yeah, Youngblood busted me. Two things happen, you lower the eyebolts so the angle of cord to ground is less, and you increase the angle between hammock and bipods---which is where YB caught me out.

Busted! Comes from trying to dash off trig and a diagram between meetings. Coulda shoulda got the formula from Smee's famous WB diagram giving shear forces.

So, the methodical way is to compute the horizontal shear, divide by the cosine of the angle of the cord, and voila! A whole lot of force on that stake.

Tripods with a rigid pole between them, and the hammock hanging from the rigid pole is great. Someone showed that recently in bamboo (I should know who that is but all I can do these days is an occasional power skim of HF). Tripods might help without a rigid pole,butyou'd have to have one of the legs in aligned with the cord to ground, facing in towards where the hammock goes, and not be interfering with the hammock. Which means the tripods would have to be pretty far separated to avoid interfering with the hammock. Which means that the tripods would have to be higher to get the hammock off the ground. Which means this is probably a jobs program for sherpas.

That's right. Increasing the line reduces theta and increases cos(theta).Also, for the stakes, making the line longer (i.e. staking down farther away from the hammock) would be an easy way to reduce the amount of "pull out" force. The stake is going to hold better if there's less upwards and more sideways force acting on it.

One more thing you can do is use multiple lines and stakes to share the load. You want them all pretty close to each other because the wider the angle of the cord from center, the less effective it is at giving opposing force in the direction that needs opposition.

Thanks! This means I learned something today. Can I go home now?

## Bookmarks