MasterBlaster
TreeHouse Elder
Trolls have no manners. They NEVER pass it back!!!
Exactly. It's like trying to get pregnant by mutual masturbation in that the devices are being used in close proximity to the necessary interfaces, yet exclusively and independently. As I said previously somewhere, if the felling cuts were somehow included inside the mechanism Ken would be on to something. It's like he's got a mouse trapped under a glass with a 2# weight to hold it down, but the weight is also working through a series of levers to balance the Boeing 747 he's brought in and set beside the glass for some unknowable reason.Originally posted by Mike Maas
OK, I get it now, ... all this force is just sitting there ... doesn't change the output. It just changes how the rope is attached to the log.
This is why Spiders lacing doesn't help the pulling power of various configurations.
Look, Ken.Originally posted by TheTreeSpyder:
So the 100# freee hanging load has 400# pushing up on it! Like i said a good attention getter for HS talk about climbing and rope sense, the ways you can use it, what to watch out for etc.
Or something like that
:alien:
That sounds rather backwards. You have a superfluous 300# pulling down from (near) the top and a superfluous 300# pulling up from the sling attachment point, both forces canceling out somewhere in the middle. Beyond that, the weight of the object, 100#, is also concentrated at the sling attachment point. So yes, there <i>is</i> a 400# force on the sling attachment point, but 100# alone would entirely suffice for any real and reasonable thing you want to accomplish. Moreover, the 400# is technically <i>pulling up</i> against the attachment point. If anything can be said to be <i>pushing</i> with 400# of force, it would be the material in the object pushing <b>down</b> on the strap anchor. But saying it like that way don't sound too well.Originally posted by TheTreeSpyder
i think that the 400# is pushing up, the 300# is pushing down; to leave 100# support for the 100# weight that powers it all.
The "extra loading leg" does absolutely nothing except tie up valuable resources and possibly even serve to compromise the structural integrity of the object. We're not talking about pulling a stem against a hinge in this exercise -- this is a free-hanging weight. But let's extend the concept of pre-loading the stem against itself to pulling one over. If both rope contact points are above the hinge, of their cumulative compressive forces all but that which would be present if the rope were merely tied to the top will cancel out somewhere between them. Nothing of the extra effort will come anywhere near the hinge. The hinge won't have a clue that anything more than a single rope tied to the stem top is pulling it both down and to the side. Furthermore, just as soon as gravity accelerates the stem to the same speed the rope is being pulled, the rope will have no effect whatsoever in "arc-ing" the stem "on the hinge".Whether because the extra loading leg gives more structure-a solider fell, or more arc-ing on the hinge as i say; i notice an elusive , helpful differance in the arraingement.
I'll try to address all of that specifically a little later this evening. As an overview, I'd say your argument sounds similar to the many ways people will claim they cause a motorcycle to turn at road speed. Some just lean, some press against the side of the tank with their thigh, some shift their weight, etc. But once they learn that the actual thing they're all doing in common, the only thing that effects the change, is pressing the handlebars in the opposite direction, they discover the puzzling mayhem of it all just disappears and their control and precision increase dramatically as they cease the unnecessary behavior. Not turning quite fast enough? Just press harder on the "wrong" handgrip. Do you see the correlation to your situation in that example?i think that specifically in the self tightening/torquing load that the power i speak of is evident; i've been using it a long time, tried to describe on ISA board maybe 5 years ago. As i watch, the more loading on the line off of the hinge, the more the line wants to uncurl and dump the load; i think that is just a characiture of Nature wanting to relieve the higer than necessary loaded rope from the turn on the load. If in such relief it is scheduled to move closer to target, that is great; if the load rotates in force to do that that is an arched, non linear, slower than linear, leveraged force of movement to target i think.
I think they're somewhat less so than you're making them be, Ken.Nature's orchestration and rules are perplexing, a true challenging puzzle on their own.
Originally posted by glens
Well, yes, sort of... The extra loading at the bend accomplishes nothing, however, beyond placing more stress on the line than is needed for the task. It's not that much, though, so it probably doesn't hurt anything.
Other than the "Bends" section of that image/documentary, you've done a very good job of illustrating what happens in each case, and you actually used the language we all speak! (unless I've become accustomed to your dialect, hahaha).
Congratulations.
Glen