Composite knot

[SS369]

I have tied the SS braided bowline composite using one inch tubular tape. It performs very well in this medium according to my test criteria.

SS

[X1]

   I do not know anything about "knots" tied on webbing, but I think that they should be more secure, because they use the "collar mechanism" much more than the knots tied on ordinary ropes. By this, I mean that they can be considered as knots tied on a plurality of ropes, the one arranged next to the other, in a row, so they form a tape. So, these knots have a plurality of collars, in comparison to knots tied on a single rope. As the collars are so efficient mechanisms in knotting ( we have seen that in the amazing efficiency of the common and the "Eskimo" bowline ), I suspect that the "knots" on webbing are much more efficient than the "corresponding" knots tied on ordinary knots. ( I say "corresponding" , because, although the forms are "similar", the structural mechanisms are very different ! )
   So, one would tend to think that, with webbing, we can use simpler, less convoluted knots, which would be as secure as more complex knots tied on ropes. The braided bowline tied on a webbing seems an overkill to me. I suspect that you should try to imitate simpler bowlines, tie them on webbing, and see what happens - because I suspect that they would be much more secure than their "corresponding" knots tied on ropes.

[SS369]

   I do not know anything about "knots" tied on webbing, but I think that they should be more secure, because they use the "collar mechanism" much more than the knots tied on ordinary ropes. By this, I mean that they can be considered as knots tied on a plurality of ropes, the one arranged next to the other, in a row, so they form a tape. So, these knots have a plurality of collars, in comparison to knots tied on a single rope. As the collars are so efficient mechanisms in knotting ( we have seen that in the amazing efficiency of the common and the "Eskimo" bowline ), I suspect that the "knots" on webbing are much more efficient than the "corresponding" knots tied on ordinary knots. ( I say "corresponding" , because, although the forms are "similar", the structural mechanisms are very different ! )
   So, one would tend to think that, with webbing, we can use simpler, less convoluted knots, which would be as secure as more complex knots tied on ropes. The braided bowline tied on a webbing seems an overkill to me. I suspect that you should try to imitate simpler bowlines, tie them on webbing, and see what happens - because I suspect that they would be much more secure than their "corresponding" knots tied on ropes.

Of course I will try other knots. I have before and will when the thought occurs to me. ;-))

Yes, the tubular webbing could be more efficient, but it is very slippery and that plays into the knotting scenario as well as that some are extremely firm and some very soft.
I do think that the attribute of being easily crushed, scrunched, deformed goes towards at east the perception of more security.

I believe that knots in webbing, if they approximate a "double back" condition ( as in harness waist belts), the more stable the knot will be.

SS

[X1]

   The Braided bight component / collar structure is a general idea, that can be applied in bowlines with more complex = double nipping structures as well. I tend to believe that a double nipping structure, be it in the form of a double nipping turn, or in the form of a Clove / Constrictor / Girth hitch based nipping structure around the two legs of the bight component, is necessary, regarding the material strength and the psychological security they offer to the climber or the rescue worker. This most simple yet most efficient idea of how to secure the Tail even further, by weaving the continuation of the eye leg of the Tail side and the Standing Part higher / above than the nipping turn, is ingenious IMHO, and it should be explored even further.
   There is a number of different ways we can weave the bight component and the Standing part (1) - all seem very secure, and the only way we can decide which is more secure is to test them in a variety of loading patterns / rope materials combinations. In this post one can see a simplified Braided structure, where the continuation of the eye leg collars the standing end by making a 360 degrees turn around it, then passing underneath itself, in between the ascending leg of the collar and the standing end, before it finally returns into the nipping turn. It is far less "braided" than the original structure presented in this thread, of course, but I believe it is also very efficient - and, perhaps, for most applications, more efficient than enough !   
   ( Waiting to receive my new blue rope, I had taken the pictures with my old orange one on a black background, and I had simply inverted the colours, so that Mark Gommers can print them without soaking his printer s papers with black ink !  )

   1. In the pictures below, as well as in the pictures of the Braided bowline presented at : http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4480.msg28687#msg28687
we can keep the standing end as it is, and interchange the two legs of the bight component / collar structure, so the direct continuation of the eye leg of the Tail side becomes the Tail, and vice versa. I have no clue which of the two variations of each knot is more secure...

P.S. I have used the characterization " Simplified braided ", rather too loosely. The structure shown is not a "braid", in the ordinary sense, but what is left of a simple braid, just after it is simplified further, and before it becomes a straight line !    I could have used the moniker "pseudo-Braided", or something like that. The fact remains that even this simple structure, tied around the standing end "higher" / "above" the nipping turn, is very efficient in enhancing the efficiency of the simple collar mechanism, and thus in improving the security of the "common" bowline.
 

[SS369]

This "simplified braiding" is but a round turn that goes under itself.

I agree that it helps the "standard" bowline security (perhaps others as well I would think), in that there is a biting element above the nip that helps arrest tail movement.
Multiply/duplicate that out a few times and you'll have a braided bowline composite eye shaped loop.
Or something that works somewhat like a rat-tailed stopper above the nipping section.

SS

[X1]

  This "simplified braiding" is but a round turn that goes under itself.

   
  True...In the previous post s P.S. I had called it " what is left of a simple braid, just after it is simplified even further, and before it becomes a straight line"... but, apparently, you were not impressed by this blah blah, were you ?    Neither did I !
   I see it as a small portion of the rat-tail-stopper s mechanism, indeed, with one only "crossing point", where there is a riding turn on the ascending leg, over a round turn on the descending one. I  had tied it with yet another pair of overlapping round turns, but the collar structure became way too long...
   I do not see the braided structure as a mere "multiplication" of the simply weaved rat-tail-stopper s structure. It is something more complex, but I can not really say / define the difference...Roughly speaking, in the braided structure, after a strand goes "over" a second one, it "dives" in between this and the main line / standing end - if you could possibly understand what I mean !    In the  rat-tail-stopper weaving, this does not happen : a strand which, at a certain point on its helical path around the main line / standing end, jumps over a second one, does not "dive" like this : it meets again the main line / standing end, without passing in between it and the second strand. I am sure you can describe this difference in a less wordy manner...
   
   

[Dan_Lehman]

What X. presents in those blue images --"but a round turn that ..."--
has been published by Harry Asher as variously the "enhanced
/ brummycham[?] bowline".  One can imagine more wraps.

I should object to this diction / categorization:

created a composite knot --an end-of-line eye-loop using the bowline as the base

as knots can be seen as being composed of components,
and everything would be "composite" by that judgement.
(E.g., I like to describe the bowine as the marriage of
a loop and a bight --as knots books define them.)

But what I would see as a composite knot is something
such as tying an Eskimo bowline and then feeding its tail
away into a bowline --nicely "PET", you see-- and then
perhaps reeving the tail back through the first knot of this
now composite knot (and back through the 2nd knot, giving
it a 3rd diameter).  (Hmmm, is it only "now" because of
the tail's reeving from one to other, and not by virtue of
the first-formed being essentially in the eye of the other?
Consider that Ashley, e.g., presents a bowline on a bight
tied off with a bowlilne --which knots could be formed
in either order.  And my suggested composite knot comes
to resemble much the so-called "mirrored bowline", although
that knot works on a single base of a larkshead --or is
that a "composite" of mirrored turNips?!!)         

.:.  --an issue of boundary drawing, somewhat arbitrary!?


--dl*
====

[SS369]

I should object to this diction / categorization:

created a composite knot --an end-of-line eye-loop using the bowline as the base

as knots can be seen as being composed of components,
and everything would be "composite" by that judgement.
(E.g., I like to describe the bowine as the marriage of
a loop and a bight --as knots books define them.)

--dl*
====

Hi Dan.

Be my guest and object, that is for you to do anytime.

But, I had entered into designing this knot with the criteria of combining the major features of two distinctly different knots to achieve a composite knot that enhances performance. And so I chose that for the thread title.

As for your offering of what you would deem a composite, I don't follow, though I have tried with rope in hands. Would you be kind enough to share a picture?
May even generate more diversions. 

SS

[kd8eeh]

I hope this one is better.  The idea is to use a janus style bowline with a four strand braid on the top.  I imagine the same could be done with more strands by adding more collars, but this particular one is relatively  easy to tie and seems quite secure.

[xarax]

this particular one is relatively easy to tie and seems quite secure.

"Easy", indeed... It is not "difficult" to weave a carpet ! It just takes a few brief moments more - compared to the life of the Universe ! 
The efficiency of the security achieved by the addition of more wraps, half-hitches, or whole knots, is halved. each time you add something more !
A knotted line is / should be more convoluted than a straight line, but not TOO MUCH more ! When you reach a very secure knot by adding things on a straight line, make a stop, and then start subtracting things - a good knot is a knot that can not lose more weight, without losing its soul. I believe you can subtract a lot out  of this half-carpet shown here, and still have a secure knot. My friendly advice is to not to allow your evident dexterity with the ropes drift you away from the KnotLand, which is placed in between the bright StraghtLine land and the obscure TangleLand.

[Dan_Lehman]

I had entered into designing this knot with the criteria of combining the major features of two distinctly different knots to achieve a composite knot that enhances performance. And so I chose that for the thread title.

Which sounds akin to what my design goals were
that led me to the "Lehman8" (hmmm, that might
get pronouced "lemonade"!) : with a fig.8 base for
that rumored mysteriously got strength, but some
bowlinesque completion for easy untying --voila!!
(No real confirmation re strength, but it seems good,
in general, bringing security-when-slack along, too.)

As for your offering of what you would deem a composite,I don't follow, though I have tried with rope in hands. Would you be kind enough to share a picture?

  And where do you lose the path?

You know how to make the 1st-formed component,
viz., the Eskimo bowline;
the next step it to take the tail up "into a bowline
--maybe it's this variation on "into" : I mean "to make
a bowline (THE quick-tie, or other ways) with the tail"
(as though the 1st knot might not exist, but in fact
now it does --irrelevant to this tying step, but for
judging proximity and such).  You do know how to
tie a bowline, right?  (Maybe X. does, too!)

No image should be needed, beyond what comes
to mind.  If you have trouble, I need to understand
how/why, not see a mere wringing of hands!

The tail of the 1st points roughly perpendicular to
the line & being-formed eye; that of the 2nd points
eyewards, so this natural direction of tails conveniently
enables its path from=>into=>returning each knot.


 

[SS369]

Which sounds akin to what my design goals were
that led me to the "Lehman8" (hmmm, that might
get pronouced "lemonade"!) : with a fig.8 base for
that rumored mysteriously got strength, but some
bowlinesque completion for easy untying --voila!!
(No real confirmation re strength, but it seems good,
in general, bringing security-when-slack along, too.)

So what is your point? That I named my thread incorrectly. That I had entered into the design under the false pretense that it was a composite? That you did it before me?
You bring in what you've done in days gone by, singing its praises (unconfirmed), sort of sounding akin, but I am left without your point you supposedly are making. (?)

  And where do you lose the path?

You know how to make the 1st-formed component,
viz., the Eskimo bowline;
the next step it to take the tail up "into a bowline
--maybe it's this variation on "into" : I mean "to make
a bowline (THE quick-tie, or other ways) with the tail"
(as though the 1st knot might not exist, but in fact
now it does --irrelevant to this tying step, but for
judging proximity and such).  You do know how to
tie a bowline, right?  (Maybe X. does, too!)

No image should be needed, beyond what comes
to mind.  If you have trouble, I need to understand
how/why, not see a mere wringing of hands!

The tail of the 1st points roughly perpendicular to
the line & being-formed eye; that of the 2nd points
eyewards, so this natural direction of tails conveniently
enables its path from=>into=>returning each knot.

I lost it in your descriptive wording, just like I have again with your response.
If it is too much trouble to supply a graphic when asked, then I'll drop it.
Maybe I'll have to get X to supply one.
Back to wringing my hands, thank you very much.

SS

[Dan_Lehman]

Which sounds akin to what my design goals were
that led me to the "Lehman8" (hmmm, that might
get pronouced "lemonade"!) : with a fig.8 base for
that rumored mysteriously got strength, but some
bowlinesque completion for easy untying --voila!!
(No real confirmation re strength, but it seems good,
in general, bringing security-when-slack along, too.)

So what is your point?

That we have shared a path to discovery
by means of isolating components and
seeking new combinations.

  And where do you lose the path?

You know how to make the 1st-formed component,
viz., the Eskimo bowline;

I lost it in your descriptive wording, just like I have again with your response.

Again with no help?
We're talking about tying two well-known knots
here; why is this a problem?  You tie the 1st knot;
you have a tail from that now to work with, and
so can follow the idea in tying the 2nd knot, one
the SPart side (away from eye, i.e.) of the 1st.
And you have yet tail from that, with which you
might seek to do some further tucking/securing/joining.


 

[Dan_Lehman]

Because I believe that language should work --and
should be carefully used & minded to hone it to
work well--, I will show how it ought to have worked
here.  There are, after all, a great many things for
which one cannot explain & resolve with images;
if we become so inept with language, what then?

I regard my above --and here further explained--
suggestion as simply like that of advising one to
use a butterfly knot in a trucker's hitch (to which
advice "show my an image" should seem peculiar!).

So, below is the sort of "help" I sought in getting
understanding of where my words failed.

But what I would see as a composite knot is something
such as tying an Eskimo bowline and then feeding its tail away
into a bowline  < First  Confusion : Tying an Eskimo bowline
and the feeding its tail away and into a bowline?

--nicely "PET", you see-- ( an unnecessary ditty added
 and it distracts from the point you may have been making)

As I sensed, there was an issue on the sense of "into",
which I addressed in a reply.  No, it's not the sense of
going to some extant other knot which somehow just
awaits its use, but in the sense of "take this rope and
tie it into a (round) sling" (where one should know just
what to do, and it wouldn't be looking for some sling
to tie "into", but working entirely with the given rope!).

To say that my "PET" note distracted is to be surprisingly
resistant to what should've been its help : that the
intended 2nd knot (which does not pre-exist, but will
be tied now) can be tied without prior formation of
some part of it is a nice convenience.  And noting
this point should serve as a clue, not distraction.

Consider that Ashley, e.g., presents a bowline on a bight
tied off with a bowlilne --which knots could be formed
in either order.

Again, yes, consider Ashley's #1075 as a model, where its
tail is then taken and tied into a bowline (#1010) :
this is the same thing I'm describing.  (Also note
that these components of  #1075 can be formed
in the reverse order --bowline first, and then the
bowline on a bight tied in its eye (anticipated by
having a large eye).)

... and then perhaps reeving the tail back through the first knot of this
now composite knot (and back through the 2nd knot,
   ( 2 knots, not composite to my use of the terminology)
giving it a 3rd diameter).

And here we see the problem : my words are attempted
to be forced into a narrow sense of "composite".  And this
has frustrated comprehension, whereas one could've seen
their intended sense and then remarked that that result
didn't meet the OP's intent for composite.  (And then
we engage a philosophical deliberation about that.)

(Hmmm, is it only "now"
because of the tail's reeving from one to other,
and not by virtue of the first-formed being essentially
in the eye of the other?
    No clue as to what you mean.
    Seems like a statement that ends with a question mark.

Which it is, which points to my meaning : I'm questioning
what constitutes compositeness --is it the proximity and
joint action of two recognizably distinct components of the
structure, or need there be some further entanglement
of them?  There is a case to make that our perception
can lead to inconsistent conclusions : Ashley's simple,
effective (at low loads, anyway) eye structure #160 can
be seen in the old water bowline images (#1012),
though something so brief as an end through a nipping
turn might seem less "knot" than "part"!

  And my suggested composite knot comes
to resemble much the so-called "mirrored bowline",
although that knot works on a single base of a larkshead
--or is that a "composite" of mirrored turNips?!!)
     It seems you are being facetious here but it could be semantically composite.

No, I'm pointing to the difficult conceptual issue
of figuring what is composite --that where I'd
thought of the cited *knot* as a single entity
(albeit somewhat complex), perhaps it could be
seen instead as more two-knots-like, and "composite"!?
(In any case, like the above-suggested entanglement,
the result is much a sort of jointly bound, back-to-back
(or front-to-back ...) adjacency of bowlinesque tangles,
with a common attribute of being resistant to loosening
even though relatively loosely tied to begin with.)

In the above post it seems to me that you are talking about
tying two complete knots to form a double knotted structure,
not a composite comprisedcomposed of parts (components).

This simple reply would've done much to further the
discussion.  Yes, indeed that is my suggestion, up
to the point about then reeving the tail of the away
one (2nd-formed, as I presented it) through the nub
of the 1st one, and back through the other --which
binds the recognizably distinct knots further.  (And
note that the loading of the eye-proximate one will
differ from what it would be were that knot alone
--all four of its exiting parts bear load (six parts after
the tail-reeving!), not the usual three of an eye knot.)

And so on.
NB: My suggested composite/compound/confound...
knot also reveals a recipe for like formations, using
various components --such as *guarding* the fig.8
eye knot with a bowline, even, with the tail-reeving
and all-strands loading gaining easy-enough untying
of the former.

I set out on this design with the thought that should
the "guard" knot come untied, there would be this
back-up / base knot yet to save the day;
but it seemed hard to explain how the rather-engaged
guard could come untied --being so well entangled--,
and, if so, how it could do so and the base knot NOT
also be dangerously loosened,
...
and so now I see the benefit not so much as having
a fall-back but simply in having such a complexity
of *knotting* that loosening just won't occur.

(A bowline (=#1010) can loosen in kernmantle ropes,
as both sides of the nipping loop can come back into it,
and the finishing, collaring bight isn't a binding structure
so much as a form-stabilzing one;
but with all the back'n'forth reeving advised above,
and also in e.g., the mirrored bowline, only the
SPart can feed back into the knotted mass, the other
side of the nipping loop will be further engaged and
not available to facilitate loosening.)


[at the risk of depleting X.'s stock ... >>>]   

--dl*
====

postscript ::
The OED reportedly just gave up the defence against
the vogue (ab)use of "literally" as a (lame) emphatic.
Some see that as language growing; I see it as the
death or at least severe weakening of language in
this case --a word that now must rely on context
or even some presumed meaning, rather than its
conveyance of meaning immediately.  (And similarly
"comprise", "compose", "include" have nicely given
complementary definitions that can enable precision,
which senses I believe are worth preserving.  (I think
that somewhere along the t.v. era announcers got
to fancy the sound of "comprise" no matter ... .)

[SS369]

Thank you Dan.

SS