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.

Well, they're all quoted so feel free to go back and read through them again if you've forgotten any of them.


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.

But I use 3/8" links for this. They are somewhat stronger.

*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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the third time you've said you're leaving, yet here you are again. Speaking of simple concepts....

Sigh.

-aric.

Multiply 6 kN by 225, and compare the result to the number above that tradklime is so enamored with.

who is right

Jay or aric ?

please get your popcorn ready, we will find out in the next 5 pages.

Don't forget to multiply that number by 2.

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.

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.