DIYbanter - View Single Post

In article , (Harry K) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message
om...
In article ,
(Harry K) wrote:
"Greg O" wrote in message
...
Harry,
Is this drawing, really any differant from

20 20
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
40

this one?

40
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
20 20

Greg

No they are not the same: If the load in No.1 is 40 the drawing is
correct. If the load in No.2 is 20 the drawing is incorrect. In no.2
with load 20 the pull on the top will be 20 not 40.

Absolute nonsense. In No. 2, there are *two* 20-pound loads. Do you maintain
that the anchor at the top supports only *one* of them?

See my experiment that I used to confirm the theory. It confirms what
I just said.

Your experiment confirms nothing except your own inability to take accurate
measurements. Your numbers were all over the map.
Harry K

Try reading my experiment again. They conform to the theory within
accuracy limits of my tools. I don't follow the 'all over the map'
bit unless they just don't fit your (incorrect) preconcieved notions.

You obviously haven't read my first post in this thread, in which I stated
explicitly that my preconceived notion was the same as yours, and I found that
the experiment proved me _wrong_. You, on the other hand, drew conclusions
that _reinforced_ your preconceived notions, from data that don't begin to
justify them.

Ok. mentally tie the rope to the top anchor. What is the pull? Answer
20 lbs. Do you agree with that?

Assuming that a 20-lb weight is suspended, sure.

Now extend the rope to the bottom and tie it. What has changed?
Nothing.

Agreed.

Now untie the rope from the top anchor. The load on that anchor *does* become
40 lbs.

Of course if you are adamant that 20 lbs just magically appear you
could go down to the school and ask the physics teacher. He will
probably show you the identical experiment with identical (altho more
acccurate) results I did.

You got one thing right, anyway: your experimental results were not accurate.