Leg on Load

[Tim Gardner]

Originally posted by 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.

Ken, I am not sure I am following you on this but here goes. In the other thread you have proved that there is 2 times the weight applied at the crotch of that limb than the limb weighs with your setup. With this in mind, would that not double the weight on the rope (as far as the rope is concerned) thereby reducing security rather than granting more? With one leg tied off to the load you then loose the tendency for the rope to double its tensile strength. Right?

As far as having more leverage available with that rig I agree. It would be nice to steer a limb further into the arc before it hinges over. But then we have been doing that for years by adjusting the placement of the pulley in the single whip.

I see no advantage to using that setup to fell a stick. By compressing the stick along its axis into the hinge you would use energy that otherwise could be utilized to pull it over. Would you not adjust your direction of pull to counter a lean or out of balance top?

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

most knots reduce strength about 50%, the primary loaded arc in the line is softer i beleive likr this, a few factors working; partially neutralizing the effect you speak off, but i believe it does overall load the rope more, but not quite as much as first thought.

The extra loading at the hitchpoint might effect C.o.B. some, but the real mover i think is the loaded hitch point on the ballast side, placing that extra loading farther out from the pivot of the hitchpoint, for more counterbalancing effect/altering C.o.B. IMLHO.



The stick question is of another sort, but still the loaded forces can help i beleive as the spar starts to move, and the inertia of the prexisting forces momentarily maintains direction /force on the now angled spar. This gives more arching, and applies these forces that were headed towards each other in a straight line, to still be headed towrds each other, but on seperate ends of the spar.

The sudden pulse of this at first movement can coincide with the timing of Forcing Hinge Strength also.

 

[Tim Gardner]

Originally posted by TheTreeSpyder


The extra loading at the hitchpoint might effect C.o.B. some, but the real mover i think is the loaded hitch point on the ballast side, placing that extra loading farther out from the pivot of the hitchpoint, for more counterbalancing effect/altering C.o.B. IMLHO.

Ken I have a hard time with English but Spidy Speak is kickin’ my a$$. I am assuming everyone else gets it but I am missing it. Could you put that in another way so I could comprehend it better? I want to participate in these threads but if I do not understand I am wasting space with my posts and not adding anything.

 

[glens]

Originally posted by Tim Gardner
Ken... In the other thread you have proved that there is 2 times the weight applied at the crotch of that limb than the limb weighs with your setup.

...

I see no advantage to using that setup to fell a stick. By compressing the stick along its axis into the hinge you would use energy that otherwise could be utilized to pull it over. ...

I sincerely apologize to you guys for seeming like I'm incessantly attacking you.  Believe me when I say it's not personal!  If you were babies what I'm attempting to do would surely have scrambled your brains by now.  Like Cher said to Nick Cage in Moonstruck: "SNAP OUT OF IT!"

Ken has not proved that there is 2 times the weight of the limb applied to the crotch.  He as proved that when you insert a spring to make a machine out of something that would otherwise not be one, you can measure the stretch of the spring as the pulley attempts to climb to the line anchor point above it.  In the field that situation does not exist, and even if it were made existent, it would not be useful in any way (even as Ken has said, it's dangerous since it allows for an altering, difficult to control, change in CG [center of gravity]).

It's true that there's no advantage to using that setup (the one which exists in the field, not in the lab).&nbsp; You are not exerting any more energy compressing the stem into the hinge than if you'd simply tied to the point (the crotch?) over/through which the line initially passes.&nbsp; That's not entirely true, in that there <i>is</i> one advantage, but only in that you might not have to leave the ground to fasten the line with Ken's style.

Why is there no comment on my attached "sketch" in the "Mayhem" thread?&nbsp; Is it that it's understood to be true or is it too confusing?&nbsp; What?

I can't freaking believe that you guys have me going out into the woods to fetch various twig configurations and using masons line to try sundry attachments.&nbsp; For now, just take my word for it that what I've been saying is right.&nbsp; I think I'll try to "sketch" a few images tonight over some beers to illustrate what I've done.

Glen

 

[Tim Gardner]

Glen, I would love to return to my original position that the force is 1:1(or less) but you have to do more than just say you know what is right and that we should believe you. Once Ken did the test at my suggestion he won me over. I hope you have not reached the limits of your clearly superior mind and writing skills and that you can give definitive proof otherwise.

 

[glens]

Okay, let me try this from a different angle.&nbsp; I want to back away from my tone that it's impossible to attain any leverage advantage since it's obviously possible <i>when adding weight or force to a system</i> (the free-hanging inverted "slingshot" will never exert more weight on the rope than the object itself possesses).&nbsp; What I've really been trying to say is that it's not feasible to gain such leverage for our purposes.&nbsp; Or in other words, we'll never see it.&nbsp; The way we use the systems (particularly the way they've been discussed in my recollection), such leverage is merely academic in nature.

Let's say that you had a stem standing and you wanted to pull it over to a certain direction, or a horizontal limb you wanted to pull sideways before allowing it to drop.&nbsp; Those two similar situations should be easy enough to envision since they're encountered fairly regularly.

Those will be the goals, and I'll attempt to "talk" through them using the methodology Ken espouses, as I understand it.

First, let's look at the standing stem.&nbsp; Let's say that it has been brought down to have a flat top on which a small groove can be notched to accept and securely locate a rope passed over the top and tied down near, but above, the future felling cuts.&nbsp; Now, before we actually get set to pull it over, let's play with it a little.

Let's put a piece of stiff calibrated foam atop it.&nbsp; This foam compresses 1" for every 200# of weight it's subjected to.&nbsp; Let's feed the rope over the foam and tie it down near the bottom of the stem and take the other end and tie a loop in it.&nbsp; Now we take our 200# frame and step into the loop with all our weight.&nbsp; The foam compresses (ideally) 2" because of the leverage present across the top.&nbsp; It's totally academic, though, as we shall see in a moment, since we're not going to actually be able to do anything <i>with</i> the leverage.

Amazingly, we've been able to get the stem to stand on a scale.&nbsp; The darn thing weighs 2500# just standing there with the foam atop it and the rope draped over it.&nbsp; When we step into the free loop with our 200# and compress the 1"/200# foam 2", we look down and see that the scale now reads 2700#.&nbsp; We will only be able to use the added 200# of weight, not the possible 400# across the top.

In order to gain the 2:1 advantage in any useful way, we need to tie the rope not <i>above</i> the scale, but below it.&nbsp; When we do that and step into the loop, we now read 2900#.&nbsp; Substitute the scales for the felling cuts and you'll see that whatever we do exclusive of the cuts, we're at 1:1.&nbsp; It's not until we include the cuts in the system that we'll be able to attain the 2:1.&nbsp; (That's why I've been saying all along that we do not see the 2:1).

Transferring that information to the horizontal limb situation, we see that in order to compound the force applied to the notch faces to "power" steer the limb, we need to tie the stationary end of the rope not to the limb outboard of the cut, but inboard.&nbsp; And what's more, we need to return the direction of pull back to the notch as well, to attain full pressure.&nbsp; The pressure will be zero at a 90&deg; pull to the limb with the rope returned and tied outboard the cuts, and not much more if inboard.

I recall reading Ken where he's said something about using the leverage to force the faces together harder in order to gain additional control.&nbsp; Frankly, I don't remember specifically every image of his I've looked at, but I'm pretty sure I've never seen the tied-off line span the "felling" cuts in any orientation.&nbsp; If I'm wrong about that, I want to sincerely apologize, because my whole argument is based on the fact that this additional "leverage", though possible in theory, can not be put to use since the ropes never span the cuts (as well they shouldn't, right?).&nbsp; In order to maintain a satisfactory level of safety, if the rope spanned the cuts, it would also need to be tied above or outboard from them, and <i>that</i> would <i>totally</i> negate any of the possible advantage.

Since we will not be able to use any possible (simple) mechanical advantage by draping the pull line, the result is precisely the same as if we'd secured it directly to the top.&nbsp; And in <i>any</i> event, once we get away from a 180&deg; turn at the drape point the downward force becomes progressively less.

How acceptable is <i>that</i> long-winded argument?

Glen

 

[Stumper]

That was well said Glen. I really appreciate Ken and his quest for knowledge but he and I have chewed on this "lacing" thing before. I am convinced that you are correct-there is NO mechanical advantage to it other than rigging at the highest possible point when tracing the line over the top.

 

[Tim Gardner]

I have to agree with Stumper. That was well written Glen. I never felt as though you were “incessantly attacking” me. I feel like you have brought much needed clarity to these threads.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

How about this spider?

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

i think we have to lose the one about the line knows if a measuring device is on it and loads higher if it is; if that was the case, any scale would be suspect; the position loads or it doesn't.

The puzzle confusing to the eye, but so is DdRT as the climber's point becomes the power source, transmission (pull 1 line or both lines) and the load. The groundie passing the line he was pulling to the climber, and the mechanics change instantly.

The secret is, that there is no secret; the magic works on it's own. Even in the hard to believe positions, physics takes no vacations. Even in seeming points of mayhem that only confuse us, if the slingshot was turned upside down and planted into the ground, and you pulled the line to the tension of 100#, the loaded arc on the frictionless, zero rope angle mount would be 200#, the 2/1 is easier to see. Turn mayhem upside down and hang again, the arc is still at zero with zero friction, if the mount/load weighs 100#, that 100# sets the line tension as a power source rather than your arms. That is the only difference. It can be no other way. If a rubberband mount was put in place to hold the pulley on Tim's or my broomstick rigs; the pulley could only move up 1" as 1" was taken from 1 leg of the pulley, and 1" from the leg of the other pulley. This is giving up 2x distance input, for the output gained. As the rubberband stretched, the load will drop 2" to every 1" the pulley moves. The position, must be double loaded. At zero degrees separation, the pulley must carry the sum of both legs of tension. By easy definition, the supporting leg, must already equal the load. by further definition, irregardless of the rope angle, with no friction, the hitchpoint must equal the support point.

Lesson being that the covenant of the arc is kept under any circumstances, it increases tension at it's point when loaded.

i believe that the usefulness in pulling a spar over is a brief one, but at the right moment, and in a powerful way trying to spin the spar, and do that on the arching on the hinge also. It's application follows my
Forcing Hinge Strength Theory in timing and utility.

i think forcing a spar over with line, loads the hinge more, giving more strength in hinge as a response in the equal and opposite genre. But, You can bust butt pulling and yanking for 5 minutes, just to have that force ready, right at first folding, the rest of the effort generally is wasted. Pull after first folding on the hinge when not stalled, weakens the hinge device, let it work nature-ally. So a pulse of power, through that window of time at first folding is most efficient. Like the magic of sliding stones in an egyptian tomb, lining them up and everything is like easy and light magic can happen as something slides open. Pressed wrong and the stones either don’t move or cause some kind of collapse. Pulling on the hinge after first folding speeds the machine, losing power I believe (unless installed). The power loss is the hinge strength that was set at maximum at first folding.

Edit-Brutha Mike, any arc loaded; follows the covenant of the arc power in line. As always, we thank you for your Bombmassticness; and now continue with our regular pro-gramming. Obviously MM doesn't think i can raise mayhem; i'z a ritlin doped lil'he!!-raiser from way back!:Monkey:

Re-Edit :If this is one of the times you are actually frickin'serious because of star alignmeant last night(John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart), i believe that each position of arc-ing would adhere to the laws of loaded arc-ing. If the systen was friction free, the hitch at tie off borne as much tension as the initial pull, -the pulley positions would be loaded to ~2x pull, save the top one that is more open angle betwixt the pulley's 2 legs of line to it. Making obviously the 500 the number of drawing tries it took to produce the masterpeace.

:alien:

 

[Tim Gardner]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
How about this spider?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

My drawing will not generate 500 pounds of pull, any more than your lacing will generate more pull than just tying it to the top of the spar.

It seems that many, if not all, your recent theories are based on this flawed idea.

Yes, even if you turn the picture sideways or upside down.

 

[Tim Gardner]

Your drawing was hilarious Mike. I about fell outta my chair laughing so hard.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

For once, somebody gets it. LOL

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

In the genre of Input Distance x Input Force = Output Distance x Output Force, i would think that i have proved it in Mahem Thread both different ways (force conversions and distance conversions).

i beleive i have presented the correct conceptualizations of the forces, in comparative to common elemnts proof type of form. i also believe i did it using measuring instruments, including pix when demanded.

Once by showing by measuring with scales that the Input Force was 1/2 the Output Force; then secondly by measuring with yardstick the Input Distance being 2x the Output Distance; covering all factors in the non friction/zero angle world formulae for the force conversion.

i bid ye consider my seriousness, not cheat yourself and take another look. The same arc under the same line tension always yields 2x loading; always distance is given up in the output to increase power. Always for the pulley to move forward 8" the line must be drawn to remove 16". These 2 factors define MA; the changing of the distance to power ratio from the same force. That you can take 100# of force and pull 16" for 1600inch pounds of force. A machine can take that input and convert it to 200# for 8", 400" for 4" etc. but always equalling the 1600inch pounds factor of the input. The input will be a lil lessm because of the loss to friction from the conversion. Less loss, is higher efficiency.

Orrrrrrrrrrrrr somehting like that...
:alien: :alien:

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Noramlly I'm guided by my keen intuition, but since that can be flawed, I tested your lacing idea with a scale model.
In my tests, there was no statistical difference in pull power between laced and unlaced spar pulling.
Look at the picture below. I have a little spar, a string pulling at about 45 degrees, a weight set, and an elastic band to test amount of pull.
The first test was pulling the top of the spar, the second was pulling with string laced through a binner.

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

i still don't see how in your drawing that a pulley on the same spar as the control leg's anchoring will be loaded with less than 2x the line tension, by virtue of if the anchoring hitch was on a seperate unit than the pulley.

Like if i mounted pulley right over trunk, and hitched to trunk, or to Por-T, how placing 100# of line tension on the load end will not place 100# ath the hitch, and 200# at the pulley on the same spar; becuase really all that is different is the power source, whether you are tensiong the line, or if gravity is; the rest is the same mechanics IMLHO.

Your pic really loses me, here is setup for hardstick used to prove beyond the weight of pull (because line sensed it was pulling on scale ?), i now offer analasys of the other of the 2 factors in the force equation, monitoring the distance ratio differance.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

This drawing is wrong:

It's not a little wrong, it's wrong.

Don't make up new and even more confusing (wrong) drawings until you resolve this one, please.

You do not get 150 pounds of pull by lacing the rope down the back and pulling 100 pounds. Build a simple model and test it.
I took the time, built a model and it showed me you are wrong on this point. Now you prove me wrong by doing the same, and bringing me the findings.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

To explain my test a little more:

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

If your lacing theory is true, and I lace the string through the carabiner and down to the base it should stretch the band more than if it's just tied to the top as in the picture.
It doesn't.