• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Everything posted by meat.missile

  1. Not sure about the roller mount but the flysight mount can be attached with minimal epoxy.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. What is troll like about that post? The pro tech is $60, and has impact foam.
  5. Try commenting in good faith. The pro tech would be better than the G3, but I’m not sure how it compares to the G4.
  6. 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.
  7. People that make a living with their brains.
  8. 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. 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).
  9. 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. 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. I have evidence, is it the construction materials of both helmets.
  10. 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."
  11. Dumb, just dumb. 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.)
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Here, read till your heart is content.
  15. I went over this like, 2 posts ago. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. You don't need a number to know it wont do anything meaningful.
  19. It isn't really speculation, it's physics.
  20. (Imagine face palm/head shake emojis) Just embarrassing.
  21. 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. 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. 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.
  22. For everyone else that was out of the loop, here is the relevant info. Accident Docket Final Report
  23. I think this guy wants to start a Union
  24. 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.
  25. Can that last comment be deleted, format is all jacked up. 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. 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. You seem to be able to learn. 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. 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.