- Treehangers:

I just got my HH and immediatly hung it up on two trees I planted

just for this occation 11 years ago.

I tried to follow the group advice and put the tree huggers at eye

level etc and cinch it up pretty tight.

The sag still had the hammock bottom (and mine) about a foot off the

ground. Not bad for a test.

So I started thinking about the tensions at various angles......

Assuming I weigh about 200 pounds and the weight is evenly

distributed between the two ends. Using the force diagram triangle.

Tension in the rope equals 1/2 my weight divided by the sine of the

angle below horizontal.

So if the rope angle is 15° the rope tension is 386 lbs.

1 ° 5729.9

5 ° 1147.4

10 ° 575.9

15 ° 386.4

20 ° 292.4

25 ° 236.6

30 ° 200.0

35 ° 174.3

40 ° 155.6

45 ° 141.4

As you approach a flat no sag condition, the tension approches

infinity.

Finally found a practical use for that high school trig.

The tighter the rope, the better the hang, but the more force on the

rope, knot and tree.

O great wizards of the woods.... What angles are you using for

utmost stability and comefort?

Ralph

PS If anyone would like a copy of the spreadsheet so they can

calculate their stress level, give me a holler.

PPS Risk: Now we can calculate what it would take to hang a

hammock in a snow cave.

PPPS Perhaps if the people who want to hang a hammock in their

rooms could also use this data? Seems to me a ceiling hang would be

easier than a wall mount. - --- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, "polecatpop"

<polecatpop@y...> wrote:

...> PS If anyone would like a copy of the spreadsheet so they can

I'd love a copy, but why not put it in the "Files" section of the

> calculate their stress level, give me a holler.

>

group web site. That way you don't need to keep sending it.

> PPPS Perhaps if the people who want to hang a hammock in their

Not following here? Easier to attache the eye bolts? Or easier on

> rooms could also use this data? Seems to me a ceiling hang would

> be easier than a wall mount.

the stud WRT stress loads?

Thanks for taking the time to run the numbers...

Shane "Mirage"... - --- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, "Mirage" <web_dawg@y...>

wrote:> --- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, "polecatpop"

You guys got files? cool It's posted

> <polecatpop@y...> wrote:

> ...

> > PS If anyone would like a copy of the spreadsheet so they can

> > calculate their stress level, give me a holler.

> >

>

> I'd love a copy, but why not put it in the "Files" section of the

> group web site. That way you don't need to keep sending it.

Thanks for the suggestion

>

on

> > PPPS Perhaps if the people who want to hang a hammock in their

> > rooms could also use this data? Seems to me a ceiling hang would

> > be easier than a wall mount.

>

> Not following here? Easier to attache the eye bolts? Or easier

> the stud WRT stress loads?

I guess my thinking is a bit muddled.

Rather than pulling the wall studs in I am thinking of using the

ceiling joists as a compression member of a frame.

At tight angles (high tension) the forces get quite large.

But I'm just not sure what practical angles are in actual use?

Some things to discuss????

>

> Thanks for taking the time to run the numbers...

>

> Shane "Mirage"... - Ralph,

You may or may not be aware of this so pardon me if you already knew

this. The Hennessy Hammock that you are using is fundamentaly

different from the Speer Hammock (and probable most others as well)

in that it incorporates an integral hammock ridgeline. This integral

hammock ridgeline sets the sag of the hammock and in practice makes

the sag of the hammock support lines a non-issue, except for the

loading and stress of the the hammock support lines and the hammock

ridgeline. I think the stretch in the nylon tree huggers on the HH

prevent you from actually loading the hammock support lines much over

about 15 to 20 degrees (just my guess) unless you work real hard at

pulling the hammock taut (which is something you don't want to do).

With the Speer Hammock, the hammock sag is determined by the sag of

the hammock support lines so they directly effect the comfort, or sag

if you will, of the hammock.

Dave

--- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, "polecatpop" <polecatpop@y...>

wrote:> O great wizards of the woods.... What angles are you using for

> utmost stability and comefort?

>

> Ralph - What a great group

Yes, These are dead weight static values. They should be considered

a starting value for any real safety factors etc. Obviously Ed and

Tom with their respective geniuses have already taken into account

dynamic loading and safety factors.

I thought it was just a way to see what stress we were putting on

the tree.

If I understand Daves point, it doesn't matter how tight I hang my

HH, the required sag is set by the ridge line. As long as I get the

ridge line tight, but not to tight, all should be well.

What a group, thanks for all the input

Ralph

--- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Womble" <dpwomble@y...>

wrote:> Ralph,

knew

>

> You may or may not be aware of this so pardon me if you already

> this. The Hennessy Hammock that you are using is fundamentaly

well)

> different from the Speer Hammock (and probable most others as

> in that it incorporates an integral hammock ridgeline. This

integral

> hammock ridgeline sets the sag of the hammock and in practice

makes

> the sag of the hammock support lines a non-issue, except for the

hammock

> loading and stress of the the hammock support lines and the

> ridgeline. I think the stretch in the nylon tree huggers on the

HH

> prevent you from actually loading the hammock support lines much

over

> about 15 to 20 degrees (just my guess) unless you work real hard

at

> pulling the hammock taut (which is something you don't want to do).

of

>

> With the Speer Hammock, the hammock sag is determined by the sag

> the hammock support lines so they directly effect the comfort, or

sag

> if you will, of the hammock.

<polecatpop@y...>

>

> Dave

>

> --- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, "polecatpop"

> wrote:

> > O great wizards of the woods.... What angles are you using for

> > utmost stability and comefort?

> >

> > Ralph