Rigging Friction Saver

[ QUOTE ]
Nice Norm.

What line do you run over that and what size pieces?

[/ QUOTE ]

1/2" 3 or 12 strand. We use it alot for 'driftlining' when using an adjacent tree for the 'drift'.
Nothing heavier than 800-1,000 lbs static.

Allmark, it will install with a throwline. We have to be a little bit more selective with the branch union, but also use between unions on more horizontal limbs.
 
Norm:[ QUOTE ]
...One note about the illustration though, the forces are 4X only if the ropes are at 0 degrees or parallel. The further from 0 degrees, the LESS force there is. I'm sure you already know this, but I'm not sure if others do.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is true, but perhaps not to the degree we might think. I haven't measured it, but based on the math, which it appears we are working with, a rope with a load on the vertical side and the other side at a 45° angle only reduces the load at the TIP by 15%. While that is significant, it may not be as much of a reduction as we might think.
 
Very nice Norm!

And, it was good to see the 1.84X for 45°. I actually got 1.8476 which would round to 1.85X. But I made a mistake calculating the percentage difference between 2X and 1.85X. I said it was 15% and it's really only 8.5%.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Very nice Norm!

And, it was good to see the 1.84X for 45°. I actually got 1.8476 which would round to 1.85X. But I made a mistake calculating the percentage difference between 2X and 1.85X. I said it was 15% and it's really only 8.5%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron, that 1 went right over my head. I never woulda picked that up if you hadn't said something. You math guys, gotta love em!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ron, that 1 went right over my head. I never woulda picked that up if you hadn't said something. You math guys, gotta love em!

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey - watch the name callin'! LOL.

Besides, I think I pretty much disqualified myself as a math guy when I let my post count get the best of me.
frown.gif
hmmmm, well maybe 'best of me' is a bit of a stretch.
wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
°°°°° Ah! °°° don't worry about it. °°°°°

[/ QUOTE ]
Well sure, °°° when you say it like that °°°°, it doesn't sound so bad.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
What would the rating be for those rings that cory's using on his set up? just curious, I am trying to get comfortable with the weak link in the system thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rich made the FS so hes best equipped to answer that. As far as I know they're standard steel rings as would be used on a climber's FS. The cordage is 16 strand technora from All Gear with a MBS of around 16,000lbs.
 
i think that rigging own weight in DdRT on FC is different than lowering a load. i think the differences are beyond the double loading potential; but also the tight bight is more tolerated in DdRT; by virtue of not all the force cranking around the tight bight to lower. If we use 2 separate lines to support and lengthen 1; the force shifts to the more static/non moving line. i think similair happens in the DdRT somewhat. This is why the hitch slides; be cause it can unload.

So, i'd be more cautious about lowering through the tight bight of the double rings. The rings have a fair amount of friction; so of course the support loading would be less than 2x.

The reduction in loading by the spread angle is determined by the cosine of the angle, of each leg from inline. Inline being Zer0 deflection. This contincues until 120/each leg at 60; for the cosine of each leg is .5; so each leg has loaded force x .5; or .5 + .5 for a support load matching the load. Past this however, the cosine keeps reducing; so that instead of the 'end(s) having leverage over the bend'; we have an inversion of the 'bend having leverage over the end(s)'.

So, if we want to play with power and have a higher return than effort; we pull an end (with other end anchored) and take an output on load at the bend if less than 120/60 degrees deflection each. But, if the angle is greater than 120; we would input effort at the bend; and take a leveraged output of force on load on an end (with the other one anchored). The former is our 2/1 lifts, or forces on a redirect. The latter, though less realized is much more powerful a return potential; and is used in sweating/swigging lines; and in the bends on Standing Parts.

For the latter to work; the line must resist bending. For just like placing perpendicular force on a lever, the more the bending is resisted, the more return. So, the line has to be pre-tightend; then bent. We can even pre-tighten a line, then place a bending line perpendicular to it; that doesn't bend the original line (becasue it is so tight). Then, Place a bending line, on the bending line (i say make a T bar). Then we bend the last line, that bends the next line, that bends the original load line; each tier leveraging it's force into the next, for sum real power.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The cordage is 16 strand technora from All Gear with a MBS of around 16,000lbs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless they made special order, the tech cord is rated at 6,200 lbs., not 16,000. Better check with Rich.
 
Hey Norm, he is using the 3/8" version of the tech cord which is rated to 15,500 lbs. The original version of the rigging cambium saver that we made for Cory had two legs of the 5/16" which is rated as you stated.
 
So what you are saying treespydr is...(and dont get me wrong but the maths is mad!)....its not an ideal set up to use two rings..ie.WITHOUT a pulley... because of bend radius energy limitations....
 

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom