meat.missile

Members
  • Content

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Feedback

    N/A

Posts posted by meat.missile


  1. 5 hours ago, noe said:

        Hello, want info about a  left riser ring on my rig. When you see closely on the picture, saw the center  ring got some ring on outside. My question is , Its a sold ring ? And what is the purpose. Its appear like come in two parts and join. Thanks

     

    Left riser.jpg

    It almost looks like the ring was never finished during the manufacturing process. I would call whoever made those risers and get that fixed ASAP. 

     

    For my curiosity, could you post a couple more angles? 


  2. 17 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

    Engineers worth anything don’t think like that.

    Something something personal attacks. 

    Way to not address my last post.

    Also, I didn’t say anything about the insignificance of glass (Even though the “it” in your comment would be Wood) My example only was only for the comparison between the G3 and G4.

     


  3. 4 hours ago, evh said:

    It depends. Is it certified? Everybody knows that uncertified wood has negligible insulation properties, right?

    Try commenting in good faith. 

     

    2 hours ago, neilmck said:

    In terms of protection in case of impact how do the G3 and G4 compare with the old fashioned and infinitely cheaper open-faced Protec?

     The pro tech would be better than the G3, but I’m not sure how it compares to the G4. 


  4. 8 hours ago, evh said:

    Ok, since you insist.

    you have been making claims that you can’t back up with any facts, all you have is assumptions and gut feeling.

    As one mechanical engineer (who makes a living using his head) to another: you should know better than that. It’s just  dumb, so dumb.

    Where do you get this idea that I can’t back it up with facts? Are you really so ignorant about helmet construction that you can’t understand how the G4 will protect more than the G3? 

     

    A good example is saying wood is a better insulator than glass. We don’t need to see numbers to know it’s true. 

     


  5. 2 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

    What is so magical about that standard? I am certain that a tougher standard could be written, that would provide more protection that would help in some scenarios, and that would require a heavier, bulkier helmet to comply. The standard is a compromise, but you don’t seem to see it that way. I have no doubt that it performs better than the G3, but to assert that not meeting the standard makes the protection provided insignificant is not correct. This is not how engineers should analyze problems. I was sure we could have an interesting conversation about the new helmet, but this is really tiresome. 

    This is tiresome, it is more tiresome when your rebuttals are all over the place. 

    My first claim is that the G3 will protect a person less than a G4, and my second claim is that the G3 will protect a negligible amount compared to no helmet. Obviously protection is about limiting or preventing brain damage, concussions, TBI. My first claim is obviously correct and arguing against is would just be ignorant. My second clam you can likely form a good argument against, or say that I can't conclude that without numbers. So I will allow you to form that counter argument. 

    1 hour ago, Hooknswoop said:

    And you have something other than your gut feeling to support this?  How much less?

     

    Derek V

    Derek, 

    What I have is an education in mechanical engineering with experience in helmets effectiveness during head impacts.  I also know how significant the difference in materials is between the G3 and G4. I can't say exactly how much because there are no numbers to compare, but I would estimate it is the difference between a concussion and no concussion for the same impact. 

     

    So everyone knows, the G3 was never put through testing to see the difference (I asked). 

     


  6. 34 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

    Knowing the general outcome is very different than so confidently asserting the G3 provides insignificant protection as you have defined. You are not the only one with an engineering/technical background. The info you provided does nothing to clarify how much better the G4 is. It would have been very easy for Cookie to let us know how much improved their new helmet is, but they did not. Quoting the new standard's test setup and pass criteria gives us nothing with which to compare the G3. Quoting what the old DOT motorcycle helmet standard was does nothing to inform us of how well it compared to typical helmets that were common before the standard.

    Most engineers I think would not make such assertions without evidence. Why are you so determined to defend your position. I really don't understand. Can't this be discussed without insults?

     

    I don't believe I've ever insulted you.

    I'd defending my position because people in here keep saying the G3 is going to reduce or prevent brain injuries. 

    The information I provided was to inform people on how helmet testing and standards work. It seems they don't understand the physics behind it. 

    Quote

    Knowing the general outcome is very different than so confidently asserting the G3 provides insignificant protection as you have defined.

    Thought I said negligible, at this point it doesn't really matter. In this case it would be really easy to define significant as 250G since it is laid out in the standard. If the helmet doesn't reduce the force to below that, the reduction is insignificant. 

     

    Quote

    Most engineers I think would not make such assertions without evidence. 

    I have evidence, is it the construction materials of both helmets. 


  7. 5 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

    You assert "insignificance" without any data to compare the performance. I have no doubt the G4 performs better than the G3. Without data to back it up, your assertion that the G3 protection is insignificant as you define it, is unworthy of an engineer.

    When you have a fundamental understanding of a subject you don't always need to see the numbers to know the general outcome. 

     

    Anyway, found the reference to the standard from chuting star.

    "The XPS 72-600 is a Skydiving and Windtunnel Helmet standard used for the G4. The impact testing is the same as the EN966 standard for drop height and conditioning prior to impact (5.47 m/s at roughly 1.6 meters). The impact must be less that 250G. The XPS standard also requires a SNAG test, while the EN966 does not. The XPS requires the chinstrap to be on the exterior of the shell so that a line cannot pass up the inside of the helmet, while the EN966 does not. The EN966 is a Hanggliding helmet standard and also has a penetration test, while the XPS does not require a penetration test. However, Cookie has tested the G4 helmet for penetration according to EN966 and it passes with "great results," says Cookie."

    • Like 1

  8. 2 hours ago, evh said:

    Yes, you keep repeating that.

    Simple fact is YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, you are just assuming it.

     

    Dumb, just dumb. 

     

    1 hour ago, pchapman said:

    EDIT: Standards can be frustrating because one can't always download the actual standard (without paying a lot of money for them). More searching on the web would be needed to help understand how XP S 72-600 compares with other prior standards, what things are emphasized or not.

    Standards are a pain. To add some more info, XP S 72-600 is EN966 + some stuff relating to snag resistance. But as far as impact goes, it is the same. (I can't find my source on that, but I'll keep looking for it.)

    • Like 1

  9. 22 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

    "But I also know the G3 isn't going to do much of anything to prevent a concussion. "

    For the same impact, how much will a G4 protect the wearer compared to a G3?  

    Motorcycle helmets failing actual testing with DOT certification;

    https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/final_sae_motorcycle_presentation_v2-tag.pdf

    https://ultimatemotorcycling.com/2019/02/20/4-out-of-10-dot-certified-helmets-fail-government-performance-tests/

    Reading this;

    https://www.satra.com/ppe/EN966.php

    After reading this, I don't know how much of an impact a helmet with this rating will take and leave me injury-free.  I also don't know if a G3 protects me the same, more, or less than a G4 from the same impact.

    Derek V

    The G3 protects you less than the G4 from the same impact. 

    It also isn't about injury free. It is about reducing the severity of the injury. 


  10. 45 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

    I only wanted to know how insignificant a G3 is compared to the G4. Is that somewhere in the deluge of documents?

    No, that was just basic info about helmets and brain injuries for the other poster. 

    I wonder what the energy transfer difference is between the G3 and G4 are? (That's how you frame it as curiosity.) I mean, I too am curious. But I also know the G3 isn't going to do much of anything to prevent a concussion. 

    Edit: Here is some more topics to learn about.

    http://js-cct.com/upfile/file/20170901/20170901103344_99689.pdf

     


  11. 9 hours ago, evh said:

    Based on what? Tests? Calculations? You are just guessing and speculating. 

    I went over this like, 2 posts ago. 

     

    9 hours ago, evh said:

    BTW I had some intimate contact with the wall of several windtunnels, wearing a G3 and I am 100% certain  it would have hurt a lot more without a helmet. So in my opinion, your claim that a G3 or any helmet without certification  gives no (or negligable) protection is nothing but bs.

    Certification is nice, it tells me that a certain level of safety is guaranteed. But it does not mean that the reverse is also true, that a non-certified helmet has to be inferior. It just might be. 

     

    hahah, because something hurts or not is a great way to judge the amount of energy transferred to your brain. I've hit my head on lots of stuff in the plane, including being a rookie and taking the door to the head. Would it have hurt a lot without a G3 on, obviously. Am I stupid enough to think that if that blow was hard enough to give me a concussion the helmet would do anything significant to lesson that blow? Absolutely not.  I'm not saying it is zero, obviously the shell deflecting and the liner mushing will absorb some energy. I am saying that instead of a concussion its lowered to a headache, or instead of a TBI it is lowered to a concussion. That difference is critically important. But sure, the G3 might make sure you have a pretty face while you suffer from PCS, or recover from a TBI. 

    • Like 1

  12. 8 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

    I also have a mech eng degree. I haven’t spread any bad, life threatening info. Please take it easy, I didn’t think curiosity would evoke such a reaction. Someone might actually know the answer to how well the old vs new helmet compares. It definitely will be better than nothing. 

    Edit: I decided what I said was hash. 

    Long story short, The G3 is not going to protect your brain from smashing into the side of your skull. 

    • Like 1

  13. This is a ridiculous argument. You are spreading bad, potentially life threatening information.

    If you take speculating to mean, my education in mechanical engineering and studies on how helmet design and padding effect the amount of energy transferred to the brain, then yeah, I'm speculating. Or maybe it is my educated, informed, and professional opinion.

    But sure, don't listen to me, leave the prevention of brain damage up to some thin foam. 

     


  14. 17 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

    There is no misunderstanding of how helmets work.

    The point I would make is that without data, we don't know if the liner for a G3 is 0.1% or 1% or 10% as effective as the shock absorbing material used in a G4.

    You don't need a number to know it wont do anything meaningful. 


  15. 3 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

    Without test data to compare the performance of a G3 vs G4 vs no helmet at all, we are speculating on how negligible the impact protection of a G3 or any other helmet is. Maybe we already have the data to make that comparison?

    It isn't really speculation, it's physics. 

     

     


  16. 7 hours ago, skyfox2007 said:

    Do you want to talk philosophy?  Or do you want to talk about the issue at hand?

    And tens of thousands of dollars isn't a small amount of money.  Our not caring or not speaking up is probably why this happened in the first place.  

    -JD-

    (Imagine face palm/head shake emojis) Just embarrassing.


  17. On 8/30/2019 at 3:17 PM, skyfox2007 said:

    Or is there some valid reason why you think my comments amount to as much?  

    What you said is a fallacy because nowhere in my comment, or the context of my post, do I mention the opportunity cost of the money the USPA agreed to contribute. 

     

    Quote

    Is what I said a fallacy because you don't agree with it? 

    I actually agree. Looking at the opportunity costs of the money would be a valid way to criticize the contribution. You can make your argument, you just don't get to make it as a counterpoint to an argument I never made, in the comment you replied to. 

     

    Quote

    Rather than use labels, why not open your mind a bit and engage in some meaningful discussion?

    Fallacious arguments are invalid. The best way to engage in them is to point them out. If people want meaningful discussion the will keep it valid. 

    End of the reply to you on this comment. 

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Personally I'm not worried about the small amount of my dues going to the project, it is actually such a small amount of my money it leads me not to care. I do believe (with my knowledge of the project that is based on the limited publicly available information) that the current plan is not the best idea. I think the ISMHOF should be incorporated into an already existing aviation museum as a permanent exhibit. This doesn't mean Barrons criticisms are valid, it just means that I think the ISMHOF should provide people with more information and/or reevaluate their plan. 

     

    I know I may have been a little harsh with my comments but peoples inability to identify poor logic and maintain structured debate is part of the reason the country (US) is being torn apart. 

    Edit: and failing to be consistent in criticism just because you agree with the end game of your "side" is hypocritical. 


  18. 16 hours ago, Tin said:

    So my instructors are on board with it already. I'm currently a student myself and they are willing to help with the teaching and educational part as well as the jumping side as well. I'm mainly looking for info on the school side of it. Im in Arkansas at arkansas tech university. 

    I was the president of the rocket club at my university. It is different for every university but generally you will need a faculty advisor and a few "officers" for the club to be formed. Then you would be required to meet and do a few things throughout the school year. The requirements should be explained in whatever your university calls their student club program. It would be best to talk to a pre-existing club president as they could likely explain the steps specific to your school. 


  19. Can that last comment be deleted, format is all jacked up. 

     

    Quote

    What is the legal definition of embezzlement?

    Embezzlement Law and Legal Definition. Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of money by someone entrusted with it's care on behalf of other's. Embezzlement typically occurs in the employment and corporate settings.

    I and I don't believe Skyfox are accusing the BOD (Deleted) of this at this time. However, to say the funds given for this "Project" wude fall under this description in a court of law wude not be a stretch. Because of the lack of any transparency of where those funds have gone and what they're being used (or are going to be used) for, by either of those parties does make you wonder what is really going on. Instead of choosing to give ANY updates on progress (or lack of),

    First, I fixed your comment (highlighted part) to represent what skyfox said. Second, they said it amounts to embezzlement which is very accusatory in common parlance. 

    I have to be blunt because you aren't getting it. MOD's if this is too far I apologize. Baronn, our ignorance of a topic does not mean there is something wrong. It means you are ignorant and do not have enough information to make a judgment. It is another fallacy and you continue to riddle this thread with these comments. I have pointed it out to you many times yet you keep doing it, you should be embarrassed about you inability to comprehend simple concepts about communication. 

    Quote

    they CHOOSE to not do that and instead, induct folks into a non-existing museum and continually ask for more funding. 

    This one is a gem, you must be a troll, it is the only thing that makes sense, no one is this dense. They are inducting people into the hall of fame, not a museum. 

     

    Quote

    I have reached out to a few BOD members and I plan on calling the rest next week. I am hearing the same thing about dis-enchantment over lack of progress. From what I am being told, not a single member of the ISMHOF attended the BOD meeting this summer. Granted, they aren't required to be there. However, they are accepting funding for this and some effort from somebody from there, wude most certainly been welcome.

    You seem to be able to learn. 

    Quote

    Now before anyone gets their shorts in a twist (again)  I have no ambition of getting anything for any effort I put into this. I have no intention of ever being mentioned in it If it ever gets built. I simply feel it's a sad day when so many members that shude be in it and some of their artifacts and contributions have nowhere to go at this time. Sad and wrong.

    My shorts are twisted because of you apparent inability to structure an argument in a logical way. You're supposedly an educated adult, act like it.  

    Quote

    Something to think about, for a little bit more than what the USPA BOD has agreed to give to the ISMHOF, they cude have bought an R44 with a trailer and toterhome, found a retired heli pilot that wanted some adventure and sent that rig out over the year for members to enjoy. The lift tickets would easily support it. How Cool wude that be!

    toterhome, heh, fun word. 

     

     

    Baronn, I'm not trying to be mean, I seriously just do not understand. There are so many valid criticisms of the ISMHOF and so many valid way to present them. Why do you come in here and continue to use fallacious statement to do it when there is a proper way? I'm capable of rewriting what you have said in a logical way and I get what your point is. You should be able to do the same.