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…
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 [b]composite knot[/b] --an end-of-line eye-loop using the bowline as the baseas knots can be seen as being composed of components, and everything would be "composite" by that judgement. (E.g., I like to describe the [i]bowine[/i] 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*
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
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.
“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.
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.
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
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.
???
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 [i]bowline[/i] [b]< First Confusion : Tying an [i]Eskimo bowline[/i] and the feeding its tail away and into a [i]bowline[/i]?[/b]–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 [i]bowline[/i] (#1010) : this is the same thing I'm describing. (Also note that these components of #1075 can be formed in the reverse order --[i]bowline[/i] first, and then the [i]bowline on a bight[/i] tied in its eye (anticipated by having a large eye).)
... and then perhaps reeving the tail back through the first knot of this [u]now[/u] composite knot (and back through the 2nd knot, [b]( 2 knots, not composite [u]to my use of the term[/u][s]inology[/s])[/b] 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 [u]and then[/u] remarked that that result didn't meet the OP's intent for [i]composite[/i]. (And then we engage a philosophical deliberation about that.)
(Hmmm, is it only "[u]now[/u]" 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? [b]No clue as to what you mean. Seems like a statement that ends with a question mark.[/b]Which it is, which points to my meaning : I'm questioning what constitutes [i]compositeness[/i] --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 [i]water bowline[/i] 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 [i]"mirrored bowline",[/i] although that knot works on a single base of a [i]larkshead[/i] --or is that a [i]"composite"[/i] of mirrored turNips?!!) [b]It seems you are being facetious here but it could be semantically composite[/b].No, I'm pointing to the difficult conceptual issue of figuring what is [i]composite[/i] --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 [s]comprised[/s]composed 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 … .)
Thank you Dan.
SS
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.
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
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.
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*
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
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.