|
jt512
Apr 14, 2008, 5:56 PM
Post #101 of 198
(8491 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: sed wrote: Has a quick link ever failed anyone on rappel? S I don't know, but it's not relevant to the testing of 75-cent Chinese quick links, unless you can tell us how many of these are in use in the field. Jay Its 4,736.27 in California alone. More if you include Guam. Go look it up..... I suggest using Google rather than going and counting personally, although if you go that route we might actually get to discuss things without needing to put up with your attitude. On a serious note, it absolutely is relevant to this discussion and you didn't answer the question. I don't know about the other criticisms I leveled at you. But this last post clearly proves "dense." In fact, hopelessly dense. I give up.
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 14, 2008, 5:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 14, 2008, 6:09 PM
Post #102 of 198
(8482 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 14, 2008, 6:11 PM
Post #103 of 198
(8480 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: I don't know about the other criticisms I leveled at you. Well, they're all quoted so feel free to go back and read through them again if you've forgotten any of them. jt512 wrote: But this last post clearly proves "dense." In fact, hopelessly dense. I give up. If it means you're finally going away, I'll accept being called dense. And given the person making the accusation, I can honestly say it doesn't bother me in the least. No, it wouldn't, would it. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 14, 2008, 6:41 PM
Post #104 of 198
(8475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Apr 14, 2008, 7:08 PM
Post #105 of 198
(8467 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
dingus wrote: But I use 3/8" links for this. They are somewhat stronger. This gets you nothing in the context of this thread. It doesn't matter what the strength of the item is if the quality in inconsistent. So, I've been told by Jay. So, if the links are not certified, climbing spec., or what ever, they are completely unsuitable for climbing applications. So I'm told.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Apr 14, 2008, 7:10 PM
Post #106 of 198
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
jt512 wrote: *If we assume that the failure loads are normally distributed, then the lower one-sided 99% tolerance limit for the "3-sigma strength rating" is 1238 lb. I'm liking these links for rappel more and more every day, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
dead_horse_flats
Apr 14, 2008, 7:20 PM
Post #107 of 198
(8457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64
|
jt512 wrote: A fall of just inches onto static material, as could happen if the rappeller was lowering over the lip "backed up" by a Spectra runner attached to the anchor, could produce such a force. Again no common sense. Put away the text books. Fortunately your version of physics doesnt apply to the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
sed
Apr 14, 2008, 8:25 PM
Post #108 of 198
(8439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
Jt are you a sport climber? No offense it would just help me interpret your position.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 14, 2008, 8:26 PM
Post #109 of 198
(8439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 14, 2008, 8:53 PM
Post #110 of 198
(8443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
tradklime wrote: dingus wrote: But I use 3/8" links for this. They are somewhat stronger. This gets you nothing in the context of this thread. It doesn't matter what the strength of the item is if the quality in inconsistent. So, I've been told by Jay. So, if the links are not certified, climbing spec., or what ever, they are completely unsuitable for climbing applications. So I'm told. While I respect J's analytical skills I find myself totally unconvinced by some of his key tenets. In other areas I've learned a great deal from the man that improved the safety and quality of my climbing experience. So while I'll listen? I ALWAYS reserve final judgement in any situation. But that's OK. The dude's sharp'n most and can usually be counted upon for a reality check. Cheers DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Apr 14, 2008, 8:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 14, 2008, 9:08 PM
Post #111 of 198
(8426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: No, it wouldn't, would it. Jay I thought you were going away and the rest of us could get back to talking about things in a polite and constructive manner? -aric. I'm done with trying to make you understand simple concepts that you just aren't smart enough to understand, so that you can get back to talking about things in a polite but misguided manner. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 14, 2008, 9:15 PM
Post #112 of 198
(8418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 14, 2008, 9:16 PM
Post #113 of 198
(8415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: dead_horse_flats wrote: jt512 wrote: A fall of just inches onto static material, as could happen if the rappeller was lowering over the lip "backed up" by a Spectra runner attached to the anchor, could produce such a force. Again no common sense. Put away the text books. Fortunately your version of physics doesnt apply to the real world. Actually he's partially right on that one, but he's making (trying to..) his point in a very misleading way. Yes, falling onto static materials will generate quite a large force (hence using wire for a funkness). But as with lead rope, its more to do with the fall factor than distance and like you implied, if you're talking inches its not going to happen. Much as I've tried, I have yet to get more than 5 or 6kN with test falls of a couple inches on a runner (bounce testing to check out the analog capture channel of the load cell used in these tests). BTW, I've got the formulas set up in an Excel spreadsheet if you're interested in playing with them; just shoot me a PM and I'll send it to you. -aric. Multiply 6 kN by 225, and compare the result to the number above that tradklime is so enamored with. Then use your Excel spreadsheet to determine the result for a 6- and a 12-inch fall. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 14, 2008, 9:21 PM
Post #114 of 198
(8414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: I'm done with trying to make you understand simple concepts that you just aren't smart enough to understand, so that you can get back to talking about things in a polite but misguided manner. Jay This is the third time you've said you're leaving, yet here you are again. Speaking of simple concepts.... Sigh. -aric. OK. I'll play your game. I post; you post, saying that I said I wouldn't post (which I never even said); and I'll reply. We'll go on over and over like this until, eventually, you'll complain about the signal-to-noise ratio of the thread, never realizing how much of that noise you yourself are responsible for. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 14, 2008, 9:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Apr 14, 2008, 9:31 PM
Post #115 of 198
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
who is right Jay or aric ? please get your popcorn ready, we will find out in the next 5 posts. edit: what am I saying ? in the next five pages
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Apr 14, 2008, 9:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Apr 14, 2008, 9:51 PM
Post #116 of 198
(8449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
jt512 wrote: Multiply 6 kN by 225, and compare the result to the number above that tradklime is so enamored with. Don't forget to multiply that number by 2.
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Apr 14, 2008, 9:57 PM
Post #117 of 198
(8440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
majid_sabet wrote: who is right Jay or aric ? please get your popcorn ready, we will find out in the next 5 pages. made a little change for you, Majid. funny and interesting thread. thanks for testing, Aric. Brent
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 14, 2008, 10:01 PM
Post #118 of 198
(8433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
tradklime wrote: jt512 wrote: Multiply 6 kN by 225, and compare the result to the number above that tradklime is so enamored with. Don't forget to multiply that number by 2. Don't forget that perfect equalization is not achieved in practice, then don't forget to look up "margin of safety," and then don't forget to check the results for the 6- and 12-inch falls. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 14, 2008, 10:04 PM
Post #119 of 198
(8429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 14, 2008, 10:07 PM
Post #120 of 198
(8426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 14, 2008, 10:09 PM
Post #121 of 198
(8423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: The only thing I'm not so thrilled with is the SNR, which I hoped could be avoided by The Lab actually being actively moderated, as it supposedly is. But I've filed my grievances, they've gone unanswered so I guess they're ok with things how they've ended up. Too bad, as there's actually some very good information in here. -aric. -aric. That's inaccurate. Your grievance was indeed answered, by the head moderator, in fact, who posted his answer in the thread. You just didn't like the answer. And, it is you who is chiefly to blame for the state your thread has devolved to. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 14, 2008, 10:11 PM
Post #122 of 198
(8419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: Don't forget that perfect equalization is not achieved in practice, then don't forget to look up "margin of safety," and then don't forget to check the results for the 6- and 12-inch falls. Jay And the winner of the 5 points and free Alien testing is.... Not Jay. Anyone else want to try? And hearing concern over "margin of safety" come out of Jay at this point has a certain irony, given that's what I've been trying to explain to him regarding the SWL rating of the sample quicklinks. And so far it looks like I'm partially correct, Jay hasn't looked up the proper way to calculate the forces. I'm sure the insult will come soon though. -aric. Actually, if you want to do something useful, for once, post what you think the "proper" way to calculate the impact force onto semi-static material is. If you actually know how to do it, I, for one, would be enlightened. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 14, 2008, 10:16 PM
Post #123 of 198
(8415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 14, 2008, 10:19 PM
Post #124 of 198
(8412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
sed
Apr 14, 2008, 10:21 PM
Post #125 of 198
(8404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
I can almost see the arteries on his neck bulge, the face getting red. I think you two should both just bivy on a large tower together somewhere, hanging from 5/16 quick link and get to know each other. You'd probably have a lot to discuss, might even become friends. S
|
|
|
|
|
|