Talk:Block and tackle

message: Not being a regular wikipedia editor, i wanted to check with someone before i did this. Is it proper to put pronunciation in an article? The correct pronunciation of this is "block and take-el" not "block and tackle" as one might expect. The spelling is fine, but the pronunciation is wierd.
:Sure, for oddball cases like this. Stan 13:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this should be phrased as the "official" pronunciation.  Block and tackle is pronunced the expected way quite often.  I've never heard the take-el version. ChrisLawson 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably depends on your background.  The pronunciation in the article as highlighted by the unsigned message at the top of this page seems to be from the Royal Navy.  If I had a citation for it I would add it.  If you have strong feelings about it you may wish to highlight the pronunciation you are used to and the one in this article as the different versions.  Language moves.  Look at what Michael Crawford did in the UK for the word "harassment" Fiddle Faddle 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Rescue Technician textbook reference added. For the record, I am an EMT and took the Heavy Rescue Technician course at the Bergen County EMS academy in Paramus, NJ, where this book was used as a textbook. Also for the record, this was the textbook used during the period of the 9-11-2001 terrorist incident, so that many of the rope rescue teams from New Jersey utilized the skills taught by this book in the work of rescue and mostly recovery operations at the former World Trade Center site. Other books of value that go into even more detail come under the heading of Technical Rigging, several of which are published by Elvesier and Jones and Bartlett Publishers. People looking to utilize these skills in the outdoors should look for the sites covering wilderness EMT, and whitewater rescue. -- Joe 02:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rescue Technician textbook reference 

message: I want to mention that the diagrams showing the various configurations state that they are all "Rigged to advantage", but in fact, according to the definitions lower on the page, if you read them carefully, these are all "Rigged to Disadvantage". I use these configurations myself in lifting loads, and it's clear why, from a practical point of view, the "Disadvantage" method is usually more convenient, with the pulling rope going first through the fixed block, even though it does give slightly less mechanical advantage. Since I am not a regular editor I will leave it to the rest of you to make any changes if you agree.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.148.208 (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected this in the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Google gave 93 results for the exact phrase "roving to advantage". Apart from a few sports pages, they all had the same line: "While roving to advantage is obviously the most efficient use of equipment and resources, there are several situations ..."  I'll try to add a bit to clarify. Don't have a source for it though, don't know if this would be considered original research.  81.165.78.108 (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but I did not read this discussion before jumping in and making an edit to the section on rigging methods.  I agree with the statements here, and I did similar searches to determine the source of the preference for reeving to advantage.  There is a probably apocryphal story about Archimedes using a block and tackle to haul an entire ship ashore, I suspect he rove the block and tackle to advantage.  However, when lifting a heavy load reeving to disadvantage just makes sense. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantage/Disadvantage

message: This is interesting.  A colleague has edited this article to state that the block and tackle has a mechanical advantage of one greater, if the blocks are reeved to advantage as oppose to reeving them to disadvantage.  Because the mechanical advantage can be determined by the number of ropes connected to the moving block this has to be the same whether the pulling rope passes over the fixed block (rove to disadvantage) or not (rove to advantage).  Since use of block and tackles comes with a lot of tradition, it really is not clear if we are talking about the same thing. Prof McCarthy (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rove to Advantage 

message: I understand the thought that the moment of inertia of the pulleys must affect the analysis of mechanical advantage, because the larger the moment of inertia the larger the torque needed to accelerate the pulley.  However, mechanical advantage is a static analysis, we assume there is no acceleration.  The application of the forces exists without the system accelerating.  Therefore the inertia properties of the pulleys do not change the mechanical advantage.  Prof McCarthy (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moment of inertia 

message: The verb "reeve" is not familiar to most people.  Here is how the American Heritage diction defines this term:
reeve 2 (rēv)
tr.v.reeved or rove(rōv), reev·ing, reeves
Nautical
1. To pass (a rope or rod) through a hole, ring, pulley, or block.
2. To fasten by passing through or around.
3. To pass a rope or rod through (a hole, ring, pulley, or block).
I hope this helps. Prof McCarthy (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reeve 

message: I removed this section for two reasons apart from the obvious total lack of citation, an overwhelming reason in itself.
#it was unclear
#it was inaccurate. A threefold purchase may be rove without crossing points and with no special considerations for 9o degree setting of the blocks
Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threefold purchase, run of tackle 

message: The article states, "Typical K values are 1.04 for roller bearing sheaves".
I doubt it. I think there's a nought missing.
It's more likely to be around 1.004 (I just did a quick calc using bearing coefficient-of-friction data from NSK).
I could be wrong here, because I'm in a rush, but I'm a pretty decent mechanical engineer...
For a pulley that is twice the diameter of that of its ball bearing, and for a bearing coefficient of friction of, say, 0.002 (and this can be significantly less if sealed and oil-filled, but it can also be more when bearings are not in 'proper' condition), the tension in one leg of the rope only has to be 0.002 (0.2%) more than that in the other leg. That's an efficiency loss of ~0.2% for one sheave, although it does "compound" over more than one sheave (as covered by the formula in the article)... So I suspect 1.004 for K is more likely...
I'm happy to be corrected though.
Addenda: the above is from a perspective of dealing with a high-load, small system in which cable losses are likely to be smaller than in larger rigs, and chain and sprockets also might be considered. I can see how cable/rope bending losses (friction between fibres), exposed bearings, ropes rubbing the sides of sheaves etc may add to losses...
Addenda: also, isn't S = N?
86.147.100.122 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make the revisions that you feel are appropriate.  This section predated my efforts, and would benefit from your experience. Prof McCarthy (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quoted data appears wrong, and if so will massively understate the efficiency of blocks and tackles (if that's the correct plural form!) using rolling-element bearings 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Block and tackle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111234251/http://www.sccheadquarters.com:80/UserData/root/Files/Training/Specialisations/Seamanship/Chapter%205%20-%20General%20Rigging.pdf to http://www.sccheadquarters.com/UserData/root/Files/Training/Specialisations/Seamanship/Chapter%205%20-%20General%20Rigging.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't see nested pulleys described. There's a nice demonstration of them at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2w3NZzPwOM&t=577s . You get a LOT more mechanical advantage using them. David Spector (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nested pulleys