Here is another protracted collection of words
per Derek:
And here you are falling into the trap of demanding that a nipping structure must be externally loaded at both ends.
There is no trap that I am falling into!
I probably should have used the phrase 'nipping loop' instead of 'nipping structure'. You seem to zero in on certain key phrases and then draw false conclusions. I will have to be extremely careful with my use of the English language - to ensure that it is difficult to interpret in a way that I did not intend. Which might in fact be the heart of the matter - in that we likely construct different meanings for certain key words.
The reason I use the phrase 'nipping structure' (in certain specific cases) is to denote that the form 'it' takes isn't in the shape of a
helix. I reserve the phrase 'nipping loop' only for use in certain instances. And I am careful in its use so as not to dilute its meaning. To me, the word 'loop' has a very specific meaning.
In #1010 common Bowline, the nipping mechanism is a
loop that is loaded at
both ends. This 'loop' may be of S or Z chirality and takes the form of a
helix. I had previously defined what a 'loop' is. I am careful in assigning the term 'loop' - and distinguish it from 'eye' and 'round sling'. So therefore, in #1010 Bowline, I refer to the nipping mechanism specifically as a 'nipping loop'.
One thing I think we can agree on (and I am beginning to think that the root of the issue is how we both choose to interpret the English language) - is that illustration number #1010 in ABoK
is [a] 'Bowline'.
And I hope that you would also agree that illustrations #1012, #1013 and #1034 1/2 are all 'Bowlines'.
#1012 is based on a clove hitch (which permits wide separation between the loops)
#1013 is based on a double helix (in which the helices cannot be separated)
With #1012 and #1013, it
may be inaccurate to describe these Bowlines as having a nipping 'loop' (which is singular, not plural). It
may be more accurate to use the phrase 'nipping structure'. Again, it is careful use of the English language in an attempt to be precise.
Either way, both ends of the nipping 'structure' are loaded. And this is a definition which I have assigned - for more precision. For example, the difference between a 'loop' and a 'nipping loop' is that in the latter, both of its ends are loaded. In #1431 Sheet bend, (in my view) there is no 'nipping loop' - because 'it' (the loop) is only loaded on
one end. It (ie the Sheet bend) definitely has a 'loop' - but it isn't a 'nipping loop'.
In the case of a #206 / #1174 crossing hitch (or 'knot' depending on how you choose to conceptualise the structure), it does not take the form of a pure helix. You prefer to use the arbitrary term 'Carrick component' to describe this structure. I think the use of this phrase is arbitrary because this structure is not unique to the #1439 Carrick bend - that is, the Carrick bend has no unique title of claim to these hitching structures.
The term 'crossing hitch/knot' (as used by Ashley) at least provides some insight into the geometry of the hitch. With the word 'crossing' being in reference to the
U turn that the tail makes across its own SPart. Some may prefer to use the term 'Munter hitch' - as this is the familiar form to many climbers. The U turn provides a 'capstan effect' (and this capstan effect plays a significant role, just as it does in a #206 'Munter hitch').
The operation of a #1439 Carrick bend - and the way it achieves stability and security - is different to a #1010 Bowline. There is no 'nipping loop' (a pure helix that is loaded at both ends) within a Carrick bend. Again, I am reserving the term 'loop' to mean a helix formed by the overlap of one rope segment over (or under) the other - which can be of S or Z chirality.
Eye knots (to which you prefer 'loop' knots) which have a #206 / #1174 'crossing hitch' as a nipping mechanism, are not based on a pure helical 'nipping
loop' - but, both ends of the nipping
structure are loaded.
And this is where things get difficult. Ashley did not depict 'Bowlines' using a 'Crossing hitch' as a nipping mechanism. And so, this is open to debate.
In my view, a nipping mechanism (or structure) that is not in the form of a
helix renders it to a sub-class of
virtual Bowlines. The nipping mechanisms in #1012 and #1013 are
helical - and can easily be recognized as 'Bowlines'.
In the attached image of a
single Karash eye knot, the nipping mechanism is not in the form of a
helix. The nipping mechanism is in the form of a #206 / #1174 Crossing hitch. But, it is loaded at both ends. For this reason, I refer to it as a 'nipping structure' (rather than 'nipping loop').
All the other elements are present; it has a 'collar' - and the collar and 2 legs (which comprise a 'bight') are
encircled and clamped by the 'nipping structure'. It has an 'eye' (which you call a 'loop') that permits attachments / connections. It is jam resistant. By all accounts, the structure ticks all of the box's with the one exception of its nipping mechanism - which is based on #206 Crossing hitch (and not a pure helix). I believe this structure to be a
virtual Bowline.
Another eye knot that presents difficulties is
#1033 Carrick loop.
Ashley did not identify this eye knot as a 'Bowline'.
In my view, this structure also ticks nearly all of the box's. The problem area is with the
2 legs of the collar (which you may prefer to call a 'bight' component).
In Ashley's depiction of 'Bowlines' - the 2 legs of the collar always feed through the 'nipping loop' from the
same direction. In #1033 Carrick loop, the 2 legs enter the nipping loop from opposite directions. This must have caused Ashley to avoid use of the term 'Bowline' to describe the structure.
However, #1033 Carrick loop does have a 'nipping loop' (it is a pure helix that is loaded at both ends).
Again, perhaps the title
virtual Bowline is appropriate?
And there is also the so-called 'Myrtle'.
It has a nipping loop that take the form of a
helix.
There is a collar and 2 legs.
However, the legs of the collar enter the
nipping loop from opposite directions.
Is this a '
virtual' Bowline?
And finally (due to limit of 4 photos per post) - there is [a] #1439 derived Carrick eye knot.
The nipping mechanism in this eye knot takes the form of #206 Crossing hitch, and not a
helix.
However, the crossing hitch is loaded at both ends and therefore, it can be defined as a 'nipping structure'. Both legs of the collar are encircled and clamped by the nipping structure. It is jam resistant and it is an eye knot.
All the box's are ticked with the one exception of the nipping structure (which isn't in the form of a helix).
Interestingly, the collar does not form around the SPart as with the common #1010 Bowline. Instead, the collar forms around the
returning eye leg.
Can this be regarded as a
virtual anti-Bowline?
NOTE: In the anti-Bowline (aka 'eskimo Bowline') the collar forms around the ongoing eye leg.