i think the mayhem deal shows that any slant in line, any arc less than 120 degrees increases the line tension, even if laced on the load itself. And that every change in the number of loading positions on the load, their force, direction and leveraged distance between etc. all give different mechanical instructions to the scenario.
The CG(Gymnastics coach always said your center of balance; with no other education; i had nothing else to call this very determinant point in any occasion by-Thanx) point gives the tendencies of the load, the structure/shape is only handles that the CG san be commanded by, or push out on the world through, but it is always the CG reacting i think.
In Mike's redo of my old drawing(Load Corrections), the first value of 5#, i can see where he gets that, but i think it is less true, the farther below the CG/C.o.B.gets beyond the hitchpoint in leveraged comparison to the ballast of weight above the hitchpoint. Arc on the hinge, i think is one thing i've always wondered about as a factor, my last value is trying to account for that somehow, and was the real question, after being stirred, points brought to foreground in the first models; to ponder on in that last one. Maybe number not totally right, but somehting exists in the direction i'm pointing as far as the way that the line force is that is built up is expressed. Now his assertion in his drawing "Improved Lacing"that you can't increase the line loading routing around inside the load; to be more than the initial line tension/load i think is a very large misconception; and the reason that i presented this this way.
i once took a fairly lonely position that there was 2/1 in climber self lift in DdRT on ISA board. When a source was found later that said there was, i was still wrong, for it was in the body thrust and not the rope mechanics. i as any, don't know it all; but ya ain't really shook me!
i don't use calculator (though i will be checking out Dan's reminding my dumb butt i had a scientific calculator here the whole time.........just like other helpful forces around...), i only talk numbers to see and describe the patterns; then set up to those patterns in the field. i think if it comes out mathematically better, and it takes another second, or even saves five to do the better thing, go for it! Sometimes run it just to investigate, sharpen skill. But you have to pay the learning curve to be able to see the possibilities, and be able to deploy in a timely fashion. i think having a wider range of strategies alone gives more dynamic range of options; and sometimes also can cut down on a real efficiency stealer:transitions; how well 1 rig sets up another etc.; let alone more powerful, self adjusting strategies.
i think that every change in position, number or angle of pull imparts different mechancial instructions to the load; and the load's 'personality traits'. Upon movement on hinge away from support, those angles close to more powerful loading X The increase of the line tension from the leveraged line tightening action. This leverage is more; the more directly the rigging point on the load moves away from the support X the leveraged length you scheduled into the span between the hinge and the rigging point on the load. So, dan those angles would close to more powerful multipliers as the line was pulled tightrer, as load hinged down away from support.
In some of the proposed rigging, the way that the load is set against itself is key. Taking the length and weight and setting them to work for us, rather than jsut trying to keep up with them; let them self adjust and keep up with themselves. Not a guessing of weight and holding power, but a setting of balances to aim to alter. In this way, with weight and length as friend, rather than foe; larger prey can be taken, easier! For it helps you out more! The percentage of action to weight etc. might be the same; but the resultant higher loading making a more sure motion. Some of the effects of using the high tightened line before tearoff i beleive can be had by not tightening the line down by gravity, but tightening the line up by compression fig/GRCS to affect a similar change in line tension to load force, and total support all most from the start.
in the line tension to load ratio and immediate support. After all we only need to match the load not lift it, and matching is something that Nature likes to do.
To use these things in rigs mot powerfully you must tension the line more, by confidentally pressing the load slowly down into the line to load it, especially with leveraged multipliers chained in succession. Then feed across on hinge to real target. On the hinge, with rope on load; generally the hinge carries most of the weight, and rope tries to direct and control a further out CG, for a 3rd class lever. At tearoff, the load changes to a 1stclass lever system with hitch as pivot. A change in machine class and mechancichs is made. By loading the line more before tearoff, we can not only make a smoother/lower impacting tearoff/surrendering of full load to rope, but as the line where to become the pivot, change the mechancics just the same. At this 1st class lever mechanics, still on the hinge, the closer the CG of the load is to the piovt of the rigging point/hitch on load, the lighter and lighter the hinge's job is. Until at totally balanced it could push 1000# around light as a butterfly, and give nicer sweeps etc. Mayhem by upsetting some of the loading point amounts and pulls etc., can alter the load balancing, line tension, steering etc. characteristics favorably; towards using the 1st class mechanics more
advantageously.
