Kenneth Reuben Goldberg, a.k.a. TheTreeSpyder

[glens]

Ken (or should I call you Rube?),

You certainly have come up with some thought-provoking concepts, I'll grant you that.

Please carefully consider this image:
<img src="http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?postid=170127">

Study it some more.&nbsp; If you have trouble understanding it or why it's so, let me know and I'll do my best to walk you through the underlying concepts.

One thing I want to ask you is to try and use common terms whenever possible.&nbsp; I don't recall ever hearing "covenant of the arc" or C.o.B. before, for a couple of examples.&nbsp; I can't think off hand what the proper term for the first might be, but the accepted term for the second is "CG" for Center of Gravity.&nbsp; It's usually shown on drawings as a small enclosed circle divided into quadrants alternating black and white, as I recall.

Glen

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

All you did was fancy up my drawing, Glen, you big copycat.

 

[a_lopa]

these diagrams are incorrect

 

[Stumper]

That's funny Brian-whenever I see corn er I mean COB I think of Spydy.

We love ya KC, just have to straighten ya out and untangle your web a bit.:angel:

 

[glens]

Dan,

Since these are simply vertical right triangles (how convenient!), the angles used do not need need to be derived.&nbsp; I had the luxury of seeing the coordinates for the cursor locations at the ends of the hypoteni (salute to Ken).&nbsp; The values are correct, as proportionate to the triangle side lengths.

Glen

 

[Nickrosis]

JPS, I think we've found our technical writer for Ken's book!

I agree, though, that your message could be more clear if you used standard terminology, Ken. I know you enjoy the English language, but to express your message effectively, sometimes you just have to use bullets instead of paragraphs and quick, straightforward points instead of stories. Lots of knowledge in your head!! ...it's just a matter of translating to everyone else.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Goldberg???

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

i have not the schoolin'fer the technical terms; i take what is given and accept it from others; a rose as is a rose by any other name; the names don't matter to me (unless they don't make sense). In all humility; it was i that wished to have a set language and accronyms for these terms and more; it went over less than well.

i stretch to see things in a comprehensive view when i can, and just try to extend that as my best. There have been many times in my life that i did not follow my own given sense; and conceded to another or group; just to end up feeling sorry, even guilty, for where i allowed things to be led. My forwardness here, is far from not knowing any other way to live; it is because i feel it the best thing. i've got a better track record being honest to these things.

i will listen well to what ya say, but all in all am following my good humored, comprehensive nature to these things, so it is easy for me to slip back into them bruthas!



Not to be argumentative, and back to buisness; here is my thoughts on Glens's Drawing at top of thread . i can take some hits on the drawing with question marks that Mike re-did in Load Corrections awhile ago as i was trying to evolve to higher understanding. But Mike's Improved Lacing and comment (i beleive) that you couldn't raise the line tension at any point above the pull cuz the pulleys are on the load i believe is totally wrong. The 500, might not be generated, especially where noted, but some anchor points and line tensions are above the line pull IMLHO.

Thannks,
-KC

 

[glens]

<b>Butch:</b>&nbsp; Never crossed my mind.&nbsp; I was thinking about ole <a href="http://www.rube-goldberg.com/">Rube</a>.&nbsp; Here's his "simplified pencil-sharpener":
<img src="http://www.rube-goldberg.com/images/pencil_sharpener.jpg">

<b>Dan:</b>&nbsp; The two angles used were completely arbitrary.&nbsp; As it turns out, the actual tangents are 210/134 for the first and 108/65 for the second (I hadn't yet "filed" the scratch sheet I used to work the ratio of proportions).

Glen