>Why did you say "wrong?" I think we agree up to this point. The
>haul crew sees 50#, and the two ropes supporting the load each
>see 50#. I didn't mean the haul crew was seeing 100#, I meant 50#.
>The word "another" was chosen because that 50# is an additional
>downward force on the gin pole.
>
Sorry I guess I didn't read your tone<G>. I re read it. and understand what
you were saying.
>>>downward tension, and the resultant downward force on the gin
>>>pole is 150#, instead of 200#, which it would have been if the
>>>second pulley had not been used.
>
>How did you reach this conclusion? There are only three ropes
>pulling down on the gin pole, and they each have 50# tension.
>The resultant is 150 pounds, not 200.
My apologies for not being clear. I guess I was sleeping to hard.
If you don't use a 2:1 system like you spoke of, (conventional method) the
pole will always see twice the load.
in the simple 2:1 the pole does see only 150# because of it being used as an
anchor at one point. The math proves this.
once again, my apologies for not completly understanding your post and not
clarifying myself.
KK5LC
Shane Dugas
Prairieville, LA
Shane@eatel.net
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|