DSK wrote:


... Since you
claim it, show us why my answer is not in the "right ballpark".


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...oogle%2BSearch


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....nz%26rnum%3D1



Like I said, these refs. show you gave _no_ answer. They do show your
attempt to wheedle out of the problem by suggesting that that question
did not formulate the problem by not including the word "perfectly" ...

I even asked you to explain the "cosine" you claimed on numerous
occasions but you avoided that too. As the record shows you could not do
the problem so it shows that you could not really have any idea as to
whether it is better to use the vang as a lifting device. That was the
point of the exercise -to stop your BS and put the argument on a
concrete basis (and you like concrete bases don't you?).

What amuses me more is that, even months later, you don't know that the
correct answer to the topping lift case is 200 x 10/17. I had hoped that
this simple hook would get you thinking about the problem rather than BS
about a rather fundamental issue. It's failure shows me that, despite
your claims, you are no engineering fish. I expected you to be able to
show that there is no boom compression in the vang case and that the
boom is only trying to bend. Do you actually have any engineering
qualifications?

Cheers