iain

This is sortof pertinant to climbing. A good understanding of mechanical advantage couldn't hurt when improvising a rescue.

take this to chat ya shits, you've posted 8 posts in less than 4 minutes.

the middle pulley just works as a differential to even out your pulling force on each load, and since your pull is split in half over the pulley, you actually have to pull twice as hard.

yeah sorry, both loads being equal. Guess this works out to mechanical disadvantage:

new definition to "love handle" I guess.

Freeclimb answer the question dammit I know you're online. Or be a man about it and admit you have no answer.

I knew those rope-up photos were faked, just like the moon landing. Clearly a soundstage.

But does the rope really even exist? Once again you dodge the question. What is the definition of "rope". Who are you to say what "rope" is when, as Heisenburg made clear, your own observation of said rope alters the very presence of the "rope". Please summarize in 300 words or less and present your sources.

(way off-topic, sorry) here's a funky one, what's the mech. adv. on this?

how 'bout the loads on the anchors?

I get 3:1 and 11:1 using the "T" method (since both are complex pulley systems)

Just place em straight in and call it good. Toprope anchor screws: angled back to deal with blackbody meltout.

Looks like you guys need to sharpen up. Here you go, what are the mech. advantages of the following 2 systems? Please have your answers to me by classtime tomorrow.

The intangibles are what the Sun Enterprise 10000 in the corner is for!

jetboats and wild tigers with machineguns on their heads.

nice sweater!

Of course people make decisions based on their "learnings". My point is that Ashcroft's "learnings" are so far out of the mainstream of this country that it is generating a lot of apprehension. I can put up with a conservative in the the attorney general's office, I might not like it all the time but I can live with it. But Ashcroft appears, through his quotes and actions in the past, to be living in the dark ages. I think there are much more appropriate people for the position. Again, the man is basically Pat Robertson, and that terrifies a lot of people.

The answer is hybrid poplars, and lots of them.

I am trying a vanilla coke right now for the first and last time.

I don't see anyone really disagreeing with anyone else here, but confusion. You run your rope through a carabiner attached to pro and someone pitches, the pro experiences the force of the fall x the mech advantage of the simple pulley. In an ideal fbd this would be 2:1. As said before, there is flex in the rope, movement of the belayer, friction in the biner based on width etc. etc. to drop this force, but it is nevertheless multiplied. I believe Loren is saying if you use your belay anchor in this manner, as a directional, the belay anchor will be submitted to multiplied forces, just like anything else. There is simply no question in this.

Okay so there's twice the force on the pro then (20N). I think that's all that was to be made clear.

Here There's 10N on each strand if the weight is to remain stationary but 20N on the anchor in this image. Agreed?

Wouldn't you agree if you replaced an ideal pulley for the quickdraw and you had a climber with force T falling and a secured belay on the other side that there would be a force of 2T on the pro? I'm not sure I see where you're going, whether you agree or disagree with this. If you just tied the rope to the draw, you would only have T on the pro.