by builttospill » Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:43 am
by brenta » Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:35 am
brenta wrote:"Did we ever concern ourselves with the specs of the rope (diameter, impact force rating,...)? No, because from the beginning we stipulated to work only with a qualitative version of Hooke's law that makes no distinction between a Mammut Tusk and a Beal Stinger. In sum, our conclusion for the ideal case continues to hold in the real world."
brenta wrote:"Once we understand the basic argument, we see how to apply it to other factors. For instance, do we need to assume that the two climbers have the same initial speed? Of course not. Hence, the fact that they didn't have clean falls does not trouble us (though it's likely to trouble them)."
by brenta » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:53 am
The Chief wrote:Odd, as leader speed increase (distance) or decreases, you are saying that it doesn't play a major factor in the initial Impact Forces on both the elongation properties of the rope and the initial force exerted on the follower? Nor the distance of rope out between climbers either?
brenta wrote:Take it easy, one sentence at a time, figure out what it means--which is not whatever hogwash you'd like me to say so that you could prove it wrong--until the big picture emerges.
by brenta » Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:30 pm
The Chief wrote:I have Fabio and I aint trying to prove you wrong nor potentially deflate your intellectual PhD ego. Get over that.
The Chief wrote:Out the door to work on another project and probably will take a couple of whippers in the process.
by phlipdascrip » Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:03 pm
phlipdascrip wrote: But hey trying something out one way first and figuring out why it didn't work later on might work just as fine as the other way around. As for this case, any volunteers? Chief?
FortMental wrote:As a first approximation of a non-dynamic fall, we should take Chief and tie him into 1,000 feet of quadruple static line. Then, anchor him to a dynamometer, the top of the Leaning Tower, push him off, then see if those "basic laws" are consistent with theory.
After that, we should take both halves of his body, put them in a burlap potato sack, and tie him into 300 feet of rubber bands (the kind they use to roll newspapers in) and drop him again as a 1st approximation of a purely dynamic system. Of course, we'll have to test and re-test a few dozen times till we get the sack to gently slow to a stop 1/4 inch from the ground....
Now.... I know this wouldn't be a real world scenario, but it would put end-member constraints on the forces expected when we drop a load of crap in a static vs. dynamic condition.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests