Secure, omnidirectional quick release hitch

[TheTreeSpyder]

geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez here too.
.
i treespyder being of questionable mind and now unsound body, do hereby voluntarily remove totally offensive post of *Useless Info* for the absolute betterment of all of the aforementioned ABoK link, and also Nylon Highway back issues ( back to 1983/Bruce Smith author of "On Rope"), Professional Association of Climbing Instructor's great list of resources and "Fundamentals of General Tree Work" links with THEE 7' @ 150' poster pic due to total lack of content even as background links for a tree forum's knot discussion.

 

[agent_smith]

To the moderators:
1. "The TreeSpyder's" post has absolutely no content (ie zero) that directly relates to the original posters topic. It effectively diverts the discussion away from JRB's hitch.
2. The link to the Ashley Book of Knots could constitute copyright violation - and should be removed.
Geoffrey Budworth holds copyright over his addition to 'ABoK' and there is also the publisher (Doubleday & company) who still hold copyright. The source website (Educated climber) is also likely in breach of copyright laws..
3. Copyright continues for a minimum of 70 years after the death of the author or entity who originally held title to the work. In the case of Budworth, his contribution was added in 1993.... and I think he is still alive.
Doubleday & company are treated as a 'person' - if we take 1960 as a reference point, this means at least until 2030 for copyright expiry assuming 'no contest'. I believe 'Doubleday' merged into Penguin/Random house publishing.

I'm surprised this hasn't been jumped on already...

 

[DSMc]

...
"The TreeSpyder's" post has absolutely no content (ie zero) that directly relates to the original posters topic. It effectively diverts the discussion away from JRB's hitch...

As does the entirety of your post.

 

[agent_smith]

There appears to be childlike behaviour herein.
The topic is about a potentially new hitch - right?
I would at least extend the courtesy to look into John's claim of originality - and I think his presentation has merit. I have contacted a number of IGKT members about his hitch - and hope to gather and direct a few expert minds to the task.
The quick-release nature of his presentation will raise some concerns - eg per Richard Delaney's demonstration of the risks with other competing quick release hitches...

As for copyright laws - thats a serious matter.
I dont care about The Treespyerds linking to PACI knot resources... I just care about blatant copyright infringement of 'ABoK'. The childlike removal of all of the links is a matter for his consciousness...
In any case, I am sure the owners of this website would not wish to get involved in copyright litigation.

 

[DSMc]

There appears to be childlike behaviour herein...

Why, yes, there does.

 

[agent_smith]

Contact me in private DSMc instead of posting nonsense to the world at large.
Do you have any constructive comment to make about John's hitch?
I think it has merit - and I applaud him for making a solid effort to bring it to the attention of others.
On the other hand, DSMc appears to make no useful contribution... I wonder what motivates him?

To the original poster, thank you for your contribution... I am trying to get some IGKT members to direct their attention to your hitch...but, it may take some time (sorry).

 

[John RB]

Team, back on the topic at hand, my first task is simply determining if this or something like it is already a named and proven entity, simply because I am using it and working to Improvement as there are several variations I have not publicized. For example, if we take this hitch out of context of climbing and simply talk about it as a quick release hitch, a butcher who is releasing a carcass onto a cart might want a quick release hitch that releases under load. I have a variation of this hitch which has much less friction when releasing under moderate loads. Now let's take the possibility that this hitch could be used as a retrievable canopy anchor. In that case, we want the complete opposite properties. We want the release portion of the hitch to remain jammed while loaded and loose when not loaded. I have both of those variations but I am simply starting here. Agent Smith, I will likely make it private video of these variations and share it with you and the smaller review community who is looking at elsewhere. I do appreciate your consideration and moderation.

 

[DSMc]

...
On the other hand, DSMc appears to make no useful contribution... I wonder what motivates him?...

Nothing more complicated than annoyance with a pompous, autocratic ego.

 

[agent_smith]

Thanks for your good work John.
I agree with your concept of isolating your hitch (for now) from life critical applications...which should enable unbiased opinions.
I apologize for the disgusting behavior of DSMc - he clearly is a troubled person who needs counseling. He appears to show no respect toward you and your attempts to get your hitch evaluated and he is motivated by malice.
I think he should receive a warning from the forum moderators.

 

[rico]

Thanks for your good work John.
I agree with your concept of isolating your hitch (for now) from life critical applications...which should enable unbiased opinions.
I apologize for the disgusting behavior of DSMc - he clearly is a troubled person who needs counseling. He appears to show no respect toward you and your attempts to get your hitch evaluated and he is motivated by malice.
I think he should receive a warning from the forum moderators.

Can someone kindly direct me to the "FUCK OFF" emoji?

 

[agent_smith]

Can someone kindly direct me to the "FUCK OFF" emoji?

Hmmm.
You should receive a warning for that.
Total disrespect and childish, immature behavior.
You obviously feel powerful from behind the safety of your keyboard?

Do you have anything positive to say about the "JRB hitch'?

 

[rico]

Hmmm.
You should receive a warning for that.
Total disrespect and childish, immature behavior.
You obviously feel powerful from behind the safety of your keyboard?

Do you have anything positive to say about the "JRB hitch'?

Nanny Nanny Poo Poo

 

[agent_smith]

Nanny Nanny Poo Poo

Your command of the English language is impressive rico!
Have you anything positive to contribute with respect to the 'JRB hitch'?
You obviously feel empowered behind your keyboard - and probably think the moderators will not take any action to warn or ban you? I presume that because you likely believe that you wont be warned or banned, you will just continue to post nothing of any real value?

To JRB, I've had a question regarding the 'host' object around which your hitch is intended to be attached...
I presume the 'host' should be a round profile (ie not a square or rectangular profile)?
That is, for any load testing, the hitch should be attached to a round (circular) host only?
Also, the frictive properties of the host may play a role (ie smooth versus rough surface)?

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Calm down all of you. Let comments you don't like go by.

I so hate being the Vice Principal of the TreeBuzz.com Junior High. For every edit or reprimand I do the flashback costs me gut wrenching time.

Just ignore.

 

[John RB]

Your command of the English language is impressive rico!
Have you anything positive to contribute with respect to the 'JRB hitch'?
You obviously feel empowered behind your keyboard - and probably think the moderators will not take any action to warn or ban you? I presume that because you likely believe that you wont be warned or banned, you will just continue to post nothing of any real value?

To JRB, I've had a question regarding the 'host' object around which your hitch is intended to be attached...
I presume the 'host' should be a round profile (ie not a square or rectangular profile)?
That is, for any load testing, the hitch should be attached to a round (circular) host only?
Also, the frictive properties of the host may play a role (ie smooth versus rough surface)?

The reason I created the hitch was for use on a tree, specifically lengthwise pull in the downward direction. And so yes, a tree trunk or similar is ideal for initial tests. However, not all trees are straight and not all trunks are cylindrical and therefore the actual direction of pull could vary moderately. My goal was a hitch with a high efficiency, stability, relatively easy to tie and inspect. It needs to stay in place when load is removed, where a simple girth hitch might fall. And so i did not limit my testing to lengthwise pull. I also tested horizontal pull on an object as large as a tree trunk and as small as a Caribiner. I don't possess adequate test equipment, nor did I run any test enough times to venture an efficiency number, but I did pull it to failure and it exceeded my expectations and therefore I believe it could be as strong as our best anchors. At that juncture, I published a test video to YouTube where I loaded an 8mm line with 1500 lbs. Its the 2nd in the playlist. In that system, the hitch was being pulled upwards on one side and downward on the other. It also had two Caribiners seeing the same load. They jammed moderately and couldn't be spilled witha tug of the drawloop. That test got me feedback to orchestrate the next test against the well known scaffold. (3rd video) And when one scaffold broke and one jammed to a weld, I was impressed and knew I needed to get some better and more formal testing. On a tree trunk, whether lengthwise or perpendicular, the absence of jamming under extreme loads surprised me. The strength surprised me. And so any testing is welcome, but a square cross sectioned post seems like an unlikely object, particularly for lengthwise pull.

 

[agent_smith]

Thanks John JRB.
Am likely stating the obvious here - but:
Any would-be testers need to have the test parameters defined.
If the test parameters are not strictly defined - the results will not be reproducible by others.
In the 'scientific world', results are published by various authors/researchers.
It is then left to others to conduct follow up tests to either confirm or refute the results (thats how science progresses). But the test needs to be repeatable by others.

So for example, it might be stipulated that the host must be of a perfectly round/circular profile. If the host is imperfectly round (bumpy) - this could impact on test results. An imperfect (bumpy) host might impact on the results obtained.
Also, the surface texture of the host would need to be specified - some testers might (for example) use a steel post in their lab or test environment (because its easy, readily available and of a known structural strength). Others might use a natural living tree as a host. And yet others might use a timber hard wood utility pole that is lying in a horizontal position.
All of these can be considered to be 'variables' for the test.

If we believe in the capstan equation, the circumference of the host should play no role... although it might be important to record or specify the diameter/circumference of the host - so at least it is a known quantity (rather than an 'unknown').

 

[rico]

Calm down all of you. Let comments you don't like go by.

I so hate being the Vice Principal of the TreeBuzz.com Junior High. For every edit or reprimand I do the flashback costs me gut wrenching time.

Just ignore.

I know I don't say it enough Tom , but I love you....For realz...

 

[John RB]

Thanks John JRB.
Am likely stating the obvious here - but:
Any would-be testers need to have the test parameters defined.
If the test parameters are not strictly defined - the results will not be reproducible by others.
In the 'scientific world', results are published by various authors/researchers.
It is then left to others to conduct follow up tests to either confirm or refute the results (thats how science progresses). But the test needs to be repeatable by others.

So for example, it might be stipulated that the host must be of a perfectly round/circular profile. If the host is imperfectly round (bumpy) - this could impact on test results. An imperfect (bumpy) host might impact on the results obtained.
Also, the surface texture of the host would need to be specified - some testers might (for example) use a steel post in their lab or test environment (because its easy, readily available and of a known structural strength). Others might use a natural living tree as a host. And yet others might use a timber hard wood utility pole that is lying in a horizontal position.
All of these can be considered to be 'variables' for the test.

If we believe in the capstan equation, the circumference of the host should play no role... although it might be important to record or specify the diameter/circumference of the host - so at least it is a known quantity (rather than an 'unknown').

I will reply this evening. Looking forward to it but have a busy work day

 

[agent_smith]

Hi John,
I've attached a quick photo analysis of your creation.
I am quite impressed by this hitch - and I think this demonstrates your creative genius.
The hitch is fundamentally based on 3 slipped #206 Crossing hitches (ie Munter hitches) which incorporate 3 interdependent bights.
I still have no word on your claim of originality - and its too early to call (and may take quite some time to establish your claim). Hopefully you can be patient!
What we need is some independent testing to build data points - and again, because this would be a labor of love from 'enthusiasts' - it could take some time for this to happen.

I have created this photo overview to help push this along - because i am impressed by your creativity and I think this hitch deserves wider attention.

EDIT NOTE:
With regard to load testing, please steer away from the default mindset of 'pull-it-till-it-breaks' mentality. This proves nothing. In my view, a key test is to probe the security of the hitch. The way to do this is to maintain load and then trigger the release sequence. What is key - is whether the hitch maintains security at stage #1 of the release sequence. It is at this stage where vigorous load tests ought to be conducted (in the form of slack shaking, cyclic loading and sending a shock-wave 'pulse' to the 'disturbed' state of the hitch). If the hitch can survive at 'stage 1' - this implies there is an inbuilt security threshold - which is survivable for the hitch. I would surmise that if the second stage of the release sequence is triggered, it may be 'fatal' for the hitch. (Note: In this instance, I am using the term 'fatal' to refer to loss of structural integrity - not loss of life). I understand that 'John JRB' is not making any warranty for using the hitch in life critical applications...

It may be the case that JRB's hitch will be compared against Dan Lehman's 'Tumble hitch':
Link: https://www.animatedknots.com/tumble-hitch-knot
Link: https://notableknotindex.webs.com/tumblehitch.html

Note the similarities...

 

[John RB]

Regarding background and comparison with other quick release hitches... I am familiar with the tumble hitch and many (likely most) other quick release hitches. I understand that this hitch will be compared with them for reference. This is all fine. I'm also aware of the reputation that the highwayman's hitch has for insecurity. However, let's probe a bit deeper: highwayman's reputation for insecurity increases with the diameter of the object it is tied to. In the circumstance of the JRB hitch, it's wrapped around two strands of rope with a different set of loading forces effectively embracing the "inner highwayman's". It is not comparable to the highwayman's any more than we could compare the OVERHAND KNOT to any of the bends which are constructed from two overhand knots, including: Zeppelin Bend, Hunters Bend, Water Knot, Overhand Bend, Alpine Butterfly Bend, Fishermans Knot and False Zeppelin bend. (Pardon the lack of ABOK references as I'm typing with my thumbs while I eat dinner at 10.30pm). Of course, we can compare those bends to each other, but not very well to the overhand knot which is their common foundation. And so I will simply let the testing and results thereof ensure that this hitch is not going to receive a reputation for one of its inner components. I have achieved incredible test results with an "inner highwaymen's variant" instead of the classic highwayman's, however, I do believe this published version is more secure by my crude analysis. Nevertheless, if I had a day and a test laboratory, I would test all these variations.

Now on testing, if I could do only three sets of tests, these would be the tests:
1. Lengthwise pull test, ideally using a standard diameter climbing rope, tied on a tree trunk of 12in diameter, exactly how I tied it in the introductory video.
2. Using 8mm or equivalent cordage, perpendicular pull test, tied on a one inch (or similar) smooth metal bar. Ideally, I would perform this test with both one and again with three wraps, creating 3 and 6 visible turns around the bar, respectively, exactly as tied in the introductory video. 1 it is my expectation that the strength of the hitch will increase with the additional turns.
3. Perpendicular pull test, using 8mm or similar cordage tied onto a carabiner of average diameter. Only one wrap, forming 2 visible turns. And for bonus points, let me try to describe a variation: after passing the initial bite around the object, when we reach through the bight and grab the release line, creating a Bight to begin the inner highwayman's... pause there, lengthen that Bight, and pass it up and over the double strand to which is is pressed, then down the back and up around the bottom, effectively adding a full 360 degree turn around the double strand. Then complete the rest of the hitch as per the original. In my testing, this variant is easier to disengage under moderate loads. I have not yet Tested this under extreme Loads.

And although it is much too early in the journey to make any predictions about whether this hitch COULD be used for Life Safety, I do not want it to be dismissed based on the properties of the release mechanism. I do have an unpublished "finish" detail, which does not affect the Integrity of the knot, because it is tied the same way, but which adds significant additional resistance to the possibility of accidental release while under load. However, when load is removed, it spills easily. I simply did not want to complicate matters at this early stage by introducing variants. My logic is simple: let's just test the basic hitch, then decide if next steps are warranted.

Lastly, I simply want to thank agent Smith for his time and attention. I hope I get an opportunity to return the favor.