...the flamefest in The Lab resulting from your abusive behavior...

But Jay, I asked _you_ to do that. I already know how to do it and you have a habit of telling other people to go look something up, so thought you'd like being on the receiving end for a change.

-aric.

EDIT- Oh, and about doing something useful... Seems to me that the work that started this thread was actually mine and the only thing you've done is come in here and argue and insult people. Might want to go think on that.

Yup, you never said these things, all quoted earlier in the thread. Must have been the other jt512. There's been more since I compiled the list; maybe I'll add them in later.

In response to a valid assumption I made for doing my test:

In response to my habit of changing out gear at rap stations:

In response to my contention that gear from European companies is UIAA and CE certified because those certifications are required for product to be sold as climbing gear in Europe:

Regarding my response on the validity of tightening links with no available torque specification:

Again on my habit of changing out rap anchor gear:

On my stating that his behavior is inappropriate:

And on my testing in general:

Crunch, crunch....


Well then, by what means did you do the calculations to say this to dead_horse_flats?

Well, yeah, if that was what is happening. Unfortunately (for you) you can't model runners that way. Or chain, for that matter. There's always stretch in the equation, which you're not accounting for.

With that clue, do you know what the two missing pieces of info are?

-aric.

A change in my behavior which, I must point out, didn't happen until well after your postings, which in context were clearly intended as insults and against the rules here in The Lab.

Nice try at revisionist history though.

-aric.

Actually Jay, where on earth did you get this 6kN * 225 nonsense?

Correction- I never said they were safe. I said they were probably safe under their rated load and spent a whole lot of time trying to get through to Jay that the links were in fact rated and testing showed that they met the rating.

In an engineering sense you absolutely are modeling the system. As I suggested earlier, you might want to brush up on that sort of thing before making authoritative proclamations regarding things you don't know about.

Ah, the magic of Statistics, naturally.

And if you say it loud enough and be enough of an ass to people, you can (almost) get away with making just about anything up without anyone calling you on it.

-aric.

So... You weren't modeling before you were modeling. Gotcha.

In either case, you're not Newton and still haven't provided the proper equations for modeling this experiment.

If you want to consider F = ma as a model. It's fine with me. Technically, it is indeed a model.


How many times do I have to say that you're the guy who supposedly has these equations, not me. The closest I've seen is a derivation from Hooke's Law that I'm told is not valid for semi-static materials like Spectra. So, no, for the third time, I don't have the equations, and since I'm not trying to predict forces from drops onto static materials, I don't need them. Like I also said at least twice, if you'd like to share them, I'd be interested in seeing them. Yes, I tried to search both your posts here, and Ed Hartouni's on supertopo, and couldn't find them. No, I didn't do an exhaustive search, and don't intend to. If you want to share, fine; if not, that's fine, too. But why you keep telling me that I don't have the equations, when that's exactly what I've been saying all along, is a mystery.

Jay

Ah, so by multiplying 6kN by 225 lb-f we get 1350kn-lb-f, which is one of the lesser known engineering units for measuring.....???

-a.