Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!hogg
From: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Another Use for Tethers
Message-ID: <1980@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 12:12:26 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsri.1980
Posted: Wed Jan 22 12:12:26 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jan-86 12:42:32 EST
References: <8601161312.AA15050@s1-b.arpa> <98@dg_rtp.UUCP> <6307@utzoo.UUCP> <1976@utcsri.UUCP>
Reply-To: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 19
Summary: 

In article <1976@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) writes:
>Note, by the way, that two balancing tethers are not required.
>Furthermore, for a given amount of cable, it will be far more efficient to
>have one long tail (up or down, dealer's choice) than two small ones; in
>fact, for half the plumb bob mass (one instead of two) you'll get twice the
>gradient force.  There's an r^2 in there.

If you do the high school physics on the envelope BEFORE posting, you look
like far less of an idiot.  Tether force is a linear, not square, function
of tether length.  You still gain (in simplicity apart from force strength)
by using one long tether, but not by quite as much.
-- 

John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
...utzoo!utcsri!hogg

Standard disclaimer: the above may or may not contain sarcasm, satire,
irony or facetiousness.  It does not contain smiley-faces.