|
devils_advocate
Sep 14, 2006, 4:23 PM
Post #901 of 915
(118984 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1823
|
In reply to: :twisted: ................................................ BUMP! ....... :lol:
Jim you are evil, truely evil.
My boss likes your work, he'll be contacting you.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Sep 14, 2006, 7:08 PM
Post #902 of 915
(118986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Someone should lab tet all of these rigs so we can get some figures on how they all perform under controlled circumstances--then we can go from there.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
icculus
Sep 15, 2006, 7:12 PM
Post #903 of 915
(118984 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 32
|
A few more questions about the "mhabicht" rig...
What kind of knots are those connecting the biners...figure 8's?
Are there two separate cordelettes rigging that anchor or only one?
...and the "mooselette" rig...
Can someone explain how to tie off the powerpoint in the "mooselette" anchor? It's hard to see from the photo. Is it just an overhand knot or figure 8?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 15, 2006, 8:12 PM
Post #904 of 915
(118988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: ...and the "mooselette" rig... Can someone explain how to tie off the powerpoint in the "mooselette" anchor? It's hard to see from the photo. Is it just an overhand knot or figure 8? Thanks.
There are two knots in the central leg of the mooselette. Both are overhand knots. I leave them in the cord, and just move them up or down as needed. Because the weight is so well distributed, they never get set hard, so they're easy to move each time I go to set up an anchor. Of course their placement doesn't need to be particularly exact.
Another note - I set up the knots so that the double fisherman's that makes up the -lette is permanently up above the upper of the two knots. That keeps it out of the way of any moving parts.
Dunno if it's helpful, but here's another photo I took from way back when we first started discussing these -lettes.
http://i26.photobucket.com/...riker/mooselette.jpg
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
May 20, 2011, 5:09 PM
Post #905 of 915
(15046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
I don't understand why you would not use a sliding X if you thought one of your two pieces was very weak. This scenario is the inspiration behind the sliding x. It is the only setup, especially given the fact that you're saying you only have two pieces, that offers true equalization, which in turn gives you the least probability of putting more weight on your weak piece.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 20, 2011, 5:20 PM
Post #906 of 915
(15045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jjones16 wrote: I don't understand why you would not use a sliding X if you thought one of your two pieces was very weak. This scenario is the inspiration behind the sliding x. It is the only setup, especially given the fact that you're saying you only have two pieces, that offers true equalization, which in turn gives you the least probability of putting more weight on your weak piece.
Would you really want "true equalization" between two pieces if you thought one of them was very weak?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
patto
May 20, 2011, 7:32 PM
Post #907 of 915
(14991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
ZOMBIE THREAD!!!!
Incidentally how much is the equalette actually used?
This whole thread was based of flawed research. Shock loading most definitely does exist.
|
|
|
|
|
tomcecil
May 22, 2011, 9:04 PM
Post #908 of 915
(14886 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2009
Posts: 49
|
J
the acronym can stay the same-
Solid-Redundant-Equalized-Nominal Extension--
cheers
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 22, 2011, 10:26 PM
Post #909 of 915
(14877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
patto wrote: This whole thread was based of flawed research. Shock loading most definitely does exist.
Been awhile, but I don't recall anyone saying shock loading doesn't exist, just that it's impact on anchors was exaggerated.
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Jun 14, 2011, 8:04 PM
Post #910 of 915
(14636 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: I don't understand why you would not use a sliding X if you thought one of your two pieces was very weak. This scenario is the inspiration behind the sliding x. It is the only setup, especially given the fact that you're saying you only have two pieces, that offers true equalization, which in turn gives you the least probability of putting more weight on your weak piece. Would you really want "true equalization" between two pieces if you thought one of them was very weak? Jay
What else are you going to do with your weak piece? Use it as a backup?
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jun 14, 2011, 8:14 PM
Post #911 of 915
(14631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Someone should have gotten a thesis or dissertation off this thread by now.
|
|
|
|
|
kaizen
Jun 14, 2011, 8:22 PM
Post #912 of 915
(14628 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2009
Posts: 154
|
patto wrote: ZOMBIE THREAD!!!! Incidentally how much is the equalette actually used? This whole thread was based of flawed research. Shock loading most definitely does exist.
Was there a new study or set of tests done on this? I was under the impression that the last research done on cordage anchors showed that the cordelette was considerably flawed, and that the equalette mitigated some of these concerns. I haven't seen anything that refutes the equalettes superiority. If you have any material you could share I would definitely be interested. I currently use the equalette more than any other configuration, though granted I don't climb multi-pitch very frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jun 14, 2011, 8:23 PM
Post #913 of 915
(14627 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
healyje wrote: Someone should have gotten a thesis or dissertation off this thread by now.
Its advanced high school physics or basic first year University physics. Hardly advanced stuff. But since you bait I'll bite back at your previous comments that I never responded to.
healyje wrote: Been awhile, but I don't recall anyone saying shock loading doesn't exist, just that it's impact on anchors was exaggerated.
We can play semantics on how it was presented but either way to suggest that the results of the 'study' or 'testing' showed that shock loading on anchors was exaggerated is not accurate. The tests were flawed and almost meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 14, 2011, 11:41 PM
Post #914 of 915
(14595 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Rudmin wrote: jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: I don't understand why you would not use a sliding X if you thought one of your two pieces was very weak. This scenario is the inspiration behind the sliding x. It is the only setup, especially given the fact that you're saying you only have two pieces, that offers true equalization, which in turn gives you the least probability of putting more weight on your weak piece. Would you really want "true equalization" between two pieces if you thought one of them was very weak? Jay What else are you going to do with your weak piece? Use it as a backup?
Theoretically? Rig it so that it would take less than half the load. I don't know if there's a practical way to do that, though.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 15, 2011, 4:24 PM
Post #915 of 915
(14515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jt512 wrote: Rudmin wrote: jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: I don't understand why you would not use a sliding X if you thought one of your two pieces was very weak. This scenario is the inspiration behind the sliding x. It is the only setup, especially given the fact that you're saying you only have two pieces, that offers true equalization, which in turn gives you the least probability of putting more weight on your weak piece. Would you really want "true equalization" between two pieces if you thought one of them was very weak? Jay What else are you going to do with your weak piece? Use it as a backup? Theoretically? Rig it so that it would take less than half the load. I don't know if there's a practical way to do that, though. Jay
If the weak piece happens to be further from the power-point than the stronger piece, a tied-off nylon sling or cord between the two (you could use the standard cordelette method, or clove hitches like the OP anchor) will accomplish that. The additional material to the further piece means that significantly less force gets put on that further piece. The force transmitted through the material is proportional to the distance stretched divided by the amount of material. And since both sides have approximately the same stretch distance as the load comes on, the longer sling will transmit less force. So there's a solution for 50% of the cases.
In the opposite situation (where the weak piece closer) if you happen to have both spectra and nylon available you could use the nylon to the weaker piece and the spectra to the stronger one. Again, you have to link them together in such a way as to forgo dynamic equalization. As significant load (like a factor 2 fall) begins to come onto the pieces, both materials will begin to stretch. The load will start out roughly even (at close to zero), but for every distance stretched, the load on the better piece will rise much more quickly.
That would take care of the other 50%. It would look something like this:
GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
