- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
West Wight Potter Mailing List maintainer
dfarrell@ridgecrest.ca.us
List hosted by www.tscnet.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As was pointed out (sorry, I'm away from homebase & lost the post, hence no
credit), my "closer to 200 pounds" is applicable primarily at the winch and
when raising the keel. Assuming that all the distortions are evened out in
the static case (usually true after a few jolts to the system), line loading
would be as predicted by theory.
Regards,
Bill Combs
-- http://home.earthlink.net/~ttursine Keeper Of The Kel-Tec Parts Data -- Never test the depth of the water with both feet> on 2/13/00 10:40 PM, Bill Combs at ttursine@earthlink.net wrote:
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > West Wight Potter Mailing List maintainer > dfarrell@ridgecrest.ca.us > List hosted by www.tscnet.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> on 2/13/00 8:23 PM, Rich Gort at rich@gorts.com wrote: > >> or maybe even more with more blocks, given >> that there must be some resistance in each block > > I'm sure a bunch of folks will tell you that the load on the line is less > because more than one length of the line is supporting the keel. You are on > a valid track, however, by mentioning the losses in the system. With a three > part tackle (the stock arrangement), line load for a 390 pound keel is > theoretically 130 pounds. Actually, it's closer to 200 pounds than 130, > because of the high losses resulting from small sheaves, all the extra > turning blocks, and the deforming of the line. > > A block and tackle is a marvelous thing, but we often forget about losses > and the fact that, in this example, you have to crank in three times as much > line! TANSTAAFL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 03:27:08 PST