International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: xarax on December 04, 2010, 09:08:13 PM

Title: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: xarax on December 04, 2010, 09:08:13 PM
  The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on December 05, 2010, 09:25:17 PM
In my eyes it is over-complicating something that is very simple, and neither the picture nor the rule simplifies any visualisation of the knot.

In the case of the Carrick Bend, enough damage has been done already by over-estimating the pattern and forgetting the real thing, the dressed bend. The pattern is so simple, that no further rule is needed; the "b/q" pattern will not serve here, because the two are interlaced and trying to make them conform to that pattern only complicates instead of simplifies the memorisation of the knot.

Also, an extremely important feature, that must always be included in any knot pattern laid out, is an indication or which parts are ends, which are standing parts. This may be done in sketches by marking the ends, for example with whippings, or in the case of a diagram, by making the ends shorter than the standing parts. In the case of the Carrick Bend, omission of pointing out which is what may lead to inferior knots.

So I regard trying to make such a "rule" with exceptions, as counter-productive, being more an obstacle to learning than helpful. There never was any need for a "rule" of this kind for remembering the pattern; what has been missing mostly is an easy way to tie the knot, and the "rule" does not help a bit.

Remembering the Carrick Bend pattern is extremely easy without applying any b/q-lockup in the thinking process, and the knot is extremely easy to tie when a reasonable technique is learned. There are at least three different and easily applied methods that all give the correct pattern, and if one has any pedagogic aspiration at all, the dressing method shall not be omitted.

So I would give a double thumbs down for a not so well thought out idea.
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on December 05, 2010, 11:13:53 PM
One problem with most knots, when a pattern is laid out, is that knots are not two-dimensional, but three-dimensional, and sketches are two-dimensional.

When making sketches and photographs, we have methods to show the third dimension, in a way, by making the crossings so that one part is over, the other under, but still there is something missing, because we will never get more than a schematic picture if we don't try to approximate it into its three-dimensional form. It can be done, using perspective as a means for visualising the third dimension. Without the third dimension, the flat layout does not tell the whole story. This is particularly true for many bends, and for the Carrick Bend the flat layout does not even remotely resemble the finished knot.

Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on December 05, 2010, 11:43:06 PM
Then comes the dressing of the knot.

The easiest way to reliably dress it well is to first flip it over, so that the ends hang down, whereupon the two standing parts are drawn apart.
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on December 05, 2010, 11:59:18 PM
   "The symmetrical layout of the Carrick bend, with eight crossing points, yields several different knots, depending on what goes over and under where. For this reason, some very unreliable knots have been misleadingly labelled Carrick bends." G.Budworth. The Complete Book of Knots, p.43."   
   I believe that my simple picture and instruction set would be helpful in preventing serious mistakes, and possibly unfortunate accidents, that can happen because of the many pitfalls that can happen to the beginner who tries to tie the Carrick bend.

I think you are seriously wrong there. Your picture is just yet another meaningless repetition of earlier mistakes of presenting the Carrick Bend, and it does not help the beginner to get the knot tied correctly, mainly because it does not tell which end is which, as I just stated. Moreover, you do not present any tying method, which is the main shortcoming of most descriptions of the knot. So the confusion is not resolved by the overly complicated "rule".

There are however two far simpler methods to tie the knot, my own choreography ( http://web.comhem.se/~u77479609/Carrick%20Bend.html ) and the Wave method, which resembles the tying method for the sheet bend.
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: knot4u on December 06, 2010, 12:26:42 AM
Ink has a tying a method on his website that has put the Carrick Bend on my short list.  The method does take practice, but it has been easy for me to remember and works every time.  I have reduced his tying method down to a single diagram from his sight.  It works for me.  (If it's not OK to post a copy of this pic below, then I'll remove it.)

(http://i51.tinypic.com/t4z76q.jpg)
Image copyright: Urban Domeij
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on December 06, 2010, 12:33:47 AM

For the clarity of the images, both ends are rather short in these pictures. When you try this method, start with rather long ends, longer than they appear here. My experience is that the turned back end of the active line, when held in the right hand, shall at least reach to the elbow.
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on December 06, 2010, 12:59:31 AM
   The truth is that, sometimes, we do not know how good was a teaching method, until we learn a really bad one !

So xarax, you couldn't stand by your word, and you keep ranting rubbish. You have not presented any tying method at all. The "rule" you lay down is complicated and meaningless, and it neither indicates which rope goes where nor how to properly dress the knot. The Carrick Bend has been published over and over in a much simpler way, and few people would have any difficulty to trace its pattern. What is lacking is a method of tying. I have presented three methods; you have given none. So even if your image is simple and you have a "rule" to follow (with exceptions), your post does not contain any instruction; you are not teaching anything al all.

About the three methods presented:
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: SS369 on December 06, 2010, 01:42:21 AM
I for one am politely asking that this side-line of discussion be taken to Pm's and we continue to have a healthy comparison of proposed ideas. Otherwise we are distracted.

Maybe we can start a "bashing and profaning each other" forum.

My humble opinion is that all the knots of this type should be tied correctly, and I stress, dressed correctly. If we have done this time and time again and are old pros at it, then we can gave tidbits of techniques to give aid to others.

There are rules for all manner of knots, decorative and utilitarian ones, but if we adopt a rule it should be relatively foolproof.
We need to be sure of this because future knot tyers will look upon this info with need.

Humble opinion again: I am not so sure that that the newbie is going to "get" the rules without further indoctrination into the methods and reasons for them.
And will somebody learn one set of rules for this one knot, instead of just learning the method of tying it?

I for one have struggled with remembering/learning the rules for Turks head knots and their cousins, but I did learn to tie them fairly well with following good directions (Terrific pictures helped immensely).
Thank you to those who provided those resources!.
And in the tying I was then able to learn the rules (somewhat).
It is still difficult to remember the rules.
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: SS369 on December 06, 2010, 03:42:40 AM
First, I understand many sides of this exchange and hope that a voice of some reason will help. If there is a bully and you have a way to take this to another arena please do so. Or ignore.
I know that arguments get heated and words act like spears with sharp barbs, but this not the place, in my humble opinion.

I myself can allow for differences of perspective and welcome them to learn from. I believe the creating or fomenting of animosity will be an undoing.
Let's get back to an even keel. Please.

xarax, I like the illustrations, photos and think that modifying them to aid the communication of your ideas will help to pass along the data/rule(s).
Yes we all do learn uniquely and who knows what will work for others. Do continue to share your insights and I hope that it will generate a new thought in someone else's mind and they will respond.
That is part of what this forum is about.

I thank you for your sharing.

May the knots be with you.
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on December 06, 2010, 09:41:15 AM
Xarax, I am disappointed that once again, you cannot refrain from leaving the subject and going into unfounded accusations and innuendo.

I have only stated that your scribblings on the Carrick Bend are unhelpful, and that I regard them as rubbish. I have not made any personal attack on you, and I would never characterise people as "rubbish" or whatever. I do respect humans as humans. I do not allege anything personal, I only declare that what you say regarding the making of the knot is hogwash; you are ranting, and your rants have no substance. "Rubbish" is common usage and synonymous of "nonsense". I was only telling you that my opinion is that your rants are nonsense. My reason for characterising your image and the purported "tying" as nonsense is mainly that by removing the diagonal pattern, as well as removing any hint of what is end and what is standing part, you remove two essential items from the pattern, without which, the knot cannot be tied.

The topic of the thread, which is not yours, but a thread on a discussion board about knots, is a knot: the Carrick Bend. There is a reason why the "b/q" method is not fruitful, and the reason is that you cannot lay one form on top of the other and then complete the knot, like for those knots where the "barbeque" would work. The Carrick Bend is not built up of overhand knots, and it is fully interlaced; in each of its crossings, when you follow any of the two lines, the cross is the opposite of the one before or after. The pattern is simple, and it is readily memorised just by looking at it, but the pattern is of little or no help in finding a method to accomplish it. You have failed to present a method; you only present a 45 degrees twisted image of the usual pattern, where you fail to give directions of where the standing parts or the ends would go.

The most common way of tying presented in books and videoclips consists in reeving one of the lines through this pattern. It might help in learning just how the pattern is built up; it is a regular weave, and tracing it with one of the ends will be much akin to weaving. However, it is impractical to do so in real situations. To trace the route, you will have to lay the lines down on a reasonably flat surface. You cannot hold them in your hands while doing it. As a method, it does not work well in real life. It can be done, but it is unwieldy. Your "simple" picture is not simple at all when it comes to actually tying the knot. And the diagonal image is better, as it covers a crucial feature of the correctly tied knot; the diagonal pull, which distinguishes it from the Josephine knot.

Below is a photo sequence of how this diagonal pattern is accomplished by reeving one of the ends through the pattern. I do not regard that as a tying method, but rather an explanation of the regular weave and how the standing parts and ends relate to each other within the knot pattern. It should also be remembered, as always, that this pattern is not the finished knot, but a step in its making. The dressed knot is something entirely different.


The result is a mirror image of the previously shown tying methods, and to draw it up, it needs only be lifted from the surface, so that the ends hang, whereupon the standing parts are drawn away from each other. This pattern is less suitable for laid rope than the one previously shown, as in some crossings in the finished knot, the strands will lie parallel to the cuntlines and might bury themselves there.
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: DerekSmith on December 06, 2010, 12:39:02 PM
Any one spotted that our Guild logo is a closed Carrick ?

(http://www.igkt.net/knotgallery/themes/matrix/images/igkt-logo.jpg)
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: Sweeney on December 06, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Any one spotted that our Guild logo is a closed Carrick ?

Although often described as a "carrick mat" (or flattened turk's head) it is not formed from a true carrick bend as both ends emerge on the same side of the knot instead of parallel.
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: DerekSmith on December 06, 2010, 05:56:30 PM
Any one spotted that our Guild logo is a closed Carrick ?

Although often described as a "carrick mat" (or flattened turk's head) it is not formed from a true carrick bend as both ends emerge on the same side of the knot instead of parallel.

A closed Carrick has no 'ends' - it is the physical equivalent of the mathematical knot 8:18 http://www.jasoncantarella.com/movs/8_18ac.mov (http://www.jasoncantarella.com/movs/8_18ac.mov)

-------------------------------------

Following this discussion on method, I have come to the realisation that some of the confusion / disagreement stems from the fact that the Carrick mat / weave is a completely different beast from the Carrick knot (be it a bend or a loop) and that the interlaced pattern of the mat has absolutely nothing to do with the structure of the knot.

With this realisation comes the appreciation that a method that is memorable and efficient for the production of the woven mat or TH has no bearing on a method which is going to be ideal for the production of the knots.  An ideal method for the knots might be one that creates the finished structure of the knot or one that is manipulatively efficient and/or memorable - for me, Ink's 'Wrap and Wave' method is my preferred method at the moment.

---------------------------------------

Again, support here for the argument that there is value in differentiating these fields -

Carrick mat or Flat TH  --  A WEAVE
Carrick bend or loop     --  A KNOT
8:18                            --  A Mathematical representation of a closed structure in S3 (neither a weave nor a knot which are physical entities)

Derek
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 06, 2010, 07:34:16 PM
  A decorative, related knot, called "diamond knot"/"knife lanyard knot"/"friendship knot", is shown at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_knot

It might serve more than decoration.  Some knot named "Diamond"
was among those considered in testing by Wright & Magowan --who did
not elaborate beyond this name appearing in their end-of-article test table.

Given the image XaraX has selected (a mid-step of hardening the
Carrick into a Diamond ), if one simply takes each tail and follows
/parallels/traces the opposite tail, leaving this entanglement loose,
and then performs the usual capsizing as per the Carrick bend,
you'll get a twin-collar version, which looks interesting, at least.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: Sweeney on December 06, 2010, 07:45:19 PM
When we cleaned up the logo about a year ago there was, I recall, some discussion about whether the depiction was a closed carrick ie no ends or a whether the ends should be identifiable. Looked at carefully it should be clear that this is not a closed carrick as the ends appear opposite each other (I admit this is difficult to see on a small image). I have added an enlargement of the part of the logo to show the ends more clearly. I'm not sure that adds much to the sum of human knowledge but ........

Barry
 
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: DerekSmith on December 06, 2010, 09:39:42 PM
Detail well argued Barry.

OK, so our logo is a Carrick MAT.

Makes it quite awkward when I try to argue that a Carrick Mat is a weave and not a knot, and the International Guild of Knot Tyers has a Mat for its logo instead of a knot.

Ho Hum, the mountain just got higher and further...   history brings so much baggage with it.  I guess that is why evolution is so damned fallible and why fields like chemistry felt they needed to wipe the slate clean before they could progress with an intelligent nomenclature.

with apologies to Xarax for the detour.

Derek
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: dmacdd on June 05, 2011, 02:58:18 AM
Ink has a tying a method on his website that has put the Carrick Bend on my short list.  The method does take practice, but it has been easy for me to remember and works every time.  I have reduced his tying method down to a single diagram from his sight.  It works for me.  


I learned the Carrick bend 47 years ago when I was 22. I have remembered it since then without a detailed visualization of the knot. If I have to verify that a Carrick bend tied by someone else is an instance of ABoK 1439, I tie one of my own. My memory of it is entirely muscle memory, as was advised by the little book I learned it from, the name of which I cannot remember.   It was taught to me with pictures, but with no emphasis on the form of the finished knot, only the process of making it.  I have created pictures explaining the method , I hope with didactic effectiveness, at http://davidmdelaney.com/carrick-bend/carrick-bend-1439.html (http://davidmdelaney.com/carrick-bend/carrick-bend-1439.html). A striking aspect of the method is that the first six of twelve pictures appearing in the very detailed pictorial explanation are identical to those that would be useful in teaching the sailor's usual way of making a bowline.
Title: Re: The Carrick bend : A simple picture and a rule to tie it.
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on June 06, 2011, 02:19:44 PM
/.../ My memory of it is entirely muscle memory, as was advised by the little book I learned it from /.../

I cannot but agree. We now have three methods that can rely mainly or entirely on "muscle memory": The Wave, mine and now this last one. The advantage is that memorizing the pattern is not needed to tie the knot correctly, but only remembering the way of tying it. It is useful in the process of learning to check the pattern, but in the actual situation of tying, you haven't buried it into your body's memory if you need to check the pattern. The correct tying method, whichever you use, results in the correct pattern, which is only an aid when learning to tie the knot. Once the method is learned and well rehearsed, you may as well forget the pattern, still being able to tie the knot anyway.

I think too much emphasize has been put on the pattern, to such a degree, that many people don't even know how to work the knot into its final shape, and several knot books also omit this crucial part of the tying process. The finished knot is something completely different than the pattern that is always emphasized. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a knot prone to capsize; its "capsizing" is the final step in its making, it "capsizes" easily and shall do so, to attain it's final stable form, from which it will not, and cannot, capsize.

And as stated. verifying the knot is not easy, if you have to, it may be simpler to untie it and tie it again the way you know is correct. This might be regarded as a drawback, but on the other hand, there are also other reliable knots that are equally difficult to verify just by looking at them.