# Rope Elevator

14,835

30

46

## Introduction: Rope Elevator

How to make an elevator by using rope.I am not liable for any stupid thing you do like any injuries or even death.(you will probably die if you got a rope to weak and if you made it really high) .

first get rope. for length go and measure the hight you want it and multiply it by 4. for its strength you can by a rope that can with stand your weight or if you have rope i suggest making it and testing it.
this is my first instructable so tell me what you think

### Teacher Notes

Teachers! Did you use this instructable in your classroom?
Add a Teacher Note to share how you incorporated it into your lesson.

## Step 1: Marking

fold the rope in half an mark the middle.

## Step 2: Marking Knot

take the rope and lop it through your belt holes. make sure the middle of the rope in the back. wrap it around and cross the rope in the he front. mark it were it crosses

## Step 3: 8 Knot and Reknot

make an 8 knot and bring the knot down to the marks you just made then take hte othrre end of the rope and retie. this video should help

## Step 4: Making It Work

take the to lengths of rope and put them over a tree branch or something and pull on the rope.

Participated in the
The Instructables Book Contest

## Recommendations

6 300
49 15K
93 5.1K
Concrete Class

18,687 Enrolled

## 46 Discussions

You are relying on a few things here, the failiure of any one of which could kill you. Your arm strength with no back up if it fails (which it will sooner or later) A rather thin looking branch (bark girdled or not) A completely crappy and unsuitable peice of rope which has NO place in any climbing system. Your belt loops- your BELT loops- this is the truly unbelieveable part of the whole thing- you are prepared to stake your life (and the life of anyone else who follows your "instructions" on a few bits of cloth sewn on with cotton? WHEN these fail you will be hanging by your armpits from the rope (assuming it doesn't break under the shock) for as long as your arms can hang on (assuming you didn't let go with the shock). If you are stronger than you look - or if the rope gets caught on something- you will suffocate and die, probably in less than 20 minutes. Have a nice day

I have been using a system like this for multiple years now on the same branch with only a few differences. firstly, I use stronger rope. Secondly, instead of a figure 8 loop, I use a Portuguese bowline, Spanish bowline, or bowline on a bight. all three of these knots create a slightly better support system, as they all have two loops. Thirdly, to combat the arm strength problem mentioned by jtpoutdoor, I have a loop connecting the two sides of the rope (a prusik knot on each side so it can slide). finally, I have a foot loop to make it easier to ascend. if you look up tree climbing, you can find equipment and examples to do it correctly.

I'm very interested in your project ! I'm a climber also, and would love to go into much more detail, if you want to contact me, on youtube my page is BatmanProject777. Send me a message there and I can help you find very thorough info to do this the best way available !

i would suggest NOT using this method very often on a tree that you'd like to keep alive...and i'd also suggest never using the same rope twice for it (and deffinitely DO NOT USE nylon rope for heaven's sake)...the friction across teh branch will be immense and you can seriously damage a tree this way....also...you'll burn right through nylon rope doing this

Think about the TREES! PETTA People for the Ethical Treatment of Tree and Animals... "For all living things sentient or non-sentient"

PHSSSSSS!!!! LOL the tree will be fine. But, even if its not, its just a tree. PATH People Against Tree Huggers.

i'm not a tree hugger...but the attitude you're showing is why the forests on this planet are being depleted....it's never "just a tree"...it's some animal's home, it's shade, it's a CO2 scrubber, it prevents soil errosion....start thinking about things other than yourself for a day

there's a difference between a treehugger and someone who is actually smart enough to understand the importance of something. just because you are ignorant and never consider the consequences of your actions doesn't mean you have to let the whole world know it AND make us smart folks sorry to be labeled under the same species as you. 'Crapflinger' (hehe) is right, trees ARE that important. and 'i kill stuffs' that co2 comment was just stupid. why the hell would anyone be proud of contributing to global warming? think before you say something stupid, and if you have to do it, say it to your dog, cat, doll, or imaginary friend. dont say it here.

Global warming doesn't exist. If it did why would the hole in the ozone be over Antartica? How many people do you know who drive on the freeway in Antartica?

yeah because the hole in the ozone layer is definitely linked to global warming. oh wait. no, it isn't the hole in the ozone layer was the result of the overuse of refrigerants like CFCs. Global warming in no way has anything to do with the hole in the ozone layer (which is shrinking more every year, thankfully). the great thing about ignorant people is how fun it is to destroy their stupid little arguments with logic and knowledge. better luck next time chump.

Alright, this chump you're talking to is in sixth grade and just finished the chapter on global warming. I waited to finish the chapter to reply to you. First, my facts were mixed up not my logic, the question still stands. How many people were spraying pesticides and other CFC's in Antartica? Also if you look at all the charts that relate to global warming ask yourself what the average temperature rise was for the past century. The dozen or so i found on the internet and my science book averaged into about 1.5 degrees celcius.

Not a lot. Also the earth is in a warming period after the ice age, so that 1.5 degrees sure sounds pretty normal. Another thing, do you live near a forest, at all? The reason i'm asking is that all your comments sound like tree huggin' comments. The forests i've lived near or have visited for an extended period of time showed signs of needing to be logged. The tree huggers in the area had prohibited the logging of the forests. This means the trees grow so close together that disease and parasites went through them like wildfire, so did the wildfires. All these great 'super fires' in california and other places are because the trees weren't logged. You need to get out more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
have you seen this graph at all? 1.5 C is a lot for a century. also, that average doesn't show the sharp spike in temperature in the last few decades, as well as the big difference between this century's temperatures and last century's.
and as for me being a 'tree hugger' no forest NEEDS to be logged. forests were around long before people, and have developed evolutionary mechanisms for protecting against fire and disease. our logging has actually decreased the evolutionary pressures on the trees, making them less likely to survive a mass infection by parasite when it eventually happens. The 'superfires' in california are natures way of resolving overcrowding. we shouldn't try to control it to benefit ourselves, and its our own damn fault for living in wildfire zones anyway.

You're graph shows an even smaller temperature rise than the ones that i saw. You still didn't answer my question if you lived near a forest. All forests need some form of population control, logging being the most constructive. There's evidence of forests being burned by native americans because they even knew that if the forests weren't controlled they'd eventually come to a worse fate than over crowding. And i'm not just thinking about the trees needing to be logged, animals benefit from it too. Think of a big bull elk walking through a forest with a good set of antlers, now imagine it trying to walk through an overcrowded forest that wasn't logged because of ignorant people like you. And keeping track of points seems like a childish and completely biased system. I'm just trying to educate you in areas you've obviously been misinformed.

I live near a small patch of forest where no logging or burning takes place. Wind, rain, and seasons take care of overcrowding. And your definition of overcrowding is just ignorant. A bunch of trees can't grow all within a few feet of each other, that's ridiculous. Anyone with at least a grade school education would know that. Their roots would strangle each other and kill them all if a lack of nutrients in the soil didn't take care of that first, as it almost certainly would. Learn how plants live and grow instead of deciding on it yourself. And I'm only keeping score to show that I don't need some ignorant moron who thinks we can't have any impact on our earth trying to 'educate' me. Me: 3 You: 0

Good for that forest, it's in the healthy stage. If it continues not to burn or be logged or have a fair amount of its population killed off in any other way then it should be unhealthily populated in about 15-20 years.

have you heard of the term "survival of the fittest? Natural forest, weak trees die off shaded out by strong trees, animals which do well in the local type of vegetation survive, others don't . Do you or your family happen to be involved in logging? You certainly seem to be passionate if ill informed about the subject.

Wildfire is a natural progression in the life of a forest- who do you think was logging the trees before man cam along on the scene?