The True Carrick Loop is a most perfect and practical knot.
The True Carrick Loop appears on this forum as the Wave Loop and the Carrick Loop, and appears in Warner(1992) as the Oblique Carrick Loop.
This knot is distinguished from the Flat Lanyard Knot for using a different full carrick form and for being used in a single-loop instead of in a lanyard.
Again, this knot is distinguished from a single-loop knot based on the Flat Lanyard Knot for using the true carrick form instead of another full carrick form.
This knot is distinguished from the Knife Lanyard Knot for being an intermediate step in tying the Knife Lanyard Knot. The Knife Lanyard Knot is completed from the intermediate step by adding tucks and is used in a lanyard.
This knot is an intermediate step in tying the Knife Lanyard Knot.(Thanks Peter H.)
This knot is an intermediate step in tying the Chinese Button Knot.
This knot is an intermediate step in tying the Turk’s-head Knot.
This knot is distinguished from the Wave Loop for using unambiguously the true carrick form instead of sometimes one or another full carrick form.
This knot is distinguished from ABoK 1033#, the Carrick Loop, for using the true carrick form and not using a partial carrick form.
This knot is distinguished from the Bowline Knot for using the true carrick form and not using a partial carrick form.
This knot is distinguished from the True Carrick Bend for its use in a single-loop and not as a bend.
This knot makes available matting a True Carrick Solid and netting a True Carrick Volume.
As I noted in another of your threads, Warner shows what
he describes as a lanyard eye knot, in which the eye legs
or the ends enter the knot as per Ashley’s #1439;
but qua end-line eye knot, this corresponds to #1428
(the “same-side” or “non-oblique/direct” carrick bend).
As for the “carrick loop”, I thought that was here limited to
Ashley’s #1033 --as you’ve noted elsewhere it also refers to?
(Well, as there are various “carrick bends”, so too eye knots.)
The True Carrick Loop is a most perfect and practical knot.
For a more? perfect incarnation of the end-2-end knot in an eye knot,
tie a bight’s legs qua one-end to another line in the form of #1439,
and then work out for yourself how to form this in a single line;
this might better suit one’s notion of “perfect” at least in the
correspondence of eye knot to end-2-end knot : in short,
one end of the end-2-ender is twinned in being the two
bight legs, but they take the same path as would the single
end half of the reference end-2-end knot.
–dl*
Despite all of Stagehand’s postings regarding some “True Carrick Loop”,
we still are left with the question I’ve now posted in 3? threads and
waited nearly a week for an answer to :
So we don’t have a quick response --just more pronouncements
about some “true carrick loop”, whatever that might be. Rather,
we have it equated and then distinguished from some knots!?
Huh?
Here’s the URLink to the “Wave loop” :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=434.msg3570#msg3570
which equates this knot to what one would get by making Ashley’s
#1428 using the tail of the SPart’s loop as the opposing SPart
after it makes an eye, and capsizing it per #1428.
In contrast, Warner’s #478 connects the tail to what would
be the #1428 opposing SPart, but capsizes it by loading the
eye --leg opposing leg. To be perspicuous, Warner’s #478
is Ashley’s #1439 with tails connected --when in the lattice
form, pre-capsizing–; Ashley capsizes this by pulling SPart
against SPart, Warner by eye leg against eye leg. Absent
analysis of what ends are loaded etc., the set knots are
the same; but the loadings are quite different. NB!
And realizing this, I came to figure out that there are EIGHT
possible eye knots --i.e., loaded entanglements-- derivable
from the carrick bend’s lattice form :
consider the exiting limbs of the carrick lattice to be,
going clockwise from lower left in Ashley’s #1439, to be
1 , B , A , 2 --parts 1-2 & A-B looping anti-clockwise, with
SParts 1 & A crossing UNDER each other’s turn.
- 2 connects (to make the eye) to A ;
- 2 connects to B.
and for each of the above connections there are
four ways to capsize the lattice (remember, 1 is to be SPart):
a. pull 1 vs A (as for #1439)
b. pull 1 vs B (as for #1428 when connection #2 above)
c. pull 2 vs B (as for Warner #478)
d. pull 2 vs A
Those are the possibilities; not all of them make for decent
knots. I’d say that the best “carrick loop” would be {1,a}.
The Wave Loop is {2,b}.
–dl*
Not a single one of those loops is anything special, worth the trouble…
In most, if not all of them, the path that the eye-leg-of-the-bight follows is unnecessary long and excessively convoluted.
The prudent thing to do, is to start from the “collapsed” half-form, i.e. the straight standing part + nipping loop of a crossing knot, and figure out which path the eye-leg-of-the-bight should follow, to achieve a safe stabilization of the nipping structure, and a secure attachment of the collar structure.
The “collapse” of one Carrick knot mat may be spectacular, but nothing more, I am afraid. We have dozens of bowline-like loops more economical in the use of material, and at least as secure than any of those neither perfect nor practical “things”.
See :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3467
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.msg24585#msg24585
What is special is the variety got from what I presumed to be
fairly narrowly indicated --viz., the carrick’s lattice form :
that there lay 16 ways to complete that was an eye opener (IMO)!
... the [u]eye-leg-of-the-bight[/u]The which of the what? :o
We have an “eye” which has two “legs” (and which might
sometimes be referred to also as a “bight”, but “eye” is
specific to not only form but function (a bight might be
a collar, e.g.)). I think that the distinction that you want
to exercise is better referred to as “SPart”/vs/“tail” legs of
the eye --i.e., into which of those named parts will the
leg flow into on entering the nub.
–dl*
If you had tried the different ways a Carrick mat can be re-tucked, to be transformed into a bend, your eyes would have been opened already ! 
And THAT is the most interesting transformation : bends / end-to-end knots derived from Carrick mats, not eye knots.
I just follow the terminology established by Mark Gommers at the article " An Analysis of Bowlines" .
Dan and X1, thank you for your effort and patience with this thread. I have made some mistakes but I am most confident in the overall quality of this knot, the True Carrick Loop. Yes Dan, it is most like ABoK 1439# with an oblique pair of ends mend together. Like Warner 478# without my confusion. Either of the two loose ends may be chosen to draw up (it is symmetric). The nub may be drawn up tight, but before it is, the knot is already stable and secure. The knot will move around a bit and these dynamics are not to be neglected. What Ashley says of the bend you may expect of the loop, “…(it) must take its form correctly and inevitably while under strain” (ABoK 1439#). Nearly unique from all other knots, the application of knot forces moves the knot to its correct, secure position. By inspection and by theory this knot does not have weaknesses or tendencies to fail, and may be always unjammed and ever easy to untie. The knot is confusable in tying and is confusing to observe, but if tied correctly is most dependable in use.
Okay, by this statement --although the “most like” implies yet
some difference–, you are equating the knot yet-to-be-set
with #1439 having its tails fused qua eye. Note that this
isn’t likely what folks taking that end-2-end knot would do
in making a corresponding eye knot : they would join the
SPart’s tail to the opposing SPart (whose tail would become
the eye-knot’s tail); and they would set it as for #1439,
pulling the one SPart vs. the one now-become-eye-leg.
And I enumerated the 8 possibilities in a prior post;
it would be helpful if you simply indicated which of
those 8 cases is what you have in mind. (Here, you
indicate topology of connection #2; but your setting
isn’t clear among choices a..d, and even implies another
setting --one using 3 of the ends!)
But you say:
Either of the two loose ends may be chosen to draw up (it is symmetric).Wait, the "end" (to be SPart, I presume) must oppose something, in force, when drawing up to capsize. Without further explanation, you're implying that one loads one of the "ends" (to be SPart) in opposition to the eye legs (both); that produces a [i]bowline[/i]-like knot, with a [i]turNip[/i], as sort of #1033 collaring of the SPart, and a bight collar through the central nip collaring the tail's eye leg. I don't think that you really intend to regard this as your set knot.
The nub may be drawn up tight, but before it is, the knot is already stable and secure. The knot will move around a bit and these dynamics are not to be neglected. What Ashley says of the bend you may expect of the loop, "...(it) must take its form correctly and inevitably while under strain" (ABoK 1439#).But this expresses too much optimism or too little experience; what Warner cautions is that some materials (stiff rope, i.p.) don't capsize all so inevitably. (I saw in one instance on the Discovery t.v. series "Deadliest Catch" two fishermen tying a [i]carrick bend[/i] by having one hold one rope in a [i]crossing-knot[/i] form and the other reeve the other line into it (which tying method allows of greater variance in outcomes than does the lattice-form method!).)
–dl*
What?
(And, no, I think that the 3-end loading of an eye knot
will offer more of interesting things.)
[quote="Dan_Lehman post:5, topic:4732"]... the [u]eye-leg-of-the-bight[/u]The which of the what? :o [/quote] I just follow the terminology established by Mark Gommers at the article " An Analysis of Bowlines" .
Oh, okay, I can infer what his point is;
but I still don’t like it, for that’s particular to knots
that have a “bight” (aside from the eye bight),
and the distinction between eye legs is one that
needs to be available in general.
–dl*
While there are still unanswered questions about your
formation of the knot,
there remains also the question as to why you think
it superior to Ashley’s #1452, which is derivable by some
obvious changes to the non-“oblique” carrick bend (of tucking
the tails through central nipping areas to both bring
those nips together better and to soften their curvature),
and which scored highest in the Ashley test you cited.
By what analysis does Ashley’s bend #1452 fail to equal
or even exceed the carrick bend (any) in desirable qualities?
(Well, as we’ve seen in some extended thread in this very
forum --IGKT, i.e., not ChitChat in particular (Practical?)–,
there are various ways to dress #1452 for different behavior;
but learning this dressing is hardly a big deal to ask of a user
–such options just need to be presented perspicuously.)
–dl*
See the attached picture, and :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18601#msg18601
( This was a first attempt, that produced a number of interesting symmetric bends. There are many more “generalized” Carrick mats, and many symmetric + non-symmetric ways to re-tuck them - but I do not know of any other systematic / exhaustive enumeration of all the different bends that can be generated this way…)
Okay, but I’m not so interested in these other things
that have garnered the “carrick” moniker --and which
can share the same silhouette but have different
crossings–, just the fully over-under-over… structure.
Although I’ve now taken an interest in the corresponding
“Eskimo” carrick loop (aka #1033-ish**), which looks to give
some force absorption and different-angle deflection
on loading --YMMV w/material (seen more in flexible
than stiff, I’m finding)? (**By which I mean #1033 with
the tail reeved in reverse.)