Capt. Mooron wrote:
Oh here we go.... the sidewind of the engineer in dire straits.... let's
bring "specialty" manufacturing alloys and specific design criteria into the
equation! It's a smoke screen and I'm not falling for it.

It's a "smoke screen" to say that equipment should be designed & built
to do it's job??


| You assume that the rig, particularly the boom, and the vang must be
| weak. It ain't so.

That's totally incorrect... I never stated such a thing nor utilized any
such reasoning in my argument.

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.


|
| I suspect that you cannot envision a box section boom, or a custom
| section boom. Have you ever seen a boat where the boom was not the same
| extruded section as the mast? They exist.

Pardon Me Doug... who the hell do you think you are discussing with here..
jaxxies or horvath???

That may have been a bit over the top. I apologize.

But you sure don't act as if you ever saw any such thing. If you have,
then why all the bogus assumptions?

I gave a simple engineering explanation of the forces & stresses, which
you agreed with, and then you started right back up with "it can't
possibly be as strong." First, the matter is not one to be settled by
debate. Second, believe what you want... I have spent more time than I
should trying to explain, maybe some day you'll actually sail a properly
rigged boat with a solid vang and see for yourself.

Understand this.... every poster that has joined this discussion has found
in my favour regarding the suitability of the topping lift versus the vang
for hoist situations.

Ok, I'm glad that makes you feel better. Does that mean you "win"?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message

| It's a "smoke screen" to say that equipment should be designed & built
| to do it's job??

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.

|
| 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!

| That may have been a bit over the top. I apologize.

Accepted.

|
| But you sure don't act as if you ever saw any such thing. If you have,
| then why all the bogus assumptions?

Not assumptions Doug..... just basic engineering principles. The "Topping
Lift" will always have the advantage over the "Vang" in hoisting load
capacity

|
| I gave a simple engineering explanation of the forces & stresses, which
| you agreed with, and then you started right back up with "it can't
| possibly be as strong."

No .. I stated rather plainly that the advantage was to the topping lift...
by a large margin.

First, the matter is not one to be settled by
| debate.

Yes Doug it can... I present a point, you present a counter-point.. we
collectively review the data presented and submit rebuttals based on logic.
That's discussion and debate.

Second, believe what you want... I have spent more time than I
| should trying to explain, maybe some day you'll actually sail a properly
| rigged boat with a solid vang and see for yourself.

I think you'd better give your head a shake.... you have explained
nothing... you have obfuscated and side tracked, you've attempted to bring
in a plethora of variables to substantiate your claims. You have provided
very little in the form of actual, logical counter points to my statements.
You've been reduced to brash accusations regarding my experience.... and
now you lament wasted time.... the reasoning of a failed argument.

| Ok, I'm glad that makes you feel better. Does that mean you "win"?

No Doug... what it means is that despite your attempts at introducing wild
variables... the basic logic of my statement is understood by those who have
bothered to read this far into our debate.

That alone may be the sum total of your inability to close with this.... you
refuse to entertain it as a discussion and rather approach it as a contest.
You gain nothing in a contest... you gain information via discussion.....
but only if you are willing to grant favour to logic rather than emotion.

In regards to abilities to discuss topics... my Father always insisted on
regular discussions since I was very young.... on a wide subject of
materials... the onus /responsibility for research was placed upon us ...
and insisted we be able to defend points of view we did not agree with....
if only to better understand the complexities of differing points of view
and hone our abilities to present them.

It's a skill that still stands me well.... ;-)

CM

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.



|
| 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.



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.

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?

Regards
Doug King

"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

Capt. Mooron wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message


I think you'd better give your head a shake.... you have explained
nothing... you have obfuscated and side tracked, you've attempted to bring
in a plethora of variables to substantiate your claims. You have provided
very little in the form of actual, logical counter points to my statements.
You've been reduced to brash accusations regarding my experience.... and
now you lament wasted time.... the reasoning of a failed argument.

But if he didn't he wouldn't be Doug!

Cheers

Just for fun why not do a simple engineering calculation for us Doug?

For simplicity let's say the rig has mast without any stays.

Mast 20' vertical Boom 10' horizontal. Gooseneck 3' from base of mast
Vang attched to point 3' from goosneck. 200 lbs to be lifted.

What is the bending moment on the boom at the vang if the load is held
by the vang?
What is the shear stress on the boom the load is held by the vang?
What is the compression force of the boom at the vang attachment?

Now let me quickly solve for the topping lift case:

If a topping lift is used, the bending moment at the vang is 0.
If a topping lift is used, the shear stress is 0
If a topping lift is used, the boom compression is 200 x 10 /17 = 118 lbs.

What is the maximum stress at the vang attachment point in each case?

Cheers

Have you ever had a girlfriend, Nav?

You are incredibly smart...but incredibly boring at the same time.

Any excitement in your life?

LP (curious minds want to know)


"Nav" wrote in message
...
Just for fun why not do a simple engineering calculation for us Doug?

For simplicity let's say the rig has mast without any stays.

Mast 20' vertical Boom 10' horizontal. Gooseneck 3' from base of mast
Vang attched to point 3' from goosneck. 200 lbs to be lifted.

What is the bending moment on the boom at the vang if the load is held
by the vang?
What is the shear stress on the boom the load is held by the vang?
What is the compression force of the boom at the vang attachment?

Now let me quickly solve for the topping lift case:

If a topping lift is used, the bending moment at the vang is 0.
If a topping lift is used, the shear stress is 0
If a topping lift is used, the boom compression is 200 x 10 /17 = 118 lbs.

What is the maximum stress at the vang attachment point in each case?

Cheers

Lot's of excitement but none for you -sorry I'm taken. Losing interest
in CM are you?

Cheers

Lady Pilot wrote:

Have you ever had a girlfriend, Nav?

You are incredibly smart...but incredibly boring at the same time.

Any excitement in your life?

LP (curious minds want to know)


"Nav" wrote in message
...

Just for fun why not do a simple engineering calculation for us Doug?

For simplicity let's say the rig has mast without any stays.

Mast 20' vertical Boom 10' horizontal. Gooseneck 3' from base of mast
Vang attched to point 3' from goosneck. 200 lbs to be lifted.

What is the bending moment on the boom at the vang if the load is held
by the vang?
What is the shear stress on the boom the load is held by the vang?
What is the compression force of the boom at the vang attachment?

Now let me quickly solve for the topping lift case:

If a topping lift is used, the bending moment at the vang is 0.
If a topping lift is used, the shear stress is 0
If a topping lift is used, the boom compression is 200 x 10 /17 = 118 lbs.

What is the maximum stress at the vang attachment point in each case?

Cheers

"Nav" wrote in message
...
Losing interest
| in CM are you?

Are you kidding me... she came to her senses long ago and realized I was
truly beneath her considerations!
.... mind you not until she broke her second ice pick!! ;-)

CM

"Nav" wrote:
Lot's of excitement but none for you -sorry I'm taken.

No need to apologize. You're not my type; I like smart guys, but they have
to be funny, interesting and witty. I haven't seen much of that in your
posts.

Losing interest
in CM are you?

Why do you want to know?

LP