Leg on Load

[TheTreeSpyder]

Another strategy and understanding that i have been reaching for, is what I have come to call ‘Leg on Load’. I use this several ways to grant more security and power to my rigs, and in compounding this with self tightening rigs, have evolved a self torquing rig; I consider these principals to be a more strategic lacings in a lot of cases. My aim is for more positive and secure control of the load, and to maintain a higher sweep longer for more lower obstacle clearance, in a self working format, that uses the natural mass and leverage of the load itself with intelli-gent lacing. Kinda like martial arts for trees, in that the leverage and mass of the load is pitted against itself, in it’s own conspiration to it’s own demise! And aspire to do this with the grace that comes from butterflying lightly between these 2 powers I have pitted against themselves, to serve my bidding, ushering at times a smooth ballet of motion at peak.

To understand and define these things, I feel that understanding 2:1 MA systems as a pre-requisite. For in these scenarios too, we deal with legs of pull on a point, friction betwixt these legs of pull and the focal point on this pull (defined by the angles between the legs of pull). So as I learn from one I fold to the other those lessons, to cross com-pair and understand more deeply by examining there aspects, for I find them to be exactly the same but different!

Anything can provide a 1x pulling point but running a lacing that will provide more than that, can be immensely better; placing that point in a good command of the CoB helps to add to the effect. Additional support can be achieved with a triangle hinging at tearoff etc., all these mechanical applications, tightly applied; can stack up and help overcome loads to your bidding.

i've been playing with this a while and trying to de-scribe it, has anyone ventured here?

 

[Treeman14]

Is it just me, or is anyone else saying, "What the heck are you talking about?"

It seems you're taking a simple swing and trying to make it into something extremely complicated, and I for one don't see the benefit.

Besides attempting to impress us with your verbosity, what's your point? And try to speak in plain english, or we may have to revoke your poetic license.

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Well, i was never taught these things, so am asking for more insights than my own.

i am seeking with simple tools and observations to confidentally and smoothly move larger, heavier loads. In fact seeking to within safe ranges, turn the 'obstacles' of size and weight into usable powers to stand with me rather than against me.

In it's weight/ size class one thing can fly ok, but with wider, higher obstacles underneath, it becomes harder to move larger and heavier stuff across. i seek to identify diffrent parts of the machine to polish up to facilitate more power to my task to overcome the increasing level of difficulty of pro-posed scenarios. Also i learn a lot, by tweaking everything and watching for what is weakest and its effect.

This Leg on Load thing that i guess Brett is also onto, is very simple and powerful upgrade in said systems i think, though i have never heard anyone comment on it, and have been playing, naming and describing it for a few years as i can. i was hoping that this time i had 'drawn' it out of myself in digestable terms.

Here is another drawing stepping thru evolution of thought, but this time falling short of the self torquing rig. Though the same principals would apply, only the extra tension goes into torque.

i beleive these things render a higher larger clear path, without the necessity of lifting, the tension is sometimes great enough that the climber can walk the hinge to a point of folde/failure, back away and the groundie can gradually slacken the rope (removing some support), causing the hinge to fail with the climber evacuated, maybe setting up the stob removal.

This is also easy to throw line/boomerang the crotch and the climber just has to catch it, clove it and cut it! i keep the green end heavy, so the load doesn't flip out (unroll), and the soft forgiving end goes down. Getting the CoB as close to the hitch as possible, give max, control and sweep.

 

[FBerkel]

Spider,

By jove, I think you're on to something!

The benefit of generating additional compression back along the axis of the piece, in order to delay breaking off, is a good one, I think. (You described the same idea a while back, right, when discussing leveraging a spar over with a pull line?) I can also envision the piece gaining momentum in the horizontal component of its swing, due to the extra pull excerted by the line.

I can see a couple of dangers to someone experimenting with this, though. One, a greater likelyhood of the line failing, due to both greater tension in this system, and more friction along the line's standing part. Two, greater hazard to the climber if a defect in the limb causes it to fail before the planned-for motion is complete (say, shearing along a crack.) So, one should probably use a stronger rope, and be very vigilant (or just get the hill out of there when it starts moving.

 

[treeclimber165]

With that last drawing, I can see where it could be helpful when you need to swing a limb around horozontally a long way.

But I try to be rather conservative with rope strengths, so I don't see where that should be an issue. My typical limb size for roping may range from 50# to 300# under most normal circumstances. I use 1/2" climbing line for lowering lines. Every time I get a new lifeline, my 'old' lifeline becomes a lowering line. Rated strength is 7000#-8000# with working load recommendations at 1/4 to 1/8 or rated strength. That equates to somewhere between 875# and 2000# working load rating, so I feel most circumstances would not require using a larger rope.
I typically will drag out the bull rope if I'm roping pieces over 400#. Otherwise I'll just take smaller pieces. I'm not waiting so long on the groundmen by taking smaller pieces, also.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

This is becoming a multi-lingual site.

First we had Johnbonics, now we have Spyderbonics. Read slowly to get through to the point. You might try running Spidey's posts through the translator at Bablefish. It does a pretty good job with French, German and Spanish.

Leavin' Loozeeanna, heading East!

Tom

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Ummmmmmmmm, in all honesty i must admit; that........ i really clean mine up to some extent; in fact my whore-iginal post for the lead on this thread was @ least 3x as long............. and quite color-full. For i constantly try to exercise viewing all options in that way as well as in rigging, hoping that exercising either, strenghtens both, and keeps it real in the heat of battle!

So, i'm workin'on it! :blob4:

Lil'warmer down here this time of year T?

Rig safe, drive safe; braking and steering of moving force!

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Most of this is just tightening the line and using that restriction to confine the motion to specific paths. i have used these strategies to sweep 20+' limbs around 180deg. parallel with the ground grace-fully, and still hanging onto the hinge, politely waiting for me to perform the final seperation as part of that grace. Sometimes it takes a lot of orhcestration to make it flow like that. Not an everyday thing, but once realized, can be an option most any rig, and also as realized as potent components can be assessed in every rig, to be lacking or potent. For i beleive in being able to name all the components, for a more comprehensive assess-meant and understanding, like not wanting to be blind to certain parts of a formulae i am always tangling with.

A lot of the power in these is in the self tightening rig being already tight, then self tightened further, then compound that even more with an extra leg of line, even if contained in the load itself. As the load lays down into the line slowly, this same action that is tightening the line as the limb drifts down, also closes the angle of the 2 legs. So the tension is increased beyond the pretightening by the movment down, and that tension is at the same time being focused more because of the 2 legs closing. At some point we need more slack or curve to allow the force to move, for the support system now matches the load and we are at a point of float, if arcing is the only way it can naswer gravity's call it will arc.

Also once that point of self adjustment to the load is met, there is lil'or no shockloading, for you have gently handed it off, instead of dropped it. But, one of the most powerful things is, is that as that tension self adjusts to the load, when it can't go down anymore it switches lever classes from a 2nd class lever with the pivot at the end (hinge) to a 1st class lever with the pivot (hitch point on load) in between the pull (CoB) and control (hinge). Combine this with a good command (leverage on) the CoB, by the CoB being close to the pivot (hitch point), and you have very powerful and positive mechanics.

These low impact methods can still pro-pose risks as Fred states, i often visualize myself as ushering elephants that i can't overpower, so i jsut watch myself and like these slow grace-full move-meants that give me more time to react as the hinge slowly fholds (somewheres betwixt fail and hold is fhold! in my imagery).

All info on this site is relayed with the understanding that each person must be responsible for their own actions and choices; that no person could even concieve of how many ways someone could cause injury/destruction in any of this. Eighty feet in the air, you generally have no coach, you must be responsible, not many second chances! All we can do is continually raise our understanding, as in any other pro-ffession; especially with what is on the line! Take Care

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Perhaps my possible solution to this puzzle from last summer, might now make more sense. As a study in pretightened lines, self tightening even more as it hinges down; causing 2 events. The line will only stretch so far, then to sink anymore, the hitch must arc to under the support position, this turn can be compounded by the same tension powering a torque from the way the line laces as it joins the load. These things join to make that hapen, especially if the facecut is in harmonious agree-meant with the rest of the machine as part of the total orchestration of controlled motion.

This is not the best example of this usage, jsut a pic from the past from here as i tried to draw this out for exam-eye-nation. i have tried to explain this before, searching for the best words and images. Notice how easily this more 'complicated' rig can be throwlined from the ground; and disarmed in basically one well placed cut.

This pulling strategy thread explains more of the Leg on Load type strategy. {http://www.arboristsite.com//showthread.php?s=&threadid=4074}

And this the type of hinging imagery i strategize with: {http://www.arboristsite.com//showthread.php?s=&threadid=4451}

 

[TREETX]

WARNING!!!

WARNING!!

You will hurt your face if you look at these drawings too long.



These must be for use in "certain" situations?

You really put some homework into your thoughts. When is the book coming out??

Nathan

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

As soon as he can find a technical writer to make it an easy read

I just put a balencer on the line with a krutzklem hitch. I make mine out of Tenex.

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

These will get you best outta 'certain' situations without lifting i think.

But these elements and there availability i think are present in most every situation, in a comprehensive formulae these ele-meants would have to be considered for effect on the output.

By fine tuning i can isolate and name them, to place them in said formulae, even if they are nil forces on occasion, to cover everything as you go, you must cover them IMH,AO.

When they test for a vehicle head onning another like one in a crash, they save vehicles by only crashing one car yet gain a 2 car impact for testing. Because, running a car into a pillar that has no give is equivalent to running a car at it self at the same speed, for the pillar must present enough force to recieve that force and stand solid, therefore it must present an exact matching force to stand solid, not crushing back or pushing forward.

Like'n a line of resistance to lowering presents as much force as is put on it for what it resists. i can apply that gathered force that occurs at strategically superior leverage points on the load, especially as a hinge provides temporary support and steering, i can maximize that starting with the machine tight, and allowing it to self tighten and a wide face cut. i can add torque to the mounting equation, and lock that torque's force into a turn. All this can be furthered by ushering the load from a 2nd class lever mechanics to a 1st class lever mechanics, whereby the leveraged mass and hinge behind the hitch ballast the opposing end (with CoB on 'green' end), this is where proper leveraged command of CoB is most important.

All this can be magnified, by having an extra tightening line on the load to pressurize that first strategic point of leverage..... even if that extra tightenned leg is self-contained in the load itself. It's potential will be controlled by the same friction and angular laws of 2/1 line systems, though saving the redirect to support(s), at a minimal line cost. By using this to increase a pull beyond that which is pulling as it sets itself, can tip things in your favor; especially when placed on the highest leverage point of support.

 

[murphy4trees]

Once again... Thank you Spidy for the input which I love to try to wrap my mind around...
You have a generous spirit to share all that you do and to take the time and energy to get it "on paper" for us.
I'll have to review the diagrams and writing some more and looking foward to using it to the field..
So I like the torque piece... fighting against the twist of the swinging limb... very nice...
the redirect piece... that is the pulley redirecting the vector force of the line is clear.. I'll have to think about what if any effect that has on the limb's movement..
And tying the clove or girth hitch, rather than a running bowline seems like a time and energy saver...
So all that is plenty to think about and incorporate...
However..... are you saying that the pulley gives 2:1 MA to the line?
I would have to respectfully disagree with that....
What's the difference between a pulley set as a redirect and a pulley used for 2:1 MA?
In the 2:1 system you have to pull 2 feet of rope to get the load to move 1 foot... there is no other way to get MA.... In the redirect, 1 foot of pull moves the load 1 foot. in my thinking this system is a redirect.. Did I miss something?
So thanks again and keep it coming..
God Bless,
Daniel

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

i think that a pulley has 3 possible positions. Input, Pivot or Output. On the output (Load to be moved) a pulley places 2 legs of pulls on the load for increased power (2/1). As the pivot (redirect off anchor), a pulley places 2 lines of pull on the anchor, increasing it's load, but no change in MA (1/1). On the input (say a truck pulling with a pulley on it), the pulling power is divided between both lines, cutting power in half, but doubling the speed (1/2 or fractional MA).

Even without a pulley, the same lacings will have these powers at each point to aspire to, only with friction added. As anything else, friction can help or hinder, depending on the task and how you allow it to be applied. My contention is that will work in this lacing too, with the ancor of a leg incorporated with the load, while it is still hinged. This effect will of course be most powerful, if more strategically placed on the load. The pull won't be 2:1, but it will be hopefully more than 1:1.

The same dynamics work in the pulling strategy thread, that is what we are doing here max pull on a high leverage point. The triangle hinge is in there too, along with leaving that same flap of hinge to prevent twisting on the spar that we talked about, only here, allowing that twising (flipping over sideways on hinge, towards sky) has an application, in that, sometimes that is all you need to clear the obstacle below, is to flip it off clear from a roof for example.

Welcome back Daniel, asked around about you being gone! Do you think that a bigger wheel on a wheel barrel increases mechanical advantage?

 

[murphy4trees]

Spidy,
Nice diagram and explanation of the 3 pulley positions.. And using the word "it", can be confusing.. " increasing it's load" and "with a pulley on it".
I still don't see how you are getting any MA with this system. You've added another leg to the limb/crotch being tied off, thereby increasing the load at that point, but that does not give MA in lifting .. It's no different than using an overhead crotch or pully for lowering.. The force on the overhead anchor doubles, but there is no MA.
In this case the force on the tail side leg and the tie off point at the butt, are equal and opposite. Because these forces are contained on the limb, they "cancel out" each other and have no effect on the lifting power of the line. Again the only way to get MA is to pull a greater length of rope, than the distance the limb moves.
As Charles Barkley said... "I might be wrong, but I doubt it".
On the wheel barrow question.. I'll GUESS that there is no added MA to a larger wheel on a level surface, but going up or down a grade there is MA. Is that a trick question or something?
Anyhow thanks for helping to keep the blood flowing to the underutilized areas of my brain.
God Bless,
Daniel

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Okay, nice hint on the 'it' deal, i have tried to sift those out, especially that don't pertain to the previous subject.

The 2 legs on an anchor redirect, place 2 legs of pull, on the anchor and yet does not increase MA as you say. But, an extra leg on the load is usually a diffrent story........

Years back, i thought i noticed a diffrence with this 'LegonLoad' thing. Just something diffrent, bugging me. You have to play with these things as the oppurtunity presents itself generally; then ya'might not want to be doing such experimentation in the most critical of the applications that comes up early on in observations.

After a while i noticed that i could apply this thing in pulling a spar over, pulling a load up, rigging a limb down , torquing a limb over. In fact in rigging a limb down i seemed to get more pressure, if the first turn on the load traced back at less than 45deg. in the same direction of the limb; i couldn't figure out why. Now ithink it is because (with enough length) as the spar tilts down self tightening before tearoff, in this position it is closing the angle between the 2 legs the most.

When i am drawing this out in my mind sometimes, i see the model as i first named and understood LonL before recognizing it as an in-efficient 2:1, i think of LonL like this..... The line comes over a sharp curve and traces down to the hitch; when you pull with 500#, i think that 500# is trying to pull from the termination of the hitch, and 'pop' out the curve/bend in the line. i would tell people that, the bend 'wants' to come out, the more pull you put on it. That bend always seemed like it added something, but what? Well, i knew that if i pulled on the load, it would get that pull, at least. Where would the load get more? Well, there is this extra leg with tension......... Then i noticed, if the angle was tighter, it seemed to work better.

All this didn't make much sense, until i remebered how someone on the ground supporting a climber with a pulley on a support is a 1:1 with 2x load on support, but if the groundie gives the climber his own control line makes that makes the system a 2:1 system with only 1x load on anchor, because the load line doubles as a control line. Then i realized that if i had a pulley at the top of a spar. i could put a 2:1 pull on the spar whether the anchored end of the system was on a seperate anchor, or even the spar itself!! Take out the pulley, and you still have a 2:1 system, but degraded by the friction incurred, open up the angle to pull it over, and it is degraded even further. So what would be left? Well the original pull + ??? How about, any pressure that "broke" thru the friction over the top less the loss for the wide open angle? There would be pressure over there, and pressure from the pull itself; i see in all other examples, all forces must be accounted for and realized.

So this is what i have come up with, LonL follows the same lacing as a 2:1, might only give ya 15%more or something, depending on the friction and angle of the legs. but if ya got 2 guys pulling that is like 15 % more of each, then throw that thru a Z-Rig, and place at high leverage. For another point is that these lacings usualy give more bracing of the load, so the can be set at higher leverage points safely. IMH,AO !

Sometimes this diffrence will be needed distinctly, sometimes any extra will go towards drawing out a stronger hinge to use by forcing the hinge to flex earlier than the load itself would ask. Anyway, this lil 'tweak has performed very well for me in many diffrent forms over the years, i beleive this LonL is bound by the natural laws i present.

Daniel, i thought the extra leg on the load itself would cancel out whatever pull etc., or just be a the actual pull would equal pressure, but that is not what i sense, and not what this model of understanding that i have evolved to reveals, and fits with all else. i could be wrong like the next guy too, been looking at this a while, might be off a few degrees, but generally not very far! Your test about amount of line pulled to movement achieved is a very good one, that is what it is all about i think. i hope the diagram adequately answers that.

The wheel barrel is an old discussion wee had that someone brought up lately about posting. I see MA here too, because the work is turning the bearing around the axle under load, the power is the friction on the ground pushing the tire around. Therefore, the input effort, turns a larger radius than the output work of turning the loaded bearing, so there is MA, larger input (tire) to output (bearing) ratio, more MA, a bigger wheel on the same axle would do this. i think if the axle turns with the wheel it will be a 1st class leverage system, if the wheel turns around the axle, eye see a 2nd class lever. Though, that wasn't the popular stance, but the contention stands,that if we could decode these things out of here and the real whys; we would see things a lot more clearly. The inclined plane is MA, but would be a diffrent sytem to this example i think,as there is MA without the wheel barrel!

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

In one of my letters to Daniel lately:

i guess that the travel isn't in the line as i stated!!! , but there is something there sir, i have witnessed it in many ways of formations! There is a 2:1 pressure on the top of the spar to pull down at max., you always have the base pull, but if we have that energized line on the other side, that energy is doing something, for it always is. It is pushing forward a percentage of it's energy or something adding to the pull (making it 1+). That bend wants to come out!! Pulling with more force makes it lots more determined to pop out, i have watched it many times. Perhaps something to do with the loaded up elasticity of the leg on the back of the spar, whereby more length=more usable force?

All i can tell ya is i have been watching it for years, getting better results with it, trying to unlock it's secrets.

I was wrong about the travel deal as i tried to name what powered what i have seen; very, very good, excellent point abount amount of travel explanation!!! But the 2:1 lacing fits, there is energy on the other side of that spar in that line because of it i think, and i have been accessing it; might not have it's proper name yet, but i have made it work for me.

i called this guy that worked with me before jsut now and was tuned in, i asked him about the rigging configurations, what he thought, if these were better; he said that when he was roping, that those were the best rigs and turns. That he didn't know exactly what/why, but they were the most powerful for ariel tricks and control.

Just like the triangle hinge that we explored, my understanding has evolved in observing, playing and tweaking, though there is no book to refer back to on this subject, i have followed the trail of thinking there was something going on etc., and constantly watching to refute, reinforce, cross compare. You've seen a touch of that. i know it sounds crazy, kinda like forcing a hinge etc. But i have combined all these things into machine motions, tweaking and polishing each aspect, maxxing out each category like a race car driver, and watching what happened.



That's all i can tell ya, is i seen it!

 

[murphy4trees]

Spidy,
I Am a believer and trust your empirical obsevations and look foward to getting into the field to work with new info, just as I worked and played with the triangle hinge...
If it works, that's more important than why it works... to the practitioner. And to the us intellectuals... it's like a riddle that we have to solve so WHY WHY WHY does this work... Understanding that could be a stepping stone to the next insight.
Anyhow... glad you mentioned the wheelbarrow and MA relationship because it got me thinking.. And the more I think about it there are other ways of getting MA in a rigging situation besides pulling more rope through a rig than the load moves...
For example bowstinging a taught pull line... In this case, no rope is being pulled through anything, yet the principles of MA are still in place.. that is for every foot of (lateral) movement at the center of the line, there is much less than a foot of movement in the line, end to end..... therefore as you know there can be huge force mutlipliers involved until the line gets some bend in it.. I believe 18-20* is the point where the MA is 1:1... A very important concept to the speeliners of the world.
Anyhow.. back to wheelbarrow.. I know it's easier to go over bumps with a larger wheel.. That has been my experience an it is unquestionable empirical data in my thinking.. Therefore I look for the explanation in phsics.... where is the MA... In my thinking the wheel acts as a rounded inclined plane... the larger the wheel, the longer the plane.... However an inclined plane cannot exist on a flat surface.. therefore on a flat surface there is no added MA from wheel size... That the size of the wheel has no effect on the ease of movement on a flat surface has also been my empirical observation..
So in LonL, I think there may also be an explanation in the bowstringing concept... As the angle changes the forces change here to.. have to keep thinking on this one.
We could use a university type to help us with this stuff. Any ideas?
So thanks again and God Bless,
Daniel

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

?

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

The Mayhem Principal applied to a rig to upset it's rigging qualities favorably (See Mayhem Proof )

Tim, this is one of the drawings i told you about.