In article , (Harry K) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(Harry K) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(Harry K) wrote:
"Greg O" wrote in message
...
"Harry K" wrote in message
om...
This is for Greg O and Doug Miller;

40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
40

That is what you have without the second extension to the bottom
anchor. Now metally run a line from the top to a second anchor.
Have
you added anything?

Simple experiment to prove it without a scale:

Bucket with 20 or more lbs weight.
line.

Tie line to bucket and lift.

Now step on the loose end of line and pull the slack out with your
other hand.
Has the weight changed in your hand holding the bucket?

Harry K

You lost me here!!!
I don't unsderstand what slack you are refering to.
Your drawing is correct though, but what we have been discussing is
differant.
Greg
Greg

You did understand the first part?
If it is the second part, the slack I am referring to is whatever is
hanging loose leading from the hand holding the line/bucket to your
foot. In effect your line/bucket hand is the anchor at the top, your
foot is the anchor at the bottom.

What we are discussing is the -same- thing.

NO! It is *not* the same thing, because you're *holding* that rope in your

hand. That apparently "minor" difference changes *everything*.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh for gods sake. How dense are you? Here to make it -really- simple
for you which I shouldn't have had to explain. Your had is
substituting for the top anchor! Try again but make some sense.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm obviously less dense than you, at any rate, because I can see that
whether
the rope is free to move over the top support, or fixed at the top support,
makes a difference, and you don't.

The hand is *not* substituting for the top anchor *unless* the hand does not
grip the rope, but allows it to slide through -- remember that in the
situation posed by the original poster, the segment of the rope suspending
the
weight is *not* attached to any "anchor" at the top, but merely passed
through
a hook.

It _makes_a_difference_.


I am just trying to
simplify it down to one step at a time until you can see the logic
here.

Admirable goal. But you must be careful not to alter the problem as you
simplify, and you have just altered it.
-------------------------------------------------------

Okay, show me where it has been altered. You can't do it, it is the
same problem with your hand substituting for the hook.
----------------------------------------------------

Speaking of dense... I *did* show you where it's been altered, but you won't
see it. In the original problem, the rope was free to move over the top
support, and in your erroneous simplification of it, it's not.

No matter how you try to sidestep and adamantly refuse to
accept reality, there is no 80 lbs in the the original problem.

No matter how *you* try to "sidestep and adamantly refuse to accept
reality",

equilibrium is equilibrium, and you're still wrong.

For some reason you seem to refuse to do any experiment that will show
you are wrong.

Harry, I'm beginning to think that your mind might be just a bit closed.
I've

*done* the experiment. And I thought, going in to it, the _same_ thing you

did. (Read my original post in this thread.) The experiment proved me (and

you) wrong.

================================================= =========================
I just checked all the posts I could find and I didn't find one where
you did any experiment. If you did please give me the number of the
post and I will rechcheck it.

Up until this point, I figured that you were just dense and stubborn. Now, I
have proof that you're a liar. You not only read that post, you _responded_
to
it:

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&l...&threadm=83Z4c.
34291%24PY.30616%40newssvr26.news.prodigy.

com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-
8%26as_drrb%3Dq%26q%3Dfiguring%2Bloads%2Bgroup%253 Aalt.home.
repair%26as_qdr%3Dw%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch

I did see where you caught me on the 20 vs 40 lb on left right side
which I admitted to screwing up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It would cost you less than $10 to buy a scale and
cheap pulley to test it yourself.

I already have a scale. I did the experiment. You're wrong.


-----------------------------------------------------------
So do it again only give the diagram you use and the readings you get.
It will only take minute and involve only two weighings (1 for bucket
then one for strain on hook). I don't see what is keeping you from
doing it, it isn't like it'll cost you anything. It only took me a
minute to repeat the experiment this morning. Buket 26 lbs, hook 26
lbs with the bitter end of line tied off to a bottom anchor. Go ahead
and do it, don't just run your mouth until you do.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Either you're lying, or you had the rope tied off to the scale. If it's not
free to move, it's not a replication of the original problem.

I had assumed you were at least bright enough to realize the rope
would be sliding through the hand.

You weren't "bright enough" to state it, so why should anyone assume it?

Well after all your incorrect bs
and refusal to do a simple test I should have known better.

Harry, this has to be about the tenth time now: I've already done the test.

No you did -not- do the test or if you did you are lying about your
results.

Harry, *you* are a proven liar. You claimed to have never read my post
describing my test -- but you responded to it.

There is no reasonable explanation for either part of that.
Why lie about doing it or about the results when anyone with a spring
scale can prove you wrong in less than a minute. I just did -again-.

Indeed, Harry, why keep lying about it? You haven't done any tests, or you're
lying about the results. The actual experiment simply does not show what you
claim to see.

Do the experiment again and show your results. Here is mine which I
just repeated:

HOOK
scale 22 to 22.5
I
I
I
I
I
Bucket 21.5 lbs

OK, but so what? A spring scale reads 22 pounds when a 22-pound weight is
suspended from it. Big deal. What does that prove?

The scale is so short that accurate reading to even 1/2 lb is shaky.
The 22 to 22.5 depended upon how I eased the rope going over the hook,
yes it did change somewhat but not by 20 lbs.
You will find those same readings predicted in any basic physics texts
you use as a reference.

No kidding? Physics books actually predict that spring scales accurately read
weights that are suspended directly from them? Wow. Will wonders never cease?

You've been challenged repeatedly to post a citation to a physics textbook
that backs up your claims for the load on the scale in the situation described
in the original post.

You haven't done so.

Because you can't.

Your turn or are you still scared?? I don't understand adamant
refusal to do a 1 minute test.

I've done the test already. I don't understand your persistent challenge to do
something that I've already done.

If you are correct you win easily.
Just remember not to lie as anyone can check it in less than a minute.

he difference here, Harry, is that I've actually *done* the test that I
claimed to have done, and posted the results that I actually got -- unlike
you.

But just to shut you up, I did it again. Here are the particulars:

Toolbox suspended directly from the spring scale: scale reads 28 lbs. Scale is
one used for measuring the draw weight of hunting bows, and is accurate only
to within a couple of pounds -- but close enough to tell the difference
between theory and your claims, when using a 28-pound weight.

Toolbox suspended from a rope passed through the hook on the scale, and free
to move. Opposite end of rope tied to the base of a 350-pound wood shaper so
it won't move. Point of attachment of rope is 52" below the hook on the scale,
and offset 13" laterally. The rope is thus at an angle of atan(52/13) = 76
degrees. Theory predicts that the vertical component of the load in the rope
is 28 lb * sine(76) = 27 lbs thus the total theoretical vertical load on the
scale is 55 lb. The predicted load would be somewhat less than the theoretical
value, due to several factors including friction losses between the rope and
the hook of the scale, internal stretching in the rope, and inherent
inaccuracies in the scale.

The actual measured reading is 44 lbs, or 80% of the theoretical value and
certainly more than 80% of the predicted value.

According to you, Harry, it should have read 28 lbs.

You are either lying about your results, or lying about having conducted any
tests at all. It's already proven that you have lied about not reading my post
describing my test. As a _proven_liar_, Harry, the only way you can possibly
restore a shred of anything resembling credibility is to post a photograph of
your test setup.

I'm waiting to see it.