"DSK" wrote in message
...
| Capt. Mooron wrote:
| That's not the point at all Doug..... the vang is indeed designed to do
| it's job... it just seems that you fail to concede the point that the
| vang's primary "job" is not to handle bearing loads delivered to the end
of
| the boom.
|
| For a solid vang, it need not make any difference.


A statement with no qualifiers..... it need not if the weight is within the
capacity of the vang... which will always be far less than the capacity of
the topping lift.

| |
| | Well, you keep saying over and over, "It can't be as strong as a
topping
| | lift" as though somehow calling a piece of rigging 'topping lift'
| | magically renders it invulnerable.
|
| No!... I said over and over that the mechanical advantage is to the
topping
| lift!
|
| And I explained over and over (and over and over) why that is not
| necessarily the case.

another statement with no qualifier.... not necessarily the case as long as
the load is within capacity of the vang which unless you are using cooked
linguini for the topping lift... is far less then the mechanical advantage
of the topping lift.

|
|
|
| I think you'd better give your head a shake.... you have explained
| nothing... you have obfuscated and side tracked
|
| Bull puckey. You could have the textbook in front of you and still
| insist that *you're* right and the prof & book *must* be wrong. A
| classic case.

The "prof & book" side with me in this case Doug.... try again

|
| In regards to abilities to discuss topics... my Father always insisted
on
| regular discussions since I was very young....
|
| Did he ever use a 2x4?

Only when I lost ...... as you can see that won't happen here because I
actually researched the subject at hand. You should try that avenue instead
of your current tact of repetition of erroneous data... ad nausea

CM