that Knotlikely has not checked the forum for a while, i hold the distinct impression that he is not using a noose for tie-in systems.

Personal Note: I'm at 3.5(?) years of using exclusively the End Bound Reverse Girth Hitch harness tie-in.  I took 12 falls today on a 5.12b and I untied.  I would have asked for help with my retraced 8.  Fingers were toast.

I surmise he meant to type "I'm at 3.5(?) years of using exclusively the End Bound Reverse Girth Hitch bowline harness tie-in, which i have presented in another thread...............

Indeed, he has presented two variations of his fixed loop, bowlinesque, tie-in approach, which are both based on a girth hitch nipping structure, and an end bound turn as part of the returning, binding structure, and it appears that it works very well for him.

He is just reusing a component from his previous "tie-in" knot in his new, noose-like configuration, providing at the same time a frame of reference to his previous knots.

[agent_smith]

'KnotLikely' typed the following at reply #2:

Personal Note: I'm at 3.5(?) years of using exclusively the End Bound Reverse Girth Hitch harness tie-in.  I took 12 falls today on a 5.12b and I untied.

He attached 4 images at reply #2 which accompanied his post.
By my eye, all of the images at reply #2 appeared to be nooses (not 'eye knots').

It is possible to apply personal imagination and extrapolate his typed words and intent into something else.
Usually, it is best not to extrapolate or try to second guess another person's real intent.

I would surmise that 'KnotLikely' has a different perspective on what a noose is.
That is, it is within the realm of possibility that he does not believe that his presented 'knots' are nooses.
The reason for this might boil down to how he conceptualises the 'eye' of his noose.
In some nooses, the 'eye' does not immediately slip/shrink when load is applied.
For example, the 'eye' of a Purcell hitch holds it form/size under moderate load.
It only slips once a certain threshold of force is reached.
This is due to the 50% loading on each leg of the 'eye' coupled with the clamping effect of the knot core.

In contrast, a #409 Poachers noose (Double overhand noose) slips immediately as load is applied.

[Kost_Greg]

Neither am i Knotlikely's agent, nor am in his mind either, but i just happen to have tied and worked with his tie-in knot structures, so being familiar with his work provides me with a sense of certainty about his intentions.

Apparently, there has been some sort of ambiguity in his phrasing above, which would totally vindicate the need for further clarifications, as were rightfully requested in previous replies.

From there on, it would be very best, in fairness to the original poster, to await his response, before drawing any hasty conclusions.

Furthermore, me being a supporter of this alleged "noose tie-in" theory, would incline me to justify the use of the term "girth hitch" in original poster's wording above, which would make me tasked of tracking down a "phantom" girth hitch in any which of the attached nooses and that of course would be an infeasible endeavour.

[Andreas]

I do remeber the mentioned harness tie in too...

To me this thread says loudly "generally add a photo to anything discussed or mentioned as a hint what the sobject might be!"

[Kost_Greg]

That would be a solid argument i suppose!

Word references may engender ambiquities, much more to those who are not native english speakers.

[alana]

http://ezelius.eu/knopar/ezeliusknop/en.html

It is an absolutely amazing knot.
...
I present the beautifully symmetrical end bound version of the Ezelius adjustable eye hitch / loop.

https://ezelius.eu/knopar/ezeliusoegla/en.html

https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=6724.0

i have had a bit of fun looking at this adjustable cable-tie-like loop
and it's very pretty,
thanks for bringing it up, @KnotLikely and @Ezelius

[alana]

it seems to be a clove-hitch-with-an-extra-round, tied on itself?
does it resemble the midshipman's hitch (1027)?,
[edit: which i see was mentioned in the original discussion of the related post 6724.0]

sorry if all this has been mentioned in the discussion / different languages;
i began scouring Ashley's book not knowing where to start except the beginning!
the chapter is 'single-loop knots'.

pic attached, with some interesting pertinent preceding blurb about 'more-ing'  😊

[alana]

midshipman's hitch (62) first appears in ch1 of ABoK, 'on knots'

[Dan_Lehman]

... scouring Ashley's book not knowing where to start except the beginning!
the chapter is 'single-loop knots'.

pic attached, with some interesting pertinent preceding blurb about 'more-ing'  😊

This is interesting :: Ashley is perhaps thinking much
of Burgess's image and maybe there were some others
copying Burgess (such as L.L. Haslope in his 1891/2 Work
periodical series on knots, which was later published
as P.N. Hasluck's 1904/5 book), where there is clearly
a Fig.8 base and simply tucked then seized Tail,
whereas the original image for these came from the
French Amy's treaty on carpentry and then "Tom Bowling's"
echo of that with just the knots parts.

THERE, one can see either a Fig.8 or a BWL.
Burgess saw the former, and opined that "This can
hardly be called the true bowline, which is shown
in Fig.39 [yes, and the front side!].  Then Hensel&Gretel
in The Encyclopedia of Knots & Fancy Ropework managed
to read this backwards, and claimed that it IS The "True" BWL!
(Plate 10 or 11).  Some years later, in his Handbook of Knots
in 1945 Graumont came around to good sense and called it
"The False BWL" --but he didn't correct The Encyclopedia
for its 7-years later 4th edition.

So, this knot wasn't about extraneous structure,
but was to be a BWL which Ashley claims ironically
doesn't show up in Bowling's own work --well, it
does, given a proper image interpretation (a better
artist!).


(-;