xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Printable View
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have been playing with hammock designs for a while now. I have found that a set length ridgeline is more of hindrance than a help in getting my hammock comfy.
My solution: I have a 1.5" webbing strap that I put between the trees and my hammock can be hung from that at precisely the best point for optimal sag regardless of how far apart the trees are. This eliminates the need for a structural ridgeline when trees at an optimal distance can't be found and gives me one heck of a line to use for getting out of the hammock and storing my pack / gear off the ground.
I like my ridgeline. Mainly for the reasons you listed.
I actually have not had any issues with mine. I think that as long as the distance between the trees is a couple feet longer than the ridgeline, you are fine. With my 10' ridgeline I have hung from trees 12-20 feet apart.
I think the only problem is with shorter lengths.
The way my ridgeline is set up, which may be the case with all/most, the amount of sag on the supports does not effect the ridgeline within reason. I start with my straps pulled tight when I get in. This also makes my ridgeline tight 80-90 deg. Over the course of the night given the straps stretch, I have ended up inches from the ground (probibly 5-10 inches lower) and with close to a 45 deg angle. The ridgeline has still been tight through this.
This may be different for different lengths.
FD - you essentially have a structural ridgeline - just not "fixed" in the sense that most people think of a structural ridgeline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino
Great that you have a solution that works for you.
And thanks for sharing that - your solution could work for others also.
I like this idea. How are the suspension ropes from the hammock attached? In particular, how do you keep them from slipping along the central line? Just knot magic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino
thanks,
Grizz
I use two short pieces of webbing tied around the main line to keep it from slipping.
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino
Are these short pieces tied 'round the main line to keep the hammock rope (tied to the main line also) from sliding past a "bump" created by the short piece? If this is what you're doing, seems like you'd have to tie the short pieces down pretty tightly. Are they hard to undo when you pack things up?
Perhaps I've got the wrong picture altogether.
Or perhaps there just isn't that much force pulling the hammock ropes towards the center when the hammock is occupied, and I'm just making this too complicated in my mind's eye!
thanks,
Grizz
I use a knot that unties easily when you pull on one end of the webbing and I do tie it very tight.
what is the knot ? - a slipped constrictor knot sort of sounds like what you may have but ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino
It is a slipped constrictor -- and it holds even when there's a fluffy dino in the hammock.
I need to see a picture of this. I think I understand what your saying but not really
Hope this shows the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazilla
Nice trees I love the wood grain;)
I get it. And the hammock doesn't slip this way.
Somebody reported the same thing using rope and Prussik knots on another thread.
It is an old concept - probably been used for centuries.
FD - I must amend my earlier opinion. I do not think that what you are using is really a "structural ridge" as the term is commonly used on the forums here. In particular your ridgeline probably doesn't fit the first point in that the points you are hanging from on your webbing isn't "fixed" thus not resulting in a set sag every time. If it was "fixed", you would be losing the advantage your setup offers and would not be able to hang from trees having differing separation, at least not with the hammock centered between the trees. It is "structural" in that it sets the sag, but it is not fixed. Maybe we should come up with a new term for a "structural" ridgeline like you have, since "adjustable structural" ridgelines can be very convenient also.
Mine is an adjustable structural ridgeline that allows me to vary the sag - important for testing purposes as I'm still attempting to develop a hammock suitable for Mother Nature's situation (degenrative discs).
Removed at TeeDee's request
FD - I'll give the naysayers some leeway on this one. The ridgelines in the pic aren't structural, at least not in the sense that Tom's is.
Sorry, I didn't know we were discussing TH's designs - just structural ridgelines in general. I agree the line in the photo does not do what TH's ridgeline does.
Removed at TeeDee's request
FD - Tom's ridgeline "defines" what a structural ridgeline is. Tom doesn't "define" the term as far as I know, but everybody has come to associated the term "structural ridgeline" with Tom's style of ridgeline. That makes it the definition of the term - usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino
Ridgelines in the sense that you have shown pictures of were certainly in use for a looooong time, but they do not set the sag. Like a tarp ridgeline, they hold the netting up and out of the way. Those ridgelines have nothing to do with the sag of the hammock.
Now if you want to define those ridgelines as "structural" for your own use, fine.
But you will speaking a different language from most everybody else on the forums. But then maybe that is the problem - some people want to "define" a "structural ridgeline" as something different from common usage. Then they want to argue over over it.
Removed at TeeDee's request
I wouldn't call the ridgelines in either pic structural.
In the first shot, they have the potential to be structural, but you can tell they aren't by the fact that the hammock suspensions have the same angle (to the horizontal) both above and below the ridgeline attachment point.
In the second pic, it appears that the ridgeline is simply holding up a bugnet, not affecting the hammock at all.
Not really having anything to do with Hennessy (to clarify my earlier post), but I think most of us would define a structural ridgeline as one which affects the hammock's sag. I think most of us would also say that this is done in some sort of permanent way.
Removed at TeeDee's request
TH's ridgeline patent does at least two separate but related things. The claimed invention with respect to ridgeline is (this copied from US patent 6185763 and flagged already on the Hammocks and Patent's thread)Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeDee
emphasis mine, of course.Quote:
a ridge cord extending between said ends, said cord having an effective length less that the length of said fabric, whereby, when the hammock is attached to a pair of trees, a certain minimum sag is maintained in the fabric no matter how tightly the ropes are drawn.
The second thing the patent does is describe some ways of implementing this idea. For the purposes of discussing whether a construction is a Hennessy ridgeline, people are tending to refer to what he sells. For the purposes of discussing what patent protection he claims for a ridgeline, you need to use the definition above. There are a variety of ways someone might implement the claimed invention.
With respect to the FD picture of the Mayan hammocks, whether or not these implement what the patent claims depends on what happens when the suspension ropes are drawn so tightly that the ridgeline takes on tension other than that due to gravity. If the ridgeline
- is weak string and breaks under this load or under the load of a person --> not an instance of the patent claim;
- is made of 1000 year old Mayan shock cord and stretches so that a minimum sag is not maintained --> not an instance of the patent claim;
If the ridgeline is made of a rope that is as strong as the suspension rope, is fixed to the suspension ropes and thus holds a minimum sag when a person is in the hammock, well, that could invalidate the TH claim if you got enough $$ and lawyers involved.
Grizz
Removed at TeeDee's request
So the rope splits into three strands, one of which is the ridge and two are sort of eaves, with some sort of roof constructed from ridgeline to eaves and the hammock body beneath?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino
Get thee to a lawyer, I think that would do it. I don't see that it matters if the construction was used for sag control, the patent claim is for a ridgeline with certain properties whenever the suspension lines are pulled tight.
Of course my credentials in patent law are limited to having once watched 1/2 an episode of L.A. Law.
This illustrates the delicacy of patent law. If the Hennessy patent limited itself to the clever way it's implemented and sold, there wouldn't be a challenge to it by your example, but it would also not cover a different ridgeline-oriented sag control device. Less claimed coverage, less risk of invalidation.
Removed at TeeDee's request
FD - neither in the first picture nor this second picture, does the ridgeline set the hammock sag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino
If you look carefully at the first picture, where the cord holding the bug netting up is attached to the hammock suspension, you will notice that the cord is under no stress whatsoever from the person laying in the hammock. If the cord was under stress from the person and the cord was thus setting the sag angle, the cord would be pulled tight and not hanging in the loose curve which it is. Maybe you missed the fact that there is a person in that first hammock.
In the second picture the ridgeline pictured is holding the bug netting up off the hammock and otherwise has no effect on the hammock whatsoever. The pictured ridgeline is attached to the trees and could be used for a tarp or the bug netting. But It's effect on the hammock is zero. You claim that the ridgeline is setting the hammock sag angle. The fact that you have made the claim does not make the claim true however. Please elucidate on how it is doing so. In doing so please be precise and exact in your description describing the means by which the ridgeline acts on the hammock. NOTE: if you decide to do this, please do not do so in this forum thread - see below. Also note that a teacher I studied under a long time back explained that if you cannot explain something concisely and clearly - especially clearly - then you do NOT really understand what you are attempting to explain. I have found this to be true, not only of myself, but of others.
FD - as I've written previously, the definition of a "structural ridgeline" has been accepted by common usage on the forums. That common usage states that a rope/cord/line and I would include webbing, sets the hammock sag angle and that it sets the sag angle to exactly the same sag every time the hammock is hung. That definition is included in the Glossary for hammocking for the forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino
Now if you are so ambitious as to carry around 16' to 20' 4"x4" timbers, 16' to 20' bamboo rods of sufficient diameter and strength to hold the occupied hammock or some other nonsensical apparatus to set a certain sag for your hammock, plus the means of affixing that apparatus/timbers/bamboo to support trees, you can certainly do so. I know of no one else on the forums that is willing to do so however. You are attempting to re-define the commonly accepted definition of a "structural ridgeline" as embodied in the aforementioned glossary in an endeavor of your own choosing. At this point I personally think you are wasting the time of a lot of people in your endeavor and wasting the resources that ATTROLL has dedicated for the forums. You have hijacked this thread for your purposes, since people have stopped listening on the other thread you were using for this purpose.
The purpose of this thread was set by my first post and your continued use of this thread for other purposes is not appreciated.
I would appreciate it if you would either:
1. start your own thread for re-defining the meaning of the term "structural ridgeline" and title the thread clearly for that purpose and post all of the pictures of supposed structural ridglines to that thread, or
2. restrict all such re-definition attempts and pictures to the thread which you have managed to convert to that purpose - the thread on patents.
I would appreciate your doing that, so that in the future, I and others will know that the thread contains your efforts to do so and we can either read, respond or ignore as we so choose. Thank You.
Man you could really have fooled me about what you were/are attempting to do. All attempts at explaining to you what a structural ridgeline is have been met with rejection and further argument and mis-direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino
TeeDee the definition in the glossary is plain as day to me. Don't know why there's so much discussion about it.
Thanks for putting the link to the glossary in you post.
:)
Now thats just silly! Why would you carry around bamboo when a length of rope does the exact same thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeDee
I wouldn't, but I noticed that someone had proposed those as structural ridgelines elsewhere and somebody else thought they were a genius to do so. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ryndel
Thanks for clearing that up for me - they were just being silly and not really serious.
Oh... no, no. I think you misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeDee
Those weren't proposed ideas for structural ridgelines, they were examples of structural ridgelines that people thought up long ago.
edit: example D is an exception.
I have started a separate thread and removed the offending material from your thread. I cannot remove the responses, but those who made them are encouraged to remove them to the new thread if they wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeDee
Thank you - much appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino
Not a problem, TeeDee.
who died and made TeeDee boss, post what you want FD. Remember by deleting post takes away from the thread. Neo got reminded of that
Thanks for being polite to each other and working out a solution, TeeDee and FD...but in the future, if anyone wants a topic stripped out of a thread just let me know - I'll move the relevant posts into a new thread so the info isn't lost and doesn't have to be re-written, and it doesn't mess up the flow of the thread.