reverse MA

Very good Joe!

Do you think the over the top lacing, to tie off low of the mayhem thingy would fit the prototype of a cantilever exerting rotational force from above and below the Center of Gravity, with the force at bend and hitch operating in opposite, but not compressing directions(non-inline..)?

Miss Kath i am all ways trying to express this simpler; be looking to Flash next. What questions do you have?

Mostly it is just that force isn't created or destroyed, just transferred/exchanged (like eveil essence in movie "Fallen"). It takes force to overcome distance. So everything is expressed as so much force over so much distance/speed in given time. The formulae for the force is then Distance X Power = Force.

If we string a Zrig, we create 3 legs between load and pull; to move the load 1'; we must pull 1' out of each leg; or trade 3xpower for 3x distance. A ramp allows you to likewise take a longer route to destination, the extra travel dropping the power needed to get to same point that is X distance and Y weight to overcome. If ramp gives 4' to get 1' rise it is 4:1. If lever sweeps 20" to lift 1" it is 20:1. Even the theory of Relativity has this same equals sign of balance of all input/output of systems. So, i kinda think of it as a funnel, or water pressure etc., you take 10' of travel and concentrate it into 1' of lift; it is 10x, no loss/no gain/no free ride...

A screw spirals a ramp around, to containt he ramp length in a smaller distance. As a cost of any of these conversions is friction/no free ride. So if the screw is tightened at 20# and 14" to compress 1" it is 280ft pounds - Friction. Reduuce friction with soap etc., get closer to 280. Same with more efficinet pulleys, you get closer to theoretical force; which is unreachable. For the border is, that there is no perpetual motion machine; you can't totally ping/pong the force back and forth, the pedulumn, must slowly swing less and less.


You must arc to do this; either around a pulley to gain another leg of inline pull; or by angle, whereby one part of stiff device moves faster than other part of same device; under the same power. The slower part of the device/end of prybar that travles least in same amount of movement/time is the more powerful. As the faster end must be weaker, from the same force by formulae.

To me; like watching this one old magician as a kid; ya couldn't let the fast moving hand catch your eye, for all the power was in the slow moving one!

This thread is about the formulae Force = Distance X Power; conversions(that will still be equal to input when factored out) cost friction; and it all works backwards too. So you can get power or speed from your 10 speed, or other transmission, by whether you are concentrating force into a smaller distance, or diluting it over a larger one (losign power but gaining speed in trade).
 
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the over the top lacing, to tie off low of the mayhem thingy would fit the prototype of a cantilever exerting rotational force from above and below the Center of Gravity, with the force at bend and hitch operating in opposite, but not compressing directions(non-inline..)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ken, I thought we had already put the over the top lacing physics to bed! I still have the PDF I posted if you misplaced yours.

Cary
 
Well.........

i still think you are putting another forcepoint on the load, similar if ya did so without a pulley(only this uses load itslef as device to bend line on, similar to confusino of not seeing 2:1 in DdRT as line folds to you again as laod with 2 forcepoints for more power) ; only using both these forcepoints together must be in opposite directions. That is how wheel turns, top goes 1 way, the bottom other, thus torqued input.

If the hitchpoint is left high on back the numbers might not come out favorable in some combinations. Also, as a single pull point a high tie'off's pull alone wiould not rotate CG forward. When used as over the tyop with pressure at 2 points- bend and hitch, the hitcpoint is pivot between bend and CG, still not best by that view either.

Tieing off low, places the pull points on opposite sides of the CG, hitch pulling up/over, bend pulling down over; using CG as pivot. so, i think they both take levrage on CG (far away from it) and their opposite, but not inline/compressing directions form the tourque wheel.

If both these forces were stacked together pulling at top/bend, it would be more force, but applied linearally. i think we have same as that mroe force, applied at different position strategy.

i think if a martial arts guy pulled at your wrist down 40#, they lose 40# of traction on ground as Eqal/Opposite. Place 40# down pull with other hand, they would lose 80# traction. This would be linear, both in same direction pull. But, more action, into shorte distance can be had, at no traction loss if 40#down at wrist, 40# up at elbow; and no traction loss. As the required oppposite/equal effect for each hand, was not the other hand. And, arm would be more rotated, than linearly pulled forward. Rotation takes more distance to arrive at same target than linear motion, so rotation is more powerful movement, as well as input, to that movement i think.

Noting, grabbing down on wrist, and up on lower forearm close to wrist, gives some of same input, but not spread to opposite sides of CG of arm, so doesn't try to rotate on CG of arm as pivot, for max rotation force input.

Similarily, i think the push up and pull down as they both direct away from sidelean in a face dutched on the sidelean side give a rotational force input, of 2 opposing, but not inline compressing directions to give this torque affect of using both forces to the max by the chosen positioning of how to use them. Rotational always more power than the faster/more direct linear.

As a kid, watching the great wheels turn on trains, i noticed the top moves forward, as the bottom back, but if the track was above the wheel, the train would still move in the same direction.


Orrrrrrrrr something like that!
-KC
 
[ QUOTE ]
That is how wheel turns, top goes 1 way, the bottom other, thus torqued input.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the reason for that is it has it's pivot point in the center of the wheel! A spar laced down the back is pivoting at the hinge not the CG. The CG of a wheel only comes into play during dynamic motion since it and the pivot point coincide (no moment arm). The CG of the spar is a fair distance away from the pivot point so it can contribute to the static conditions. Remember the use of statics does not require the body to be at rest! It only has to move slow enough to make the dynamic effects irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
Tieing off low, places the pull points on opposite sides of the CG, hitch pulling up/over, bend pulling down over; using CG as pivot. so, i think they both take levrage on CG (far away from it) and their opposite, but not inline/compressing directions form the tourque wheel.

[/ QUOTE ]
But the spar is not rotating at the CG it is rotating at the hinge and the two forces you refer to are mostly in line and hence are negligible.

[ QUOTE ]
As a kid, watching the great wheels turn on trains, i noticed the top moves forward, as the bottom back, but if the track was above the wheel, the train would still move in the same direction.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, I don't think so. The train will move in the direction opposite to the force it applies.

Cary
 
[ QUOTE ]

No, the text version of Pete's article on MA from AN is included in the old TB page that I linked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I looked at the wrong link.

That link (the old TB page)is the online version of the second reference that I gave.
 
Cary, i look at the moving the Center of Gravity around the hinge as primary, in that those forces are active, the hinge is a passive responder, so CG moves first. i think to move the CG, we can apply different strategies. i think all strategie forces must be able to be appleid to CG; most powerful of these is a rotational force apllied onto the CG during first flexxing to give greatest strength response back. so i think we look at the best way to move a free spar like this, then add the fact that it is hinged on 1 end as next stage of analysis. Moving the CG, flexes the hinge; i think this rope cantilever formaiton does that with most power. i think that seeing as this configuration is all angularily set, the more radical increase/change in power/force happens at first flexxing as the angles are changing(unlike a more linear pull). This pulse force thru first flexxing would initiate the strongest hinge response i think.
 
Glen,

I am always up to a good challenge.

Ken,

The hinge is a fundamental part/constraint of the system relegating it to passive responder status implies you are missing its importance. You are correct that superposition is a valid analysis method, but you are drastically overestimating the rotation component. Remember a moment, which is what you are talking about, is created by two opposite and parallel forces that are separated by a distance. The distance is measure perpendicular to the two forces. Without a lot of interesting rigging you are not going to get this distance to be more than a few inches and when compared to the many feet for the top connection it is negligible.

Using superposition there is a simple way to show how each force effects a spar. The next time you are removing a small tree clean it up and take the top off at 4” or so, but do not cut it at the butt. Ideally the resulting spar would be around 20' tall but as long as it is not too short everything should still work out. Now tie a line to the top of the spar, run it out about twice the height of the spar and through a pulley to redirect the force. Now attach some hanging weight to the line (100 lbs or so below the pulley). This applies a fixed amount of force to the line that can now be used to estimate how far the top moves. This movement is related to the CG movement. To measure the movement created by the rotational forces remove the previous setup, lace the line down the back and tie it off, go over the top, down the front and rehang the weight. Now estimate the movement of the top. This is an estimation of the CG movement created by the rotational component. This is not exactly the same as you would normally get since the rope is contacting the spar closer to the front and the friction at the top is probably higher. The answer to our debate is in the magnitude of the movements.

I may be wrong, but I believe your overestimation of the rotation force is based on your misunderstanding that the distance used in the calculation is measured perpendicular to the forces. Yes the top and bottom of the spare are separated by a significant distance, but this distance is parallel to the forces so does not count. At best the distance is the diameter of the tree, but in reality it is a small fraction of this. I also think you are getting overly caught up in the magic of the CG. It is needed to calculate the moment created by the weight of the spar and is a convenient place for a few other things, but it is not some secret panacea.

Cary
 
Cary, thanx for a cleaner 'fight' and more info than i've been used to; i got the train analagy wrong as i raced to write; got me fair and square.

i know what i see is different, i like the proper teminology that ya give etc. But i see some divergence in what i think i see and your finer points of this; that i will try to draw out later.

Most of my imagery holds that when playing detective, don't look for the shape to carry the forces, but the forces to carry the shape to next position. In pairallell to cops folowing the forces of money and romance, to find where those bodies have moved in accordance. To me, the CG is a forcepoint on the shape, as a pivot or pull is; the shape, whether tree, arm, bar, I Beam etc. has no force of it's own; it just connects the other forces and lets them battle and balance themselves out on the shape, if the shape is both strong and stiff enough to bear the forces of these connections. So, the bent line places more forcepoints on this shape, as a force point the CG can't be ignored. It must be push/pull or pivot on the shape.

i think as the CG forcepoint, i don't target moving the shape, jsut the CG. For if the CG is in a differnt postion in the shape, that is when everything changes, that is the force point, the 'personality' of the shape/device. Anything can be moved or secured by working from any of the 3 dimension axises on that, so consider all. And both directions on those axises, but not 2 directions on same axis at same time. So we can move up, left forward, but not up, forward backward etc.; only 1 direction on each axis. It would seem in a 3dimensional world that, that would cover all contingencies; if we surveyed all thus options and chose max pull strategy on CG to move spar to flex hinge, that would be best. The shape itself, would govern the amount of max leverage to be obtained, there is only so much length/travel to concentrate into only so much a smaller travel of CG etc.

But, we must also recognize tourque, as an overlay dimension/other influence in excess of the 3 dimensional examination. Tourque goes beyond the linear inputs, in that in a curve, we can now add extra leverageable distance within the same fixed linear length i think. Also, tourque feeds back into itself; rpoviding it's own equal and opposite; as linear force goes on to exhaustion not to be recycled, and directly confronts, not uses it's equal and opposite. Also, as a curiosity, we can now have 2 motions on same axis, we can have backspin on forward thrown ball etc., but also forward spin; all forces counting/msut be reckoned with.

So, i am trying to tourque pull force on CG, not linear pull it, and think there must be a way to do it. i think that if spar is 20' high and we come over top and hitch only 2'down with CG of 10'; we might be backing up. For, then the hitch pull force point is up as the bend and CG pull poijts are down, like hitch pull up force point is a pivot between the 2. Depending on numbers can be inefficent with specific plaecmenats of force points i think.

But... If over the top and hitch firght over cut; the hitch pull force point up and bend pull forcepoint down, now are on either side of the CG. This is how i see their pressures and positions as pivoting/toruquing on either side of CG for max effect, of tourque arms from farthest distance of CG, and in opposite directions, for the rotational input. i believe a rotational input strategy must exist on all axises, i think this is how to incite that. As long as the forcepoints are compressing but not inline, my theories say they would tourque. Also that the first few degrees directly off of inline compression are the biggest tourque change per degree. And only direct inline compression wouldn't matter on the length between the forcepoints, 1/2 of a degree off of that is leveraged positioning and sitatnce matters. In this relationship, in the first few seconds of folding, where hinge strength is set in response to the loaded pulls on it; i think the hair movement of the spar mopre dramatically and immediately changes, to put a pulse of srenght imbuing force into the hinge at the right moment of first flexxing of the hinge.

i think that added pressure of line wedge doesn't matter before first flexxing, forces strength at first flexxing, but after first flexxing additonal pulls can weaken the hinge. 1 gray area would be if the first folding 'event' is extended for a longer time, then the draw of the line can continue, as hinge strength is still being forced\travel would sieze/stop if pull/push stopped. But after that point, extra pull makes travel faster (loading more) and stresses rather than builds the hinge strength. This is one good thing about wedges, they stop pushing as tree lifts, but then once again if first folding becomes an extended event, must be pounded more then.

To me the shape is not the commander, but the coneecting pawn. We must move the CG, and their must be a rotation strategy to do so, in all things and patterns i have witnessed i beleive.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i don't target moving the shape, jsut the CG

[/ QUOTE ]
Ken do you understand what the CG really is? It is inextricably tied to the shape and it's mass distribution. You cannot move the CG without moving or at least changing the shape.

Using your martial arts example here is another way to look at the problem. If you grab a persons arm at each end and push/pull perpendicular to the bone you can generate a fair amount of torque, but if instead you push/pull parallel to the bone you generate very little torque using the same force. Your lacing down the back applies a force parallel to the trunk so generates little torque.

Your confusion about first flexing is probably the CG passing over the hinge which results in an ever increasing pull as the tree falls and the CG moves farther from the hinge. Wedges are used to drive the CG over the hinge. A rope does the same thing, but has a larger moment arm. In falling it is all about getting the CG past the hinge where within the limits of the control hinge gravity will do the rest.

Cary
 
[ QUOTE ]
Miss Kath i am all ways trying to express this simpler; be looking to Flash next. What questions do you have?


[/ QUOTE ]

i'm afraid to ask. i think i need a hands on demo to really get it. thanks for the offer though..
k.
 
Well, i'm speaking to artificially creating pull on the hinge at first folding, so that as much strength is forced as possible in response, then the artificial force load is relieved. Then the ever increasing leverage of load on hinge ensues as spar roates on hinge, the hinge is more prepared for it, for it is atrtificially set as to hinge a larger tree than it acutally has to support.

Being as the shallowest leans, have the least leverage pull, they have a dual complication. The leveraged pull of the tree at first folding, will have the least load on it, therefore force the weakest hinge in response. This weaker hinge, also has to usher the tree the furthest distance, and has the greatest chance of earlier tearoff in the same size face and/or exceeding the flexrange/radius of the hinge fiber. So, the weakest forced hinge (that at first folding would have least leveraged load), has greatest distance to fall, greatest accelleration of loading (nearer vertical balanced is more change in loading than degrees closer to horizontal; at 1/3 radius from vert. to horiz, half the load is already incurred on hinge), and greatest chance to close early or fracture fiber. So, even if a tree is headed in right direction, we might flex it over slower especially on shallow leaners, to fake out the hinge strength response, and force a stronger hnge, when it can't itself; and has most chances to accellerate such loading. Givng most control over direction and speed of fall; especially important in urban settings. Furhter more, i think that dutching just the lean side and maintianing the pull to side as releif, does a number of thins to the mechanics, 1 of which is assemgles the forcepoint directins of push up/over and pull up/over togetrher to be over/over (both away from lean) and this up on one side and pull down on other/spin toruque application of these forces i'm trying to show in over the top lacing.

i also beleive that direction is very important to force, as ol'Joe taught me; there can be no force, without it heading in a direction. Direction to me, and it's axis are as imortant as force iteslf, perhaps more so. In forcing hinge i will pull into the face squarely, and let my efforts leverage thru the hinge,then let that leveraged multiplier of tapered hinge (in good wood) fight the sidelelean. Rather than slanting my rope pull across the face to directly fight the sidelean, without routing that input through final multiplier of hinge. If you pull directly to offset the sidelean with your direction of pull, you unload the hinge by that much leveraged pull, so it doens't force as strong a pull in response. Therefore you do not force that hinge strength, to twist around and have leverage agaisnt sidelean. The hinge is generally the only controlling device that stays engaged until tearoff by definition, so forcing it properly with direction will give this control for a longer range than wedge or rope in good wood i think.

That is in good wood, where the line doesn't ahve to carry the wood. In the positions of hinging the compression side can be as hard and inelastic as rock/steel, the tension side rubbery, but not reversed. Rest is nmostly distance and angle from pivot to pull. The tapered hinge strategy providing superiour amounts of fibers in leveraged positions, provides better distance postions as a distance from pivot/compression, as well as better inline angle to the loaded axis of the CG to pivot; so is better for sidelean, these 3 compounding ways.

i know my conceptual shape is illusion, except that it connects force points, and all that matter is these forcepoints and their relation to each other is a lil'hard going.... But, it is the pattern i see in everything. This thing we question; furthermore is jsut a bentline pattern folded back to laod itself, that always seems to decieve the eye. Such as 2:1 in DdRT, the hanging mayhem puzzle, the 2:1 compressing into 1:1 in a choke, the double pull on load by putting pulley on anchor, the 13x in the ship rig, making it an 13x+5x, a compund 4:1 into a 5:1 etc.; all with the same bend in a line applied back to self, that this lacing has, and seems to always confuse eye.
 
Ken,

As simply as I can put it, there are only two ways you're going to affect the hinge loading with a rope (beyond, as opposed to a wedge, the extra compressive force on the hinge the rope will apply the more acute the angle of the rope is to the stem):
<ul type="square">[*]Whether you lace back and anchor anywhere "above" the hinge or don't lace back at all (no difference), you'd need to pull appreciably toward a side of the hinge to cause an alteration of the "natural" hinge loading.

[*]If you lace back like you like to advocate but with placing the lace anchor across the hinge (on the other, stationary side), that would cause an alteration of the "natural" hinge loading.[/list]Lacing back and anchoring anywhere on the moving side of the hinge (even directly above it) is for all intents and purposes exactly the same as fastening directly to the point over which you'd be lacing. The only exception I can see to that would be if the spar/limb were appreciably bowed and you wanted to (attempt to) bow it more for some reason as you're pivoting it on the hinge. Then by all means lace back and anchor as "low" as possible for the fullest effect.

Glen
 
I remember John Ball talking about the effects on the fiber tensions of a trunk would make a tree fall. The memory is pretty fuzzy now.

Here's what I seem to remember. Since the tree fibers are made up of compression and tension wood, cutting out part of the wood effects the way the tree pulls itself towards the face. Let this simmer, I might be able to pull more out of my memory.
 
Tom,

I would be interested in the details of this is you figure it out. To me tension and compression wood are reaction wood which is created in leaning trees. Tension wood is from hardwoods and is created mostly on the upper side of the sweep while compression wood is from softwood and forms mostly on the lower side of the sweep.

Ken,

If you could articulated your arguments a little better we just might be able to figure out exactly what it is you are trying to say. Most of the time I take my best swag, but I am not always sure I know what it is you are trying to say. FYI I took physics in H.S. Two years of physics and a year of statics and dynamics in college. Does this mean I know everything about the subject or that I cannot make a mistake? No, but it does mean I have spent a serious amount of time over the years setting up and solving these type of problems.

Cary
 
Ummmm well i'm uneducated, but have studied it just a mite, and will try to draw it out at some point, thanx.

i'm trying to maximize force that moves CG by applying max rotating force input on that point, to make tree 'heavier' when strength is set in response at first folding. Then releive this extra load, so the stronger hinge, now carries the lighter tree, than what forced the hinge.

i'm trying to do this with the max rotational rather than linear strategy of pulling on CG; like it was laying on ground, free of hinge; by moving both ends around CG to move CG slightly with most input motion into small CG motion. This i figure would be max/more than jsut pulling linear on either end, or any other point; then take this max force strategy, and force on hinge with it.

A shallow lean, forces the weakest hinge at first folding, for has the least leveraged load on it at first folding. This weaker hinge must then face higher escalating loading; than if it started moving from a steeper lean, for most of the leverage change per degree is nearer to the vertical/shallow lean. In addition to a weaker hinge, and a faster escalating laoding onthat hinge,the hinge on the shallower lean, also has the furtehst to fall, and needs gthe widest face and most flexible fiber not to tear off early. The shallower lean i think, could use this strength forcing strategy for best control.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i'm trying to maximize force that moves CG by applying max rotating force input on that point, to make tree 'heavier' when strength is set in response at first folding. Then releive this extra load, so the stronger hinge, now carries the lighter tree, than what forced the hinge.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're saying you are trying to rotate the stem about its CG as the CG swings or at least starts to swing? But wait, you're attempting to do something which will create a more strongly-responding hinge? I don't see how doing the first wouldn't do the opposite of the second.

In fact, I don't really understand how you could even go about getting a hinge to respond more strongly. The hinge isn't an "aware" element. Its "response" is determined ahead of time by the quality/nature of its fibers and by the way you've formed it from them.

Anything you do which would tend to make the stem want to rotate about its CG would cause some sort of side-loading of the hinge wood, wouldn't it? How would that make the hinge wood "decide" to react more strongly in some way? Wouldn't it rather tend to weaken the fibers by placing unnecessary stress on them?

[ QUOTE ]
i'm trying to do this with the max rotational rather than linear strategy of pulling on CG; like it was laying on ground, free of hinge; by moving both ends around CG to move CG slightly with most input motion into small CG motion. This i figure would be max/more than jsut pulling linear on either end, or any other point; then take this max force strategy, and force on hinge with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you envision a method which uses great input motion to achieve small output motion? What possible relevance to working trees might this have, I wonder?

[ QUOTE ]
A shallow lean, forces the weakest hinge at first folding, for has the least leveraged load on it at first folding. This weaker hinge must then face higher escalating loading; than if it started moving from a steeper lean, for most of the leverage change per degree is nearer to the vertical/shallow lean. In addition to a weaker hinge, and a faster escalating laoding onthat hinge,the hinge on the shallower lean, also has the furtehst to fall, and needs gthe widest face and most flexible fiber not to tear off early. The shallower lean i think, could use this strength forcing strategy for best control.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kenny, you lose the hell out of me some times! Define the terms "shallow lean", "weakest hinge", and describe how the first "forces" the second, please.

If you're trying to say that a more vertical stem has less side-loading on the hinge fiber I'd agree. What I wouldn't understand, then, is why you'd want to force a side-loading on it as if to simulate the forces it would see were the stem more horizontal. That's what I hear you saying, and it sure sounds like conceptual mayhem to me.

Glen
 
i guess conceptual mayhem then sir, for i see the force of the CG and extra wedge push and line pull forces as active inputs, preceding the passive/responder of the hinge strength. Whereby, the more the tree weighs, the more leverage of lean, the more it is pushed and/or pulled as outside, added forces, the mroe hinge stregth is forced in matching response to all these forces and their directions. The hinge pulls Zer0, with Zer0 force on it; the hjnge pulls 10# with 10#load on it; only responding, not initiating. i think all different shaped hinges would fold at same strength , from same tree etc.; as long as the compression/pivot portion of hinge was in same spot. For, all scenarios would then have the same leveraged, load and pivot, thereby match with same hinge strength on the forward axis. The differeance in tose hinge patterns would show as the chosen hinge strength and how that pattern was using that forced strength to fight a sidelean axis set of pulls. so a strip hinge folds at same force as tapered, for same force on it. But tapered rearranges those forced fiber positions, so that though the pattern gives the same strength on the forward axis, the strategy gives betters trength on the side axis by their farther position of pull, more fibers in those positions and exerting those forces at a better angled position, all at the same time, for a very powerful adjsutmeant.

Prefer the extra laoding squarely into face. i think besides the crafting and fiber type properties of a hinge, is how much meat/strength is forced when it first folds. We pull with more force, a healtheir/meatier/thicker hinge forms in response.

Shallow lean, mebbe less than 30 degrees/1 o'clock perhaps; whereby at 1o'clock leaverage position achieves half of force it will have at max/horizontal/3o'clock. In defining a hinge strength as a response to pull on it when it folds, then the shallower/slighter lean will always force a weaker hinge under it's own force, for not as much pressure to fold hinge, so have to cut more to make fold. Compounding that weakness, the hinge has to sweep the tree the most degrees from the shallower lean. So, has more duty, with less. Also, the immediate acceleration of loading as the tree falls in shallower lean is much more intense, more problems for the weaker hinge it forces by self/own weight.

Strategy:make hinge feel that the tree is heavier/more leveraged, force more fiber at first folding; especially for the shallower lean positions, that form weakest hinge, have greatest increase in immediate loading on that weaker hinge; and then have to carry tree more degrees, under this greather increase in force compared to strength forced, also on the weakest hinge etc.

So, i jsut focus on pressing on CG, to force hinge/fake hinge to stronger. My strategy when i say to pivot on CG by placing pull up on one side(hitch) and pull down on opposite side(bend); is really to tourque on the CG, to bump forward (like it was free agent from hinge); then take that imagery of best way to bump CG forward an inch (most power). To me that would always be rotational/tourque rather than linear. Then take that theory of building more pressure by forcing on bottom up and top down form distant tourque and just bump CG small distance, but powerfully. The scenario places more force at the top by virtue of the bend/ 2legs of pull; let alone the pull up as pulling down/ tourqued effect i think.

M'Lady will be gone fer 2 weeks; gonna work on animating it; how are Flash animations etc. working on our equitable-file-size critique's computer?
 
I can do flash just fine. There are precious few motion-image formats I can't use (if any). The real limiting factor is whether my interest is piqued enough to exceed much beyond a couple of megabytes file size.

So it sounds roughly like you're saying you don't like to use the thinner hinge a more vertical stem would require to start the bending of the hinge because the thinner hinge has/allows for a quicker rate of folding as well has having less potential for control. A thicker hinge (certainly not too thick to induce a running split!) has better directional control and performs more slowly throughout its range but takes (perhaps) more initial torque to operate. So you make the thickest hinge you can and provide the necessary torque to get things going. (Hell, maybe that sounds no less convoluted than the way you say it; if that's what you're saying!)

Assuming for the moment that's what you're saying, I can see the benefit in residential settings.

I must say, however, that, as Cary has said plainly and coherently, you will never get meaningful (if even measurable) rotation about the CG in a successful-while-safe felling operation. I'm of the opinion that the only way you're going to achieve/witness rotation about the CG is if you induce a running split (barber chair).

Let's see what you can come up with in terms of your animation.

Glen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom