pope

BTW, what is this "American Triangle cloved hitched at both connection points"? Anything I can visualize would seem to shorten the sling so dramatically that horizontal forces would become pretty high. Since you enjoy extrapolating the hypothesis, imagine if you just cut ten feet off of your rope and used that for a sling!

Terminal, Not to be an asshole, but before you try to find "the problem with the problem" (suggesting the question is invalid since I foggot to account for the amount of webbing used in wrapping half way around a 'biner, etc.), you might want to check your mathematics. For example, the V-sling equation you've given could be written as Lb/(Lr/2)=[(24-x)/2]/(x/2), when you recall that cos(Arccos(y))=y, etc. Examine this proportion and then refer to the similar triangles in your diagram. I think you'll see that you're hot on the trail of the solution, but not quite there. Don't quit (quitting becomes a habit that is difficult to quit). The American Triangle is several degrees more complicated. For simplicity sake, just assume that the webbing used in wrapping around a biner is negligible and that you're slipping the webbing over cold shuts, etc. Don't get bogged down in the messy details until you get the big picture. My solution shows the American Triangle always applying slightly higher forces on each bolt (although never as high as 200% of what the V-sling system does for a given value of X). Also, I'm thinking of a 24-inch sling as being a loop that is 24 inches when you stretch it between your fingers (would be 48 inches if you cut the loop and stretched it out). For the V-system, I came up with f=(0.5F)(12)/sqrt[144-(x/2)^2)], where f=the magnitude of the force applied to the bolt and F=weight of your fat girlfriend. I'll release the American Triangle calculation after you scream, "Uncle!"

quote: Originally posted by Necronomicon: Could you provide a free-body diagram? Are we to use the metric system? Can you provide a load value? Are you talking about the MAGNITUDE of the RESULTANT force on each bolt, the HORIZONTAL vector component, or the VERTICAL vector component? Let F1 symbolize the magnitude of the resultant force on either bolt in the American Triangle. The solution is independent of the type of units you use for force, and it is independent of the load applied at the power point, although if you wish, you may assume a 500 pound load is applied. BTW, the vertical component of force on each bolt is always half the load at the power point, in either system. Let me see what I can do about a diagram. Trask, that's some find video...you are trying to dislodge a cocaine booger?

quote: Originally posted by Necronomicon: Force is a vector quantity, and as such, requires a direction. Please restate question 2 so that it makes sense. Try this for help... http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/vectors/U3L3b.html OK, wiseacre, we're looking for the value of X (bolt separation) that makes the ratio of MAGNITUDES of F1 to F2 highest. That is, F1, it turns out, always has a magnitude higher than F2 (which answers the first question), making the American Triangle a poor choice for all values of X. In question 2, you'll need to write F1's magnitude as a function of X. Do the same with F2, then form the ratio of magnitudes F1/F2 as a function of X. Study this function for a maximum, then report. In essence, there is a bolt separation X for which choosing the American Triangle is not only the wrong choice, the degree to which it is a poorer choice is highest. Want a hint? OK: 0<X<24. No more hints.

quote: Originally posted by trask: Bong-up dude! One more outburst like that and you'll be explaining your insolence and piss-poor attitude to the Headmaster!

OK, geeks, here's a question that can be answered by an average student of high school physics: You're rigging a rappel off of two questionable bolts, which are separated laterally by a distance of X and which are level with each other vertically. You have only one 24-inch sewn sling. You want to connect to these bolts in a way that will minimize the force on each one. 1. Is the American Triangle always better than using a load-equalizing "V"? Does the answer depend on the separation X? 2. Suppose that for some separation X, the force on a bolt in the American triangle is F1, but the force on a bolt in the "V" system is F2. For what value of X is the ratio of F1 to F2 highest? What is the ratio in this case?

All of this soul searching in a public forum...we are so eager to share what must certainly qualify as material for a diary. 'Tis amusing to read this introspective drivel on a message board. Let me be the first to say: I DON'T CARE WHY YOU CLIMB OR WHAT YOU GET OUT OF IT! Reminds me of my first years, when I was a sourdough, still we behind my elfen ears. I used to ponder these unaswerable questions (Is it the summit or the hill? The destination or the journey? If I splat on that slab, will the mountains care? Blah blah blah ). At some point in my alpine adventures, I realized that nearly 20 years of seeking bigger, steeper walls and bolder challenges was but for one purpose, to create a necessary condition for a desired response. You see, the first time I stood before a big, icy cliff, the crest of which I couldn't see, my natural reaction was to crap my pants. And the conquest of such a wall required finding a greater challenge, which, when I first encountered it, caused me to soil my shorts, once again. I never thought that my regularity would be a function of the alpine experiences to which I subject myself, but when my climbing pace slowed, when career and family pushed alpinism to the back burner, I noticed that my morning B.M. required more caffeine. The sports page was replaced by a television on which I could view highlights on ESPN. Soon, the only way I could move my bowels in the morning was to watch video of seracs collapsing on K2 whilst my wife simulated that terrible noise by shaking the ice tray in the Frigidair. Finally, the day came when my bowel was about as impacted as Elvis Presley's, and there was no relief in sight. I took the day off work and hiked up to the Willis Wall, where, as you can imagine, when that Eiger-like wall emerged from the morning mists, I was able to work things out.

quote: Originally posted by RedMonk: for me its not the danger....but the purity of the outdoors and accomplishing something that took a lot of work and determination....the fact that it is dangerous has nothing (well mabe a litte) to do with the reason that i love this sport..... You can "accomplish something that [takes] a lot of work and determination" while surrounded by "the putity of the outdoors" by setting up a stationary bike at the Paradise Visitors' Center and pedaling in complete safety. No need to risk your neck and an expensive rescue/funeral if the risks of mountain climbing don't appeal to you. Or you could "climb" at Exit 38.

quote: Originally posted by Lambone: Hey there Mr. Pope, gimme a little credit...at least I don't talk shit about dead people and use four letter words like "fader" "Fader" is a five-letter word. Hardeeharharhar. To be fair, you occasionally display greater class than your nasty cyber-equal.

Lambone has finally met his nasty cyber-equal.

I wouldn't be defending that fat ass. I've read Al Franken's book.

Like Figger Eight, I too have a problem with armchair analysis of an accident in a public forum. While friends and family of the victims are first confronting the terrible reality of losing somebody close, what purpose can it possibly serve to go onto a message board and condemn everybody involved (for stupidity and lack of experience,etc.)? Your analysis may turn out to be correct (although you certainly reach a great number of conclusions considering your limited familiarity with the facts), but I think it's in poor taste. I might add that I've seen expert climbers (who can lead 5.12 and WI5) who were unable to self-arrest in the panic of the moment. It is a skill that needs to be practiced by every climber, sourdough and alpenmeistro alike.

quote: Originally posted by jkrueger: Well, I guess it could go either way... Kind of like a lot of the avatars around here. This thread has given me a great idea for a new ......I'm not going to say "avatar"....it just sounds like some booger-picking fantasy role-playing thing.....I've got a great idea for a new HANDLE (that's what the CB enthusiasts use to refer to the electronic alter ego thing): SON OF GAPER. What do you think? He could go by GAPER SON (say it fast) when he's feeling the need for a romantic adventure. You're invited to adopt this "handle"....there will be a small fee.

Is there some kind of soccer tournament happnin'?

quote: Originally posted by Bug: We also had some disputes in leadership, or was it a lack thereof? Too many chiefs, not enough Indians.

quote: Originally posted by Skisports: another thing to think about is that you don't have to have any knowledge about climbing to climb period. any two people can sign up and climb mount Rainier. same gose with hood or any other peak that brings attention Dude, I'm all for having the guy or gal in green pleated shorts decide whether I'm tough and wise enough for the hill. Maybe we should go back to the days when the fat climbing ranger jumped up and down on your ice axe to see if the shaft was up to the standard of the Big "R".

quote: Originally posted by Paul detrick: You guys are missing the point, its not the best way, it's easy to have one piece of webbing for one bolt, equalize the anchors, do what you will but I will allways change it. I'm not sure how to equalize with "one piece of webbing for one bolt". If each bolt is clipped to an independent runner which joins the other at the power point (as you seem to be describing), the system doesn't really equalize. In fact, if the runners aren't exactly the same length, or if the pull is slightly off center from the fall line, then one bolt does almost all of the work. An "American Triangle" with a long enough runner (to keep the bottom angle small) is a much better solution since it equalizes. A better system than either of these uses two slings which are clipped to both bolts and then clipped across the "X" at the power point. Consult a manual on anchor building for this equalizing system. This is pretty hard to describe and easy to screw up (one of Washington's very best rock climbers nearly died his first season when he attempted to rig this system for a top-rope but failed to correctly clip the "X"...he fell 35 feet into the talus). The only flaw in this system is that if the bolts are amply spaced, the V-shaped system may result in a bottom angle that is too obtuse (remember: the smaller, the better).

quote: Originally posted by freeclimb9: quote:Originally posted by pope: Is it worth all the effort? It never is. It'll just be another obscure lee-than-test-piece sport climb. It's just a local diversion that's safer than messing with Momo girls. And dirtier, too. How poetic!

Is it really that great of a hold? Is it worth all the effort? You might consider just chopping it off and then using your Bosch to drill an enormous bucket in its place. Also, be sure that nobody misses the sequence: get some day-glow Rustoleum and paint a big arrow that identifies the bucket's location. [ 05-30-2002, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: pope ]

You just walk right on past that inferior bluff and beat it up to Snow Creek Wall (approach takes just 18 minutes from this side of Snow Creek).

If the angle at the bottom of the triangle (call it X) is fairly acute, the two anchors actually share or divide quite a bit of the load. When X=60 degrees (the triangle is regular), each anchor is loaded with whatever load is applied to the "power point". In this case, it is still better to be clipped to the triangle than just one anchor, since there is redundancy and you're clipped to both anchors without applying forces any higher than being clipped to just one. You can model the force applied to each bolt during a 500-pound load at the power point as a function of this angle: F=500sec(X/2)cos((180-X)/4). When X>60, watch out! Applying a load of 500 lbs to the power point might apply even higher loads to each bolt. Even so, the panic over the American Triangle is the result of partial understanding. Turns out that when X=122 degrees, each bolt's load is only double that at the power point....not a great situation, but how often do you see a triangle with an angle that broad at the bottom? I've never seen more than 60 degrees. There is a better system: a long triangle (skinny bottom angle) or two bolts in a vertical line, provided their "weakness cones" don't overlap, rigged such that they share the load.

.....if you've been Z-pulleyed out of Big Lou's track. .....if you've shared with Dwayner a view of the North Twins at pub club. .....if your definition of "pow-pow" describes snow that's as dry as a Slurpy.

quote: Originally posted by sk: isn't that like comparing apples and oranges. Sex pistols=punk, Skinny Puppy= industrial? IMHO I must admit that I don't know how to distinguish between the subtle variations at the end of the "musical" spectrum, but allow me to try. The Sex Pistols play all of their songs with just three chords; Skinny Puppy members don't know any chords.

I agree on your analysis of Skinny Puppy, but I can't say I know much about Vancouver bands. Twight used to quote those guys in his "just-let-me-kill-myself" articles, and when my buddy purchased a CD, I thought they made the Sex Pistols sound like musical geniuses.

Overheard: We don't f#%k with your rap-placed bolts. Why are you f@%king with our lead-placed pig?