Re: An appolory to the board.
[ QUOTE ]
Gary, and Mike.
By spiraling the tight line down the tree to where it is tied off on each tree, that would effectively mean it would still be holding somewhat if a top broke. Of course there would be slack introduced into the system by the amount that the top broke.
Mike, seeing Gord's pic and the size of the anchor trees, tells me that if he was tied in at 8-9 inches or more on each tree, the strength of each would be more than adequate. In fact, it would be plenty to allow for lowering 200-300 pound sections as long as the line angle of the tight line was at least 145 degrees or so, 180 being straight.....Also, if Gord had a lifeline in each, instead of working off a tight line, then he could have been tied in at, say, 5 inches diameter on each tree.
[/ QUOTE ]I appreciate your comments, and agree with most of your post, as usual.
The two drawings I posted showed, or had comments abut the possibility of the top snapping of due to the huge side loads even a 200 pound load can generate to a speed line or high line.
I've noticed that pictures of your work rarely, if ever, show the use of guy ropes. The loads on a speedline are so much higher from typical doubled rope systems we use to climb trees or lower limbs because of the perpendicular orientation of the load to the tree.
You threw out numbers and diameters, but how can you tell if there are any internal flaws in either of those trees?
What safety factor are you using to come up with the weights?
Lowering a piece of wood, so as not to damage some lawn, should be handled differently than a human load.
When you rig a system, try to think: is that's the system you'd use if you were going to send your brother, best freind, co-worker, or child up with? If not, what are you doing wrong, and how can you correct it?
Anyway, it's good to see Tree Expert back. I take back some of the bad things I was thinking of him.