I love bends

[Dan_Lehman]

... , as you may have guessed, the Double Carrick is also commonly called the Full Carrick or Carrick.

Or one might guess that it denotes an extended lattice form
then capsized in the same manner, which produces a block
of entanglement at least entertaining to someone exploring
knots; it's likely what Hensel&Gretel describe for so much of
their make-believe world, "of no practical value."

But recently I discovered another contender for this "double"
attribute, in which the end, in the lattice form of tying, makes
a 2nd pass of sorts, and yields the usual knot more fittingly
given a double collar w/some extra material filling out the knot.
It might actually have slight practical value.  (-- and not be but
one more marking of ink on Dan's Quick-Record Sketches     )

  I just mention the term to differentiate the True Carrick Bend from the lesser one-off "Carricks" or Single Carricks that have popped up from time to time.

Hmmmm, I tend to equate C. with just the commonly shown
good one; broadening this narrow view might be necessary for
digging out the history, though!

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More update:  the Symmetric Hawser Bend   presented by Jack Riemann
as his "#1" version matches your discovery, and his "#2" is the other
version, in which the tails are tucked immediately after making
the u-turn.  This 2nd version is presented in R.E.Miles's book as
"A18".  Owen Nuttall also discovered it, in 1985.


--dl*
====

[SpitfireTriple]

..I have another bend I discovered and use a lot for general use, I was wondering if any of you recognize it and can put a name to it...
Regards Rusty.

My note of record for this is dated 1979-09-13, and it was a sort of reduction of other twisted-SParts knots I was fiddling.

From page 7 of the Gleipnir thread:

**I** have played with this knot and the like, a little, in recent years.

Perhaps I should not be surprised. After all, when in my first post on this forum (not this thread) I presented a new method for tying a loop knot, your response was to state that it was "obvious".  I wonder how many other novel knots and novel methods are stored in your brain that you have not yet deigned to share with us. A cynic might suspect that you will not reveal these gems until someone else first announces them.

Well done Rusty.  Nice knot.

[DDK]

... , as you may have guessed, the Double Carrick is also commonly called the Full Carrick or Carrick.

. . . But recently I discovered another contender for this "double"
attribute, in which the end, in the lattice form of tying, makes
a 2nd pass of sorts, and yields the usual knot more fittingly
given a double collar w/some extra material filling out the knot.
It might actually have slight practical value.  (-- and not be but
one more marking of ink on Dan's Quick-Record Sketches    ) . . .

--dl*
====

I tried to follow your description of taking a second pass (w.ends following their s.parts back through the bend so as to "double" the carrick) and ended up with a bend comprised of two cow hitches.  Quite interesting, I think, to see that the full carrick is a cow hitch bend with its two ends untucked.   Thanks.

DDK
 

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

... , as you may have guessed, the Double Carrick is also commonly called the Full Carrick or Carrick.

. . . But recently I discovered another contender for this "double"
attribute, in which the end, in the lattice form of tying, makes
a 2nd pass of sorts, and yields the usual knot more fittingly
given a double collar w/some extra material filling out the knot.
It might actually have slight practical value.  (-- and not be but
one more marking of ink on Dan's Quick-Record Sketches     ) . . .

--dl*
====

I tried to follow your description of taking a second pass (w.ends following their s.parts back through the bend so as to "double" the carrick) and ended up with a bend comprised of two cow hitches.  Quite interesting, I think, to see that the full carrick is a cow hitch bend with its two ends untucked.   Thanks.

DDK
 

It all depends on just how you follow back, there are several ways to go astray. The cow hitch extension is logical, as the Carrick Bend comprises two backhanded hitches, each of them nipping the other one. However, different orientations of the hitches are possible, only one of them, with rotational symmetry, being the "true" and IMHO only Carrick Bend.

I envisioned something else from the description. If you take one of the ends and turn it back around its own standing part, and then follow it back through the nip, you get two collars and a doubling similar to the second turn that can be done in a Rosendahl's or Butterfly to get more fill for a smaller cord joined to a larger, The two collars are from opposite sides, and the resulting extra backhand provides ample friction for the end not to slip out if there is a large difference in size of the two ends. I frind it impractical and clumsy if the ends are equal size, as it is rather cumbersome to open up again, and for different sizes the Rosendahl is more elegant and easier to make. To double the Carrick Bend in this way, you first collapse it, then turn the end back once around its own SP and follow through the nip.

[DDK]

I tried to follow your description of taking a second pass (w.ends following their s.parts back through the bend so as to "double" the carrick) and ended up with a bend comprised of two cow hitches.  Quite interesting, I think, to see that the full carrick is a cow hitch bend with its two ends untucked.   Thanks.

DDK

It all depends on just how you follow back, there are several ways to go astray. The cow hitch extension is logical, as the Carrick Bend comprises two backhanded hitches, each of them nipping the other one. However, different orientations of the hitches are possible, only one of them, with rotational symmetry, being the "true" and IMHO only Carrick Bend.

I also noticed that of the four possible orientations of cow hitch bends, two of these have rotational symmetry and only one of these leads to the full carrick.

DDK

[Dan_Lehman]

   Oops, sorry to have gone absent from this thread,
but it wasn't along the Practical tact I have been taking
and I forgot about it.

I should take a photo of a knot or sketch of the knot that
I have described (which tied knot remains tied --like piles
of others-- awaiting the pen-to-paper processing).

 

[xarax]

   Rusty, have you tried the "S88 bend" in comparison to yours ?
( In the attached pictures, I post pictures of both. The S88 bend pictures were posted, for the first time, at (1). S88 bend (Simple 88) is the un-tucked version of the F88 bend (Full 88), presented at (2) The pictures of your version, were taken after your post, are based on your pictures, and are posted here for the first time.)
 
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1935.0
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1919.0

[rusty427]

   Rusty, have you tried the "S88 bend" in comparison to yours ?
( In the attached pictures, I post pictures of both. The S88 bend pictures were posted, for the first time, at (1). S88 bend (Simple 88) is the un-tucked version of the F88 bend (Full 88), presented at (2) The pictures of your version, were taken after your post, are based on your pictures, and are posted here for the first time.)

Hi Xarax,
It took me a while to see the same use of the "&" in the structure of the bend, well done. I wounder how many other complications of this structure can be had!
The S88 sets and dresses nicely, I am struggling a little with the other to S&D it, though it lays nicely in the open form.
Regards rusty.

[Dan_Lehman]

  Rusty, have you tried the "S88 bend" in comparison to yours ?
( In the attached pictures, I post pictures of both. The S88 bend pictures were posted, for the first time, at (1). S88 bend (Simple 88) is the un-tucked version of the F88 bend (Full 88), presented at (2) The pictures of your version, were taken after your post, are based on your pictures, and are posted here for the first time.)

Xarax, the "Rusty s bend" photos you post are not Rusty's bend.
In his (and in the like knot Riemann & I also discovered), each
line collars  the other's SPart, and the end exits logically
parallel to the SPart, nipped between it and the collar.  (Yours
show an end exiting a loop structure in the opposite direction
of its SPart.  And, absent an indication of loading profile, offer
a potential trio of bends --two symmetricly & one asymmetricly loaded
(as does the Reever/ViceVersa structure).)

--dl*
====

[SpitfireTriple]

Xarax

Thanks for posting the photos of Rusty's bend.

[xarax]

   What I have taken the liberty to call "Rusty s bend", is a variation of the S88 bend where standing ends and tails are interchanged, ( i.e., we now load the ends that were used to be the tails of the S88 bend ). I have tied this bend only after Rusty s post : I had never before considered this "elognated" version, because my original purpose ( at the relevant "interlocking knots" thread ) was to tie "interlocked" knots that were as compact as possible. Also, I have not considered the two other alternative loading of the free ends.  
   I do not know if Rusty s bend, or my S88 bend, have been published somewhere previously, or not. I think they are very interesting bends, certainly not much worse than the Reever knot !

[xarax]

   Did I say that Rusty s bend is "elongated", while the S88 bend is "compact" ? Well, I was wrong !   Just as I was untying the Rusty s bend that I have used to take the new pictures of the previous post, (where one can distinguish the standing ends/tails pair), I realized how wrong I was... because what is really happening, is the exact opposite ! We can force the "elongated" Rusty s bend to collapse, and shrink to a compact final form, while the unloaded "compact" initial form of the S88 bend, when loaded, gets a more elongated final form.
  I do not know if the "elongated" form of Rusty s bend is unstable, that is, it is just an intermediate, temporary knot form, and, when the bend is finally heavy loaded, it inevitably settles to the "compact" form. I had no time to examine the compact form, I just post the pictures I have taken a few moments ago.
    

[rusty427]

I made a trip to the local library the other day and checked out their precious copy of Ashley's book of Knots, (which is not for loan) and found ABOK #1450. This looks pretty close to my bend! the text does not seem to reveal much. So I am taking the liberty to name this knot  a " Rusty Bend, ABOK #1450???" (also identified as a Symmetric Hawser Bend, by Jack Riemann)
Thanks all, Dan, Roo too.
If any are interested, this is how I tie it.
By the way I found this apple app if any are interested, not bad. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/knot-guide/id293111210?mt=8






Pulling on the standing part.

Pulling on the free ends.

[xarax]

   Rusty, I think that your original method, for the original, elognated knot form, is not needed any more for the compact form. You go from Europe to Indies through West Indies !   Try to figure out an easier and quicker way. See the attached pictures, are they of any help for you ?

[xarax]

   And here is the re-tucked version of Rusty s-ABoK#1450 bend. Much uglier, that is true, but much safer, too ! You win some, you lose some...