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