International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => New Knot Investigations => Topic started by: SS369 on February 24, 2013, 04:05:19 PM

Title: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on February 24, 2013, 04:05:19 PM
Composite knot.

Designing knots can be an interesting therapy.
It can be a hit and miss type of thing or it can be with a certain intent and/or goal.
The thread "a simple lock for the bowline" has held my interest since casting my eyes on it.
There are few ways to achieve the "lock", some easy, some not.

I've tangled something new, to me at least, and I'm offering it here for review.

I've taken a few elements from knots I like and that have something valuable about them and created a composite knot. An end-of-line eye-loop using the bowline as the base.
The braided double was the other element, but just a portion of it. I like the way it works, spreading tensile grip along its travels.
Some could also view it as a marriage of figure eight/nine and bowline.

I feel that although it uses more line than some other attempts, the usage is justified by the result. It is a streamlined affair and even when not fully cinched up completely snug it works.

Dressed, tightened and loaded to bouncing (3 foot drop) climbers weight (me in harness), it was easy to untie by flexing the "braid".

Resisted ring-loading at my own weight, as best I could test this.

I find it no more difficult to tie than the other offerings in the bowline securing attempts. Easy to inspect. Secure in all the various materials and sizes I own. And easy to untie.

In the the pictures attached I included 6mm test tether I used.

SS
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 24, 2013, 06:49:48 PM
Hmmm, I see the elements you mention --well, the
obvious and the "braided double" aspect (less so, any
8/9).  Yes, designing can be different from surprise
discoveries from fiddling w/rope, though the latter
sometimes are just irresistable impositions.   ;)

In some 8mm kernmantle relatively new & only used
for rope play, I find this eye knot to be not so comfortably
drawn up; it's not obvious how one should set it.  E.g.,
one can grasp the collar windings and pull them towards
the body while loading the eye leg(s).

I don't think that the *apparent* security of this knot
will be appealing --i.e., it at least doesn't appear to draw
up into something with a secure vs. loose/open look.
(I guess that the extension of the collar gives some greater
impediment to the SPart feeding into the nub and loosening
--that where the normal collar would turn around the SPart
instead is here a pinching as the collar legs cross en route
to their eventual turn.

(Naturally, once the rope was in the hand, I did some
fiddling ... :  curses, now another *new knot* to record.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on February 24, 2013, 07:54:19 PM
Hmmm, I see the elements you mention --well, the
obvious and the "braided double" aspect (less so, any
8/9).  Yes, designing can be different from surprise
discoveries from fiddling w/rope, though the latter
sometimes are just irresistable impositions.   ;)

In some 8mm kernmantle relatively new & only used
for rope play, I find this eye knot to be not so comfortably
drawn up; it's not obvious how one should set it.  E.g.,
one can grasp the collar windings and pull them towards
the body while loading the eye leg(s).

I don't think that the *apparent* security of this knot
will be appealing --i.e., it at least doesn't appear to draw
up into something with a secure vs. loose/open look.
(I guess that the extension of the collar gives some greater
impediment to the SPart feeding into the nub and loosening
--that where the normal collar would turn around the SPart
instead is here a pinching as the collar legs cross en route
to their eventual turn.

(Naturally, once the rope was in the hand, I did some
fiddling ... :  curses, now another *new knot* to record.)


--dl*
====

Thanks for the brief critique Dan.
Yes, the "irresistible (sp) impositions" do happen and pleasantly so.  Then you find out they have been there all along. ;-)

In some 5/8 inch bull rope (kernmantle) it is a bear to draw up! But, it resisted my trying to make it slip as a loop. Ring-load test, it didn't do so well, but I think that is because of the inability to hand set that rope (think Anaconda). Few  standard knots do, they usually require back ups till forces set the affair.

I think it surpasses "apparent security", imo, as it holds very well loose as the nipping loop constricts with load. Unloaded it resists coming undone during slack shaking.

There are a number of knots out there that work pretty well with open spaces throughout the tangle. As the pictures of the post loaded 6mm tether shows.

Snug it up in what you have, dressing it as makes sense to you, then slack shake test it and if you would at that point give it your 5-2-1 stress test.

"curses, now another *new knot* to record"  < Inquiring minds want to know. Shoot a picture please.

S
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 25, 2013, 05:08:09 AM
Quote
Quote
"curses, now another *new knot* to record"  <
Inquiring minds want to know. Shoot a picture please.

Voici!  The tail completes the eye from the top,
diving through the turNip and reaching to the lower
side of the SPart (as though for a left-handed bowline)
but, instead of immediately turning, twists away and
then turns back, wrapping once outside of the loop
and then wraps down through, and finishes again
through --but I moved this finish to the left side
of the eye leg, looking to improve the curvature of
the SPart there (its bending around the eye leg seemed
too hard, not benefiting from the 3 diameters surrounded).

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on February 26, 2013, 01:46:58 AM
Interesting, thanks for sharing this.

Seems a bit on the bulky side after dressing and tightening. And with springy rope it doesn't care to stay set at the coils above the nipping loop. Ring loading shows the movement. And it actually feeds the tail out.   :o

SS
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 26, 2013, 08:16:51 PM
Seems a bit on the bulky side after dressing and tightening.
One man's "bulky" is another man's "corpulent".
--5 dia. on one aspect, I'd say.  But, it works.

Quote
And with springy rope it doesn't care to stay set at the coils above the nipping loop.
Ring loading shows the movement. And it actually feeds the tail out.   :o
?!
I don't find this : in firm (maybe not "springy") 8mm kernmantle
nylon; in rather springy, softish-laid 5/16" (sounds like 8mm!) PP.
What are you dealing with?  One should be able to set the knot
by pulling the coils snug (blood knot -like); that holds the SPart
and it's turNip holds the other end of the nub.
Repeating this with smaller PP soft-laid cord that was given
to me by someone cursing its intransigence as "the Devil's material":
same solid result (and this was material that the EBDB loosened in!).

Ring-loading my PP doesn't see any movement.

Going now for some really ornery rope --aged BW II (ha!)--,
the wraps hardly bend (I can insert a finger), but the knot
stays wide-openly tied (it's a fight to bend it less than 5dia).
(I will not resort to contortions with the pulley to set this!)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: James Petersen on February 27, 2013, 09:32:03 PM
I tested this knot to failure several times in some cord I have around. It didn't slip or jam. When it failed, however the knot disappeared, so finding out where and how it failed might be a challenge. I took the liberty of making a video of testing the knot to near failure (68 kg, when those tested to failure failed at about 70 kg.) and untying it, which was by no means difficult. If you are interested, the videos are at: http://archive.org/details/Composite_Knot (http://archive.org/details/Composite_Knot).
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on February 28, 2013, 03:51:01 AM
Awesome James and thank you.

I have not tested this knot to failure, but did test it with body weight which is the use I will commit the loop to.

I am curious to know what you believe the maximum tensile stress your rig can handle is?

I have the means to stress some of my ropes to failure, but have no means of observing or recording any data.

SS
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: James Petersen on February 28, 2013, 07:44:01 AM

I am curious to know what you believe the maximum tensile stress your rig can handle is?

SS

In it's current configuration,  I have two limitations -- the weight that the scale can measure: 150 kg., and the load that the baseball bat/windlass can withstand -- I think that to be somewhere between 150 and 180 kg. I once used a pulley to double the weight that the scale could measure, but the windlass failed at around 180 kg.. In order to test lines for more than 140 -- 150 kg, I will have to change the windlass to something stronger than a maple baseball bat -- perhaps a bamboo bat or a steel pipe. The video was made with an iPhone taped in a position where it could record the test.
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 28, 2013, 06:35:04 PM
I tested this knot ...

You mean the OP's?  --or the vastly superior  ;D follow-up one?


 ;)
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: James Petersen on March 01, 2013, 07:40:12 AM
I tested this knot ...

You mean the OP's?  --or the vastly superior  ;D follow-up one?


 ;)

Since you asked, I thought I might as well make a video of the vastly superior "corpuloop".  ;D The video can be viewed at:  https://archive.org/details/DLsCorpuloopLoadedToNearFailure  (https://archive.org/details/DLsCorpuloopLoadedToNearFailure).

In several informal tests, this variation tested between 71kg -- 85 kg before failure. In the video, I loaded it to 70 kg. before untying it. I found the knot easier to remember than the OP's knot, but it seems more fiddly to tie and dress. Like the OP's knot, the knot pretty much disappears when tested to failure. The movement of the working end during loading is interesting. This knot appears much like the 1x2L variation of the Lazy Dog, but with the addition of the collar.
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 01, 2013, 08:36:36 PM
I tested this knot ...

You mean the OP's?  --or the vastly superior  ;D follow-up one?

 ;)

Since you asked, I thought I might as well make a video of the vastly superior "corpuloop".  ;D
...
In several informal tests, this variation tested between 71kg -- 85 kg before failure.

Great.  Now we can dispense with X1's vain overreach for some
pejorative qualitative definition of "vast" for a quantitative one :
about 20% greater.
 ;D

Quote
I found the knot easier to remember than the OP's knot,
but it seems more fiddly to tie and dress.

I found myself making the final end tucks a half-turn too
soon, emerging in the same rather than opposite direction
as the nipped eye leg.  Then, I think I'm coming to favor
making both tucks of the tail on the eye-side of the eye
leg, rather than the first on the away side and just the
final one on the eye side.  YMMV ?!

Thanks much,
--dl*
====
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: X1 on March 01, 2013, 09:17:15 PM
I think I'm coming to favor making both tucks of the tail on the eye-side of the eye leg, rather than the first on the away side and just the final one on the eye side.

...the ubiquitous smart-phone-camera ubiquity...

   Quantitatively speaking, what I see is an about 100% less presence of the picture(s) that could had accompanied the verbal description of this quite different variation....
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 02, 2013, 09:56:55 PM
I think I'm coming to favor making both tucks of the tail on the eye-side of the eye leg, rather than the first on the away side and just the final one on the eye side.

... verbal description of this quite different variation....

It is a minor difference, easily seen from the photo above:
where the tail on its finishing wrapping leftwards
tucks through the turNip on the right side of an
eye leg initially and then on the left side,
I suggest that both of these tucks lie on the right.
(But one might try also both on the left, and see how
your particular material fancies that, too!)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: X1 on March 02, 2013, 10:33:25 PM
It is a minor difference

  I guess that pictures can show minor differences, too !

But one might try also both on the left, and see how

   Another "minor" difference... ( As I have said in many occasions, there are no minor differences between simple knots ! Any difference can change things much more than we can anticipate...)
   I guess your smart-phone would have been recharged by now.  :)
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on July 20, 2013, 06:26:42 PM
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
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: X1 on July 20, 2013, 07:21:01 PM
   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.
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on July 20, 2013, 07:47:29 PM
   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
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: X1 on July 22, 2013, 07:31:25 AM
   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 (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.
 
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on July 23, 2013, 02:00:31 AM
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
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: X1 on July 23, 2013, 03:27:42 AM
  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... :)
   
   
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 15, 2013, 07:40:16 PM
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:
Quote
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?!!)      :o   ::)

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


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on August 16, 2013, 12:03:53 AM
I should object to this diction / categorization:
Quote
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
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: kd8eeh on August 16, 2013, 02:55:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: xarax on August 16, 2013, 07:52:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 17, 2013, 12:32:25 AM
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.)

Quote
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.


 ;)
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on August 17, 2013, 01:32:57 AM
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. (?)

Quote
:-\  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
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 18, 2013, 06:45:35 AM
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.

Quote
Quote
:-\  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.


 ???
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 19, 2013, 08:59:05 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).)

Quote
... 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.)

Quote
(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"!

Quote
  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.)

Quote
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 ... .)

Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on August 20, 2013, 12:15:23 AM
Thank you Dan.

SS
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: xarax on December 18, 2014, 01:37:10 PM
   The loop shown at Reply#18 (1) is very similar ( but easier to tie, as the second leg of the collar is not tucked under the first ), to the Enhanced Bowiline , by Harry Asher ( Knotting Matters 23 ), shown at the attached picture. I had tucked the second leg "under" the first. in order to offer a larger deflexion to the direct continuation of the returning eye leg, and to secure it there further.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4283.msg28689#msg28689
Title: Cross-gartered, X-collar TIB bowline
Post by: xarax on June 01, 2015, 10:43:43 AM
   Here is a my new TIB bowline, tied on my new rope !
   
   Of course, I am just kidding : The rope is not new, because it is just my orange rope turned into purple by Picassa. The bowline is not new, because it is just a variation of Braided bowline, with a doubled, cross-gartered collar ( = X-collar ). It s TIB-ness is not unexpected : in fact, it should be pretty obvious to any knot tyer who has understood the "haltering the collar" concept/method ( applied by Ashley in many knots ). Imagine the same bowline with the pair of ends outside the cross-gartered collar(s) - then, you have just to reeve the whole knot though this collar/those collars ( which is the equivalent, topologically, to tuck the ends themselves through this collar(s) ). Last but not least, it is not "my" new TIB bowline, because I have just connected the dots in front of me, and because no knot belongs to any-body ( except, perhaps, to KnotGod, who, in His turn, belongs to God Himself !  :) ) 
   There is no big difference of how the two legs of the collar will be crossed ( over/under or under/over ) - I had chosen this way because I think it makes some curves smoother. Also, I believe that there is no point to add yet another crossing "above" this first one, which I find adequate. If we feel that we should add something, that will be a second nipping turn, not a third collar ! There should better be an equilibrium, a balance between the two structures of the bowline, the "nipping structure" ( the knot tied on the Standing Part before the eye ) and the "collar structure" ( the knot tied on the Standing Part after the eye ).

See also : http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4701
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: xarax on June 02, 2015, 02:17:10 PM
   I think that there is a way to distinguish those bowlines. In the original Braided bowline, the idea was to weave the Standing Part and the two legs of the collar, above the nipping loop, as much as possible, in an effort to dissipate the tensile forces running through each one of them to all three segments - a sort of splicing. The resulting image is something resembling a three-strand braid. In the Cross-gartered collar bowline presented in the previous post, the idea was to weave only the legs of the collar, around a straight Standing Part which penetrates them. The Enhanced bowline and the Simplified Braided bowline,  are somewhere in between - but, as I do not see any significant deflexion of their Standing Parts, which will allow a portion of the tensile forces running through them to be "uploaded" to the legs of the collar, I believe they do not "work" as the Braided bowline - their structure is different, although the differences in slippage and/or strength may be minor or insignificant.
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 02, 2015, 08:45:00 PM
In the original Braided bowline, the idea was to weave the Standing Part and the two legs of the collar,
above the nipping loop, as much as possible, in an effort to dissipate the tensile forces ...
There is another way to orient the tail's extended
*activity*, so that it doesn't affect the S.Part so
much as just provide a (half-of-a) blood knot (common
whipping
) sort of secure finish --the wraps clamping
upon the tail and holding the finish secure.

I have some favor for doing this with the coils
done around the eye legs, and the wrapping being
somewhat awkward to make --in that the tail must
be tucked under the prior-formed wraps-- so that the
tightening comes simply from hauling on the tail in
setting.  (The exit for this extension sees the tail
returning through the central nipping loop as the
3rd diameter therein.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: SS369 on June 02, 2015, 11:15:32 PM
In the original Braided bowline, the idea was to weave the Standing Part and the two legs of the collar,
above the nipping loop, as much as possible, in an effort to dissipate the tensile forces ...
There is another way to orient the tail's extended
*activity*, so that it doesn't affect the S.Part
--dl*

One of my original criteria was to involve shedding tensile forces on the standing part (as with the braided double) before it entered the nipping area, not just to add security.  That is the purpose of the small amount of braiding.
The cross garter doesn't engage the standing part this way.

That "activity" is not so difficult nor any harder than other suggestions in this thread.

And everything after the nip regarding the tail wrapping was not what I was after. We already have "simple locks" that work very well for that.

In truth, I don't think there is enough braiding (in the OP offering) to accomplish this, so the effect is most likely negligible or close to. Perhaps extending it a few more weaves will. The attribute that makes it worth trying is that it retains post eye tie-ability.

SS
Title: Re: Composite knot
Post by: xarax on June 03, 2015, 10:07:04 AM
I don't think there is enough braiding... to accomplish this

  The optimum amount and way of braiding is a difficult thing to achieve : We have three braided strands, each of which is loaded differently ( 100%-50%, 50%-0%, 0%-0% of the total load by their two ends, give or take ). A symmetric, good-looking braid way may be easier to memorize and tie, but not very effective in forcing the most heavily loaded strand, the direct continuation of the Standing End, to bend as much as possible, and "upload" a significant portion of the tension running through it to the other two.