Drop test pictures

[rumination]

Rocky,
Not only IE does that. Even Mozilla Firefox, which is an open source, Linux supporting browser resizes pictures. So I'm not sure what his complaint is. But yeah, you're right, I should just let it go.

Butch,
Surely you're not serious!

 

[Mahk]

Originally posted by Frans
A pic. of the log we used

How much did the log weigh? If you have a number did you arrive at this by actually weighing it or by using a green log weight chart?



[/B][/QUOTE]We dropped the log approx 15' using 5/8" &3/4" line. The devices both walked up the trunk. Failures came at the marl. and also when the rope doubled up on itself on the drum it melted and broke within the wrap. Ken called it thermal breakdown.
Frans [/B][/QUOTE]


How many drops did each rope take before it broke?

It seems that the drops were straight down and did not exactly imitate the arc that a log follows when it is butt hitched into a rigging system. Which way do you think generates more force on the ropes and friction device, dropping the piece straight down, or creating an arcing swing?

The arc created by the notch and the pulley block means that the log slams back into the trunk, creating a different force on the trunk from what the trunk experienced in these tests. I know that you were evaluating just the friction devices in these drop tests, but, as Riggs pointed out in the thread on TB, we may be so impressed with the strength of our rigging gear that we overlook the real weak link in the system--the tree itself.

Thanks for posting all of this, it is very interesting. I hope the DVD will be made available.

Mahk

 

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by rumination
Butch,
Surely you're not serious!

 

[Frans]

Gerri may make the DVD available for sale, I dont know. I do know that we want to have it playing at TCIA(s).
As for the other questions regarding the weight, arc swinging and forces etc. My answer is I dont know, I'm just a tree guy not a scientist
Frans

 

[glens]

Originally posted by RockyJSquirrel
He finds it unneccessary for a browser to automatically resize pictures. But then he has the cajones to blast everyone for posting the wrong size picture!

Can we let this go away, please?

I don't detest the capability of a browser to resize images.

What I detest is Firefox (in a very Redmond-like manner) does not allow me to declare an alternate program to handle images when I want to, like the <i>original</i> Mozilla (Netscape 1-4) does.

The part about it that I dislike (the browser resizing images) is that people seem to post images larger than the screen resolution without realizing it.&nbsp; There's no reason been given yet why that isn't a waste of bandwidth and/or server storage.

Yes, let's let this discussion go away.&nbsp; Frans did the right thing initially in this thread; let's not chastise him for it.

Glen