"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
|
| LOL........... As always your too full of yourself.

So in effect what you are stating is that you didn't understand the topic at
hand??

Clever!

CM

So in effect what you are stating is that you didn't understand the topic at
hand??.

In case you lost track there were actually 2 sub topics going on under the one
subject header. I contributed to one and not the other. The "other" is just a
rehash of the lever arm effect of a boom that took place about 6-8 months ago.
I answered it then. You should have printed it out and saved it.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
| In case you lost track there were actually 2 sub topics going on under the
one
| subject header. I contributed to one and not the other.

H-m-m-m... since you felt somehow obligated to reply to a discussion with
Doug... who actually knows what he's talking about and can present an
counter-point with sufficient arrogance and wit to warrant a modicum of
forethought prior to a rebuttal.... you manage to contribute this 'gem'...

No, what looks cool are big boat booms with holes in them.


Awesome!!

Really!

The "other" is just a
| rehash of the lever arm effect of a boom that took place about 6-8 months
ago.
| I answered it then. You should have printed it out and saved it.

Yes loco... I'm certain you solved that in short order.... unfortunately
the only reference I've found in the archives relates to you siding with
someone else's conclusions. .... but as usual not offering a logical reason
as to why.

Are you having Jax over for Crab Cakes anytime soon???.... you two should
'Talk"!!

Really!

CM

| ...And the compression on the mast is likely to
| be a multiple of the weight involved.

Capt. Mooron wrote:
No Doug.... I believe that assumption to be incorrect... you fail to
incorporate the dispersion of the load from the mast head to compression of
the mast and delivery of portions of the load to the shrouds.

???

Are you saying that shrouds & stays push up on the mast?


... When you
transfer the load to the vang alone [ via the boom].. the mast is only
subject to a side load from the vang fitting and all the force is supported
by the boom/vang. None of the load is distributed to the entire mast or the
shrouds. In other words any portion of the mast above the boom is not
utilized in the dispersion of the forces generated by the bearing loads.

Please explain further. How is this load "dispersed"? Into the air, maybe?


The only thing muddy here is your refusal to approach this with an open
mind..

If having an open minds leads to conclusions like that above, then I'm
better off (from the engineering standpoint) without.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Sounds similar to a thread where you were rebutting a Kerry bashing.

Is this the best you can do?

"DSK" wrote

Are you saying that shrouds & stays push up on the mast?

"The best" is what is true & real.

Shrouds don't push up on a mast and do not "disprse" any loads.

Kerry bashing by paid shills is a poor reason to decide a vote.

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."
--Harry S. Truman

Bart Senior wrote:
Sounds similar to a thread where you were rebutting a Kerry bashing.

Is this the best you can do?

"DSK" wrote

Are you saying that shrouds & stays push up on the mast?

Doug I didn't get your last post... can you repost it so I can attack your
position with some decorum... Thnx ;-)

CM

| "DSK" wrote
|
| Are you saying that shrouds & stays push up on the mast?
|
|
|
|

Capt. Mooron wrote:
Doug I didn't get your last post... can you repost it so I can attack your
position with some decorum... Thnx ;-)

Sorry, it's gone with the wind. However, I can probably remember the
gist of it well enough.

You said that the shrouds "disperse" the load, which is crazy. Shrouds
keep the mast from falling over, at the cost of placing the mast under
compression. A side load on the mast increases tension on the shroud,
which increases compression on the mast. So, the compression on the mast
will *always* be greater than the weight load placed on it... and that's
not taking into account the static tension on the rig (pre-load).

The difference between a boom holding a heavy weight, supported by a
topping lift; and one supported by a solid vang is this:

The topping lift will transfer the weight to the masthead, increasing
compression on the mast. The shrouds keep the mast from falling towards
the weight, increasing compression on the mast. The boom is in
compression, keeping the weight from swinging in towards the mast. The
compression on the mast & tension on the shrouds place a torsion load on
the hull.

The solid boom vang will be in compression. The boom will be in torsion
between the weight pulling down and the vang pushing up. The mast will
have a torsion load on it from the gooseneck to the lower boom vang
swivel fitting.

Last but not least, booms supported by solid vangs will (if properly
engineered) hold up weights at least as heavy as a medium size adult.
Ask me how I know this for a fact!

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
| You said that the shrouds "disperse" the load, which is crazy. Shrouds
| keep the mast from falling over, at the cost of placing the mast under
| compression. A side load on the mast increases tension on the shroud,
| which increases compression on the mast. So, the compression on the mast
| will *always* be greater than the weight load placed on it... and that's
| not taking into account the static tension on the rig (pre-load).

Okay I can agree with the premise that the shrouds provide stability [via
tension].... but the fact that they are attached to the mast indicates
that a transmission of stress is allocated to the shrouds.


|
| The difference between a boom holding a heavy weight, supported by a
| topping lift; and one supported by a solid vang is this:
|
| The topping lift will transfer the weight to the masthead, increasing
| compression on the mast. The shrouds keep the mast from falling towards
| the weight, increasing compression on the mast. The boom is in
| compression, keeping the weight from swinging in towards the mast. The
| compression on the mast & tension on the shrouds place a torsion load on
| the hull.

I concur.. that seems to be a logical dispersion of forces.

|
| The solid boom vang will be in compression. The boom will be in torsion
| between the weight pulling down and the vang pushing up. The mast will
| have a torsion load on it from the gooseneck to the lower boom vang
| swivel fitting.

Again I concur...

|
| Last but not least, booms supported by solid vangs will (if properly
| engineered) hold up weights at least as heavy as a medium size adult.
| Ask me how I know this for a fact!

Although I agree with this... my argument was regarding the actual load
capacity between the vang and the topping lift. My point is the topping lift
is able to handle much greater loads than the vang ever could. On this
aspect I stand my ground.... the topping lift has the mechanical advantage
over the vang.

CM


|
| Fresh Breezes- Doug King
|

Doug,

Can you say "GIN POLE?" That is what the boom becomes with a topping
lift Hoist.