|
leinosaur
Mar 24, 2004, 6:25 PM
Post #126 of 130
(7154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 690
|
I'm still curious about what "agenda" crotch thinks rc.com's "employees" are promoting - I THINK that was what was implied by the hahahahahahahahahahahahaha stuff. I'm just curious, as I try to be aware of whatever brainwashing I'm undergoing.
rrrAdam was trying - perhaps overzealously - to promote safety. Not much of an "agenda" to complain of, surely?
curious
leinosaur
|
|
|
|
|
vulgarian
Mar 24, 2004, 6:32 PM
Post #127 of 130
(7154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 381
|
Jeez, Jay you're a methodocical bastard. Actually, I always enjoy reading your verbal slaying of some poor nincompoop. But in reading this it occured to me that this how you wore down poor Hillary into dating you. You just kept throwing logic and probability at her until she cracked. :lol: Good methodology! :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 24, 2004, 6:57 PM
Post #128 of 130
(7154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Quoting: So the "strength of a sling" is not that fixed of a value. We rate these slings at 22 kN. And over the course of 14 months, we saw a strength range of 22.8 to 30.8 kN in individual pieces that we tested ( a range of 30% of the total strength ).
Over a large number of samples, the range would be at least 6 standard deviations (ie, ± 3 SD) . 30% / 6 = 5%, which is consistent with the test data I saw and used. This should also satisfy beesty's concern about small sample sizes.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
andypro
Mar 24, 2004, 7:25 PM
Post #129 of 130
(7154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1077
|
Confucius, The Analects, Book 2, Passage 22:
In reply to: The master said, 'I do not see how a man can be acceptable who is untrustworthy in word? When a pin is missin in the yoke-bar of a large cart, or the collar bar of a small cart, how can the cart be expected to go?'
This applies to quite a few things going on in what little of this thread I have read (I'm not going through 9 pages of bitching and whining).
Most recently: Jay may come across like a jerkoff sometimes to alot of people, but it's not because he's a dick, it's becuase he knows what he's tlaking about, and generally doens't get on his rants unless he does, and NO, I'm not kissing his ass...I've been one to get pissed at him from time to time and call him names. But, what it boils down to, is that he's got the knowledge in his head, and in his practice, and people jsut dont like to be told they're wrong, even if they are. JT tells people they're wrong all the time though. Hence, the battle ensues.
More overall: Theres alot on this site that is jsut plain rediculous. I had a bunhc of posts going in that thread about the keychain biners, and I realized it was rediculous and should probably jsut be left alone, but I was having fun with it. So that was like 3 posts I made in that short lived thread that got wiped out. Do you see me getting all bent out of shape? Heres a hint: no. It really really was a stupid thread. Someone could read it and go out and think "well hell, if a KB will hold a fall, I'll jsut use it for TR" or something silly like that. With the prolifery of mis-information that flies around on this site, it's not entirely bad that it's kept in check soemtimes. How many threads a day, or sometimes every HOUR are started with the basic premise that the person has no idea what they're doing, is new, and wants to know some information on this or that. It's to an extent irresponsible to have these noobs believing something that is most certianly fatal, yet it happens on a daily basis if one actually happened to use the search function.
All I'm saying is that while this may be a generally very liberal site in policing what is posted, you cant expect everyone to realize this right from the start. We also cant expect everyone to know the basic stupid things that those of us climbing 10 or more years now think are so taken for granted.
|
|
|
|
|
drunkencabanaboy
Mar 24, 2004, 8:39 PM
Post #130 of 130
(7154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 10, 2004
Posts: 153
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: With all that said, it is of course true that the probability of a chain of slings failing is higher (at a given load) than a single sling failing, but linking a small number (like 6 or 10) slings together does not dramatically decrease the breaking strength. Wrong. The function that determines mean breaking strength for a chain of slings quickly approaches a particular number in our case. At "6 to 10 slings" you are almost there. Check jt's data table to see some numbers for yourself. Looking at your cumulative percentage column, 6 to 10 slings reduces the breaking strength by only 8 or 9%, which I would agree is not a "dramatic" decrease in strength. -Jay
well it doesn't get much more dramatic - it appears to be approaching some number around 11.
9% drop in sling strength is about as dramatic as it gets. So in the context of this 0-11% range, I don't know who would say 9% isn't dramatic. Infact it would be more true to say "adding slings on after around 15 slings doesn't result in a dramatic decrease in strength".
In fact, the most dramatic change in sling strength occurs when you add _just one_ sling (2 sling chain). From there adding more slings gets less and less "dramatic".
I guess it just depends on your perspective. But his comment suggested that "6-10 slings" wasn't bad - but more slings were - which is not very true.if you have slung together 6-10 slings, you might as well add more if you have to - because you have almost topped out the drop in strength anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
