Let's start from the end...
The Chief wrote:But please, do carry on with your hypothetical science of this situ.
...and remove a bit of confusion. There are two sub-threads to this discussion.
1. Analysis of Tom and Bill's accident. This is what you focused on in your initial comment, saying that you would have rather soloed. I disagreed, and still do, but there was nothing that one would identify with science in that sub-thread. So, your exhortation to "carry on" must refer to the other sub-thread, namely,
2. Analysis of a second's fall that pulls the first off the rock. No one involved in the discussion so far has direct experience of that situation. The issue is whether anything meaningful may be said through reasoning. You obviously claim it cannot. Let's review your argument.
The Chief wrote:So Brenta, pre-determined spacing of Pro and rope slack between the two individuals when planned simul technique at "old skool" grades at or above 5.8 through 5.10 has no bearing on the rope tension/slack issue?
Spacing of pro, be it pre-determined or accidental, and rope slack obviously affect rope tension at all kinds of grades. Even my neighbors' dog would know it if they had one.
Note that Tom fell on a section of Redguard that is significantly easier than 5.8. We are talking about 5.4-5.5 depending on exact position and guidebook. On the other hand, once the falling second has pulled the first off a vertical face, does it matter whether it was 5.4 or 5.12?
How did you come up with the 5.8 threshold? You didn't read carefully or maybe it wasn't just curiosity that made you ask those questions...
The Chief wrote:Of course Brenta and Fortmental, the two of you are elite experts at this simul- climbing gig even though neither you two have actually participated in it at grades at or above 5.8.
In fact, here comes the textbook example of
ad hominem. More predictable than a Swiss train and as logically flawed as these things get.
The question is: When the leader is pulled into the top biner by the falling follower, does (s)he stop right there, or does the rope start moving through the biner?
What is your argument? Do you have one? Are you suggesting that since you have no way to tell, nobody does?
The Chief wrote:And lets not even think about the rope diameter 8.9 -11mm (all having a completely different stretch characteristic of their own)
It is well documented that the "stretch characteristics" of ropes correlate much better with rope brand than with diameter.
The Chief wrote: or whether one uses a Single or Doubles,
...or one strand of half rope, for that matter.
The Chief wrote: potential rope drag factor that may occurred as well that was not addressed.
Your syntax is getting a little garbled here; hence, it's not entirely clear whether you are referring to Tom and Bill's specific accident or talking of a second's fall. I'll stick to the latter. Of course, rope drag may have an impact, which goes from helping the first resist the pull from the falling second (positive) to increasing the effective fall factor for the first (negative).
The Chief wrote: Factors of their own that totally and most assuredly insert a whole new mechanical twist on the rope slack and stretch issue.
If you are just trying to say that real-life falls involve all sorts of factors that a simplified model leaves out, then, yes, of course, that's another of those things even my neighbors' dog would know if they had one.
If you are implying that consequently simplified models have nothing to tell us, then you are wrong, as thirty years of involvement in scientific and technological research would no doubt teach you.
Instead of taking advantage of others' experience in fields in which you have none, you always try to put them down as if you felt belittled. I know it's part of your Internet persona, which I kind of like (well, most of the time) and I'm not much irked by it. But, don't you ever suspect it would be easy for me to put you down? On the contrary, I spent time sanitizing my reply of unnecessary sarcasm so that this discussion may be constructive.
So, now I await your answers to my questions.