Tell you the truth... I like discussing any subject with either of you!

If nothing else you both keep me thinking !

....that alone places both of you in the top ranks of the group!

Probably lends much to the fact I'm prone to debate almost any topic of
interest with either of you.

Also explains why both of you are so much alike!

Now tell me again Nav.... can I dance or What!!?? :-)


CM

Capt. Mooron wrote:
Tell you the truth... I like discussing any subject with either of you!

If nothing else you both keep me thinking !

...that alone places both of you in the top ranks of the group!

Probably lends much to the fact I'm prone to debate almost any topic of
interest with either of you.

Also explains why both of you are so much alike!

Now tell me again Nav.... can I dance or What!!?? :-)


Well I'd call that a tango for Doug and Jive for me...

;-)

Cheers

it was Capt Mooron who said that
| cranes never had their booms & rams set up in similar geometry to solid
| vangs, and was Scotty who proved they do in fact.

Capt. Mooron wrote:
**** You Doug....

A little touchy, are we?

... where did he prove that?

:Scott Vernon
:alt.sailing.asa
:8/28/2004 11:10 AM
"Capt. Mooron" wrote

Quit toying with the damn boom.... look think of it this way... how
many
lifting devices utilize a support located under the boom at less
than 25% of
the boom length? NONE!


Wrong, kanook.
Have you never seen an engine crane?
A bascule type draw bridge?
Any hydraulic crane with the boom out?
An excavator?

need more?

Scotty





I always said the topping lift was better situated to lift a load.

And that's wrong. It's not a case for *always*. Did you ever realize
that the tension on the topping lift was greater than the weight, and
the forces on the mast were also multiples of the weight load?

I don't think you tried to understand what I was trying to explain. I am
not a particularly good explainer, but your mind seems to be made up
regardless of the above facts.

DSK

DSK wrote:


I always said the topping lift was better situated to lift a load.


And that's wrong. It's not a case for *always*. Did you ever realize
that the tension on the topping lift was greater than the weight, and
the forces on the mast were also multiples of the weight load?

Did you ever realize the shear and bending forces on the boom are far
higher if a vang were used to lift the weight? That the vang attachemnt
to the boom is not desined for compression?

Cheers

Capt. Mooron wrote:
Good Grief.... don't make me show you the pictures of the big cranes again
Doug!! :-)

You mean the ones with the rams at about 20% of their length? Yeah,
let's take a look at them again!

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
| Capt. Mooron wrote:
| Good Grief.... don't make me show you the pictures of the big cranes
again
| Doug!! :-)
|
| You mean the ones with the rams at about 20% of their length? Yeah,
| let's take a look at them again!


Nope not those piddly things... the real lifters that realize rams just
don't cut it.

CM

Sober up Mooron and stop lying.


"Capt. MooronSprit" wrote


| cranes never had their booms & rams set up in similar geometry
to solid
| vangs, and was Scotty who proved they do in fact.

**** You Doug.... where did he prove that?

I always said the topping lift was better situated to lift a load. I
proved
that even to Scotty .. who by the way agreed with me!

So.. BITE ME!

CM

Don't make me have to repost that reply in which you most certainly agreed
that a topping lift was more effective than a vang to lift objects ... Just
don't make me do it Man!

CM

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
| Sober up Mooron and stop lying.
|
|
| "Capt. MooronSprit" wrote
|
|
| | cranes never had their booms & rams set up in similar geometry
| to solid
| | vangs, and was Scotty who proved they do in fact.
|
| **** You Doug.... where did he prove that?
|
| I always said the topping lift was better situated to lift a load. I
| proved
| that even to Scotty .. who by the way agreed with me!
|
| So.. BITE ME!
|
| CM
|
|
|
|

If you did, I'd have to repost the pics of engine jacks and excavators
that proved your '25%' statement erroneous.

Scotty


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
Don't make me have to repost that reply in which you most certainly
agreed
that a topping lift was more effective than a vang to lift objects
.... Just
don't make me do it Man!

CM

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
| Sober up Mooron and stop lying.
|
|
| "Capt. MooronSprit" wrote
|
|
| | cranes never had their booms & rams set up in similar
geometry
| to solid
| | vangs, and was Scotty who proved they do in fact.
|
| **** You Doug.... where did he prove that?
|
| I always said the topping lift was better situated to lift a
load. I
| proved
| that even to Scotty .. who by the way agreed with me!
|
| So.. BITE ME!
|
| CM
|
|
|
|

Oh Yeah... and I'd have to repost the pictures of the big cranes that are
used for serious lifting... which don't have rams!!

So there!

CM

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
| If you did, I'd have to repost the pics of engine jacks and excavators
| that proved your '25%' statement erroneous.
|
| Scotty
|
|
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
| ...
| Don't make me have to repost that reply in which you most certainly
| agreed
| that a topping lift was more effective than a vang to lift objects
| ... Just
| don't make me do it Man!
|
| CM
|
| "Scott Vernon" wrote in message
| ...
| | Sober up Mooron and stop lying.
| |
| |
| | "Capt. MooronSprit" wrote
| |
| |
| | | cranes never had their booms & rams set up in similar
| geometry
| | to solid
| | | vangs, and was Scotty who proved they do in fact.
| |
| | **** You Doug.... where did he prove that?
| |
| | I always said the topping lift was better situated to lift a
| load. I
| | proved
| | that even to Scotty .. who by the way agreed with me!
| |
| | So.. BITE ME!
| |
| | CM
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|