Apparently as many times as I need to ask you to find them, as you've made incorrect proclamations regarding forces resulting from theoretical drops onto static materials

If you're going to be telling people what the results will be, you damn well better know how to calculate them. Otherwise someone like me will latch on and repeatedly point out the fact that you've got no idea what you're talking about.

Which is something that doesn't exactly lend credence to your claims of expertise in other areas.....

Here you go... Right here in The Lab, June 2006.

And I sincerely doubt you actually bothered looking...

-aric.

Except that I have, and will again:

Did you catch it that time?


Links have been provided.


If you said it in this thread, I missed it amid all the insults. Found it...

Ah, that's quite the compelling argument there, Jay. Someone told you something. And no mention of RGold until now. Why the sudden name dropping?


Again, links? I've not seen RGold's postings, only Ed's and any disagreement on validity between them is something RGold and Ed would need to hash out. Once again it sounds like you're redirecting the conversation to make it appear like you know what you're talking about. Without further evidence that you indeed do, anything you say about it is suspect.

Plus you've already demonstrated your being a statistician and not an engineer, so frankly your take on the proper application of Hooke's Law doesn't amount to much.


No, I'm afraid not. The things I take issue with are the unwarranted personal attacks and insults that are inappropriate in this forum. Given your propensity to talk big and have nothing to back it up, it stands to reason that your 'search' never actually occurred, statistically speaking of course. And seeing as I gave you both who posted it on supertopo and the fact that I, as one of my overwhelming total of 200 posts, included links to it amongst that number says to me you really didn't look much past your nose.

Well, its been fun Jay and I'm going to turn in. Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel tomorrow?

-aric.

EDIT- One more thing before I go... If you like, I'll dig out my Dynamics book tomorrow and post the section explaining impact forces involving a steel cylinder sliding down a steel rod (like a slide hammer) and how the same equations apply. I think we can both agree that a steel rod is at least as static as spectra....

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

Have I made my point yet, or do I need to repeat it yet again?

-aric.

Ah, more constructive, civil discourse from Jay.

I thought you said pages ago that you were giving up? Or is it about getting the last word with you?

And in case you missed it, back on page 5:

And on page 6:


If you'll promise to play nice in the rest of my pull testing threads, I'll drop it. But until then, unless the Mods actually moderate things to keep you in line here in The Lab expect more of the same from me. Vitriol and invective are not appropriate here in the lab.

Have I made my point yet, or do I need to repeat it yet again?

-aric.

Another


I guess you didn't understand my point then, huh?

Be nice and I won't be a pain in your ass.

Got it?

-aric.

So Mods, just where is the line drawn with regards to what is and what is not acceptable in the lab? At this point we have what, 3 or 4 pages of Jay and I railing at each other, complete with insults and foul language on his part?

The rules you put down clearly state that this is a highly moderated forum and...


I'm hoping that you could clear this up, for me and everyone else, before another incident like this occurs again and we can get back to having a reasonable SNR here in The Lab. If you're not going to moderate, then don't say you do.


And Jay, haven't we already established that I don't particularly care for you insulting me? While you've been the object of my ire (rightfully so, I might add), my bigger issue is the complete lack of moderation in what's supposed to be a highly moderated forum. Had a Mod stepped in at any time and told both of us to calm down, I absolutely would have. Heck, even had one of the Mods PM'd me to say they looked into it, understood why I was peeved and determined I was overreacting that would have been enough for me. But alas, none of that occurred and tempers continue to flare.

So now I'm just curious to see where they draw the line before doing something about it. Heck, we could even escalate things a bit. Several people (including me over in Comments and Suggestions) have called for the thread to be locked but still nothing, so obviously we haven't found the line in the sand yet.

So if you're up for continuing this to see how far they'll let things go, I'll play along. I'm very interested in what sort of precedent they're looking to set. Otherwise, I'll offer a truce again- if you'll kindly refrain from being unduly rude to me from here on out, I'll leave you alone.

-aric.

You haven't shared a link to RGold's post about why Ed's analysis is flawed WRT spectra though, so if you disagree with these results please feel free to explain.

Jay,

It wasn't in the search you suggestion you gave (the two threads that came up searching my postings and "Ed Hartouni" were this one and the one I linked earlier, which wasn't the one you're talking about), but I was able to find lots of interesting by searching for him and "Hooke". It'll make interesting reading, so thanks for pushing me in that direction.

In this post he seems to imply (well, flat out states) that static ropes behave similarly to dynamic ropes and both exhibit elastic behavior (meaning Hooke's Law should be a reasonable approximation). A bit earlier he also states that spectra and steel cable behave elastically, so perhaps he changed his mind about it at some point.

I've been through the 25 posts he mentions "Hooke" in and a couple where he mentions "spectra", but don't think I've found the one you're talking about yet. I'll keep looking, unless you wouldn't mind just pointing me to it with a link.

-aric.

EDIT- And yes, that paper did make for interesting reading. Didn't know he had posted something like that, so thanks for pointing me to it.

Most likely SWL stands for Safe Working Load and 1550 works out to 6.93kN. That seems low, but you have to bear in mind that the SWL is usually well under the breaking strength (generally by several times the SWL).

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

Since this is possibly productive again...

Is there anyway to express statistically the chances that, randomly selected, two of these quicklinks would actually break at the low 3 sigma value you calculated.

In other words, we have to keep in mind that the probability of failure is 2 chances in a million per anchor. The probability of an unsafe anchor being installed somewhere increases each time such an anchor is installed.

Jay