|
glytch
May 29, 2009, 4:50 AM
Post #1 of 130
(13833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 194
|
Wow. Thank you for taking the time to do this.
That's disturbing.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 29, 2009, 5:23 AM
Post #2 of 130
(13811 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
glytch wrote: That's disturbing.
Yep, or in other words - toss CCH's cam angle completely out the window as it isn't happening unless the axle hole is drilled in the designed location.
We've focused on the brazing in the past as that alone should have been enough to convince folks of the sad reality of their [lack of] manufacturing execution. But that apparently wasn't enough - anyone in denial after reviewing these and other issues such as swaging failures should have their head examined.
Dudes - look at those pictures! Drilling the axle holes in the right place ain't rocket science - if they can't manage something as simple as that do you really want to trust your life to their gear? Would you trust a belayer who got it right some of the time, but in even a small random sample of observing their belaying it turned out they were grossly failing most of the time?
And considering they are failing in multiple modalities: brazing, drilling, swaging, slinging, color coding, and cam lobe assembly - what are the odds of a cam coming out of CCH properly assembled and safe to use? 'But dude, they stick like glue...!' - well yeah, if you're lucky enough to get one of the good ones.
|
|
|
|
|
agdavis
May 29, 2009, 5:37 AM
Post #3 of 130
(13799 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2009
Posts: 310
|
jeez that's just plain scary. thank you for taking the time to do this!
|
|
|
|
|
atlnq9
May 29, 2009, 6:19 AM
Post #4 of 130
(13779 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 111
|
3 out of 15 13 of the aliens are close enough. So what do they do right all of the time? Maybe use the right color coding? Geez!
Edit in bold
(This post was edited by atlnq9 on May 29, 2009, 6:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 29, 2009, 10:15 PM
Post #5 of 130
(13580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Aric, just shipped out one like-new set of four Alien hybrids (one of my two sets), give'm hell, I'll be curious to see what they pull at and how the axle holes line up (or don't).
|
|
|
|
|
giza
May 29, 2009, 11:21 PM
Post #6 of 130
(13535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 315
|
Healyje, usually your posts are annoying as shit but in this case I really can't argue with your logic. Drilling the axle holes in the correct location shouldn't be a process with variable results like those in the photos.
I was a staunch defender of Aliens despite their previous problems, had all my Alien cams tensile tested by CCH, and then continued to climb on them but am now considering retiring them - at least for free climbing.
I gotta admit though, they place so well and I've put so much faith in them for years it's hard to let them go.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
May 29, 2009, 11:26 PM
Post #7 of 130
(13523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
"The topic of mis-centered axle holes is something that's been on my mind a lot lately and it was touched on in the Alien Failure thread"
A historical note (might be something well known):
CCH responded awhile back to some mis-centered axle holes ... back around the same time of the first recall I remember that was due to braze failures. Perhaps that is in the thread that you mentioned. I don't have time to go search right now.
As I recall pretty clearly, they did not try to recall those cams indicating that it was just a range issue. They did say they would replace any that were returned.
Perhaps something worth following up:
In one thread at the time, I and others emphasized that it could definitely be more than a range issue, that it could well affect the cam angle - as you noted - and so ability to hold a fall.
I wonder ...
* whether an analysis of some of these would reveal that more than range is involved;
* whether the dates on these ones are after the date that CCH first acknowledged the mis-aligned axle holes.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
May 29, 2009, 11:31 PM
Post #8 of 130
(13515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
....damnit Aric. I just recently started buying aliens to replace my other small cams. I was able to write off RC.com as being overly alarmist. Then your tests had me a little concerned, figured I need to bounce test 'em something serious. This was the cherry to make me properly nervous.
Off to take some pictures....
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 29, 2009, 11:32 PM
Post #9 of 130
(13513 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
giza wrote: Healyje, usually your posts are annoying as shit...
You're welcome, I'd hate to think I was slipping...
I still have one set of hybrids and only use them for free climbing and it sucks to have retired them with no real replacement yet. But at some point rational people have to accept reality, weigh the obvious risks, and make a judgment call - in this case it's, unfortunately, a no-brainer.
We're lucky folks have only been injured up to now and not killed. I wouldn't have changed my stance on CCH and Aliens if they'd bothered putting in even a modicum of effort (and communication) into addressing the situation anywhere along the way. That it [culturally] just escapes them is sad, but peoples' lives are literally hanging in the balance and a manufacturer like them does no one any favors - not themselves, us as climbers, the sport, or the industry as a whole - it makes us all look wreckless in the eyes of the law, regulators, and the public at large. This sort of thing just invites lawyers and the regulatory-inclined.
(This post was edited by healyje on May 29, 2009, 11:37 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
May 29, 2009, 11:40 PM
Post #10 of 130
(13495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
healyje wrote: We're lucky folks have only been injured up to now and not killed. I wouldn't have changed my stance on CCH and Aliens if they'd put even a modicum of effort into resolving the situation anywhere along the way. That it [culturally] just escapes them is sad, but peoples' lives are literally hanging in the balance and a manufacturer like them does no one any favors - not themselves, us as climbers, the sport, or the industry as a whole - it makes us all look wreckless in the eyes of the law, regulators, and the public at large. This sort of thing just invites lawyers and the regulatory-inclined.
Exactly-- that's the only frickin reason I even bother to read these threads. Climbing is so marginal in the US anyway, and folks have beomce so accustomed, in gyms, to getting "licensed" before they're allowed to climb, and so few of them have any outdoor competence--
It's really bad for all of us when a good designer in the industry can't respond to obvious and repeated problems.
I am so frickin' sick of hearing about this frickin stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 29, 2009, 11:46 PM
Post #11 of 130
(13486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
billl7 wrote: CCH responded awhile back to some mis-centered axle holes ... they did not try to recall those cams indicating that it was just a range issue.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 30, 2009, 12:26 AM
Post #12 of 130
(13457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
May 30, 2009, 12:49 AM
Post #13 of 130
(13426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
I would just like to say that I called this like 4 years ago, and also that everyone jumped down my throat to defend CCH.
Told ya so.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
May 30, 2009, 2:52 AM
Post #14 of 130
(13367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
adatesman wrote: Sorry to make you doubt your purchases and FWIW I don't think its a bad design, just poor execution. Check the centering of the spiral, get them proof tested and then climb on.
When Aliens are good, they're great. But it's the QC/execution/reliability that's my concern.
They are not a bad design. People love them. When they are good they are great.....it's just...how do we know they are good?
Sigh. I don't feel good about a company that understates the loads its cams will withstand, etc....
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 30, 2009, 3:26 AM
Post #15 of 130
(13352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
bill413 wrote: adatesman wrote: Sorry to make you doubt your purchases and FWIW I don't think its a bad design, just poor execution. Check the centering of the spiral, get them proof tested and then climb on. I think that this is something that needs to be brought out more in the debate. When Aliens are good, they're great. But it's the QC/execution/reliability that's my concern. They are not a bad design. People love them. When they are good they are great.....it's just...how do we know they are good? Sigh. I don't feel good about a company that understates the loads its cams will withstand, etc....
Maybe they quote the loads that a properly manufactured and assembled cam will hold.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 30, 2009, 3:34 AM
Post #16 of 130
(13347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
bill413 wrote: People love them.
I understand, really I do. I also love the climb I've been working on for the past two years - but one wrong move on a climb as serious as it and I'll be dead in a heartbeat. Both are a matter of acknowledging reality and working with the cards you've been dealt; working with what is in your control and minimizing the risk of those things which are not. The manufacturing execution of Aliens is not something we control; how, and if, we use them on the other hand is.
|
|
|
|
|
rschap
May 30, 2009, 5:30 AM
Post #17 of 130
(13308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 592
|
Not to say the center point isn’t off but you really can’t tell from a picture. We’ve tried taking pictures of items that we need to water jet and no matter how you zoom or angle the camera there is a slight skew and things don’t line up quite right.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 30, 2009, 6:18 AM
Post #18 of 130
(13276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
rschap wrote: Not to say the center point isn’t off but you really can’t tell from a picture. We’ve tried taking pictures of items that we need to water jet and no matter how you zoom or angle the camera there is a slight skew and things don’t line up quite right.
Hmmm, that's quite a statement. Lens axis lined up with axle axis - pretty much a done deal and more than accurate enough for the purposes of this piece of software. Not sure why your folks can't line up a lens axis perpendicular to a piece of work inline with a specific target. Here if you can't see any of the sides of the cam lobe, it's good. Again, at these scales it's plenty accurate for identifying the the center of the design center of axle axis well enough to know whether they blew it or not.
If you work with metal, then what are the odds you'd be mis-drilling axle holes over and over again with a completely random drift from design location of the axle?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 30, 2009, 12:15 PM
Post #19 of 130
(13242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
glytch
May 30, 2009, 1:24 PM
Post #20 of 130
(13206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 194
|
adatesman wrote: ... I don't know for certain that this software is reliable or functions properly. I tend to think it does based on the credentials of the guy who wrote it and it lining up correctly on the lobes from WC, BD and Metolius, but I have not independently verified its results.
Not that you have the time (completely understandably!), but if you've got software that builds logarithmic spirals, you should be able to print out the shell of a cam with no centerpoint attached (lest the software is identifying a circle and marking its middle), identify the centerpoint of that cam using the software, and compare that to the actual centerpoint (which you know since you built the thing).
Seems like as good a way as any of testing the software...
G
|
|
|
|
|
rschap
May 30, 2009, 2:14 PM
Post #21 of 130
(13167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 592
|
Yeah, I caught that in the op, I was just saying in my experience using 3 different cameras on several different parts we have taken pictures and then traced the picture in Acadd, every time the part has come out longer or shorter than the original part. On non critical artistic parts we use this method a lot. The purple and the clear aliens are what first caught my attention, you can see that they are obviously skewed, and several of the other aliens don’t line up properly on the outside lobe. Could this be because they use a 16 degree caming angle and the others don’t?
I’m not arguing about whether or not the holes are centered, I’m just pointing out the flaws I can see in this process to have a discussion about it and to clarify what the margin of error is so I can make a more informed decision. If they are drilling the holes by hand without a properly set up jig I would say there is absolutely no way they are getting them centered.
I’d also like to point out that the WC #6 is turned to the right and the center is slightly to the left, while the WC #5 is turned to the left making the center point slightly to the right. So it seems that the program does get the center point pretty damn close even with a slight skew.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 30, 2009, 3:12 PM
Post #22 of 130
(13140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
helios
May 30, 2009, 3:46 PM
Post #23 of 130
(13126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2005
Posts: 56
|
Aric,
Can you verify whether the holding power [and therefore cam angle] is constant in these misdrilled aliens? Maybe by seeing how much force is outwardly applied when pull tested at various degrees of retraction in its range? Not sure if you are set up to measure the outward force of cam loads. I'm not just talking about holding power in a vice, tested to failure. This seems like a good way to verify the software - since shouldn't you be able to predict how the cam angle will be affected if misdrilled in a certain direction?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 31, 2009, 1:32 PM
Post #24 of 130
(10432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 31, 2009, 1:44 PM
Post #25 of 130
(10363 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Jun 5, 2009, 11:40 PM
Post #26 of 130
(6838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
I ran mine through a few days ago, but wanted to remind myself what the result were. I figured I'd take some screenshots and add some more poop to the kiddie pool.
All are done using the automatic point grabber, except the gold link cam, which as you can gather from the picture had its axle used as the center point (read other notes below about it).
Blue Alien
Green Alien
Yellow Alien
Grey Alien
Red Alien
Red Link Cam
Link cams have a constant camming angle of 13.5, which is not available with the CAM Profile Tester. I used the Metolius angle of 13.25 and edited points. It looks a bit off, but it's not surprising at all considering I used edited points, so the points are fixed and the theoretical center point is not.
These two link cam results are more for entertainment than for any data since their camming angle isn't in the program.
Gold Link Cam
As mentioned previously, the program does not have the proper camming angle, so the approximate Metolius equivalent was used (13.25 vs. 13.5). This one, unlike the red link cam, has its center point manually selected and fixed. The theoretical spiral matches well with the actual spiral, and it's well possible that the discrepancy is a result of the camming angle.
Results:
1 out of 5 aliens has correctly drilled axle holes. The green alien seems to be the only one, although others are close. On the other hand . . . CLOSE = WTF GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER.
(This post was edited by spikeddem on Jun 5, 2009, 11:56 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 6, 2009, 12:25 AM
Post #27 of 130
(6827 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
spikeddem wrote: ..1 out of 5 aliens has correctly drilled axle holes. The green alien seems to be the only one, although others are close. On the other hand . . . CLOSE = WTF GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER.
I think you're being far too kind. Most of those Alien axle holes are off center by quite a significant amount. If it were just a few thousandths of an inch, perhaps it would be no big deal, but those holes are off far enough that you no longer have anything like a constant expansion rate.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Jun 6, 2009, 12:32 AM
Post #28 of 130
(6824 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
curt wrote: spikeddem wrote: ..1 out of 5 aliens has correctly drilled axle holes. The green alien seems to be the only one, although others are close. On the other hand . . . CLOSE = WTF GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER. I think you're being far too kind. Most of those Alien axle holes are off center by quite a significant amount. If it were just a few thousandths of an inch, perhaps it would be no big deal, but those holes are off far enough that you no longer have anything like a constant expansion rate. Curt
I initially hadn't included the "although, others are close . . ." but then decided to add it. Looks like my sarcasm was lost in the tubes. Sorry about that. 
To be sure, I agree that the discrepancies are ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 6, 2009, 2:05 AM
Post #29 of 130
(6793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 7, 2009, 3:19 AM
Post #30 of 130
(6741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I just ran all mine through the software. Most are off by a little. A few are off by a lot (black and one of the reds), and one is perfect (grey).
black
blue #1
Blue #2
Green #1
Green #2
Yellow #1
Yellow #2
Yellow #3
Grey #1
Red #1
Red #2
And I checked how bad the angles were on the Black and that last Red. On the black when it's not very contracted, and on the red when it is very contracted, the angle is nearly 30 degrees! I'm not climbing on those sucker any more!
Black angles
Red angles
What a bummer.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jun 7, 2009, 7:31 AM
Post #31 of 130
(6716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Not sure I'd characterize most of those as 'off by a little' - most look to be substantially off. Bummer indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Jun 7, 2009, 10:17 PM
Post #32 of 130
(6655 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
I just went to EMS to kill some gift certificates yesterday. Was planning on getting Aliens until I remembered this thread. Haven't gotten proper pictures of the ones I have yet, so I don't wanna mess with it. Bleh.
Ended up buying a titanium kettle and some fuel instead.
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Jun 7, 2009, 11:21 PM
Post #34 of 130
(6631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
Man, you guys are all misreading the results.
CCH is so brilliant it's beyond everyones understanding.
The simple fact is the hole a off center to compensate for pin scars
   
Edit 4 typo
(This post was edited by rocknice2 on Jun 7, 2009, 11:22 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Jun 8, 2009, 12:34 AM
Post #35 of 130
(6610 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
basilisk wrote: I just went to EMS to kill some gift certificates yesterday. Was planning on getting Aliens until I remembered this thread. Haven't gotten proper pictures of the ones I have yet, so I don't wanna mess with it. Bleh. Ended up buying a titanium kettle and some fuel instead. 
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 8, 2009, 1:10 AM
Post #36 of 130
(6602 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Jun 8, 2009, 2:18 AM
Post #37 of 130
(6579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
adatesman wrote: bill413 wrote: basilisk wrote: I just went to EMS to kill some gift certificates yesterday. Was planning on getting Aliens until I remembered this thread. Haven't gotten proper pictures of the ones I have yet, so I don't wanna mess with it. Bleh. Ended up buying a titanium kettle and some fuel instead. Are we going to have Aric pull test the kettle? ....well now I'm a little curious. Well, I do have a freezer full of Nalgenes at the moment, so it wouldn't be that strange a request. |
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 8, 2009, 2:24 AM
Post #38 of 130
(6574 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Jun 8, 2009, 3:11 AM
Post #39 of 130
(6562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
heh, guess I cheesetitted the comment. I wrote above you for whatever reason.
I've found the same problem with EMS. The one in Concord, NH seems to get random Aliens now and then, so I typically just stop there on my way north.
Anyway, got proper pictures now. I'll hopefully get them run through the program and take screenshots tomorrow night
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 8, 2009, 3:19 AM
Post #40 of 130
(6559 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jun 8, 2009, 8:12 AM
Post #41 of 130
(6527 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
cracklover wrote: healyje wrote: Not sure I'd characterize most of those as 'off by a little' - most look to be substantially off. Bummer indeed. Depends on your definition. Certainly most are off by only a millimeter or two. That's a very small difference in space. But what's interesting (and where I agree with you) is what a big difference in the angles that small spacial difference makes.
That's the issue - 'off by a little' when little is more than a millimeter and you now have cam angles gone wild, and those oh so very specific cam angles are the only reason we're using the damn things.
|
|
|
|
|
rightarmbad
Jun 8, 2009, 11:40 AM
Post #42 of 130
(6497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 218
|
Will somebody try running the same cam again with a different photo to see how consistent the results stack up?
Looks to me like a photo could tell a thousand lies...
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jun 8, 2009, 1:24 PM
Post #43 of 130
(6473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
rightarmbad wrote: Will somebody try running the same cam again with a different photo to see how consistent the results stack up? Looks to me like a photo could tell a thousand lies...
Forget the program, ignore all the drawn lines, just look at the axle hole locations in the two red cams above with your own eyes - what do you see?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 8, 2009, 1:41 PM
Post #45 of 130
(6462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 8, 2009, 1:51 PM
Post #46 of 130
(6449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Aric, have you run separate lobes from one unit through the program? If so, have you found variations? I'm wondering if individual lobes within one unit will tend to be different from each other.
|
|
|
|
|
GeneralZon
Jun 8, 2009, 1:52 PM
Post #47 of 130
(6448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2008
Posts: 273
|
Aric,
How are these holes being drilled? In a press using a jig? free handed?
I am having a hard time trying to figure out how any of these "mis-drilled" cams got onto the market. Seems to be a blatant disregard for any QA/QC.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 8, 2009, 2:01 PM
Post #48 of 130
(6442 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 8, 2009, 2:07 PM
Post #49 of 130
(6740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Jun 8, 2009, 2:10 PM
Post #50 of 130
(6735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
Sorry if I missed it, but the Aliens that you examined all seem to be fairly new. Has anyone looked at the drilling on older Aliens (pre-2002 maybe?)?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 8, 2009, 2:31 PM
Post #51 of 130
(6545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
adatesman wrote: GeneralZon wrote: Aric, How are these holes being drilled? In a press using a jig? free handed? I am having a hard time trying to figure out how any of these "mis-drilled" cams got onto the market. Seems to be a blatant disregard for any QA/QC. I'm 99% certain that the lobes are being made in a single operation on a lathe that has live tooling on the turret (former CCH employee confirmed my suspicion). Basically they load the extruded bar into the bar feeder and it drills holes a single lobe deep in the end, cuts the slot and then cuts that lobe off the extrusion and feeds the bar out a bit for the next lobe. Because of this there's no fixture to screw up when the hole is off center, so it can slip through unnoticed quite easily if you don't do first piece/last piece inspection.
I strongly believe that this is not a QC issue in the sense GeneralZon thinks. What I mean is that it's not just someone at CCH who knocks into the jig, getting it off-center. Rather, it looks very likely to me that the programming for the rig at CCH for some of these cam lobe drilling is simply set up wrong, and has been wrong consistently for a very long time.
I'll explain both why I think it's a matter of the program being wrong, and why I think it's been like that a very long time.
Check out these three separate yellow cams of mine:
Yellow #1
Yellow #2
Yellow #3
And check out this one of Aric's:
All are off the same amount, in the same direction! A highly unlikely coincidence IMHO. More likely the result of the programming at CCH being off.
Now - the dates. Aric's cam is straight off the factory floor - just made a couple months ago. Of my three cams, one was made in '06, one in '07, and the third was made in the very first generation of Aliens (identifiable by a different head shape, different sheath connection method, different trigger wires, etc) from the late 80s or early 90s.
I want to emphasize again, this cam: (Yellow #3)
is a living fossil. It was manufactured before any modern Aliens (actually, one just like it is in the nuts museum) and is misdrilled identically to all the modern misdrilled Yellows!
I think that speaks volumes.
GO
Edited for clarity
(This post was edited by cracklover on Jun 8, 2009, 2:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 8, 2009, 2:42 PM
Post #52 of 130
(6541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Another example...
Here's Aric's black:
And my black:
GO
|
|
|
|
|
verticon
Jun 8, 2009, 2:59 PM
Post #53 of 130
(6534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2005
Posts: 223
|
adatesman wrote: No worries... I found a decent freeware on-screen angle measurement utility that makes life easy while playing with the Cam Fitter sortware: MB-Ruler It reports far more decimal places than I think it should given that it calculates based on pixels and hand-selected points, but if you make sure to round it off it's not bad and quite easy to use. Oh, and low overhead and a small download with no ads. What's not to like?
I've been using this freeware called "Meazure" for a couple of years now.
Take a look at it, it might be more useful that the one you found.
http://www.cthing.com/Meazure.asp
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jun 8, 2009, 3:21 PM
Post #54 of 130
(6521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
cracklover wrote: I'll explain both why I think it's a matter of the program being wrong, and why I think it's been like that a very long time.
How does that stack up with the red ones that have been analyzed...?
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Jun 8, 2009, 3:47 PM
Post #55 of 130
(6507 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
cracklover wrote: All are off the same amount, in the same direction! A highly unlikely coincidence IMHO. More likely the result of the programming at CCH being off. Now - the dates. Aric's cam is straight off the factory floor - just made a couple months ago. Of my three cams, one was made in '06, one in '07, and the third was made in the very first generation of Aliens (identifiable by a different head shape, different sheath connection method, different trigger wires, etc) from the late 80s or early 90s. a living fossil. It was manufactured before any modern Aliens (actually, one just like it is in the nuts museum) and is misdrilled identically to all the modern misdrilled Yellows!
So wait, you're saying that the QC (in terms of consistency) at CCH is far better than we thought! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jun 8, 2009, 4:02 PM
Post #57 of 130
(6500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
basilisk wrote: I just recently started buying aliens to replace my other small cams.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 8, 2009, 4:05 PM
Post #58 of 130
(6499 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
bill413 wrote: cracklover wrote: All are off the same amount, in the same direction! A highly unlikely coincidence IMHO. More likely the result of the programming at CCH being off. Now - the dates. Aric's cam is straight off the factory floor - just made a couple months ago. Of my three cams, one was made in '06, one in '07, and the third was made in the very first generation of Aliens (identifiable by a different head shape, different sheath connection method, different trigger wires, etc) from the late 80s or early 90s. a living fossil. It was manufactured before any modern Aliens (actually, one just like it is in the nuts museum) and is misdrilled identically to all the modern misdrilled Yellows! So wait, you're saying that the QC (in terms of consistency) at CCH is far better than we thought!
You could put it that way. But even that is a stretch, since if I'm right, there are several different "programs" floating around at CCH for each cam lobe. Some are correct, and some are incorrect. And as far as I can tell, based on our tiny sample size, the good and bad ones seem to be totally intermingled.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Jun 8, 2009, 5:38 PM
Post #59 of 130
(6470 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
cracklover wrote: bill413 wrote: cracklover wrote: All are off the same amount, in the same direction! A highly unlikely coincidence IMHO. More likely the result of the programming at CCH being off. Now - the dates. Aric's cam is straight off the factory floor - just made a couple months ago. Of my three cams, one was made in '06, one in '07, and the third was made in the very first generation of Aliens (identifiable by a different head shape, different sheath connection method, different trigger wires, etc) from the late 80s or early 90s. a living fossil. It was manufactured before any modern Aliens (actually, one just like it is in the nuts museum) and is misdrilled identically to all the modern misdrilled Yellows! So wait, you're saying that the QC (in terms of consistency) at CCH is far better than we thought! You could put it that way. But even that is a stretch, since if I'm right, there are several different "programs" floating around at CCH for each cam lobe. Some are correct, and some are incorrect. And as far as I can tell, based on our tiny sample size, the good and bad ones seem to be totally intermingled. GO
It is consistent with a 3 jaw chuck though. If the person setting up the machine puts #1 jaw in the wrong notch the it will be off center and very constantly throughout that entire run. Say next time it's perfectly centered. The time after that it's jaw #2 that been setup wrong. Well it's off center again but this time 120° in another direction.
This is entirely a QC problem and a shop floor problem
|
|
|
|
|
chilli
Jun 8, 2009, 5:55 PM
Post #60 of 130
(6462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 401
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: ...If it were just a few thousandths of an inch, perhaps it would be no big deal... Curt From memory of work I did 6 or 8 months ago, 0.050" = not really a big deal. More than that = increasingly big deal...
being a former alien fan, i've started going the master-cam direction for the apparent similarities (IMO at least). i noticed in the master cam axle was just a smidge off in arin's pic. am i to assume, from these statements, that such a small amount is not something for me to start fretting about?
thanks for allaying my paranoia.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 8, 2009, 6:11 PM
Post #61 of 130
(6447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
rocknice2 wrote: cracklover wrote: bill413 wrote: cracklover wrote: All are off the same amount, in the same direction! A highly unlikely coincidence IMHO. More likely the result of the programming at CCH being off. Now - the dates. Aric's cam is straight off the factory floor - just made a couple months ago. Of my three cams, one was made in '06, one in '07, and the third was made in the very first generation of Aliens (identifiable by a different head shape, different sheath connection method, different trigger wires, etc) from the late 80s or early 90s. a living fossil. It was manufactured before any modern Aliens (actually, one just like it is in the nuts museum) and is misdrilled identically to all the modern misdrilled Yellows! So wait, you're saying that the QC (in terms of consistency) at CCH is far better than we thought! You could put it that way. But even that is a stretch, since if I'm right, there are several different "programs" floating around at CCH for each cam lobe. Some are correct, and some are incorrect. And as far as I can tell, based on our tiny sample size, the good and bad ones seem to be totally intermingled. GO They don't have different programs for the same lobe. Well most likely, but..???? It is consistent with a 3 jaw chuck though. If the person setting up the machine puts #1 jaw in the wrong notch the it will be off center and very constantly throughout that entire run. Say next time it's perfectly centered. The time after that it's jaw #2 that been setup wrong. Well it's off center again but this time 120° in another direction. This is entirely a QC problem and a shop floor problem
Yeah, I know absolutely nothing about how they actually cut the cam lobes, aside from what has been said here. All I can say is that there seem to be somewhat consistent errors in the direction and distance for a given size cam lobe. A larger sample size would bear this out or disprove it.
As to exactly what's causing a given cam lobe to be drilled the same wrong way consistently, some of the time, I'm all ears to anyone with more knowledge than I.
But it sure doesn't look like just a random batch-by-batch discrepancy, of someone who occasionally puts the stock in facing the wrong direction. Over the course of 20 years, those yellow Aliens that are off, are off the same amount in the same direction.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jun 8, 2009, 6:15 PM
Post #62 of 130
(6441 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Hmmm, could be combination of screw-ups as I'm guessing not all Orange cams have essentially no range like one of them did.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Jun 8, 2009, 7:50 PM
Post #63 of 130
(6407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
cracklover wrote: I'll explain both why I think it's a matter of the program being wrong, and why I think it's been like that a very long time. Check out these three separate yellow cams of mine: Yellow #1 I think that speaks volumes. GO Edited for clarity
I ran my yellow (date code 1000) through the program, and it also looks JUST LIKE THESE. Sorry, I haven't figured out the screenshot upload, so you'll have to take my word for it.
Edited - I just did the Yellow Alien again with a different photo, and the cam fitter is easily within a third of the green center circle. Pretty good repeatability. Sorry, still nothing to post up (I'm trying to get a sharper macro pic, then I'll tackle how to upload the screenshot). Oh, and the left side lobe also is off by the same amount and direction.
Edit2 - yellow dated 1000 attached.
(This post was edited by gunkiemike on Jun 8, 2009, 8:47 PM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
YellowRfit.jpg
(121 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Jun 8, 2009, 7:55 PM
Post #64 of 130
(6402 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
gunkiemike wrote: cracklover wrote: I'll explain both why I think it's a matter of the program being wrong, and why I think it's been like that a very long time. Check out these three separate yellow cams of mine: Yellow #1 I think that speaks volumes. GO Edited for clarity I ran my yellow (date code 1000) through the program, and it also looks JUST LIKE THESE. Sorry, I haven't figured out the screenshot upload, so you'll have to take my word for it.
The yellow alien I posted is date stamped April 2009 (409). Anyone else have a sneaking suspicion that every yellow alien ever made has been mis-drilled? If that's the case . . . how big of a deal could it be in the field?
If they tried responding to the mis-drilled lobes in the past, the current variation found in today's lobes could be explained by an incomplete process of fixing that.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Jun 8, 2009, 8:00 PM
Post #65 of 130
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
chilli wrote: being a former alien fan, i've started going the master-cam direction for the apparent similarities (IMO at least). i noticed in the master cam axle was just a smidge off in arin's pic. am i to assume, from these statements, that such a small amount is not something for me to start fretting about? thanks for allaying my paranoia.
Well, we know from field success that cams can have anywhere from 13.25 to 16 degree lobes and still work. I'd imagine (disclaimer - SWAG) a degree or two beyond this range would still work. So if my Alien aligns at 14 degrees instead of 16, I'm not exactly worried about that. I will have to think about what extreme (almost open vs. almost fully compressed) is more likely to be ineffective, if there can be such a judgment. And, as always, I will set the smallest cams - of all brands - behind minor bumps and pebbles, just to help it stay there under high load.
M.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 8, 2009, 8:14 PM
Post #66 of 130
(6385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jun 8, 2009, 10:38 PM
Post #67 of 130
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
I would imagine incorrect cam angles in some cases could result in much mashing and wear on lobes, particularly those with softer than intended hardness.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jun 9, 2009, 1:27 AM
Post #68 of 130
(6284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
healyje wrote: ...But at some point rational people have to accept reality, weigh the obvious risks, and make a judgment call - in this case it's, unfortunately, a no-brainer. We're lucky folks have only been injured up to now and not killed. ...
I wouldn't be so sure. Failure due to pulled pro has been reported many times. In the past it just hasn't been blamed on the manufacturer of the cam.
Someone want to start going through ANAM to see how many (espcially yellow) Aliens pulled?
(This post was edited by mheyman on Jun 9, 2009, 3:20 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 9, 2009, 1:32 AM
Post #69 of 130
(6280 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jun 9, 2009, 1:35 AM
Post #70 of 130
(6273 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
mheyman wrote: healyje wrote: ...But at some point rational people have to accept reality, weigh the obvious risks, and make a judgment call - in this case it's, unfortunately, a no-brainer. We're lucky folks have only been injured up to now and not killed. ... I would be so sure. Failure due to pulled pro has been reported many times. In the past it just hasn't been blamed on the manufacturer of the cam. Someone want to start going through ANAM to see how many (espcially yellow) Aliens pulled?
We already know of enough failures and several injuries - how many do you deem acceptable?
|
|
|
|
|
rschap
Jun 9, 2009, 2:10 AM
Post #71 of 130
(6798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 592
|
I don’t have any Aliens but I ran my Trangos though that program and they came out good. My old school flex cams didn’t line up quit right on the outside edge but 14 deg wasn’t an option and I’m pretty sure that’s what they are. My two newer flex cams lined up perfect. Anyways just thought I’d run some other brands for continuity.
|
|
Attachments:
|
#7 center.JPG
(81.7 KB)
|
|
|
#9 center.JPG
(84.2 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jun 9, 2009, 7:59 AM
Post #72 of 130
(6748 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Aric, I might have missed it along the way, but are the axles consistent in materials, size, and hardness?
|
|
|
|
|
JAB
Jun 9, 2009, 7:40 PM
Post #73 of 130
(6666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 373
|
mheyman wrote: healyje wrote: ...But at some point rational people have to accept reality, weigh the obvious risks, and make a judgment call - in this case it's, unfortunately, a no-brainer. We're lucky folks have only been injured up to now and not killed. ... I would n't be so sure. Failure due to pulled pro has been reported many times. In the past it just hasn't been blamed on the manufacturer of the cam. Someone want to start going through ANAM to see how many (espcially yellow) Aliens pulled?
Just last weekend some guy fell off a route at the crag I was at. His two top pieces popped, but the third held and he ended up a safe 5 meters from the deck. I'm sure you're not surprised to hear that the two pieces that popped were aliens. And the one that held was a green C4.
Not that I should bring anecdotal evidence into a science thread.
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Jun 9, 2009, 9:59 PM
Post #74 of 130
(6632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
marc801 wrote: basilisk wrote: I just recently started buying aliens to replace my other small cams. After everything that's been written and exposed about CCH and Aliens over the past year, why on earth would anyone do this?
Because I didn't like my other options and RC.com is silly with their fear-mongering.
Worse comes to worst, I'm cool with death. We're homies.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Jun 9, 2009, 10:07 PM
Post #75 of 130
(6627 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
basilisk wrote: marc801 wrote: basilisk wrote: I just recently started buying aliens to replace my other small cams. After everything that's been written and exposed about CCH and Aliens over the past year, why on earth would anyone do this? Because I didn't like my other options and RC.com is silly with their fear-mongering. Worse comes to worst, I'm cool with death. We're homies.
Promise to clean-up your body, too? Cuz your cleaner-uppers probably don't want to.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 9, 2009, 10:12 PM
Post #76 of 130
(5357 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: adatesman wrote: GeneralZon wrote: Aric, How are these holes being drilled? In a press using a jig? free handed? I am having a hard time trying to figure out how any of these "mis-drilled" cams got onto the market. Seems to be a blatant disregard for any QA/QC. I'm 99% certain that the lobes are being made in a single operation on a lathe that has live tooling on the turret (former CCH employee confirmed my suspicion). Basically they load the extruded bar into the bar feeder and it drills holes a single lobe deep in the end, cuts the slot and then cuts that lobe off the extrusion and feeds the bar out a bit for the next lobe. Because of this there's no fixture to screw up when the hole is off center, so it can slip through unnoticed quite easily if you don't do first piece/last piece inspection. I strongly believe that this is not a QC issue in the sense GeneralZon thinks. What I mean is that it's not just someone at CCH who knocks into the jig, getting it off-center. Rather, it looks very likely to me that the programming for the rig at CCH for some of these cam lobe drilling is simply set up wrong, and has been wrong consistently for a very long time. I'll explain both why I think it's a matter of the program being wrong, and why I think it's been like that a very long time. Check out these three separate yellow cams of mine: Yellow #1 [image]http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c150/gostriker/alien_pics/my_yell.jpg[/image] Yellow #2 [image]http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c150/gostriker/alien_pics/als_yell.jpg[/image] Yellow #3 [image]http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c150/gostriker/alien_pics/old_yellow.jpg[/image] And check out this one of Aric's: [image]http://www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/axle_center/sample20-error.JPG[/image] All are off the same amount, in the same direction! A highly unlikely coincidence IMHO. More likely the result of the programming at CCH being off. Now - the dates. Aric's cam is straight off the factory floor - just made a couple months ago. Of my three cams, one was made in '06, one in '07, and the third was made in the very first generation of Aliens (identifiable by a different head shape, different sheath connection method, different trigger wires, etc) from the late 80s or early 90s. I want to emphasize again, this cam: (Yellow #3) [image]http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c150/gostriker/alien_pics/old_yellow.jpg[/image] is a living fossil. It was manufactured before any modern Aliens (actually, one just like it is in the nuts museum) and is misdrilled identically to all the modern misdrilled Yellows! I think that speaks volumes. GO Edited for clarity
I found that results from this program vary according to the camera angle. Anyone else having that problem?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 9, 2009, 10:22 PM
Post #77 of 130
(5349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 9, 2009, 10:30 PM
Post #78 of 130
(5337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
^^^ what he said.
But frankly, when I tried to create variance by getting further or closer, I wound up with essentially identical results. So, basically, if you can shoot straight on (lined up with the axle) your results should be quite consistent.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
boku
Jun 9, 2009, 10:56 PM
Post #79 of 130
(5324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 278
|
adatesman wrote: Average Lobe Hardness: -Lobe 1: HRB55 -Lobe 2: HRB53 -Lobe 3: HRB52 -Lobe 4: HRB23 (not a typo)
[off-topic]
That reminds me, can you test the hardness of the lobes of that KROK cam I tore apart? I can mail them to you next week. It might make for an interesting comparison.
Thanks, Bob K.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 10, 2009, 11:04 PM
Post #80 of 130
(5237 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Jun 12, 2009, 9:16 PM
Post #81 of 130
(5124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
I just went through all my cams. For Aliens, Black, Blue x2, Green x2, Red, Grey, Yellow, and Gold.
The two blue aliens, one from 2004, one so old it doesn't have a date code, are pretty much identical to the two GO posted. Really if I posted them you'd think I just copied GO's images. All the others pretty much match up as well. All but the gold are pre-recall.
All the others; 8 WC Tech Friends, 2 WC Zeros, 5 Camlot (old), 2 Camalot C4s, 2 Metolius Master Cams... all there rest are pretty much spot.
Aric, if you want the images, I'll zip 'em and email them to you. But given the results, I don't think it's worth posting them to the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
jfield
Jun 13, 2009, 10:41 PM
Post #82 of 130
(5062 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 5
|
Excellent that somewhat is using the program at last. It has been most frustrating to me that this very important safety issue has lingered on and on for years, and I am glad for everybody's is attention to it now, especially adatesman.
Anyway, I just wanted to mention a few things for people who are interested in the cam fitting.
1) I'd love to hear from you. Please drop me a line. I am at 'jfield' on my home address on dorringtoninstruments.com
2) Yeah, the automatic mode is very picky. Sorry. I never really finished the image processing. Maybe if the interest continues, I'll go back to it.
3)Care must be used when fitting Metolius Supercam angles. These cams use a specially designed non-constant cam angle[ log(a*theta +b*theta^3) ] that flares out so as to improve safety near the tip out point - e.g. towards the outer end of the cam range, there is a point where you become more worried about tipping out than about slipping, and therefore it makes sense to trade off the forces applied to the rock near the maximum extension to reduce axle bending when near the tip out limit. Therefore, exact matching is not possible in the program for supercam axles. The induced error is pretty small though.
4)For the geeks, go check out the CT scan X-ray of the supercam at dorringtonclimbing.com/CT
It's fun to play with and see the insides of the thing.
cheers
John Field
|
|
|
|
|
bradley3297
Jun 14, 2009, 1:49 AM
Post #84 of 130
(5020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2008
Posts: 83
|
all three of my aliens had at least 1 mis-centered lobe on all of them. there are very new... cch pissing me off. maybe ill whip on one with a bomber c4 backing it up to see how well it does.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 14, 2009, 1:55 AM
Post #85 of 130
(5019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bradley3297 wrote: all three of my aliens had at least 1 mis-centered lobe on all of them. there are very new... cch pissing me off. maybe ill whip on one with a bomber c4 backing it up to see how well it does.
You need a control group in order to determine whether you are aligning the camera lens properly with the cam axle. I got alarming results with my Aliens, but then found the same alarming results with my Camalots. A little experimentation showed that the results are sensitive to the camera angle. I still can't figure out how to align the camera reliably, however.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Jun 14, 2009, 3:41 AM
Post #86 of 130
(4994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
Search the forum on "Yellow alien pulled" and you will find a 2006 thread discussing the mystery of yellow aliens failing in 'perfectly good placements.'
-Kate.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 14, 2009, 3:55 AM
Post #87 of 130
(4986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Strange, Jay. You had me wondering about my results, so I just took a whole round of six photos of the same cam, from slightly different angles, in different light. They all show the same thing, except one very blurry one where I guess the software didn't pick up the edge properly.
Unfortunately, the only other small cam I have to run through the software is a single TCU, and that one came out looking perfect.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 14, 2009, 4:09 AM
Post #88 of 130
(4978 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: Strange, Jay. You had me wondering about my results, so I just took a whole round of six photos of the same cam, from slightly different angles, in different light. They all show the same thing, except one very blurry one where I guess the software didn't pick up the edge properly. Unfortunately, the only other small cam I have to run through the software is a single TCU, and that one came out looking perfect. GO
I'll post the results of my varying the camera angles when I have a chance.
Can you give me some information about how you're shooting: type of camera, lens, distance from the cam, etc? And how are you positioning the cam? If I lay the cam on a surface, I find that it tilts to one side or the other? Are you doing anything to keep the axis of the axle vertical?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 14, 2009, 2:03 PM
Post #89 of 130
(4934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 14, 2009, 2:40 PM
Post #90 of 130
(4922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: Hey Jay, Are you manually selecting the points or letting the software do it automatically? That's the biggest issue I had with it and found it to be much more tolerant of skew when manually selecting them. I got an email from the guy who wrote it last night and he said he didn't finish the image processing as well as he wanted to because there didn't seem to be much interest in the axle location issue so he moved onto other things. My pics were shot on an Olympus Stylus 1020 point&shoot with most being done in super-macro mode (lens ~2" or so from the cam). I simply did it by hand, centered on the axle and then rotated just enough to hide the lobe on the other side and give a nice sharp edge for the top lobe. The other thing I tried (and had success with) was putting a thick washer around the nut on the cam (so the cam lobe would balance on the washer rather than the nut/axle) and then carefully balancing it on a flatbed scanner. You have to make sure to have the other lobes rotated a bit so they don't show up in the scan, but it isn't too hard to do.
Originally I was letting the software fit the curve. Later I tried picking the points myself, which did result in the center being better positioned. However, when the software drew the curve it visually appeared to be a better fit than when I selected the points. So, I am not convinced that the better center found when I picked the points was not due to my error.
I also tried using a scanner, but all I got was a nice sharp scan of the axle; the cam lobe was too blurry to use.
I'll have to fool around with it more. But it's pretty academic for me at this point, given the apparent issue with the brazes.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Jun 14, 2009, 11:03 PM
Post #91 of 130
(4889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
I'm using a canon a640 in macro mode, holding it about 4 inches away from the cam.
The biggest problem I encountered was with older cams; the outside edges are worn and rounded; it's easy to see in the color photos, but when they are turned to grayscale in the program, the shiny rounded edges can hide the darker, physical middle of the lobe and this throws off the curve. Had to carefully manually pick the darker, middle of the lobe to get an accurate curve.
I think maybe putting a white sheet of paper behind the outside lobe may make it easier to pick out the edges of the lobe but I didn't want to go through it all again when the results of manually picking out the lobes were consistent with the non-aliens.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 15, 2009, 1:39 PM
Post #92 of 130
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Canon powershot sd1000.
I've varied the background, and varied between shooting with a macro at a couple of inches, or shooting from ~ 3 feet away. They both gave me similar results. The trouble with shooting from further away was that it was hard to hide the rear cam lobe and still center on the axle. Of course if you're manually selecting point on the software, it doesn't matter if you hide the rear lobe or not.
I always used the manual selection in the software, as I found it did a better job of matching the edge of the cam.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
TradEddie
Jun 18, 2009, 2:01 AM
Post #93 of 130
(4953 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Posts: 164
|
Another non-Alien image analysis, Black Metolius, made about 2000.
Also Aric, if you want these lobes for any testing, let me know, and thanks for all the hard work you've done recently.
TradEddie
|
|
Attachments:
|
camresult2.jpg
(86.4 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 18, 2009, 2:09 AM
Post #94 of 130
(4948 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
dj69
Jun 18, 2009, 2:28 AM
Post #95 of 130
(4937 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2006
Posts: 43
|
mheyman wrote: Someone want to start going through ANAM to see how many (espcially yellow) Aliens pulled?
this accident comes to mind.. i remember everyone laughing.. saying it was impossible that an alien slipped out from the crack. Maybe due mis-centered axel?
e_wire wrote: An experienced climber (a very good friend of mine), suffured injuries to his left wrist after falling 25 feet when climbing in the Montreal, Quebec region this week-end. Apparently, a Green Alien "poped" after the climber felt. The Alien was placed at about knee level when the climber felt. The route was a 5.10b (named: Samourai) located in Val David, North of Montreal. Another climber, a very well know trad teacher in the area, reported seeing and earing the pro pop like a bottle of champaign. The pro was well placed, and didn't walk. The Alien also looks pretty good, after examination. Only explanation from both the climber, belayer and spectator, is that the Alien slipped out of the rock due to some humidity in the crack. It's not the first accident reported on Aliens, please be on the lookout for tricky placements! The climber was operated Sunday and will most likelly suffer for several months. Hopefully he'll get back to 100%, but doctors are not that optmistic. Tks.
(thread link http://www.rockclimbing.com/...35838&highlight=)
D
(This post was edited by dj69 on Jun 18, 2009, 2:30 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jun 18, 2009, 3:06 AM
Post #96 of 130
(4921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
Although I probably would have agreed with many of the replies at th time, look at tthe bashing this guy took.
Perhaps he'll get it checked out.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 18, 2009, 4:09 AM
Post #97 of 130
(4908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: Posted this in one of the other Alien threads since it was in response to a question there, but probably should have been put here... Here's the scoop on Healyje's Offsets... I'm sure everyone's tired of scrolling past pics, so here's a link to them. Same deal as before, with Red being at mostly closed, Yellow at ~50% and Blue at almost tipped out. All of them are stamped 12/04 except for the Blue/Black, which is stamped 03/05. Blue/Black Lobe 1: -Red: 16 - 5.8 = 10.2 Degrees -Yellow: 16 + 0 = 16 Degrees -Blue: 16 + 2.4 = 18.4 Degrees Blue/Black Lobe 2: -Red: 16 - 9.2 = 6.8 Degrees -Yellow: 16 + 2.7 = 18.7 Degrees -Blue: 16 + 7.5 = 23.5 Degrees Blue/Green Lobe 1: -Red: 16 - 6.7 = 9.3 Degrees -Yellow: 16 + 1.5 = 17.5 Degrees -Blue: 16 + 4.3 = 20.3 Degrees Blue/Green Lobe 2: -Red: 16 - 1.7 = 14.3 Degrees -Yellow: 16 + 1.5 = 17.5 Degrees -Blue: 16 + 2.6 = 18.6 Degrees Yellow/Green Lobe 1: -Red: 16 - 1.8 = 14.2 Degrees -Yellow: 16 - 1.7 = 14.3 Degrees -Blue: 16 + 0.7 = 15.3 Degrees Yellow/Green Lobe 2: -Red: 16 + 7.3 = 23.3 Degrees -Yellow: 16 + 2.0 = 18.0 Degrees -Blue: 16 - 2.4 = 13.6 Degrees Yellow/Red Lobe 1: -Red: 16 + 5.9 = 21.9 Degrees -Yellow: 16 + 2.0 = 18.0 Degrees -Blue: 16 - 1.5 = 14.5 Degrees Yellow/Red Lobe 2: -Red: 16 + 4.2 = 11.8 Degrees -Yellow: 16 + 0.6 = 16.6 Degrees -Blue: 16 - 1.5 = 14.5 Degrees
Aric, every time I look at results like this, the first question that pops into my head is, "How do these compare with other brands of cams?" I honestly think that it is imperative that each time you present results for Aliens, that you include results for other brands, as a control—at a minimum, include a link to such results. Otherwise, you are essentially presenting the results of an uncontrolled experiment. The reader has no way of knowing whether these results are unusual, or not.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jun 18, 2009, 4:17 AM
Post #98 of 130
(4904 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
I'll post this here, too - a quick plot showing the relationship between coefficient of friction and the critical angle at which a cam will slip under any force. Blue boxes = approximate range of frictional coefficients between rock and aluminium. Green = sliding friction coefficient between aluminium and mild steel; purple = static coefficient between same.
|
|
Attachments:
|
critical_angles.gif
(9.19 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 18, 2009, 2:21 PM
Post #99 of 130
(4868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
apeman_e
Jun 18, 2009, 4:35 PM
Post #101 of 130
(5201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2008
Posts: 212
|
My green and yellow aliens are mis-centered, so I figured I'd send an email to Nadia at CCH and ask if they are aware of this problem.
She replied that yes, they "have checked out" the dorringtonclimbing.com software, and no, they have not heard about any mis-centered cam lobes.
Hard to believe, but far from surprising.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 18, 2009, 6:11 PM
Post #102 of 130
(5154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
cracklover wrote: blondgecko wrote: I'll post this here, too - a quick plot showing the relationship between coefficient of friction and the critical angle at which a cam will slip under any force. Blue boxes = approximate range of frictional coefficients between rock and aluminium. Green = sliding friction coefficient between aluminium and mild steel; purple = static coefficient between same. Could you explain this chart a little better? I may be the only one dense enough not to understand, so if you'd humor me I'd be grateful. GO
The chart just shows that as the coefficient of friction between the cam and the other surface decreases, you need a smaller cam angle in order for the cam to hold. The green line is "inside" the purple line because the coefficient of dynamic friction (which is what you have after the surfaces have begun to move against each other) is always smaller than the coefficient of static friction.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 18, 2009, 6:40 PM
Post #103 of 130
(5137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
curt wrote: cracklover wrote: blondgecko wrote: I'll post this here, too - a quick plot showing the relationship between coefficient of friction and the critical angle at which a cam will slip under any force. Blue boxes = approximate range of frictional coefficients between rock and aluminium. Green = sliding friction coefficient between aluminium and mild steel; purple = static coefficient between same. Could you explain this chart a little better? I may be the only one dense enough not to understand, so if you'd humor me I'd be grateful. GO The chart just shows that as the coefficient of friction between the cam and the other surface decreases, you need a smaller cam angle in order for the cam to hold. The green line is "inside" the purple line because the coefficient of dynamic friction (which is what you have after the surfaces have begun to move against each other) is always smaller than the coefficient of static friction. Curt
Sure, that's all clear, and nothing new. The question is what do the two light blue boxes, the one dark blue box, and the white box represent? I thought they were adding something to the discussion.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 18, 2009, 6:48 PM
Post #104 of 130
(5129 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
cracklover wrote: curt wrote: cracklover wrote: blondgecko wrote: I'll post this here, too - a quick plot showing the relationship between coefficient of friction and the critical angle at which a cam will slip under any force. Blue boxes = approximate range of frictional coefficients between rock and aluminium. Green = sliding friction coefficient between aluminium and mild steel; purple = static coefficient between same. Could you explain this chart a little better? I may be the only one dense enough not to understand, so if you'd humor me I'd be grateful. GO The chart just shows that as the coefficient of friction between the cam and the other surface decreases, you need a smaller cam angle in order for the cam to hold. The green line is "inside" the purple line because the coefficient of dynamic friction (which is what you have after the surfaces have begun to move against each other) is always smaller than the coefficient of static friction. Curt Sure, that's all clear, and nothing new. The question is what do the two light blue boxes, the one dark blue box, and the white box represent? I thought they were adding something to the discussion. GO
I think those just show the sort of "normal" ranges for coefficients of friction and the corresponding cam angles needed.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Jun 18, 2009, 6:54 PM
Post #105 of 130
(5123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
curt wrote: I think those just show the sort of "normal" ranges for coefficients of friction and the corresponding cam angles needed. Curt
"Normal" meaning rock/aluminium interface instead of steel/aluminum.
It's a nice picture but the meaning of the chart could be distilled as follows:
Static friction of steel/aluminum --> 31 deg cam angle
Dynamic friction steel/aluminum --> 25 deg cam angle
Friction (static?) rock/aluminum --> range 15-27 deg cam angle
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 18, 2009, 7:11 PM
Post #106 of 130
(5111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: Aric, every time I look at results like this, the first question that pops into my head is, "How do these compare with other brands of cams?" I honestly think that it is imperative that each time you present results for Aliens, that you include results for other brands, as a control—at a minimum, include a link to such results. Otherwise, you are essentially presenting the results of an uncontrolled experiment. The reader has no way of knowing whether these results are unusual, or not. Jay I guess I don't see the point, Jay, as the results from a bunch of other cams are back in the OP of this thread. I didn't measure the angles for them as they're all really close to correct and most likely within the error induced by the photos and Cam Fitter software.
But that's exactly the kind of quantitative data we need to draw conclusions about brand! That's what doing controlled experiments means! You have to have a control group that you do the same measurements on. And then you compare the results of the control group with the hypothesis group.
So the first problem is that there is missing control group data.
The second problem is presentation. The data are scattered through multiple posts in multiple threads, and for the most part, only the raw data are presented. You don't have a table anywhere summarizing the data. If I wanted to know (and I do want to) how many Aliens and non-Aliens you've measured angles on, how many were scanned vs. photographed, what the average deviation from advertised cam angle was per brand, what one source could I go to for that information. The narratives and the pictures are great—necessary, even—but the data has to be summarized too. When you read a published paper, you can look at a few tables and understand the main study results. That's what's missing here, I think. I think what you should do is to summarize all the data you have in a single table and post that table in the OP of this thread.
Edit: To summarize:
1. All the data should be in a single spreadsheet, or database.
2. The data from that database should be summarized into a single table that is prominently included in the OP.
3. As new data is obtained, it should be added to the database in (1) and the table (2) should be updated.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 18, 2009, 7:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 18, 2009, 7:15 PM
Post #107 of 130
(5106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 18, 2009, 7:17 PM
Post #108 of 130
(5101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: Gotcha, and I think you have a very good point about the info being too spread out. I'll see about adding a summary in the OP.
Not just a summary, but a summary table. If you want help with the layout of the table, let me know.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 18, 2009, 7:32 PM
Post #109 of 130
(5091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 18, 2009, 10:00 PM
Post #110 of 130
(5064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: Yup, that's what I meant. Formatting here in the forum sucks so I'll do it up in Excel and post a screenshot of it. Sound good?
Sounds really good.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Jun 19, 2009, 12:23 AM
Post #111 of 130
(5041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
adatesman wrote: Gotcha, and I think you have a very good point about the info being too spread out. I'll see about adding a summary in the OP.
I scanned 3 Metolius cams and a rigid Friend. All looked very centered. I can email you the screenshots if you want to measure the angles.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Jun 19, 2009, 2:35 AM
Post #112 of 130
(5011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: Yup, that's what I meant. Formatting here in the forum sucks so I'll do it up in Excel and post a screenshot of it. Sound good? Sounds really good.
Except not a screen shot of a spreadsheet - you mean attaching it or linking to it, right?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 19, 2009, 2:52 AM
Post #113 of 130
(5006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
mojomonkey wrote: jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: Yup, that's what I meant. Formatting here in the forum sucks so I'll do it up in Excel and post a screenshot of it. Sound good? Sounds really good. Except not a screen shot of a spreadsheet - you mean attaching it or linking to it, right?
We need two things:
1. A downloadable spreadsheet containing all the data.
2. A table summarizing the data.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Jun 19, 2009, 3:21 AM
Post #114 of 130
(5001 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
I suppose that if you can't put the spreadsheet up here, you could use Google docs.
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 19, 2009, 5:38 AM
Post #115 of 130
(4979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
jt512 wrote: Aric, every time I look at results like this, the first question that pops into my head is, "How do these compare with other brands of cams?" I honestly think that it is imperative that each time you present results for Aliens, that you include results for other brands, as a control—at a minimum, include a link to such results. Otherwise, you are essentially presenting the results of an uncontrolled experiment. The reader has no way of knowing whether these results are unusual, or not.
this is waht i was getting at with my half-ass post on the other lab thread.
i see that folks are putting together a spreadsheet of data. im happy to hear this, and id like to chip in. im willing to scan in the bulk of my rack (any cams that are still being sold, anyways), but want to make sure im doing it right before i do all that work.
i just did an initial trial of photos, and found that i was getting very different results between photos of the same lobe. i standardized it by making a tracing of my camera (canon sd1000) on the white paper, and marking the center of the lense, and putting a tiny plumb line on the corner of the camera.
i put the axle on top of the center-lense mark ont eh paper. put the plumb over the corner of the tracing. then aim the center of the focus reticle on the camera at the center of the axle. my results are now precise, but not necessarily accurate. my rock empire cam (which i have never heard of problems with, and had heard of being spot-on in this or another similar thread) has waht i woudl consider a significant axle deviation. (i dont know if this is due to camera problems, or me problems, or whether it is insignificant, or what, but its consistent between four photos)
anyways- are the photos enoguh for a data-person to make a spreadsheet? what is qunatifiable? mm deviation from center? direction of deviation? this is tricky to figure out from the photos, although it can be reasonably estimated if a person is familiar with the cam, or has it in hand.
short story- if i want to submit data to the big spreadsheet, how do you want it, so it is as best standardized as possible?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 19, 2009, 6:04 AM
Post #116 of 130
(5215 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
sixleggedinsect wrote: i just did an initial trial of photos, and found that i was getting very different results between photos of the same lobe. i standardized it by making a tracing of my camera (canon sd1000) on the white paper, and marking the center of the lense, and putting a tiny plumb line on the corner of the camera. i put the axle on top of the center-lense mark ont eh paper. put the plumb over the corner of the tracing. then aim the center of the focus reticle on the camera at the center of the axle. my results are now precise, but not necessarily accurate. my rock empire cam (which i have never heard of problems with, and had heard of being spot-on in this or another similar thread) has waht i woudl consider a significant axle deviation. (i dont know if this is due to camera problems, or me problems, or whether it is insignificant, or what, but its consistent between four photos)
Besides having the camera lens centered on the center of the cam axle, the aim of the camera must be in line with the cam axle. So, if either the cam or the camera is tilted (but not at the same angle), then the measurement will be off.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 19, 2009, 6:18 AM
Post #117 of 130
(5204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
jt512 wrote: Besides having the camera lens centered on the center of the cam axle, the aim of the camera must be in line with the cam axle. So, if either the cam or the camera is tilted (but not at the same angle), then the measurement will be off.
im pretty sure that my system (at least theoretically) controls for tilt and axle-lense axis. however, with these short distances im sure that even little errors compound to big discrepancies- its just i dont know whether they matter.
edit: two plumb lines (from different corners) would make it even more accurate, but im confident that plane is easy to eyeball and woudlnt make a big difference in results.
so- are the fitted photos the data-submission mech of choice?
(This post was edited by sixleggedinsect on Jun 19, 2009, 6:21 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 19, 2009, 6:25 AM
Post #118 of 130
(5199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
sixleggedinsect wrote: jt512 wrote: Besides having the camera lens centered on the center of the cam axle, the aim of the camera must be in line with the cam axle. So, if either the cam or the camera is tilted (but not at the same angle), then the measurement will be off. im pretty sure that my system (at least theoretically) controls for tilt and axle-lense axis. however, with these short distances im sure that even little errors compound to big discrepancies- its just i dont know whether they matter. edit: two plumb lines (from different corners) would make it even more accurate, but im confident that plane is easy to eyeball and woudlnt make a big difference in results. so- are the fitted photos the data-submission mech of choice?
To be honest with you, I don't see data submission as a collaborative effort. I'd rather see Aric produce all the data.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 19, 2009, 6:34 AM
Post #119 of 130
(5192 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
jt512 wrote: To be honest with you, I don't see data submission as a collaborative effort. I'd rather see Aric produce all the data.
an excellent way to standardize the data! are we paying him yet?
so, no cam photos useful, Aric?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 19, 2009, 6:43 AM
Post #120 of 130
(5186 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
sixleggedinsect wrote: jt512 wrote: To be honest with you, I don't see data submission as a collaborative effort. I'd rather see Aric produce all the data. an excellent way to standardize the data!
Well, standardization is kind of the whole point.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 19, 2009, 7:09 AM
Post #121 of 130
(5182 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
jt512 wrote: Well, standardization is kind of the whole point.
i compeltely agree that std's are necessary to make any real conclusions. i just recognize that aric seems like he has a fulltime unpaid job doing the heavy lifting, and i wonder if i could help out, while maintaining the necessary standardization. the photo 'jig' i described was a way of demonstrating what i was doing to get repeatable results, as the photo taking is the only non-checkable (by you or aric or anyone else) part of the data collection process. everything else can be submitted neatly as a screenshot off the cam fitter.
i know he says he likes breaking stuff, but taking photos of cams and measuring angles is a far cry from destroying gear.
anyways, bowing out unless i hear i could be useful here.
-ant
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 19, 2009, 12:46 PM
Post #122 of 130
(5164 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Jun 19, 2009, 11:57 PM
Post #123 of 130
(5114 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
adatesman wrote: But this is important, so I'm more than willing to do it.
Thank you.
Question for everybody photographing the cams - are you trying to hand hold? To set up individually for each cam? Or are you using some sort of jig to ensure reproducibility?
(these questions are meant as a suggestion...)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 20, 2009, 12:22 AM
Post #124 of 130
(5106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 20, 2009, 7:13 PM
Post #125 of 130
(5097 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
adatesman wrote: FWIW mine were all hand held. I balanced the camera on something solid (pint glass, nalgene, whatever was handy) with one hand and then lined up the cam with the other. And by 'lining up' I mean centered the axle in the frame with it out of alignment and then rotated it whichever direction was necessary to get the sides of the head/nut to disappear (which would indicate proper alignment due to how the lens sees the image). Only issue I ran into was making sure that there was enough light to allow for a somewhat fast shutter speed to make sure there'd be little blur from holding the cam by hand.
This method is adequate to see gross axle misplacement, but for any cams in which the axle sticks out past the face of the cam a significant ratio to the cam size (as is typical with the smallest Aliens) it is possible to get results that are off by a mm+ (a significant amount for these tiny cams).
In particular, if you're using a macro mode, it is very easy to hide the rear lobes, but still be off quite a bit from center. In fact, sometime hiding the rear lobes *forces* you to take the photo from the wrong angle. Better to include the rear lobes and then manually select the point on the dorrington software.
For these little cams, you either need to dissect the cam and put the lobes on a scanner, or be extremely precise in lining up the cam to the camera.
Here's an example with a black Alien:
Shot from too far to the left:
Centered:
Shot from too far to the right:
So, obviously, this cam is drilled in the wrong place, there's little doubt about that. But to find out exactly by how much, and in which direction, requires more precision than you can easily get handheld.
Again, on bigger cams, or cams with axles that don't stick out as far, handheld works perfectly well.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 22, 2009, 6:12 AM
Post #127 of 130
(1716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
bill413 wrote: Question for everybody photographing the cams - are you trying to hand hold? To set up individually for each cam? Or are you using some sort of jig to ensure reproducibility?
i was hand-holding, but my plumb-line, backdrop camera trace, etc etc setup got me very very reproducible results. i would guess that i was no more than +/- 2 (ish) mm from perfect when taking photos about four inches away from teh cam, and i was hoping this was as good as was needed. four or five photos yielded the same results (hand-selecting points because the light was low, the predicted axle centers were all in the same quadrant and wtihin a mm or so of each other) and i felt that at least i was precise, if not accurate.
i recall that this was mentioned before, but since we're on teh subject ill throw it back out there-
i woudl have thought that the best way to get good results was to get the camera far away from the axle, and optically zoomed in. then just crop the photo before putting it into the cam fitter.
if you are a cm off center from ten feet away, this is a tiny fraction of a degree off compared to 2mm off from four inches away.
to get things centered up from that far away would be very tricky once, but then wiht a little masking tape it could be repeated again and again with no exciting/time consuming setup.
edit: possible 'jig' setup:
snap a chalk line on the floor. put a piece of white paper against the wall with a black line on it riding up off the floor at a perpendicular. tape it there, and put a third-hand soldering/etc arm next to it. the cam should be placed upside down, resting on the floor, with the axle carefully inline with the chalk (or masking tape and sharpie) on the floor. the third-hand arm (or hwatever) holds the stem up and in place. non-offset cams should self-level the axle with respect to the floor, which is probably level enough for these purposes.
then step back to the end of the chalk. mark the distance. sit the camera on shims until the center of the lense is the height of the center of the axle, and take a photo with the optical zoom all the way up and the image centered on the axle (most cameras have a center reticle depending on their focus mode).
lots and lots of light on the cam, from many directions, will make your life easier. i think this woudl be pretty quick to setup, and you could come back to it later and do more.
jsut a thought.
(This post was edited by sixleggedinsect on Jun 22, 2009, 6:26 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Jun 22, 2009, 11:29 AM
Post #128 of 130
(1694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
sixleggedinsect wrote: bill413 wrote: Question for everybody photographing the cams - are you trying to hand hold? To set up individually for each cam? Or are you using some sort of jig to ensure reproducibility? i was hand-holding, but my plumb-line, backdrop camera trace, etc etc setup got me very very reproducible results. i would guess that i was no more than +/- 2 (ish) mm from perfect when taking photos about four inches away from teh cam, and i was hoping this was as good as was needed. four or five photos yielded the same results (hand-selecting points because the light was low, the predicted axle centers were all in the same quadrant and wtihin a mm or so of each other) and i felt that at least i was precise, if not accurate.
As far as your marking & setup idea, I think of a tripod for the camera instead of shims, but what you're saying should be equivalent.
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 22, 2009, 11:36 AM
Post #129 of 130
(1687 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
bill413 wrote: As far as your marking & setup idea, I think of a tripod for the camera instead of shims, but what you're saying should be equivalent.
tripod + water level = look good doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
