Forums: Climbing Information: Injury Treatment and Prevention: Re: [baja_java] Link Cam Report: Edit Log


Jan 7, 2008, 4:46 PM

Views: 17825

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204

Re: [baja_java] Link Cam Report
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

baja_java wrote:
ok, Joseph, tell me this first. do you think the failure of the OP's cam on Left Ski Track happened within the design spec's, or beyond the design spec's? you think the rotation into blockage causing torque leading to a part snapping is what happened, i believe (correct me if that's not the case)

Michael said OP's opinion was that there was no discernable manufacturing or materials defect - what would that lead you to conclude? I would conclude the linkage was subject to forces which exceeded the design spec - which in turn would leave no option but to speculate as to how that could have happened. And speculate is all we can do in this case as you couldn't reconstruct the intial placement or produce an accurate dynamic model of what transpired.

baja_java wrote:
don't worry, i'll get to the rest of that mess you replied with. there are some very basic ideas that you just don't get, and i'll go over them with you. but first, answer the above question

Done, and please do get 'messy'.

baja_java wrote:
Healyje wrote:
I understand just fine, and don't need the math to explain the graph or rgolds description of the phenomena. I also don't need the math after thirty three years of climbing to know most convential cams will blow out of flares rather than break. One will on rare occasion - but the vast, overwhelming majority blow, not break.

by the way, if you went ahead and skipped the math, that means you've never proven to yourself that what Vaino described is true. you merely took his words for it and keep regurgitating what he said you're supposed to think. that's vastly different than truly understanding something.

I don't need to 'prove' it to myself - the cogent explanations by curt, rgold, and others such as - "increasing the flare angle of the crack has exactly the same effect as decreasing the cam angle of the unit" - are completely adequate for the purposes of this discussion and understanding the affect on com placements in flares. The math may be rocket science, but the concept of the effect of [apparent (in the aviation sense of the word)] cam angles increasing and decreasing as a result of placements in flares is not. I've 'got' it, thanks.

baja_java wrote:
you've made it apparent that you've never encountered the phenomenon he described out in nature on your own, so that removes the possibility that you could've understood that from direct experience.

Well, I've already said I've blown two cams in flares and pulled dozens more over the years so, quite the contrary, I'd say I have quite a bit of 'direct experience' it.

baja_java wrote:
one can glean an understanding from Vaino's formulation if they aren't allergic to math like you are, who can't understand what the math conveys. that's important because the how's and the why's are in the math. why do you think Vaino went through the trouble of including them, if he could've just summarized his gist in a few paragraphs? math is just a language. like English or Italian. i understand it fine. that's why i'm not afraid of math like you are, and often stumped by math like you are.

I don't know shit about the fine points of English either, but that doesn't stop me from generally understanding what people are saying or being able to express myself. I don't 'hate' math, nor am I 'afraid' of it - it's just not something I've had any concentrated exposure to over the years. Actually, I'd love to take a break and recoup that lost ground - I have Berlinski's 'A Tour of the Calculus', Davis/Hersh's 'The Mathematical Experience', and Gleick's 'Isaac Newton' sitting on a shelf three feet from me as we speak that I've been meaning to re-read for motivation [to try once again] to get off my ass and do so. It would no doubt be great if we could all be Vanios and Goldstones, but some of us are doomed to think and climb at reduced capacity and struggle to get by with what we've been granted.

baja_java wrote:
nor does that means i'm obsessed by it either. there isn't some compulsion to see the world in numbers and data like you hope as the typical stereotype suggests. you're so afraid of this incomprehensible language that you need to convince yourself that other people who use it must use it to an obsessive degree, that they must be abnormal, because at least that would mean your lack of ability in using it would at least seem somewhat normal. here's another thing. for my pay grade, to borrow someone's phrase from earlier, i'm embarrassingly inept at computers and all this fancy technology you seem to think others like me should be hopelessly dependent on. i know enough to do what i need to do, that's all, and that's ok with me. yes, there are people who "obssesses" more about it, but to me, computers are just a tool. same with cams or nuts. the person still do the thinking that would apply the tools. so please, give it a rest with your incessant attempts to paint other people as techno drones like that's some deficiency that keeps them from relating to your beautiful great world views

Once again you completely misinterpret what I'm saying. When I say a lot of the attitudes on display in this thread and others, both here and on other climbing sites, are often bi-polar at two extremes, I'm not saying engineers are explicitly and necessarily in one or the other. But many of the comments from folks with such advanced knowledge have clearly come down on the side that the design is 'flawed' (to use your term - and a conclusion I completely disagree with) and that they need to either be pulled from the market and / or redesigned. Others in that learned camp - on both sides of the issue - appear to be on a vain search for 'data' which does not, and is never going to exist. I do happen to know a bit about 'data' and animation/modelling/SCADA systems and the demands they can place on computers, and there aren't enough cpu cycles available to be aggregated to accurately model what happened to the Link Cam that broke in the Left Ski Track pod - even if we knew the exact placement it was in.

That's a bit of a bummer, but some generalized theory and experience is all anyone can go on in this case. The math, beyond setting, a stage of basic principles and plausible forces, is of little real utility in figuring out how the cam broke. Ditto for designing a cam to be used out in the real world in perverse, horrorfests like JT and Vedauwoo - it's an Edisonian exercise to a degree by definition. 'Ballpark' is as close as anyone can get which is why decades of hands-on (or offten hands-off) experience actually does count for something in a dicussion such as this one.

And on the 'speculatve' front, how about answering one in return - did you break your Link Cam the day you went out to the Left Ski Track to look at that pod? A simple yes or no would suffice and that answer would probably say about all that is necessary to know until OP gets back to you.

(This post was edited by healyje on Jan 7, 2008, 5:14 PM)

Edit Log:
Post edited by healyje () on Jan 7, 2008, 5:14 PM

Search for (options)

Log In:

Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?