Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+ginpole\s+redux\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+ginpole\s+redux\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [Towertalk] ginpole redux (score: 1): Author: jljarvis@adelphia.net (jljarvis); Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 03:33:11 -0400; kk1l observed that I wasn't thinking clearly, with respect to possible pulley scenarios and ginpole loads. It IS possible to reduce the load on the pole, by using a 2 part tackle on the LOAD side of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00333.html (7,108 bytes)
2. [Towertalk] ginpole redux (score: 1): Author: ve7hcb@rac.ca (Chris BONDE); Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:31:50 -0700; This is basically what I mentioned in my first post. If you have 2 pulleys at the top and fix the rpoe on the load pulley you ccan reduce the lifting force require to about 1/3 of the weight. I have; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00350.html (8,915 bytes)
3. [Towertalk] ginpole redux (score: 1): Author: w7ni@easystreet.com (Stan & Patricia Griffiths); Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 18:26:22 -0700; I rig like that all the time and it can be done with a Rohn gin pole. You just have to ignore the pulley that Rohn provides and get a double pulley for the top of your block and tackle with a hook on; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00390.html (8,590 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]