Bill,

Thank you for that thoughtful essay on the basis for structural
mechanics. It was well written and I agree with the principles you
outline. Although my structural mechanics may be a little rusty through
lack of use, I did study it to second year university level, and other
branches of mechanics to a higher level. I do consider myself to have a
good understanding of Newton's laws, free body diagrams, etc. In your
500+ words you have still not explained precisely why my free body
diagram is wrong. If it's wrong, I want to know why.

Chris

Chris,

Thank you for that thoughtful essay on the basis for structural
mechanics. It was well written and I agree with the principles you
outline. Although my structural mechanics may be a little rusty through
lack of use, I did study it to second year university level, and other
branches of mechanics to a higher level. I do consider myself to have a
good understanding of Newton's laws, free body diagrams, etc. In your
500+ words you have still not explained precisely why my free body
diagram is wrong. If it's wrong, I want to know why.

You left off the horizontal component of the tension in the "tension
member". I've said that at least three times now. Given the idealized
structure you created, it is simply where Newton takes us.

If you genuinely do not understand about the missing component, and are
close to a university, you might seek a tutor to help you with some
problems from a statics text. Find one for which you deviate from the
solution so you will have questions from the beginning. Many graduate
students are eager to pick up an hour's fee here or there, and won't
care that you are not enrolled as a student.

Bill

Bill Schwab wrote:
Chris,

Thank you for that thoughtful essay on the basis for structural
mechanics. It was well written and I agree with the principles you
outline. Although my structural mechanics may be a little rusty
through lack of use, I did study it to second year university level,
and other branches of mechanics to a higher level. I do consider
myself to have a good understanding of Newton's laws, free body
diagrams, etc. In your 500+ words you have still not explained
precisely why my free body diagram is wrong. If it's wrong, I want to
know why.


You left off the horizontal component of the tension in the "tension
member". I've said that at least three times now. Given the idealized
structure you created, it is simply where Newton takes us.

Whether or not this force is included depends on how you model the
structure. If you look at my diagram of the idealised structure, the
tension member, column and roller support are all connected by the same
pin. In this case the roller support provides a reaction (transmitted
through the pin) against the horizontal component of the tension, and
this force is not seen by the column. The free body diagram is
consistent with my model. You could draw a subtly different idealised
structure in which the tension member is connected to the column, and
the column to the roller support. In this case the horizontal component
of the tension should be shown on the FBD. I chose to take the first
approach as it simplifies the model and I do not believe it will have
much effect on the answer.

Chris

Chris,

Thank you for that thoughtful essay on the basis for structural
mechanics. It was well written and I agree with the principles you
outline. Although my structural mechanics may be a little rusty
through lack of use, I did study it to second year university level,
and other branches of mechanics to a higher level. I do consider
myself to have a good understanding of Newton's laws, free body
diagrams, etc. In your 500+ words you have still not explained
precisely why my free body diagram is wrong. If it's wrong, I want to
know why.



You left off the horizontal component of the tension in the "tension
member". I've said that at least three times now. Given the
idealized structure you created, it is simply where Newton takes us.


Whether or not this force is included depends on how you model the
structure. If you look at my diagram of the idealised structure, the
tension member, column and roller support are all connected by the same
pin. In this case the roller support provides a reaction (transmitted
through the pin) against the horizontal component of the tension, and
this force is not seen by the column.

I don't know how else to say it. That is not correct. The tension
member and the support both interact with the beam, and both must be
represented by external forces when removed. We can go no further if
you insist otherwise.

Work some sample problems in just about any statics book, and I promise
you will soon encounter problems where you will have problems matching
the answers, or you will suddenly realize what I am trying to tell you.

Bill

Just one more question.

Well, maybe two.

When I DO get this thing running, I want to leave off the center standoff
until I make one 200# lift, where I will measure the center deflection at
midpoint. Just for my own curiosity, and I say it will be less than one
inch. But I will surely do a slow lift, and measure it so that if it does
deflect a LOT, it won't fail with the load too high.

If that goes good, I will install the center standoff, knowing about how
much deflection it is stopping.

What other areas should I be concerned about watching/monitoring/testing?

I know the obvious, obviously, but anything that would give you guys answers
to theories you are forming about this device?

Steve

Bill Schwab wrote:

You left off the horizontal component of the tension in the "tension
member". I've said that at least three times now. Given the
idealized structure you created, it is simply where Newton takes us.



Whether or not this force is included depends on how you model the
structure. If you look at my diagram of the idealised structure, the
tension member, column and roller support are all connected by the
same pin. In this case the roller support provides a reaction
(transmitted through the pin) against the horizontal component of the
tension, and this force is not seen by the column.


I don't know how else to say it. That is not correct. The tension
member and the support both interact with the beam.

That depends on whether the tension member is connected directly to the
column. In my idealisation it isn't. The tension member is connected to
the pin. The pin is also connected to the support and the column. It
seems like you are disagreeing with my idealisation, which is fine, but
the FBD is consistent with the idealisation. Perhaps someone else can
offer an opinion on this?

Chris

SteveB wrote:
Just one more question.

Well, maybe two.

When I DO get this thing running, I want to leave off the center standoff
until I make one 200# lift, where I will measure the center deflection at
midpoint. Just for my own curiosity, and I say it will be less than one
inch. But I will surely do a slow lift, and measure it so that if it does
deflect a LOT, it won't fail with the load too high.

If that goes good, I will install the center standoff, knowing about how
much deflection it is stopping.

What other areas should I be concerned about watching/monitoring/testing?

I would want to give the upper support (where the davit is attached to
the building) some careful thought. If the davit were to come loose from
the building while lifting it could be quite impressive. If you plan to
use fasteners such as coach screws or expanding bolts, see if you can
find data giving the safe load for the fasteners. Choose them so that
you have a good margin of safety. If you can't find data, build a quick
prototype of the support from scrap materials and try to break it.

Chris

Chris,

That depends on whether the tension member is connected directly to the
column. In my idealisation it isn't. The tension member is connected to
the pin. The pin is also connected to the support and the column. It
seems like you are disagreeing with my idealisation, which is fine, but
the FBD is consistent with the idealisation. Perhaps someone else can
offer an opinion on this?

Direct or indirect, it does not matter. If it is under tension, it is
connected, and must be included.

You might try summing the forces you believe are acting on the beam in
the horizontal direction. If you use the correct support reactions, you
will be in for a surprise. The expected result is of course zero.

Bill

"Christopher Tidy" wrote


I would want to give the upper support (where the davit is attached to the
building) some careful thought.

I will have a saddle made out of plate. It will start with a piece 30" x
17". Rectangles will be cut from two corners so that when it is bent, it
forms a channel saddle 5" wide for 30" long with two 6" legs that are 18"
long. This will be bolted through three 2x10s on edge that make up the
beam. The bottom 5" leg will stick out about 12" leaving about 18" of
saddling to marry to the beam.

I am now considering making a truss to run from the beam back to the cabin
so that when the load is swung, and the force is applied sideways to the
beam, there is a stiffener there. The roof joists sit on that beam, but I
think I would like another stiffener there at right angles that will have no
compression at all. It can be made of decorative iron, probably Indital
vineyard stock, which is solid, and 3/4" in diameter for the main
components.

My wife thinks this is way too complicated, but I'm having fun, and when I
do lift, I don't want any questions about the thing holding up.

Steve

Bill Schwab wrote:
Chris,

That depends on whether the tension member is connected directly to
the column. In my idealisation it isn't. The tension member is
connected to the pin. The pin is also connected to the support and the
column. It seems like you are disagreeing with my idealisation, which
is fine, but the FBD is consistent with the idealisation. Perhaps
someone else can offer an opinion on this?


Direct or indirect, it does not matter.

It is neither direct or indirect. If you can visualise the type of ideal
pin joint I'm talking about, the horizontal component of the tension is
not applied to the column at all. It is transmitted around the column
through the joint.

Chris

SteveB wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote


I would want to give the upper support (where the davit is attached to the
building) some careful thought.


I will have a saddle made out of plate. It will start with a piece 30" x
17". Rectangles will be cut from two corners so that when it is bent, it
forms a channel saddle 5" wide for 30" long with two 6" legs that are 18"
long. This will be bolted through three 2x10s on edge that make up the
beam. The bottom 5" leg will stick out about 12" leaving about 18" of
saddling to marry to the beam.

It sounds like you have thought this out pretty well. Build the saddle
strong and everything will be fine. My suggestion was just a caution
against using two tiny screws and rawlplugs, really. Common sense I
know. I don't know if you'll need a truss for stiffening. Lean on the
beams and see if you can flex them much!

Chris

Chris,

If you can visualise the type of ideal
pin joint I'm talking about, the horizontal component of the tension is
not applied to the column at all. It is transmitted around the column
through the joint.

That is not at all what you drew. If you intend to transfer only a
vertical force to the top of the beam, you are going to need a slot or
horizontal roller on top of the beam, with the likely outcome being a
statically indeterminate problem or something that leads to a
contradiction because it is not adequately supported.

Bill

Bill Schwab wrote:
Chris,

If you can visualise the type of ideal

pin joint I'm talking about, the horizontal component of the tension
is not applied to the column at all. It is transmitted around the
column through the joint.


That is not at all what you drew. If you intend to transfer only a
vertical force to the top of the beam, you are going to need a slot or
horizontal roller on top of the beam, with the likely outcome being a
statically indeterminate problem or something that leads to a
contradiction because it is not adequately supported.

Imagine the front forks of a bicycle. Now imagine two sets of forks, one
slightly smaller than the other so that it fits snugly inside. Now make
the column slightly narrower than the smaller set of forks and drill a
hole through it. Attach one set of forks to the tension member, the
other set to the roller support I described, then pass a pin through
both pairs of forks and the column. This joint would behave as I
explained, and does not in itself make the structure statically
indeterminate. Instead it makes it easier to analyse.

Chris

Chris,

Imagine the front forks of a bicycle. Now imagine two sets of forks, one
slightly smaller than the other so that it fits snugly inside. Now make
the column slightly narrower than the smaller set of forks and drill a
hole through it. Attach one set of forks to the tension member, the
other set to the roller support I described, then pass a pin through
both pairs of forks and the column. This joint would behave as I
explained, and does not in itself make the structure statically
indeterminate. Instead it makes it easier to analyse.

By its very complexity, what are describing is far more trouble than a
conventional pinned frame, which BTW is not difficult to analyze. In
fact, it can probably be done in less time than it would take to
correctly draw your proposed system.

In the words of Professor Hoover, "take it to pieces". If I understand
you correctly, the beam is not horizonally supported at the top, and is
therefore not in equilibrium. Add another horizontal support to fix
that, and it is no longer statically determinate.

Bill

Bill Schwab wrote:
Chris,

Imagine the front forks of a bicycle. Now imagine two sets of forks,
one slightly smaller than the other so that it fits snugly inside. Now
make the column slightly narrower than the smaller set of forks and
drill a hole through it. Attach one set of forks to the tension
member, the other set to the roller support I described, then pass a
pin through both pairs of forks and the column. This joint would
behave as I explained, and does not in itself make the structure
statically indeterminate. Instead it makes it easier to analyse.


By its very complexity, what are describing is far more trouble than a
conventional pinned frame, which BTW is not difficult to analyze.

It is a conventional pinned frame. Furthermore the idealisation I
proposed simplifies analysis.

In fact, it can probably be done in less time than it would take to
correctly draw your proposed system.

I believe it was a correctly drawn idealisation. The two members and
support all connect to the pin, not to each other.

In the words of Professor Hoover, "take it to pieces". If I understand
you correctly, the beam is not horizonally supported at the top, and is
therefore not in equilibrium.

It is connected to the roller support via the pin. Please see the diagram.

Goodness me! You're making me feel like I'm in court here. You make it
your business to automatically disagree with everything I say.
Fortunately I did think through what I did here, and can support all bar
one of my decisions, although the odds are you'll disagree with that
statement, too.

I really will give this a break now.

Chris

Christopher Tidy wrote:
Bill Schwab wrote:

Chris,

Imagine the front forks of a bicycle. Now imagine two sets of forks,
one slightly smaller than the other so that it fits snugly inside.
Now make the column slightly narrower than the smaller set of forks
and drill a hole through it. Attach one set of forks to the tension
member, the other set to the roller support I described, then pass a
pin through both pairs of forks and the column. This joint would
behave as I explained, and does not in itself make the structure
statically indeterminate. Instead it makes it easier to analyse.



By its very complexity, what are describing is far more trouble than a
conventional pinned frame, which BTW is not difficult to analyze.


It is a conventional pinned frame. Furthermore the idealisation I
proposed simplifies analysis.

In fact, it can probably be done in less time than it would take to
correctly draw your proposed system.


I believe it was a correctly drawn idealisation. The two members and
support all connect to the pin, not to each other.

In the words of Professor Hoover, "take it to pieces". If I
understand you correctly, the beam is not horizonally supported at the
top, and is therefore not in equilibrium.


It is connected to the roller support via the pin. Please see the diagram.

You mean C:\docs\davit_calc2.jpg? If so, isn't that the pin you said
doesn't act on the beam? If that's the case, then we're back to the
missing horizontal force.

Otherwise, you should draw the diagrams, write the equations, and either
count the unknowns and equations, or check the moment balance on the beam.

Bill Schwab wrote:

snip


You mean C:\docs\davit_calc2.jpg? If so, isn't that the pin you said
doesn't act on the beam? If that's the case, then we're back to the
missing horizontal force.

The pin does not transmit the horizontal component of the tension to the
top end of the column, if you accept the idealised joint I proposed.
This does not mean that the pin is unable to transmit any horizontal
force to the column. It does provide a horizontal reaction which opposes
the compression in the horizontal beam. This is a subtlety of the
idealised joint, which you may like or dislike, but the FBD is
consistent with the idealisation.

I call it quits.

Chris

Chris,

Bill Schwab wrote:

snip


You mean C:\docs\davit_calc2.jpg? If so, isn't that the pin you said
doesn't act on the beam? If that's the case, then we're back to the
missing horizontal force.


The pin does not transmit the horizontal component of the tension to the
top end of the column, if you accept the idealised joint I proposed.
This does not mean that the pin is unable to transmit any horizontal
force to the column. It does provide a horizontal reaction which opposes
the compression in the horizontal beam. This is a subtlety of the
idealised joint, which you may like or dislike, but the FBD is
consistent with the idealisation.

I call it quits.

What you describe is almost certainly either unsupported, or statically
indeterminate. Even if you have designed something that is determinate,
it is by no means a simplification relative to the what was presented to
you in your mechanics classes. If you think the pinned frame is
complicated, you didn't learn the material.

Either help the OP or give facts, a diagram, or a formula that
presents your worries and concerns. Continually repeating that
someone is wrong solves nothing, helps nothing, changes nothing.

Perhaps you did not notice that OP intends to try his original
concept - win, lose, or draw. He will be watching for empirical
evidence that he is underdesigned.

I would point out that I just loaded on my trailer two pieces of
2x2x1/4 wall twenty foot sticks that had been unloaded with a
single choker at mid point. They both have a permanent 2-3" crown
in them. Too good to toss, too bent to use without
modification/adaptation. Could not be used on this job for their
original intent.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)




"Bill Schwab" wrote in message
news
Chris,

Bill Schwab wrote:

snip


You mean C:\docs\davit_calc2.jpg? If so, isn't that the pin
you said doesn't act on the beam? If that's the case, then
we're back to the missing horizontal force.


The pin does not transmit the horizontal component of the
tension to the top end of the column, if you accept the
idealised joint I proposed. This does not mean that the pin is
unable to transmit any horizontal force to the column. It does
provide a horizontal reaction which opposes the compression in
the horizontal beam. This is a subtlety of the idealised joint,
which you may like or dislike, but the FBD is consistent with
the idealisation.

I call it quits.

What you describe is almost certainly either unsupported, or
statically indeterminate. Even if you have designed something
that is determinate, it is by no means a simplification relative
to the what was presented to you in your mechanics classes. If
you think the pinned frame is complicated, you didn't learn the
material.

DanG wrote:
Either help the OP or give facts, a diagram, or a formula that
presents your worries and concerns. Continually repeating that
someone is wrong solves nothing, helps nothing, changes nothing.

Perhaps. If you have an engineering background, please review Chris'
12-17-05 12:39 pm post; he says everything is pinned. In that case the
horizontal component of tension is indeed transmitted to the beam via
the pin, and must be included in the diagram and equations, as I
explained early on in this process.

Then go to 12-17-05 2:17 pm and note that he now says the force goes
around the column/beam. The problem with the latter becomes clear when
you look at an FBD of the beam; external moments to do balance. The
horizontal member pushes the beam to the right; per Chris' design, the
only other horizontal force is at the base, and it clearly needs to push
to the left or the whole structure goes flying. Note that the beam is
left wanting to rotate clockwise, which is a contradiction unless there
is some other horizontal force at the top of the beam[*]. We are
looking at two rigid bodies and the pin supporting the load, which gives
seven equilibrium equations. Add that extra support and the system
becomes underdetermined.
[*] the support reactions change, but hopefully you get the idea.

Even if there is a way to build a gizmo that can do all of this and be
statically determinate, it will be far more complex than the pinned
frame, and if built, would be more likely to fail than the frame.


Perhaps you did not notice that OP intends to try his original
concept - win, lose, or draw.

I did notice; that's not the point. What if I were telling people hold
endmills in a tapered chuck and than crank up the feed rate?



He will be watching for empirical
evidence that he is underdesigned.

I'm sure he will.

Bill

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:51:27 -0600, "DanG" wrote:

I would point out that I just loaded on my trailer two pieces of
2x2x1/4 wall twenty foot sticks that had been unloaded with a
single choker at mid point. They both have a permanent 2-3" crown
in them. Too good to toss, too bent to use without
modification/adaptation. Could not be used on this job for their
original intent.

Sure they can be used with a bit of a bend in them! Put the long
vertical leg with the crown toward the davit arm, and when you load up
the davit that crown will magically disappear. If not appear on the
other side.

I've been watching this College Calculus & Engineering gab-fest
wondering why nobody has suggested a KISS solution - hang a small
chunk of I-beam off the porch beams and rafters, sticking two or three
feet out over the loading area. Possibly with a couple of added
support legs to concrete footings for insurance, or upgrade the area
by adding another post and footing that matches the existing porch
construction. And you can make a hidden gate in the railing so the
loads don't have to go as high.

Use the same hoist for the load but mounted on a roller beam
trolley. Convert the overhanging and swinging loads of that davit arm
system to purely vertical loads of making sure the hoist beam stays
up.

And don't forget a couple of rubber bump stops at the ends for
trolley travel stops, impact loads can cause failure.

A proper use of a davit arm crane is outside where there isn't any
other structure available, and they normally aren't designed for a
support at the top of the post - you transfer all the loads down
through a healthy vertical member to a large footing. You have a very
handy house sitting there - use it.

If you take down the trolley and hoist, all that's visible is the
beam. Ultra Slickness would extend the hoist beam across the porch to
the house wall, and you make a convenient little closet that the hoist
rolls into, with room below for storing the slings straps and spreader
bars. You close a little door and "Presto!" it all disappears.

KISS!

-- Bruce --

--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

My 19 year old son is a freshman Mech. Eng. student at the Univ of Texas at
Austin. He had his Statics exam on Thursday, and I took him out to dinner
last night, where I presented him with this problem. We discussed it for
the whole meal, drawing with crayons on the back of the kid's menu.

After looking at his results, we agreed that we would redesign. I like
Bruce's I-beam idea, myself, but what we decided was that the post should be
fixed, and the davit pieces should swivel around the post with a collar,
hinge, or other means. We also brought the winch in, right next to the
post, and made it pull up a platform with a wheeled carriage riding on the
post, something like a dumbwaiter. We didn't see the need to hang the winch
so far out from the post.

We also came up with the gate idea so that the platform only would come up
to the level of the deck rather than trying to go over the railing - this
would make it a lot easier to unload as well. Of course, my son immediately
saw the possibilities of making this platform a people lift, which I told
him had already been vetoed by the professionals here...

Anyway, it was interesting to him, as the previously mentioned ME
undergrad...

Emmo,

My 19 year old son is a freshman Mech. Eng. student at the Univ of Texas at
Austin. He had his Statics exam on Thursday, and I took him out to dinner
last night, where I presented him with this problem. We discussed it for
the whole meal, drawing with crayons on the back of the kid's menu.

After looking at his results, we agreed that we would redesign. I like
Bruce's I-beam idea, myself, but what we decided was that the post should be
fixed, and the davit pieces should swivel around the post with a collar,
hinge, or other means. We also brought the winch in, right next to the
post, and made it pull up a platform with a wheeled carriage riding on the
post, something like a dumbwaiter. We didn't see the need to hang the winch
so far out from the post.

We also came up with the gate idea so that the platform only would come up
to the level of the deck rather than trying to go over the railing - this
would make it a lot easier to unload as well. Of course, my son immediately
saw the possibilities of making this platform a people lift, which I told
him had already been vetoed by the professionals here...

Anyway, it was interesting to him, as the previously mentioned ME
undergrad...

Great test question for statics - not the deflection part of course,
that's the next course. Your son might enjoy checking out the 4th
edition of Hibbler's Engineering Mechanics: Statics, example 6-15. The
"triangle" is curved, points downward instead of upward, and the
dimensions are different, but it is otherwise the same problem, pinned
of course. It's a one pager, including a lot of explanation.

Good luck to your son!

Bill

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote

I've been watching this College Calculus & Engineering gab-fest
wondering why nobody has suggested a KISS solution - hang a small
chunk of I-beam off the porch beams and rafters, sticking two or three
feet out over the loading area. Possibly with a couple of added
support legs to concrete footings for insurance, or upgrade the area
by adding another post and footing that matches the existing porch
construction. And you can make a hidden gate in the railing so the
loads don't have to go as high.

Use the same hoist for the load but mounted on a roller beam
trolley. Convert the overhanging and swinging loads of that davit arm
system to purely vertical loads of making sure the hoist beam stays
up.

And don't forget a couple of rubber bump stops at the ends for
trolley travel stops, impact loads can cause failure.

A proper use of a davit arm crane is outside where there isn't any
other structure available, and they normally aren't designed for a
support at the top of the post - you transfer all the loads down
through a healthy vertical member to a large footing. You have a very
handy house sitting there - use it.

If you take down the trolley and hoist, all that's visible is the
beam. Ultra Slickness would extend the hoist beam across the porch to
the house wall, and you make a convenient little closet that the hoist
rolls into, with room below for storing the slings straps and spreader
bars. You close a little door and "Presto!" it all disappears.

KISS!

-- Bruce --

When looking at the situation, this is what I came up with. The rafters are
there making the porch covering. It is just that they are notched on their
ends where they sit on the beam, and at the wall where they tie in. So,
they are equivalent to 2x4s. The intended site is about the strongest thing
around to hook on to. Plus, I didn't want an industrial looking I beam
thingus hanging over my porch swing.

Had the thought of cutting the railing, and will do that, but will am
considering replacing current railing with mortise and tenon rough cut
railings. The current is all square cut lumber. I may even do a fancy
Indital panel on that end of the porch complete with swinging section. I
would certainly like to lessen the height that I lift anything to, and that
would cut it down by about three feet.

Believe me, if that beam was supported better, I would have just hitched
onto it, and not had to go to the ground. Did a few lifts of things with
the old rope and pulley trick, but it was hard to get in over the railing
with the lifting point located where it is.

Other thing is that OTHER PEOPLE will be operating this from time to time.
Were it me only, I could come up with something a little simpler. I don't
want anyone who lacks experience from doing a header off the deck rassling
with a load.

I thank all for the continued input. I am being able to really consider
this before final fab and install.

We will be going up there for New Year's Eve if there isn't too much snow,
and we can get in there with 4wd and chains. So, I will have a final look,
beings as we probably can't get in until March without snowshoes. I'm too
old and lazy for that.

Steve

"Emmo" wrote in message
...

After looking at his results, we agreed that we would redesign. I like
Bruce's I-beam idea,

Not 100% sure the roof joists could handle it, and wife would never allow me
to hang anything that ugly over the porch swing. Only reason I get this is
because it is way down to the side and doesn't interfere with the view.

myself, but what we decided was that the post should be
fixed, and the davit pieces should swivel around the post with a collar,
hinge, or other means.

Thought of that, too, but I think for the purposes of swinging load into the
deck, an axis that goes through the center of the vertical is best.
Anything else increases the leverage and flex. Right?

We also brought the winch in, right next to the
post, and made it pull up a platform with a wheeled carriage riding on the
post, something like a dumbwaiter.

Now, you're getting complicated.

We didn't see the need to hang the winch
so far out from the post.

We also came up with the gate idea so that the platform only would come up
to the level of the deck rather than trying to go over the railing - this
would make it a lot easier to unload as well.

Beat you to it, just didn't post it in the original post. I will probably
do wrought iron on that end, probably the Indital "vineyard" stuff with
metal leaves and nice decorations to make it look like foliage. Then
airbrush in details.

Of course, my son immediately
saw the possibilities of making this platform a people lift, which I told
him had already been vetoed by the professionals here...

That may still happen. Of course, I would never admit it. However, I do
weigh #195, and that would be a good test load. (I have ridden a headache
ball down from the top of a drilling derrick, but that was when the safety
man was in the doghouse.)


Anyway, it was interesting to him, as the previously mentioned ME
undergrad...


Thanks for bouncing it off a fresh brain.

Steve