- #36
Rolacycle
- 26
- 12
Your right you don’t. It’s not so much about mechanical advantage over the 100lb load. It’s not about having exactly correct diagram of pulleys, the rope tensions or their relations to each other or varying pulley angles created . It’s not about having most MA possible. Its about keep the load at center between the 2 poles no matter what height I raise the system and this isn’t for school it’s for real life. It’s only required to work it doesn’t need to meet any other requirements or MA minimums short of lifting load out of reach (from my cows, wild hogs and deer). Be stable in wind (spinning and swinging) in wind. I was looking for better way to raise load to center of pole (any height above 6’) not why this isn’t perfect system, that it loses MA as load is raised. Forget MA that’s literally least important part of system and is only bonus not requirementhutchphd said:I don't understand what you mean. Assuming "massless" rope and pulleys and "frictionless" pulleys and that you are lifting slowly: as soon as there is any lifting force on the load (i.e. no slack) the rope geometry is fixed. The other way to say this is that the geometry is the same for any sized load. Obviously as the load moves the geometry changes. But at that initial point the top line is bowed by ~5 ft and the MA suffers as per my estimate. If that MA is sufficient then OK. So what are the requirements? If your design is sufficient (with added stability requirements which this will meet I think) then what is our purpose here?
If you just want to understand better may I suggest you rig this with 10 lbs load and lightweight ropes and play...the physics is the same. Will be glad to provide analysis.