Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Ammo question

Expand Messages
  • Aidan Fraser
    Ok, this question may sound a little odd, but its been bugging me the last couple of days. When was the last time that siloflex had its standards looked at for
    Message 1 of 25 , Dec 10, 2012
      Ok, this question may sound a little odd, but its been bugging me the last couple of days. When was the last time that siloflex had its standards looked at for siege ammo? I know what they are, my question is more, what year were they put down and have they been looked at since then?
    • Richard le Hauke
      Are you referring to the ASTM number and if the specs it provides have changed? - Rich
      Message 2 of 25 , Dec 10, 2012
        Are you referring to the ASTM number and if the specs it provides have
        changed?

        - Rich


        On 12/10/2012 05:35 PM, Aidan Fraser wrote:
        > Ok, this question may sound a little odd, but its been bugging me the last couple of days. When was the last time that siloflex had its standards looked at for siege ammo? I know what they are, my question is more, what year were they put down and have they been looked at since then?
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
      • thelordofd@yahoo.com
        Pretty much Sent from my iPhone
        Message 3 of 25 , Dec 10, 2012
          Pretty much

          Sent from my iPhone

          On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...> wrote:

          > Are you referring to the ASTM number and if the specs it provides have
          > changed?
          >
          > - Rich
          >
          >
          > On 12/10/2012 05:35 PM, Aidan Fraser wrote:
          >> Ok, this question may sound a little odd, but its been bugging me the last couple of days. When was the last time that siloflex had its standards looked at for siege ammo? I know what they are, my question is more, what year were they put down and have they been looked at since then?
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ------------------------------------
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > --
          > [Email to SCA-Siege-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • brian kosoris
          I was not involved in the decision process for choosing the ammo, or any of the new amendments to the siege rules. But it seems to me that this question isn t
          Message 4 of 25 , Dec 11, 2012
            I was not involved in the decision process for choosing the ammo, or any of
            the new amendments to the siege rules. But it seems to me that this
            question isn't serving any purpose other than to make someone do more
            paperwork to satisfy a curiosity.

            My question to you is, What is it you are looking for? Do you think that
            the shafts should be made from something else? Do you want to know how it
            was decided that we should use those standards? Are you trying to get
            another material approved?

            Your question is too broad and I think you need to explain why this is
            bugging you, Because otherwise you should do the research yourself to find
            when the siege handbook was last revised, and you will have your answer.

            On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:32 PM, <thelordofd@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > Pretty much
            >
            > Sent from my iPhone
            >
            >
            > On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...>
            > wrote:
            >
            > > Are you referring to the ASTM number and if the specs it provides have
            > > changed?
            > >
            > > - Rich
            > >
            > >
            > > On 12/10/2012 05:35 PM, Aidan Fraser wrote:
            > >> Ok, this question may sound a little odd, but its been bugging me the
            > last couple of days. When was the last time that siloflex had its standards
            > looked at for siege ammo? I know what they are, my question is more, what
            > year were they put down and have they been looked at since then?
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> ------------------------------------
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > --
            > > [Email to SCA-Siege-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]Yahoo!
            > Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Aidan Fraser
            Trying to get a new material approved, no. Trying to create more paperwork, not my intent but there is a potential for it depending on how people react. My
            Message 5 of 25 , Dec 11, 2012
              Trying to get a new material approved, no. Trying to create more paperwork, not my intent but there is a potential for it depending on how people react.

              My question is basically, how likely is it that our rulebook is outdated because of changes in the mundane world? Before you scoff, understand that I realize this is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to do, but the mundane world may have left our siege book behind.

              What I'm specifically referring to is the PE3408 number on the siloflex. I have 2 pieces of siloflex sitting on my floor, one from 2005, the other from last week. Same store, same specs on everything, only difference is that the 2005 piece has PE3408 while the new piece is PE3608. They are from different companies, but otherwise all other specs are the same. Apparently some time between 2005-2007 (to the best of my knowledge) the ASTM modified the test and now pipe that was 3408 is 3608.

              Before you say, oh, different numbers, so its a different material, its disqualified until experimentation, blah blah blah, I have two arguing points. First, everything we have is based off of silverline plastics and their siloflex. They NEVER changed their manufacturing process or anything, but all of their pipe is now classified as 3608 and marked as formerly 3408 because the ASTM changed their standards. Secondly, many pipes are marked 3408/3608. If all 3608 is banned, is that banned too?

              There is zero difference between the pipes on density, psi rating, or anything else structurally, just that the 3608 is less likely to form hairline cracks under high pressure. From what I can tell, because I can't find a revision history, that rule of 4408 has been in place since at least 2001.

              So, in a nutshell, our rulebook is outdated. I'm not trying to add new materials or something, just suggest it be updated to the standards of the ASTM. It may save a lot of siege engineers and marshals headaches over the next few years. Myself being one of them.

              --- In SCA-Siege@yahoogroups.com, brian kosoris <rusvasul@...> wrote:
              >
              > I was not involved in the decision process for choosing the ammo, or any of
              > the new amendments to the siege rules. But it seems to me that this
              > question isn't serving any purpose other than to make someone do more
              > paperwork to satisfy a curiosity.
              >
              > My question to you is, What is it you are looking for? Do you think that
              > the shafts should be made from something else? Do you want to know how it
              > was decided that we should use those standards? Are you trying to get
              > another material approved?
              >
              > Your question is too broad and I think you need to explain why this is
              > bugging you, Because otherwise you should do the research yourself to find
              > when the siege handbook was last revised, and you will have your answer.
              >
              > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:32 PM, <thelordofd@...> wrote:
              >
              > > **
              > >
              > >
              > > Pretty much
              > >
              > > Sent from my iPhone
              > >
              > >
              > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...>
              > > wrote:
              > >
              > > > Are you referring to the ASTM number and if the specs it provides have
              > > > changed?
              > > >
              > > > - Rich
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > On 12/10/2012 05:35 PM, Aidan Fraser wrote:
              > > >> Ok, this question may sound a little odd, but its been bugging me the
              > > last couple of days. When was the last time that siloflex had its standards
              > > looked at for siege ammo? I know what they are, my question is more, what
              > > year were they put down and have they been looked at since then?
              > > >>
              > > >>
              > > >>
              > > >> ------------------------------------
              > > >>
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > ------------------------------------
              > > >
              > > > --
              > > > [Email to SCA-Siege-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]Yahoo!
              > > Groups Links
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Sean Powell
              Hello Aiden, Thanks for noticing that the printed spec on the pipe had changed. I assume that the siege handbook is updated about as often as the heavy-weapon
              Message 6 of 25 , Dec 11, 2012
                Hello Aiden,

                Thanks for noticing that the printed spec on the pipe had changed. I assume
                that the siege handbook is updated about as often as the heavy-weapon rules
                meaning: as needed when something is noticed as being wrong or unsafe. If
                what you say about the 3608 change is true then this isn't a safety issue,
                just a data update. One of the "Powers That Be" can issue an addendum
                without bothering with a full rules re-evaluation and re-write. (happens in
                heavy weapons somewhat frequently, ie mandrake 2" tips on spears) I don't
                think it would make sense to wait for an arbitrary review date to do this.
                Would you like to propose some wording for the community to review? Do you
                happen to have a copy of the spec's that differentiate between PE3608 and
                PE3408 for the record?

                Thank you,
                Sean Powell (aka just another target)
                Symon de Poitiers

                On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Aidan Fraser <thelordofd@...> wrote:

                > **
                >
                >
                > Trying to get a new material approved, no. Trying to create more
                > paperwork, not my intent but there is a potential for it depending on how
                > people react.
                >
                > My question is basically, how likely is it that our rulebook is outdated
                > because of changes in the mundane world? Before you scoff, understand that
                > I realize this is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to do, but the mundane world may
                > have left our siege book behind.
                >
                > What I'm specifically referring to is the PE3408 number on the siloflex. I
                > have 2 pieces of siloflex sitting on my floor, one from 2005, the other
                > from last week. Same store, same specs on everything, only difference is
                > that the 2005 piece has PE3408 while the new piece is PE3608. They are from
                > different companies, but otherwise all other specs are the same. Apparently
                > some time between 2005-2007 (to the best of my knowledge) the ASTM modified
                > the test and now pipe that was 3408 is 3608.
                >
                > Before you say, oh, different numbers, so its a different material, its
                > disqualified until experimentation, blah blah blah, I have two arguing
                > points. First, everything we have is based off of silverline plastics and
                > their siloflex. They NEVER changed their manufacturing process or anything,
                > but all of their pipe is now classified as 3608 and marked as formerly 3408
                > because the ASTM changed their standards. Secondly, many pipes are marked
                > 3408/3608. If all 3608 is banned, is that banned too?
                >
                > There is zero difference between the pipes on density, psi rating, or
                > anything else structurally, just that the 3608 is less likely to form
                > hairline cracks under high pressure. From what I can tell, because I can't
                > find a revision history, that rule of 4408 has been in place since at least
                > 2001.
                >
                > So, in a nutshell, our rulebook is outdated. I'm not trying to add new
                > materials or something, just suggest it be updated to the standards of the
                > ASTM. It may save a lot of siege .
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Aidan Fraser
                Ok, thanks all. The best I can find (and this has been part of my problem) is from these sites, the first being Silver Line. All of their paperwork says in
                Message 7 of 25 , Dec 11, 2012
                  Ok, thanks all.

                  The best I can find (and this has been part of my problem) is from these sites, the first being Silver Line. All of their paperwork says in parentheses (formerly 3408) on the top right of each section.

                  http://www.slpipe.com/assets/siloflex_standards.pdf

                  Here's one of MANY instances of the multiple split lines 3408/3608.

                  http://charterplastics.com/pdf/nsf-pe3408-3608-idr.pdf

                  Here's one talking about the split in 2005, first page only. The rest is about the new testing method implemented:

                  http://www.performancepipe.com/en-us/Documents/PP%20816-TN%20PE3608%20PE4710%20Designation%20Code%20and%20Pressure%20Rating.pdf?Redirect=1

                  I don't have a way to contact the ASTM to ask them for further specs, and I have to say that it has been a pain looking this up.

                  I also have no idea where to start with new wording. For all intents and purposes, the two have the same structure and density, but the 3408 will crack sooner under high pressure. However, since the test is designed to do around 13 years worth of constant pressure in a few hours, that may be a moot point.

                  --- In SCA-Siege@yahoogroups.com, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hello Aiden,
                  >
                  > Thanks for noticing that the printed spec on the pipe had changed. I assume
                  > that the siege handbook is updated about as often as the heavy-weapon rules
                  > meaning: as needed when something is noticed as being wrong or unsafe. If
                  > what you say about the 3608 change is true then this isn't a safety issue,
                  > just a data update. One of the "Powers That Be" can issue an addendum
                  > without bothering with a full rules re-evaluation and re-write. (happens in
                  > heavy weapons somewhat frequently, ie mandrake 2" tips on spears) I don't
                  > think it would make sense to wait for an arbitrary review date to do this.
                  > Would you like to propose some wording for the community to review? Do you
                  > happen to have a copy of the spec's that differentiate between PE3608 and
                  > PE3408 for the record?
                  >
                  > Thank you,
                  > Sean Powell (aka just another target)
                  > Symon de Poitiers
                  >
                  > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Aidan Fraser <thelordofd@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > **
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Trying to get a new material approved, no. Trying to create more
                  > > paperwork, not my intent but there is a potential for it depending on how
                  > > people react.
                  > >
                  > > My question is basically, how likely is it that our rulebook is outdated
                  > > because of changes in the mundane world? Before you scoff, understand that
                  > > I realize this is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to do, but the mundane world may
                  > > have left our siege book behind.
                  > >
                  > > What I'm specifically referring to is the PE3408 number on the siloflex. I
                  > > have 2 pieces of siloflex sitting on my floor, one from 2005, the other
                  > > from last week. Same store, same specs on everything, only difference is
                  > > that the 2005 piece has PE3408 while the new piece is PE3608. They are from
                  > > different companies, but otherwise all other specs are the same. Apparently
                  > > some time between 2005-2007 (to the best of my knowledge) the ASTM modified
                  > > the test and now pipe that was 3408 is 3608.
                  > >
                  > > Before you say, oh, different numbers, so its a different material, its
                  > > disqualified until experimentation, blah blah blah, I have two arguing
                  > > points. First, everything we have is based off of silverline plastics and
                  > > their siloflex. They NEVER changed their manufacturing process or anything,
                  > > but all of their pipe is now classified as 3608 and marked as formerly 3408
                  > > because the ASTM changed their standards. Secondly, many pipes are marked
                  > > 3408/3608. If all 3608 is banned, is that banned too?
                  > >
                  > > There is zero difference between the pipes on density, psi rating, or
                  > > anything else structurally, just that the 3608 is less likely to form
                  > > hairline cracks under high pressure. From what I can tell, because I can't
                  > > find a revision history, that rule of 4408 has been in place since at least
                  > > 2001.
                  > >
                  > > So, in a nutshell, our rulebook is outdated. I'm not trying to add new
                  > > materials or something, just suggest it be updated to the standards of the
                  > > ASTM. It may save a lot of siege .
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • Richard le Hauke
                  ASTM D3408 is the testing method withdrawn in 1988. Replaced with ASTM D3583, which was withdrawn in 1991 Replaced with ASTM D3569 or D5329 These test methods
                  Message 8 of 25 , Dec 12, 2012
                    ASTM D3408 is the testing method withdrawn in 1988.
                    Replaced with ASTM D3583, which was withdrawn in 1991
                    Replaced with ASTM D3569 or D5329
                    "These test methods describe procedures for determining
                    specification conformance for hot-applied, field-molded joint and
                    crack sealants and fillers"

                    ASTM D3608 is another testing method: http://www.astm.org/Standards/D3608.htm

                    The numbers listed in the Society Handbook are:
                    ASTM D2239: "This specification covers polyethylene (PE) pipe made in
                    standard thermoplastic pipe dimension ratios and pressure rated for
                    water"
                    http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2239.htm

                    ASTM D2737: "This specification covers polyethylene (PE) tubing
                    pressure-rated for water"
                    http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2737.htm

                    So, while the testing methods may have changed, and possibly the exact
                    material compounds used to create the pipe have changed, the base
                    standard to define the properties of manufacture for ID and OD sizes,
                    wall thicknesses, etc have been revised, but the numbers specified in
                    the siege rules have not changed.

                    - Rich
                    EK DEM Siege


                    On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Aidan Fraser <thelordofd@...> wrote:
                    > Ok, thanks all.
                    >
                    > The best I can find (and this has been part of my problem) is from these sites, the first being Silver Line. All of their paperwork says in parentheses (formerly 3408) on the top right of each section.
                    >
                    > http://www.slpipe.com/assets/siloflex_standards.pdf
                    >
                    > Here's one of MANY instances of the multiple split lines 3408/3608.
                    >
                    > http://charterplastics.com/pdf/nsf-pe3408-3608-idr.pdf
                    >
                    > Here's one talking about the split in 2005, first page only. The rest is about the new testing method implemented:
                    >
                    > http://www.performancepipe.com/en-us/Documents/PP%20816-TN%20PE3608%20PE4710%20Designation%20Code%20and%20Pressure%20Rating.pdf?Redirect=1
                    >
                    > I don't have a way to contact the ASTM to ask them for further specs, and I have to say that it has been a pain looking this up.
                    >
                    > I also have no idea where to start with new wording. For all intents and purposes, the two have the same structure and density, but the 3408 will crack sooner under high pressure. However, since the test is designed to do around 13 years worth of constant pressure in a few hours, that may be a moot point.
                    >
                    > --- In SCA-Siege@yahoogroups.com, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...> wrote:
                    >>
                    >> Hello Aiden,
                    >>
                    >> Thanks for noticing that the printed spec on the pipe had changed. I assume
                    >> that the siege handbook is updated about as often as the heavy-weapon rules
                    >> meaning: as needed when something is noticed as being wrong or unsafe. If
                    >> what you say about the 3608 change is true then this isn't a safety issue,
                    >> just a data update. One of the "Powers That Be" can issue an addendum
                    >> without bothering with a full rules re-evaluation and re-write. (happens in
                    >> heavy weapons somewhat frequently, ie mandrake 2" tips on spears) I don't
                    >> think it would make sense to wait for an arbitrary review date to do this.
                    >> Would you like to propose some wording for the community to review? Do you
                    >> happen to have a copy of the spec's that differentiate between PE3608 and
                    >> PE3408 for the record?
                    >>
                    >> Thank you,
                    >> Sean Powell (aka just another target)
                    >> Symon de Poitiers
                    >>
                    >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Aidan Fraser <thelordofd@...> wrote:
                    >>
                    >> > **
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> > Trying to get a new material approved, no. Trying to create more
                    >> > paperwork, not my intent but there is a potential for it depending on how
                    >> > people react.
                    >> >
                    >> > My question is basically, how likely is it that our rulebook is outdated
                    >> > because of changes in the mundane world? Before you scoff, understand that
                    >> > I realize this is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to do, but the mundane world may
                    >> > have left our siege book behind.
                    >> >
                    >> > What I'm specifically referring to is the PE3408 number on the siloflex. I
                    >> > have 2 pieces of siloflex sitting on my floor, one from 2005, the other
                    >> > from last week. Same store, same specs on everything, only difference is
                    >> > that the 2005 piece has PE3408 while the new piece is PE3608. They are from
                    >> > different companies, but otherwise all other specs are the same. Apparently
                    >> > some time between 2005-2007 (to the best of my knowledge) the ASTM modified
                    >> > the test and now pipe that was 3408 is 3608.
                    >> >
                    >> > Before you say, oh, different numbers, so its a different material, its
                    >> > disqualified until experimentation, blah blah blah, I have two arguing
                    >> > points. First, everything we have is based off of silverline plastics and
                    >> > their siloflex. They NEVER changed their manufacturing process or anything,
                    >> > but all of their pipe is now classified as 3608 and marked as formerly 3408
                    >> > because the ASTM changed their standards. Secondly, many pipes are marked
                    >> > 3408/3608. If all 3608 is banned, is that banned too?
                    >> >
                    >> > There is zero difference between the pipes on density, psi rating, or
                    >> > anything else structurally, just that the 3608 is less likely to form
                    >> > hairline cracks under high pressure. From what I can tell, because I can't
                    >> > find a revision history, that rule of 4408 has been in place since at least
                    >> > 2001.
                    >> >
                    >> > So, in a nutshell, our rulebook is outdated. I'm not trying to add new
                    >> > materials or something, just suggest it be updated to the standards of the
                    >> > ASTM. It may save a lot of siege .
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > --
                    > [Email to SCA-Siege-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Sean Powell
                    As a caveat let me point out that even if the test spec DIDN T change it is quite possible and even likely for a manufacturer to change their formulation from
                    Message 9 of 25 , Dec 12, 2012
                      As a caveat let me point out that even if the test spec DIDN'T change it is
                      quite possible and even likely for a manufacturer to change their
                      formulation from year to year based on technology, material cost,
                      processing time, pollution controls and 1000 other things and not inform
                      the customer so long as the test-spec they are claiming to meet is still
                      being met. As the SCA and ballista projectile performance is not part of
                      that spec they are in no ways required to inform us of anything.
                      Consequently the evaluation requirements then fall on the user to validate.
                      Ask me about the complexity of selling medical devices made from plastic
                      and then finding out that Exxon-plastics changed their formulation after
                      all your ISO10993 biocompatibility testing is complete. Exxon was under no
                      obligation to inform any of its customers so long as the material provided
                      met their (internal) specifications.

                      Thankfully the diameter, color and weight are the most important aspects
                      for our game so we probably don't need to go overboard on the evaluation. I
                      don't suppose anyone has a paid-for full copy and it lists Yield Strength
                      and Modulus of Elasticity. Professionally I would consider the tested
                      values and write an engineering rationale for equivalence or at least
                      non-inferiority (which isn't the same as equivalence)

                      Sean Powell


                      On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...>wrote:

                      > **
                      >
                      >
                      > ASTM D3408 is the testing method withdrawn in 1988.
                      > Replaced with ASTM D3583, which was withdrawn in 1991
                      > Replaced with ASTM D3569 or D5329
                      > "These test methods describe procedures for determining
                      > specification conformance for hot-applied, field-molded joint and
                      > crack sealants and fillers"
                      >
                      > ASTM D3608 is another testing method:
                      > http://www.astm.org/Standards/D3608.htm
                      >
                      > The numbers listed in the Society Handbook are:
                      > ASTM D2239: "This specification covers polyethylene (PE) pipe made in
                      > standard thermoplastic pipe dimension ratios and pressure rated for
                      > water"
                      > http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2239.htm
                      >
                      > ASTM D2737: "This specification covers polyethylene (PE) tubing
                      > pressure-rated for water"
                      > http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2737.htm
                      >
                      > So, while the testing methods may have changed, and possibly the exact
                      > material compounds used to create the pipe have changed, the base
                      > standard to define the properties of manufacture for ID and OD sizes,
                      > wall thicknesses, etc have been revised, but the numbers specified in
                      > the siege rules have not changed.
                      >
                      > - Rich
                      > EK DEM Siege
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Siegfried
                      Yeah, the CA community ran into a similar problem where Fiberglass Shaft manufacturers, knowing that we were buying their stuff, started to put a high degree
                      Message 10 of 25 , Dec 12, 2012
                        Yeah, the CA community ran into a similar problem where Fiberglass Shaft
                        manufacturers, knowing that we were buying their stuff, started to put a
                        high degree of sand into the resin mixture to make them cheaper. They
                        were 'legal', but snapped like a twig if you tried to bend them.

                        It's why CA went to a 'bend test' on the shafts, instead of standards
                        (Well that and fiberglass rod standards are few *grin*)

                        Siegfried


                        On 12/12/12 4:40 PM, Sean Powell wrote:
                        > As a caveat let me point out that even if the test spec DIDN'T change it is
                        > quite possible and even likely for a manufacturer to change their
                        > formulation from year to year based on technology, material cost,
                        > processing time, pollution controls and 1000 other things and not inform
                        > the customer so long as the test-spec they are claiming to meet is still
                        > being met. As the SCA and ballista projectile performance is not part of
                        > that spec they are in no ways required to inform us of anything.
                        > Consequently the evaluation requirements then fall on the user to validate.
                        > Ask me about the complexity of selling medical devices made from plastic
                        > and then finding out that Exxon-plastics changed their formulation after
                        > all your ISO10993 biocompatibility testing is complete. Exxon was under no
                        > obligation to inform any of its customers so long as the material provided
                        > met their (internal) specifications.
                        >
                        > Thankfully the diameter, color and weight are the most important aspects
                        > for our game so we probably don't need to go overboard on the evaluation. I
                        > don't suppose anyone has a paid-for full copy and it lists Yield Strength
                        > and Modulus of Elasticity. Professionally I would consider the tested
                        > values and write an engineering rationale for equivalence or at least
                        > non-inferiority (which isn't the same as equivalence)
                        >
                        > Sean Powell
                        >
                        >
                        > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...>wrote:
                        >
                        >> **
                        >>
                        >>
                        >> ASTM D3408 is the testing method withdrawn in 1988.
                        >> Replaced with ASTM D3583, which was withdrawn in 1991
                        >> Replaced with ASTM D3569 or D5329
                        >> "These test methods describe procedures for determining
                        >> specification conformance for hot-applied, field-molded joint and
                        >> crack sealants and fillers"
                        >>
                        >> ASTM D3608 is another testing method:
                        >> http://www.astm.org/Standards/D3608.htm
                        >>
                        >> The numbers listed in the Society Handbook are:
                        >> ASTM D2239: "This specification covers polyethylene (PE) pipe made in
                        >> standard thermoplastic pipe dimension ratios and pressure rated for
                        >> water"
                        >> http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2239.htm
                        >>
                        >> ASTM D2737: "This specification covers polyethylene (PE) tubing
                        >> pressure-rated for water"
                        >> http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2737.htm
                        >>
                        >> So, while the testing methods may have changed, and possibly the exact
                        >> material compounds used to create the pipe have changed, the base
                        >> standard to define the properties of manufacture for ID and OD sizes,
                        >> wall thicknesses, etc have been revised, but the numbers specified in
                        >> the siege rules have not changed.
                        >>
                        >> - Rich
                        >> EK DEM Siege
                        >>
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >

                        --
                        Barun Siegfried Sebastian Faust, OP - Baron Highland Foorde - Atlantia
                        http://hf.atlantia.sca.org/ - http://crossbows.biz/ - http://eliw.com/
                      • Taranach McLeod
                        I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not created with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant for our purposes.
                        Message 11 of 25 , Dec 12, 2012
                          I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not created
                          with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant for our
                          purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested in
                          three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity. We want
                          it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to shatter when
                          it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails on
                          most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                          pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these types of
                          things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing standards. I
                          don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have been
                          specifying, whether they are the older or newer.


                          Taranach McLeod
                          �thelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                          Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                          Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                          "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."



                          On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...> wrote:

                          > **
                          >
                          >
                          > As a caveat let me point out that even if the test spec DIDN'T change it is
                          > quite possible and even likely for a manufacturer to change their
                          > formulation from year to year based on technology, material cost,
                          > processing time, pollution controls and 1000 other things and not inform
                          > the customer so long as the test-spec they are claiming to meet is still
                          > being met. As the SCA and ballista projectile performance is not part of
                          > that spec they are in no ways required to inform us of anything.
                          > Consequently the evaluation requirements then fall on the user to validate.
                          > Ask me about the complexity of selling medical devices made from plastic
                          > and then finding out that Exxon-plastics changed their formulation after
                          > all your ISO10993 biocompatibility testing is complete. Exxon was under no
                          > obligation to inform any of its customers so long as the material provided
                          > met their (internal) specifications.
                          >
                          > Thankfully the diameter, color and weight are the most important aspects
                          > for our game so we probably don't need to go overboard on the evaluation. I
                          > don't suppose anyone has a paid-for full copy and it lists Yield Strength
                          > and Modulus of Elasticity. Professionally I would consider the tested
                          > values and write an engineering rationale for equivalence or at least
                          > non-inferiority (which isn't the same as equivalence)
                          >
                          > Sean Powell
                          >
                          > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...
                          > >wrote:
                          >
                          > > **
                          >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ASTM D3408 is the testing method withdrawn in 1988.
                          > > Replaced with ASTM D3583, which was withdrawn in 1991
                          > > Replaced with ASTM D3569 or D5329
                          > > "These test methods describe procedures for determining
                          > > specification conformance for hot-applied, field-molded joint and
                          > > crack sealants and fillers"
                          > >
                          > > ASTM D3608 is another testing method:
                          > > http://www.astm.org/Standards/D3608.htm
                          > >
                          > > The numbers listed in the Society Handbook are:
                          > > ASTM D2239: "This specification covers polyethylene (PE) pipe made in
                          > > standard thermoplastic pipe dimension ratios and pressure rated for
                          > > water"
                          > > http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2239.htm
                          > >
                          > > ASTM D2737: "This specification covers polyethylene (PE) tubing
                          > > pressure-rated for water"
                          > > http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2737.htm
                          > >
                          > > So, while the testing methods may have changed, and possibly the exact
                          > > material compounds used to create the pipe have changed, the base
                          > > standard to define the properties of manufacture for ID and OD sizes,
                          > > wall thicknesses, etc have been revised, but the numbers specified in
                          > > the siege rules have not changed.
                          > >
                          > > - Rich
                          > > EK DEM Siege
                          > >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Sean Powell
                          Yeah I d agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the FDA. I wouldn t sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec. It shouldn t be
                          Message 12 of 25 , Dec 12, 2012
                            Yeah I'd agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the FDA.
                            I wouldn't sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec. It
                            shouldn't be too difficult to get and if the new testing is more brutal all
                            around then we are set. There is always the chance that a portion of the
                            testing moved in the opposite direction which is good for the gas companies
                            but not for us. (can't think of what that would be but I've seen lots of
                            failures that engineers didn't think of until they happened.)

                            Best thing would be to pull the specs, do a line by line and then issue an
                            addendum that D3608 is acecptable in addition to D3408 so that the document
                            is official and on record.

                            Does anyone have or can anyone get a copy?

                            Sean
                            On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...> wrote:

                            > I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not created
                            > with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant for our
                            > purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested in
                            > three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity. We want
                            > it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to shatter when
                            > it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails on
                            > most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                            > pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these types of
                            > things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing standards. I
                            > don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have been
                            > specifying, whether they are the older or newer.
                            >
                            >
                            > Taranach McLeod
                            > Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                            > Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                            > Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                            > "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                            >
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • robin
                            I will ask tomorrow from our local supplier and let all know. Nivah ... From: Sean Powell To: SCA-Siege
                            Message 13 of 25 , Dec 12, 2012
                              I will ask tomorrow from our local supplier and let all know.

                              Nivah


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Sean Powell <sean14powell@...>
                              To: SCA-Siege <SCA-Siege@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Wed, Dec 12, 2012 9:54 pm
                              Subject: Re: [SCA-Siege] Re: Ammo question





                              Yeah I'd agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the FDA.
                              I wouldn't sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec. It
                              shouldn't be too difficult to get and if the new testing is more brutal all
                              around then we are set. There is always the chance that a portion of the
                              testing moved in the opposite direction which is good for the gas companies
                              but not for us. (can't think of what that would be but I've seen lots of
                              failures that engineers didn't think of until they happened.)

                              Best thing would be to pull the specs, do a line by line and then issue an
                              addendum that D3608 is acecptable in addition to D3408 so that the document
                              is official and on record.

                              Does anyone have or can anyone get a copy?

                              Sean
                              On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...> wrote:

                              > I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not created
                              > with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant for our
                              > purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested in
                              > three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity. We want
                              > it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to shatter when
                              > it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails on
                              > most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                              > pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these types of
                              > things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing standards. I
                              > don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have been
                              > specifying, whether they are the older or newer.
                              >
                              >
                              > Taranach McLeod
                              > Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                              > Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                              > Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                              > "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                              >
                              >

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Taranach McLeod
                              Here we go: Pipe Numbering - The American Society for Testing and Materials conducts tests on a variety of construction materials, including polyethylene pipe.
                              Message 14 of 25 , Dec 12, 2012
                                Here we go:
                                Pipe Numbering

                                -

                                The American Society for Testing and Materials conducts tests on a
                                variety of construction materials, including polyethylene pipe. The ASTM,
                                in conjunction with the Plastic Pipe Institute, assigns a numerical
                                designation to polyethylene pipe based mainly on the type of resin from
                                which it is made and its resistance to cracking under pressure, or
                                hydrostatic stress. Due to changes in the resins used to make polyethylene
                                pipe the ASTM expanded the classifications, which resulted in a
                                corresponding change in numerical designations. Pipe that was formerly
                                classified under the Thermoplastic Materials Designation Code as PE3408 is
                                now separated into three classes, designated PE3408, PE3608 and PE4710. The
                                first number of the code relates to material density, the second to crack
                                resistance, and the last two indicate the hydrostatic design stress at a
                                specific temperature.

                                PE3408

                                -

                                PE3408 has a resin designation of 3, a crack resistance factor of 4, and
                                a HDS of 800 psi at 73F. Because this classification has been in existence
                                for quite some time, it is sometimes included in specifications even when
                                another pipe is actually being used, such as PE3408/3608 or PE3408/4710.

                                PE3608

                                -

                                PE3608 has the same resin and HDS designation as PE3408. The only
                                difference is that PE3608 has a crack resistance factor of 6. This
                                designation may be misleading, however. Performance Pipe, one of the
                                largest manufacturers of polyethylene piping materials in North America,
                                notes that the ASTM changed the way it assigns a slow crack resistance
                                number in the latest version of ASTM D3350, "Standard Specification for
                                Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials."

                                PE4710

                                -

                                High performance resins such as those used to produce PE4710 are one of
                                the reasons the ASTM and PPI changed the ratings and designations. PE4710
                                is a higher density material, hence the resin designation of 4. It also has
                                a higher stress crack resistance, with a factor of 7. The HDS is 1000 psi
                                at 73F.


                                The 3608 meets or exceeds the 3408 standard and is equally viable for our
                                purposes... it also appears that the 4710 also would/ should be considered
                                to be equivalent. I am not allowed to publish these standards on the open
                                net, nor would anyone else who purchases them, therefore I would suggest
                                forking out the $150 dollars for the three standards that are pertinent to
                                this discussion if you wish to personally verify further.

                                The reasons these standards were chosen were that PVC shatters into
                                blade-like shards that could penetrate a helm when it breaks. The HDPE does
                                not shatter or peel into shards and thus is deemed safe for our purposes
                                because it will not break in a way that it could penetrate a helm. The
                                entirety of this standard was to prevent the use of plastics that look the
                                same but will shatter.



                                Taranach McLeod
                                �thelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."



                                On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...> wrote:

                                > **
                                >
                                >
                                > Yeah I'd agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the FDA.
                                > I wouldn't sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec. It
                                > shouldn't be too difficult to get and if the new testing is more brutal all
                                > around then we are set. There is always the chance that a portion of the
                                > testing moved in the opposite direction which is good for the gas companies
                                > but not for us. (can't think of what that would be but I've seen lots of
                                > failures that engineers didn't think of until they happened.)
                                >
                                > Best thing would be to pull the specs, do a line by line and then issue an
                                > addendum that D3608 is acecptable in addition to D3408 so that the document
                                > is official and on record.
                                >
                                > Does anyone have or can anyone get a copy?
                                >
                                > Sean
                                >
                                > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...>
                                > wrote:
                                >
                                > > I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not created
                                > > with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant for
                                > our
                                > > purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested in
                                > > three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity. We
                                > want
                                > > it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to shatter
                                > when
                                > > it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails on
                                > > most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                                > > pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these types
                                > of
                                > > things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing standards. I
                                > > don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have been
                                > > specifying, whether they are the older or newer.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Taranach McLeod
                                > > �thelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                > > Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                > > Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                > > "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • robin
                                Thank you Taranach. Saves me from stopping in town tomorrow! Nivah ... From: Taranach McLeod To: SCA-Siege
                                Message 15 of 25 , Dec 12, 2012
                                  Thank you Taranach. Saves me from stopping in town tomorrow!
                                  Nivah


                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...>
                                  To: SCA-Siege <SCA-Siege@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Wed, Dec 12, 2012 11:12 pm
                                  Subject: Re: [SCA-Siege] Re: Ammo question


                                  Here we go:
                                  Pipe Numbering

                                  -

                                  The American Society for Testing and Materials conducts tests on a
                                  variety of construction materials, including polyethylene pipe. The ASTM,
                                  in conjunction with the Plastic Pipe Institute, assigns a numerical
                                  designation to polyethylene pipe based mainly on the type of resin from
                                  which it is made and its resistance to cracking under pressure, or
                                  hydrostatic stress. Due to changes in the resins used to make polyethylene
                                  pipe the ASTM expanded the classifications, which resulted in a
                                  corresponding change in numerical designations. Pipe that was formerly
                                  classified under the Thermoplastic Materials Designation Code as PE3408 is
                                  now separated into three classes, designated PE3408, PE3608 and PE4710. The
                                  first number of the code relates to material density, the second to crack
                                  resistance, and the last two indicate the hydrostatic design stress at a
                                  specific temperature.

                                  PE3408

                                  -

                                  PE3408 has a resin designation of 3, a crack resistance factor of 4, and
                                  a HDS of 800 psi at 73F. Because this classification has been in existence
                                  for quite some time, it is sometimes included in specifications even when
                                  another pipe is actually being used, such as PE3408/3608 or PE3408/4710.

                                  PE3608

                                  -

                                  PE3608 has the same resin and HDS designation as PE3408. The only
                                  difference is that PE3608 has a crack resistance factor of 6. This
                                  designation may be misleading, however. Performance Pipe, one of the
                                  largest manufacturers of polyethylene piping materials in North America,
                                  notes that the ASTM changed the way it assigns a slow crack resistance
                                  number in the latest version of ASTM D3350, "Standard Specification for
                                  Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials."

                                  PE4710

                                  -

                                  High performance resins such as those used to produce PE4710 are one of
                                  the reasons the ASTM and PPI changed the ratings and designations. PE4710
                                  is a higher density material, hence the resin designation of 4. It also has
                                  a higher stress crack resistance, with a factor of 7. The HDS is 1000 psi
                                  at 73F.


                                  The 3608 meets or exceeds the 3408 standard and is equally viable for our
                                  purposes... it also appears that the 4710 also would/ should be considered
                                  to be equivalent. I am not allowed to publish these standards on the open
                                  net, nor would anyone else who purchases them, therefore I would suggest
                                  forking out the $150 dollars for the three standards that are pertinent to
                                  this discussion if you wish to personally verify further.

                                  The reasons these standards were chosen were that PVC shatters into
                                  blade-like shards that could penetrate a helm when it breaks. The HDPE does
                                  not shatter or peel into shards and thus is deemed safe for our purposes
                                  because it will not break in a way that it could penetrate a helm. The
                                  entirety of this standard was to prevent the use of plastics that look the
                                  same but will shatter.



                                  Taranach McLeod
                                  �thelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                  Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                  Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                  "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."



                                  On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...> wrote:

                                  > **
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yeah I'd agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the FDA.
                                  > I wouldn't sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec. It
                                  > shouldn't be too difficult to get and if the new testing is more brutal all
                                  > around then we are set. There is always the chance that a portion of the
                                  > testing moved in the opposite direction which is good for the gas companies
                                  > but not for us. (can't think of what that would be but I've seen lots of
                                  > failures that engineers didn't think of until they happened.)
                                  >
                                  > Best thing would be to pull the specs, do a line by line and then issue an
                                  > addendum that D3608 is acecptable in addition to D3408 so that the document
                                  > is official and on record.
                                  >
                                  > Does anyone have or can anyone get a copy?
                                  >
                                  > Sean
                                  >
                                  > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...>
                                  > wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not created
                                  > > with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant for
                                  > our
                                  > > purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested in
                                  > > three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity. We
                                  > want
                                  > > it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to shatter
                                  > when
                                  > > it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails on
                                  > > most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                                  > > pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these types
                                  > of
                                  > > things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing standards. I
                                  > > don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have been
                                  > > specifying, whether they are the older or newer.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Taranach McLeod
                                  > > �thelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                  > > Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                  > > Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                  > > "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

                                  --
                                  [Email to SCA-Siege-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]Yahoo! Groups
                                  Links







                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Richard le Hauke
                                  Reason #42 why we keep Taranach around :-D - Rich
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Dec 13, 2012
                                    Reason #42 why we keep Taranach around :-D

                                    - Rich

                                    On 12/12/2012 11:12 PM, Taranach McLeod wrote:
                                    > Here we go:
                                    > Pipe Numbering
                                    >
                                    > -
                                    >
                                    > The American Society for Testing and Materials conducts tests on a
                                    > variety of construction materials, including polyethylene pipe. The ASTM,
                                    > in conjunction with the Plastic Pipe Institute, assigns a numerical
                                    > designation to polyethylene pipe based mainly on the type of resin from
                                    > which it is made and its resistance to cracking under pressure, or
                                    > hydrostatic stress. Due to changes in the resins used to make polyethylene
                                    > pipe the ASTM expanded the classifications, which resulted in a
                                    > corresponding change in numerical designations. Pipe that was formerly
                                    > classified under the Thermoplastic Materials Designation Code as PE3408 is
                                    > now separated into three classes, designated PE3408, PE3608 and PE4710. The
                                    > first number of the code relates to material density, the second to crack
                                    > resistance, and the last two indicate the hydrostatic design stress at a
                                    > specific temperature.
                                    >
                                    > PE3408
                                    >
                                    > -
                                    >
                                    > PE3408 has a resin designation of 3, a crack resistance factor of 4, and
                                    > a HDS of 800 psi at 73F. Because this classification has been in existence
                                    > for quite some time, it is sometimes included in specifications even when
                                    > another pipe is actually being used, such as PE3408/3608 or PE3408/4710.
                                    >
                                    > PE3608
                                    >
                                    > -
                                    >
                                    > PE3608 has the same resin and HDS designation as PE3408. The only
                                    > difference is that PE3608 has a crack resistance factor of 6. This
                                    > designation may be misleading, however. Performance Pipe, one of the
                                    > largest manufacturers of polyethylene piping materials in North America,
                                    > notes that the ASTM changed the way it assigns a slow crack resistance
                                    > number in the latest version of ASTM D3350, "Standard Specification for
                                    > Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials."
                                    >
                                    > PE4710
                                    >
                                    > -
                                    >
                                    > High performance resins such as those used to produce PE4710 are one of
                                    > the reasons the ASTM and PPI changed the ratings and designations. PE4710
                                    > is a higher density material, hence the resin designation of 4. It also has
                                    > a higher stress crack resistance, with a factor of 7. The HDS is 1000 psi
                                    > at 73F.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > The 3608 meets or exceeds the 3408 standard and is equally viable for our
                                    > purposes... it also appears that the 4710 also would/ should be considered
                                    > to be equivalent. I am not allowed to publish these standards on the open
                                    > net, nor would anyone else who purchases them, therefore I would suggest
                                    > forking out the $150 dollars for the three standards that are pertinent to
                                    > this discussion if you wish to personally verify further.
                                    >
                                    > The reasons these standards were chosen were that PVC shatters into
                                    > blade-like shards that could penetrate a helm when it breaks. The HDPE does
                                    > not shatter or peel into shards and thus is deemed safe for our purposes
                                    > because it will not break in a way that it could penetrate a helm. The
                                    > entirety of this standard was to prevent the use of plastics that look the
                                    > same but will shatter.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Taranach McLeod
                                    > Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                    > Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                    > Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                    > "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >> **
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >> Yeah I'd agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the FDA.
                                    >> I wouldn't sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec. It
                                    >> shouldn't be too difficult to get and if the new testing is more brutal all
                                    >> around then we are set. There is always the chance that a portion of the
                                    >> testing moved in the opposite direction which is good for the gas companies
                                    >> but not for us. (can't think of what that would be but I've seen lots of
                                    >> failures that engineers didn't think of until they happened.)
                                    >>
                                    >> Best thing would be to pull the specs, do a line by line and then issue an
                                    >> addendum that D3608 is acecptable in addition to D3408 so that the document
                                    >> is official and on record.
                                    >>
                                    >> Does anyone have or can anyone get a copy?
                                    >>
                                    >> Sean
                                    >>
                                    >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...>
                                    >> wrote:
                                    >>
                                    >>> I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not created
                                    >>> with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant for
                                    >> our
                                    >>> purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested in
                                    >>> three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity. We
                                    >> want
                                    >>> it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to shatter
                                    >> when
                                    >>> it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails on
                                    >>> most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                                    >>> pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these types
                                    >> of
                                    >>> things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing standards. I
                                    >>> don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have been
                                    >>> specifying, whether they are the older or newer.
                                    >>>
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Taranach McLeod
                                    >>> Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                    >>> Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                    >>> Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                    >>> "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                    >>>
                                    >>>
                                    >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                  • Diane Hauer
                                    Anyone up for helping out with some testing? ~Svanhildr ... -- Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It s
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
                                      Anyone up for helping out with some testing?

                                      ~Svanhildr

                                      On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...>wrote:

                                      > **
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Reason #42 why we keep Taranach around :-D
                                      >
                                      > - Rich
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > On 12/12/2012 11:12 PM, Taranach McLeod wrote:
                                      > > Here we go:
                                      > > Pipe Numbering
                                      > >
                                      > > -
                                      > >
                                      > > The American Society for Testing and Materials conducts tests on a
                                      > > variety of construction materials, including polyethylene pipe. The ASTM,
                                      > > in conjunction with the Plastic Pipe Institute, assigns a numerical
                                      > > designation to polyethylene pipe based mainly on the type of resin from
                                      > > which it is made and its resistance to cracking under pressure, or
                                      > > hydrostatic stress. Due to changes in the resins used to make
                                      > polyethylene
                                      > > pipe the ASTM expanded the classifications, which resulted in a
                                      > > corresponding change in numerical designations. Pipe that was formerly
                                      > > classified under the Thermoplastic Materials Designation Code as PE3408
                                      > is
                                      > > now separated into three classes, designated PE3408, PE3608 and PE4710.
                                      > The
                                      > > first number of the code relates to material density, the second to crack
                                      > > resistance, and the last two indicate the hydrostatic design stress at a
                                      > > specific temperature.
                                      > >
                                      > > PE3408
                                      > >
                                      > > -
                                      > >
                                      > > PE3408 has a resin designation of 3, a crack resistance factor of 4, and
                                      > > a HDS of 800 psi at 73F. Because this classification has been in
                                      > existence
                                      > > for quite some time, it is sometimes included in specifications even when
                                      > > another pipe is actually being used, such as PE3408/3608 or PE3408/4710.
                                      > >
                                      > > PE3608
                                      > >
                                      > > -
                                      > >
                                      > > PE3608 has the same resin and HDS designation as PE3408. The only
                                      > > difference is that PE3608 has a crack resistance factor of 6. This
                                      > > designation may be misleading, however. Performance Pipe, one of the
                                      > > largest manufacturers of polyethylene piping materials in North America,
                                      > > notes that the ASTM changed the way it assigns a slow crack resistance
                                      > > number in the latest version of ASTM D3350, "Standard Specification for
                                      > > Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials."
                                      > >
                                      > > PE4710
                                      > >
                                      > > -
                                      > >
                                      > > High performance resins such as those used to produce PE4710 are one of
                                      > > the reasons the ASTM and PPI changed the ratings and designations. PE4710
                                      > > is a higher density material, hence the resin designation of 4. It also
                                      > has
                                      > > a higher stress crack resistance, with a factor of 7. The HDS is 1000 psi
                                      > > at 73F.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > The 3608 meets or exceeds the 3408 standard and is equally viable for our
                                      > > purposes... it also appears that the 4710 also would/ should be
                                      > considered
                                      > > to be equivalent. I am not allowed to publish these standards on the open
                                      > > net, nor would anyone else who purchases them, therefore I would suggest
                                      > > forking out the $150 dollars for the three standards that are pertinent
                                      > to
                                      > > this discussion if you wish to personally verify further.
                                      > >
                                      > > The reasons these standards were chosen were that PVC shatters into
                                      > > blade-like shards that could penetrate a helm when it breaks. The HDPE
                                      > does
                                      > > not shatter or peel into shards and thus is deemed safe for our purposes
                                      > > because it will not break in a way that it could penetrate a helm. The
                                      > > entirety of this standard was to prevent the use of plastics that look
                                      > the
                                      > > same but will shatter.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Taranach McLeod
                                      > > Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                      > > Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                      > > Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                      > > "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...>
                                      > wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >> **
                                      > >>
                                      > >>
                                      > >> Yeah I'd agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the
                                      > FDA.
                                      > >> I wouldn't sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec. It
                                      > >> shouldn't be too difficult to get and if the new testing is more brutal
                                      > all
                                      > >> around then we are set. There is always the chance that a portion of the
                                      > >> testing moved in the opposite direction which is good for the gas
                                      > companies
                                      > >> but not for us. (can't think of what that would be but I've seen lots of
                                      > >> failures that engineers didn't think of until they happened.)
                                      > >>
                                      > >> Best thing would be to pull the specs, do a line by line and then issue
                                      > an
                                      > >> addendum that D3608 is acecptable in addition to D3408 so that the
                                      > document
                                      > >> is official and on record.
                                      > >>
                                      > >> Does anyone have or can anyone get a copy?
                                      > >>
                                      > >> Sean
                                      > >>
                                      > >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...>
                                      > >> wrote:
                                      > >>
                                      > >>> I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not created
                                      > >>> with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant for
                                      > >> our
                                      > >>> purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested
                                      > in
                                      > >>> three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity. We
                                      > >> want
                                      > >>> it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to shatter
                                      > >> when
                                      > >>> it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails
                                      > on
                                      > >>> most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                                      > >>> pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these
                                      > types
                                      > >> of
                                      > >>> things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing standards.
                                      > I
                                      > >>> don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have
                                      > been
                                      > >>> specifying, whether they are the older or newer.
                                      > >>>
                                      > >>>
                                      > >>> Taranach McLeod
                                      > >>> Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                      > >>> Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                      > >>> Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                      > >>> "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                      > >>>
                                      > >>>
                                      > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > >>
                                      > >>
                                      > >>
                                      > >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > ------------------------------------
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >



                                      --
                                      "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
                                      very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
                                      It hopes we've learned something from yesterday."
                                      -- John Wayne


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • brian kosoris
                                      I would love to, what do I have to do? ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
                                        I would love to, what do I have to do?

                                        On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Diane Hauer <dkhauer@...> wrote:

                                        > **
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Anyone up for helping out with some testing?
                                        >
                                        > ~Svanhildr
                                        >
                                        > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...
                                        > >wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > **
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > > Reason #42 why we keep Taranach around :-D
                                        > >
                                        > > - Rich
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > On 12/12/2012 11:12 PM, Taranach McLeod wrote:
                                        > > > Here we go:
                                        > > > Pipe Numbering
                                        > > >
                                        > > > -
                                        > > >
                                        > > > The American Society for Testing and Materials conducts tests on a
                                        > > > variety of construction materials, including polyethylene pipe. The
                                        > ASTM,
                                        > > > in conjunction with the Plastic Pipe Institute, assigns a numerical
                                        > > > designation to polyethylene pipe based mainly on the type of resin from
                                        > > > which it is made and its resistance to cracking under pressure, or
                                        > > > hydrostatic stress. Due to changes in the resins used to make
                                        > > polyethylene
                                        > > > pipe the ASTM expanded the classifications, which resulted in a
                                        > > > corresponding change in numerical designations. Pipe that was formerly
                                        > > > classified under the Thermoplastic Materials Designation Code as PE3408
                                        > > is
                                        > > > now separated into three classes, designated PE3408, PE3608 and PE4710.
                                        > > The
                                        > > > first number of the code relates to material density, the second to
                                        > crack
                                        > > > resistance, and the last two indicate the hydrostatic design stress at
                                        > a
                                        > > > specific temperature.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > PE3408
                                        > > >
                                        > > > -
                                        > > >
                                        > > > PE3408 has a resin designation of 3, a crack resistance factor of 4,
                                        > and
                                        > > > a HDS of 800 psi at 73F. Because this classification has been in
                                        > > existence
                                        > > > for quite some time, it is sometimes included in specifications even
                                        > when
                                        > > > another pipe is actually being used, such as PE3408/3608 or
                                        > PE3408/4710.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > PE3608
                                        > > >
                                        > > > -
                                        > > >
                                        > > > PE3608 has the same resin and HDS designation as PE3408. The only
                                        > > > difference is that PE3608 has a crack resistance factor of 6. This
                                        > > > designation may be misleading, however. Performance Pipe, one of the
                                        > > > largest manufacturers of polyethylene piping materials in North
                                        > America,
                                        > > > notes that the ASTM changed the way it assigns a slow crack resistance
                                        > > > number in the latest version of ASTM D3350, "Standard Specification for
                                        > > > Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials."
                                        > > >
                                        > > > PE4710
                                        > > >
                                        > > > -
                                        > > >
                                        > > > High performance resins such as those used to produce PE4710 are one of
                                        > > > the reasons the ASTM and PPI changed the ratings and designations.
                                        > PE4710
                                        > > > is a higher density material, hence the resin designation of 4. It also
                                        > > has
                                        > > > a higher stress crack resistance, with a factor of 7. The HDS is 1000
                                        > psi
                                        > > > at 73F.
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > The 3608 meets or exceeds the 3408 standard and is equally viable for
                                        > our
                                        > > > purposes... it also appears that the 4710 also would/ should be
                                        > > considered
                                        > > > to be equivalent. I am not allowed to publish these standards on the
                                        > open
                                        > > > net, nor would anyone else who purchases them, therefore I would
                                        > suggest
                                        > > > forking out the $150 dollars for the three standards that are pertinent
                                        > > to
                                        > > > this discussion if you wish to personally verify further.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > The reasons these standards were chosen were that PVC shatters into
                                        > > > blade-like shards that could penetrate a helm when it breaks. The HDPE
                                        > > does
                                        > > > not shatter or peel into shards and thus is deemed safe for our
                                        > purposes
                                        > > > because it will not break in a way that it could penetrate a helm. The
                                        > > > entirety of this standard was to prevent the use of plastics that look
                                        > > the
                                        > > > same but will shatter.
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Taranach McLeod
                                        > > > �thelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                        > > > Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                        > > > Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                        > > > "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...>
                                        > > wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > >> **
                                        > > >>
                                        > > >>
                                        > > >> Yeah I'd agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the
                                        > > FDA.
                                        > > >> I wouldn't sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec.
                                        > It
                                        > > >> shouldn't be too difficult to get and if the new testing is more
                                        > brutal
                                        > > all
                                        > > >> around then we are set. There is always the chance that a portion of
                                        > the
                                        > > >> testing moved in the opposite direction which is good for the gas
                                        > > companies
                                        > > >> but not for us. (can't think of what that would be but I've seen lots
                                        > of
                                        > > >> failures that engineers didn't think of until they happened.)
                                        > > >>
                                        > > >> Best thing would be to pull the specs, do a line by line and then
                                        > issue
                                        > > an
                                        > > >> addendum that D3608 is acecptable in addition to D3408 so that the
                                        > > document
                                        > > >> is official and on record.
                                        > > >>
                                        > > >> Does anyone have or can anyone get a copy?
                                        > > >>
                                        > > >> Sean
                                        > > >>
                                        > > >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...>
                                        > > >> wrote:
                                        > > >>
                                        > > >>> I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not
                                        > created
                                        > > >>> with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant
                                        > for
                                        > > >> our
                                        > > >>> purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested
                                        > > in
                                        > > >>> three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity.
                                        > We
                                        > > >> want
                                        > > >>> it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to
                                        > shatter
                                        > > >> when
                                        > > >>> it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails
                                        > > on
                                        > > >>> most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                                        > > >>> pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these
                                        > > types
                                        > > >> of
                                        > > >>> things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing
                                        > standards.
                                        > > I
                                        > > >>> don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have
                                        > > been
                                        > > >>> specifying, whether they are the older or newer.
                                        > > >>>
                                        > > >>>
                                        > > >>> Taranach McLeod
                                        > > >>> �thelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                        > > >>> Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                        > > >>> Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                        > > >>> "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                        > > >>>
                                        > > >>>
                                        > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > > >>
                                        > > >>
                                        > > >>
                                        > > >
                                        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > ------------------------------------
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > --
                                        > "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
                                        > very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
                                        > It hopes we've learned something from yesterday."
                                        > -- John Wayne
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • thelordofd@yahoo.com
                                        Depending on what you need. I m still building my ballista, but I have a Lowes nearby with an ample supply of 3608 pieces. I won t be able to test fire until
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
                                          Depending on what you need. I'm still building my ballista, but I have a Lowes nearby with an ample supply of 3608 pieces. I won't be able to test fire until spring.

                                          Sent from my iPhone

                                          On Dec 14, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Diane Hauer <dkhauer@...> wrote:

                                          > Anyone up for helping out with some testing?
                                          >
                                          > ~Svanhildr
                                          >
                                          > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...>wrote:
                                          >
                                          >> **
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >> Reason #42 why we keep Taranach around :-D
                                          >>
                                          >> - Rich
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >> On 12/12/2012 11:12 PM, Taranach McLeod wrote:
                                          >>> Here we go:
                                          >>> Pipe Numbering
                                          >>>
                                          >>> -
                                          >>>
                                          >>> The American Society for Testing and Materials conducts tests on a
                                          >>> variety of construction materials, including polyethylene pipe. The ASTM,
                                          >>> in conjunction with the Plastic Pipe Institute, assigns a numerical
                                          >>> designation to polyethylene pipe based mainly on the type of resin from
                                          >>> which it is made and its resistance to cracking under pressure, or
                                          >>> hydrostatic stress. Due to changes in the resins used to make
                                          >> polyethylene
                                          >>> pipe the ASTM expanded the classifications, which resulted in a
                                          >>> corresponding change in numerical designations. Pipe that was formerly
                                          >>> classified under the Thermoplastic Materials Designation Code as PE3408
                                          >> is
                                          >>> now separated into three classes, designated PE3408, PE3608 and PE4710.
                                          >> The
                                          >>> first number of the code relates to material density, the second to crack
                                          >>> resistance, and the last two indicate the hydrostatic design stress at a
                                          >>> specific temperature.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> PE3408
                                          >>>
                                          >>> -
                                          >>>
                                          >>> PE3408 has a resin designation of 3, a crack resistance factor of 4, and
                                          >>> a HDS of 800 psi at 73F. Because this classification has been in
                                          >> existence
                                          >>> for quite some time, it is sometimes included in specifications even when
                                          >>> another pipe is actually being used, such as PE3408/3608 or PE3408/4710.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> PE3608
                                          >>>
                                          >>> -
                                          >>>
                                          >>> PE3608 has the same resin and HDS designation as PE3408. The only
                                          >>> difference is that PE3608 has a crack resistance factor of 6. This
                                          >>> designation may be misleading, however. Performance Pipe, one of the
                                          >>> largest manufacturers of polyethylene piping materials in North America,
                                          >>> notes that the ASTM changed the way it assigns a slow crack resistance
                                          >>> number in the latest version of ASTM D3350, "Standard Specification for
                                          >>> Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials."
                                          >>>
                                          >>> PE4710
                                          >>>
                                          >>> -
                                          >>>
                                          >>> High performance resins such as those used to produce PE4710 are one of
                                          >>> the reasons the ASTM and PPI changed the ratings and designations. PE4710
                                          >>> is a higher density material, hence the resin designation of 4. It also
                                          >> has
                                          >>> a higher stress crack resistance, with a factor of 7. The HDS is 1000 psi
                                          >>> at 73F.
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>> The 3608 meets or exceeds the 3408 standard and is equally viable for our
                                          >>> purposes... it also appears that the 4710 also would/ should be
                                          >> considered
                                          >>> to be equivalent. I am not allowed to publish these standards on the open
                                          >>> net, nor would anyone else who purchases them, therefore I would suggest
                                          >>> forking out the $150 dollars for the three standards that are pertinent
                                          >> to
                                          >>> this discussion if you wish to personally verify further.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> The reasons these standards were chosen were that PVC shatters into
                                          >>> blade-like shards that could penetrate a helm when it breaks. The HDPE
                                          >> does
                                          >>> not shatter or peel into shards and thus is deemed safe for our purposes
                                          >>> because it will not break in a way that it could penetrate a helm. The
                                          >>> entirety of this standard was to prevent the use of plastics that look
                                          >> the
                                          >>> same but will shatter.
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>> Taranach McLeod
                                          >>> Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                          >>> Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                          >>> Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                          >>> "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...>
                                          >> wrote:
                                          >>>
                                          >>>> **
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>> Yeah I'd agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the
                                          >> FDA.
                                          >>>> I wouldn't sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec. It
                                          >>>> shouldn't be too difficult to get and if the new testing is more brutal
                                          >> all
                                          >>>> around then we are set. There is always the chance that a portion of the
                                          >>>> testing moved in the opposite direction which is good for the gas
                                          >> companies
                                          >>>> but not for us. (can't think of what that would be but I've seen lots of
                                          >>>> failures that engineers didn't think of until they happened.)
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>> Best thing would be to pull the specs, do a line by line and then issue
                                          >> an
                                          >>>> addendum that D3608 is acecptable in addition to D3408 so that the
                                          >> document
                                          >>>> is official and on record.
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>> Does anyone have or can anyone get a copy?
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>> Sean
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...>
                                          >>>> wrote:
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>> I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not created
                                          >>>>> with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant for
                                          >>>> our
                                          >>>>> purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested
                                          >> in
                                          >>>>> three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity. We
                                          >>>> want
                                          >>>>> it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to shatter
                                          >>>> when
                                          >>>>> it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails
                                          >> on
                                          >>>>> most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                                          >>>>> pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these
                                          >> types
                                          >>>> of
                                          >>>>> things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing standards.
                                          >> I
                                          >>>>> don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have
                                          >> been
                                          >>>>> specifying, whether they are the older or newer.
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> Taranach McLeod
                                          >>>>> Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                          >>>>> Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                          >>>>> Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                          >>>>> "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>> ------------------------------------
                                          >>>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --
                                          > "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
                                          > very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
                                          > It hopes we've learned something from yesterday."
                                          > -- John Wayne
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ------------------------------------
                                          >
                                          > --
                                          > [Email to SCA-Siege-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • robin
                                          What do you have in mind for testing? I believe we have at least one crew who would be willing to fire frequently to obtain data. Nivah ... From: thelordofd
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
                                            What do you have in mind for testing?
                                            I believe we have at least one crew who would be willing to fire frequently to obtain data.

                                            Nivah


                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: thelordofd <thelordofd@...>
                                            To: SCA-Siege <SCA-Siege@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 11:25 am
                                            Subject: Re: [SCA-Siege] Re: Ammo question





                                            Depending on what you need. I'm still building my ballista, but I have a Lowes nearby with an ample supply of 3608 pieces. I won't be able to test fire until spring.

                                            Sent from my iPhone

                                            On Dec 14, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Diane Hauer <dkhauer@...> wrote:

                                            > Anyone up for helping out with some testing?
                                            >
                                            > ~Svanhildr
                                            >
                                            > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...>wrote:
                                            >
                                            >> **
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >> Reason #42 why we keep Taranach around :-D
                                            >>
                                            >> - Rich
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >> On 12/12/2012 11:12 PM, Taranach McLeod wrote:
                                            >>> Here we go:
                                            >>> Pipe Numbering
                                            >>>
                                            >>> -
                                            >>>
                                            >>> The American Society for Testing and Materials conducts tests on a
                                            >>> variety of construction materials, including polyethylene pipe. The ASTM,
                                            >>> in conjunction with the Plastic Pipe Institute, assigns a numerical
                                            >>> designation to polyethylene pipe based mainly on the type of resin from
                                            >>> which it is made and its resistance to cracking under pressure, or
                                            >>> hydrostatic stress. Due to changes in the resins used to make
                                            >> polyethylene
                                            >>> pipe the ASTM expanded the classifications, which resulted in a
                                            >>> corresponding change in numerical designations. Pipe that was formerly
                                            >>> classified under the Thermoplastic Materials Designation Code as PE3408
                                            >> is
                                            >>> now separated into three classes, designated PE3408, PE3608 and PE4710.
                                            >> The
                                            >>> first number of the code relates to material density, the second to crack
                                            >>> resistance, and the last two indicate the hydrostatic design stress at a
                                            >>> specific temperature.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> PE3408
                                            >>>
                                            >>> -
                                            >>>
                                            >>> PE3408 has a resin designation of 3, a crack resistance factor of 4, and
                                            >>> a HDS of 800 psi at 73F. Because this classification has been in
                                            >> existence
                                            >>> for quite some time, it is sometimes included in specifications even when
                                            >>> another pipe is actually being used, such as PE3408/3608 or PE3408/4710.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> PE3608
                                            >>>
                                            >>> -
                                            >>>
                                            >>> PE3608 has the same resin and HDS designation as PE3408. The only
                                            >>> difference is that PE3608 has a crack resistance factor of 6. This
                                            >>> designation may be misleading, however. Performance Pipe, one of the
                                            >>> largest manufacturers of polyethylene piping materials in North America,
                                            >>> notes that the ASTM changed the way it assigns a slow crack resistance
                                            >>> number in the latest version of ASTM D3350, "Standard Specification for
                                            >>> Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials."
                                            >>>
                                            >>> PE4710
                                            >>>
                                            >>> -
                                            >>>
                                            >>> High performance resins such as those used to produce PE4710 are one of
                                            >>> the reasons the ASTM and PPI changed the ratings and designations. PE4710
                                            >>> is a higher density material, hence the resin designation of 4. It also
                                            >> has
                                            >>> a higher stress crack resistance, with a factor of 7. The HDS is 1000 psi
                                            >>> at 73F.
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> The 3608 meets or exceeds the 3408 standard and is equally viable for our
                                            >>> purposes... it also appears that the 4710 also would/ should be
                                            >> considered
                                            >>> to be equivalent. I am not allowed to publish these standards on the open
                                            >>> net, nor would anyone else who purchases them, therefore I would suggest
                                            >>> forking out the $150 dollars for the three standards that are pertinent
                                            >> to
                                            >>> this discussion if you wish to personally verify further.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> The reasons these standards were chosen were that PVC shatters into
                                            >>> blade-like shards that could penetrate a helm when it breaks. The HDPE
                                            >> does
                                            >>> not shatter or peel into shards and thus is deemed safe for our purposes
                                            >>> because it will not break in a way that it could penetrate a helm. The
                                            >>> entirety of this standard was to prevent the use of plastics that look
                                            >> the
                                            >>> same but will shatter.
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Taranach McLeod
                                            >>> Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                            >>> Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                            >>> Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                            >>> "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...>
                                            >> wrote:
                                            >>>
                                            >>>> **
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Yeah I'd agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the
                                            >> FDA.
                                            >>>> I wouldn't sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec. It
                                            >>>> shouldn't be too difficult to get and if the new testing is more brutal
                                            >> all
                                            >>>> around then we are set. There is always the chance that a portion of the
                                            >>>> testing moved in the opposite direction which is good for the gas
                                            >> companies
                                            >>>> but not for us. (can't think of what that would be but I've seen lots of
                                            >>>> failures that engineers didn't think of until they happened.)
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Best thing would be to pull the specs, do a line by line and then issue
                                            >> an
                                            >>>> addendum that D3608 is acecptable in addition to D3408 so that the
                                            >> document
                                            >>>> is official and on record.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Does anyone have or can anyone get a copy?
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Sean
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...>
                                            >>>> wrote:
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>>> I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not created
                                            >>>>> with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant for
                                            >>>> our
                                            >>>>> purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested
                                            >> in
                                            >>>>> three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity. We
                                            >>>> want
                                            >>>>> it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to shatter
                                            >>>> when
                                            >>>>> it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails
                                            >> on
                                            >>>>> most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                                            >>>>> pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these
                                            >> types
                                            >>>> of
                                            >>>>> things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing standards.
                                            >> I
                                            >>>>> don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have
                                            >> been
                                            >>>>> specifying, whether they are the older or newer.
                                            >>>>>
                                            >>>>>
                                            >>>>> Taranach McLeod
                                            >>>>> Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                            >>>>> Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                            >>>>> Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                            >>>>> "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                            >>>>>
                                            >>>>>
                                            >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> ------------------------------------
                                            >>>
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --
                                            > "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
                                            > very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
                                            > It hopes we've learned something from yesterday."
                                            > -- John Wayne
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------------------
                                            >
                                            > --
                                            > [Email to SCA-Siege-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >








                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Diane Hauer
                                            I m looking for 3408 and 3608 comparisons. All evidence has pointed at these possibly being equivalent products and the only change was a documentation one
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
                                              I'm looking for 3408 and 3608 comparisons. All evidence has pointed at
                                              these possibly being equivalent products and the only change was a
                                              documentation one with ratings. However... this must be proven.
                                              Need
                                              Cold testing (easy for some in the winter)
                                              Crush (X # of lbs used to compress the shafts IE a person of at least
                                              150lbs stomping on it)
                                              Bend (Typical reforming/straightening stresses)
                                              Wall strikes (head on from min range) If those pass then I would also like
                                              some oblique strikes and typical inspection shots. This will be a stress
                                              test and will give more data than simply if the two are equivalent.

                                              and one that covers all 4.

                                              This would ideally mean a total of 5 bolts of each material. Controls would
                                              have to be observed.

                                              I am looking for cracks, any other visible material change splintering or
                                              shattering. Any differences between 3408 and 3608.

                                              This is the rough idea. I need to spec it out better and create a result
                                              collection format so multiple groups could follow it if interested.

                                              Testing turns me into a kid in a candy store so I have to make sure we are
                                              testing for what we need to find out and not everything else as well. I
                                              welcome input.

                                              ~Svan

                                              On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:23 PM, robin <OTRobin@...> wrote:

                                              > **
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > What do you have in mind for testing?
                                              > I believe we have at least one crew who would be willing to fire
                                              > frequently to obtain data.
                                              >
                                              > Nivah
                                              >
                                              > -----Original Message-----
                                              > From: thelordofd <thelordofd@...>
                                              > To: SCA-Siege <SCA-Siege@yahoogroups.com>
                                              > Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 11:25 am
                                              > Subject: Re: [SCA-Siege] Re: Ammo question
                                              >
                                              > Depending on what you need. I'm still building my ballista, but I have a
                                              > Lowes nearby with an ample supply of 3608 pieces. I won't be able to test
                                              > fire until spring.
                                              >
                                              > Sent from my iPhone
                                              >
                                              > On Dec 14, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Diane Hauer <dkhauer@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > Anyone up for helping out with some testing?
                                              > >
                                              > > ~Svanhildr
                                              > >
                                              > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Richard le Hauke <hawk@...
                                              > >wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > >> **
                                              > >>
                                              > >>
                                              > >> Reason #42 why we keep Taranach around :-D
                                              > >>
                                              > >> - Rich
                                              > >>
                                              > >>
                                              > >> On 12/12/2012 11:12 PM, Taranach McLeod wrote:
                                              > >>> Here we go:
                                              > >>> Pipe Numbering
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> -
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> The American Society for Testing and Materials conducts tests on a
                                              > >>> variety of construction materials, including polyethylene pipe. The
                                              > ASTM,
                                              > >>> in conjunction with the Plastic Pipe Institute, assigns a numerical
                                              > >>> designation to polyethylene pipe based mainly on the type of resin from
                                              > >>> which it is made and its resistance to cracking under pressure, or
                                              > >>> hydrostatic stress. Due to changes in the resins used to make
                                              > >> polyethylene
                                              > >>> pipe the ASTM expanded the classifications, which resulted in a
                                              > >>> corresponding change in numerical designations. Pipe that was formerly
                                              > >>> classified under the Thermoplastic Materials Designation Code as PE3408
                                              > >> is
                                              > >>> now separated into three classes, designated PE3408, PE3608 and PE4710.
                                              > >> The
                                              > >>> first number of the code relates to material density, the second to
                                              > crack
                                              > >>> resistance, and the last two indicate the hydrostatic design stress at
                                              > a
                                              > >>> specific temperature.
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> PE3408
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> -
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> PE3408 has a resin designation of 3, a crack resistance factor of 4,
                                              > and
                                              > >>> a HDS of 800 psi at 73F. Because this classification has been in
                                              > >> existence
                                              > >>> for quite some time, it is sometimes included in specifications even
                                              > when
                                              > >>> another pipe is actually being used, such as PE3408/3608 or
                                              > PE3408/4710.
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> PE3608
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> -
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> PE3608 has the same resin and HDS designation as PE3408. The only
                                              > >>> difference is that PE3608 has a crack resistance factor of 6. This
                                              > >>> designation may be misleading, however. Performance Pipe, one of the
                                              > >>> largest manufacturers of polyethylene piping materials in North
                                              > America,
                                              > >>> notes that the ASTM changed the way it assigns a slow crack resistance
                                              > >>> number in the latest version of ASTM D3350, "Standard Specification for
                                              > >>> Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials."
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> PE4710
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> -
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> High performance resins such as those used to produce PE4710 are one of
                                              > >>> the reasons the ASTM and PPI changed the ratings and designations.
                                              > PE4710
                                              > >>> is a higher density material, hence the resin designation of 4. It also
                                              > >> has
                                              > >>> a higher stress crack resistance, with a factor of 7. The HDS is 1000
                                              > psi
                                              > >>> at 73F.
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> The 3608 meets or exceeds the 3408 standard and is equally viable for
                                              > our
                                              > >>> purposes... it also appears that the 4710 also would/ should be
                                              > >> considered
                                              > >>> to be equivalent. I am not allowed to publish these standards on the
                                              > open
                                              > >>> net, nor would anyone else who purchases them, therefore I would
                                              > suggest
                                              > >>> forking out the $150 dollars for the three standards that are pertinent
                                              > >> to
                                              > >>> this discussion if you wish to personally verify further.
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> The reasons these standards were chosen were that PVC shatters into
                                              > >>> blade-like shards that could penetrate a helm when it breaks. The HDPE
                                              > >> does
                                              > >>> not shatter or peel into shards and thus is deemed safe for our
                                              > purposes
                                              > >>> because it will not break in a way that it could penetrate a helm. The
                                              > >>> entirety of this standard was to prevent the use of plastics that look
                                              > >> the
                                              > >>> same but will shatter.
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> Taranach McLeod
                                              > >>> Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                              > >>> Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                              > >>> Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                              > >>> "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Sean Powell <sean14powell@...>
                                              > >> wrote:
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>>> **
                                              > >>>>
                                              > >>>>
                                              > >>>> Yeah I'd agree with that in principle but I deal with lawyers and the
                                              > >> FDA.
                                              > >>>> I wouldn't sign my name on it until I see the data in the test spec.
                                              > It
                                              > >>>> shouldn't be too difficult to get and if the new testing is more
                                              > brutal
                                              > >> all
                                              > >>>> around then we are set. There is always the chance that a portion of
                                              > the
                                              > >>>> testing moved in the opposite direction which is good for the gas
                                              > >> companies
                                              > >>>> but not for us. (can't think of what that would be but I've seen lots
                                              > of
                                              > >>>> failures that engineers didn't think of until they happened.)
                                              > >>>>
                                              > >>>> Best thing would be to pull the specs, do a line by line and then
                                              > issue
                                              > >> an
                                              > >>>> addendum that D3608 is acecptable in addition to D3408 so that the
                                              > >> document
                                              > >>>> is official and on record.
                                              > >>>>
                                              > >>>> Does anyone have or can anyone get a copy?
                                              > >>>>
                                              > >>>> Sean
                                              > >>>>
                                              > >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@...>
                                              > >>>> wrote:
                                              > >>>>
                                              > >>>>> I do understand where you are coming from, these tests were not
                                              > created
                                              > >>>>> with our usage in mind however, I would posit that it is irrelevant
                                              > for
                                              > >>>> our
                                              > >>>>> purposes. From an engineering standpoint, we are primarily interested
                                              > >> in
                                              > >>>>> three factors... Elasticity, brittleness, and structural integrity.
                                              > We
                                              > >>>> want
                                              > >>>>> it to bend and be able to return to shape, we don't want it to
                                              > shatter
                                              > >>>> when
                                              > >>>>> it does finally fail and we don't want shards or splinters. PVC fails
                                              > >> on
                                              > >>>>> most of those counts, especially if it gets cold and as it ages. The
                                              > >>>>> pressure testing standards, however, are testing for exactly these
                                              > >> types
                                              > >>>> of
                                              > >>>>> things in a far more brutal environment and harsher testing
                                              > standards.
                                              > >> I
                                              > >>>>> don't think there is any current concern with the standards we have
                                              > >> been
                                              > >>>>> specifying, whether they are the older or newer.
                                              > >>>>>
                                              > >>>>>
                                              > >>>>> Taranach McLeod
                                              > >>>>> Æthelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                              > >>>>> Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                              > >>>>> Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                              > >>>>> "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
                                              > >>>>>
                                              > >>>>>
                                              > >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > >>>>
                                              > >>>>
                                              > >>>>
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> ------------------------------------
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>
                                              > >>
                                              > >>
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > --
                                              > > "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
                                              > > very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
                                              > > It hopes we've learned something from yesterday."
                                              > > -- John Wayne
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > ------------------------------------
                                              > >
                                              > > --
                                              > > [Email to SCA-Siege-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]Yahoo!
                                              > Groups Links
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >



                                              --
                                              "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
                                              very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
                                              It hopes we've learned something from yesterday."
                                              -- John Wayne


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Rick Greene
                                              Potentially stupid question from a MiT- When you do these kinds of tests on materials, do you test one (or more) pieces past the failure point to be sure of
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
                                                Potentially stupid question from a MiT-

                                                When you do these kinds of tests on materials, do you test one (or more)
                                                pieces past the failure point to be sure of what you get what that happens?

                                                I know the concern with wood, PVC, and fibreglass is splinters/shards
                                                when it breaks, and I presume the 3408 was tested for that originally,
                                                but should the 3608 be re-tested in that regard, along with the other tests?

                                                Wormwood

                                                On 12/14/2012 2:52 PM, Diane Hauer wrote:
                                                >
                                                > I'm looking for 3408 and 3608 comparisons. All evidence has pointed at
                                                > these possibly being equivalent products and the only change was a
                                                > documentation one with ratings. However... this must be proven.
                                                > Need
                                                > Cold testing (easy for some in the winter)
                                                > Crush (X # of lbs used to compress the shafts IE a person of at least
                                                > 150lbs stomping on it)
                                                > Bend (Typical reforming/straightening stresses)
                                                > Wall strikes (head on from min range) If those pass then I would also like
                                                > some oblique strikes and typical inspection shots. This will be a stress
                                                > test and will give more data than simply if the two are equivalent.
                                                >
                                                > and one that covers all 4.
                                                >



                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Diane Hauer
                                                Wormwood, not a stupid question at all. It is that past the failure point that I need to document in the testing procedure. If it is not destroyed with the
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
                                                  Wormwood, not a stupid question at all.
                                                  It is that "past the failure point" that I need to document in the testing
                                                  procedure.
                                                  If it is not destroyed with the written tests then... "Myth Buster" it and
                                                  document what you did.

                                                  ~Svan

                                                  On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Rick Greene <rickg@...> wrote:

                                                  > **
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Potentially stupid question from a MiT-
                                                  >
                                                  > When you do these kinds of tests on materials, do you test one (or more)
                                                  > pieces past the failure point to be sure of what you get what that happens?
                                                  >
                                                  > I know the concern with wood, PVC, and fibreglass is splinters/shards
                                                  > when it breaks, and I presume the 3408 was tested for that originally,
                                                  > but should the 3608 be re-tested in that regard, along with the other
                                                  > tests?
                                                  >
                                                  > Wormwood
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > On 12/14/2012 2:52 PM, Diane Hauer wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I'm looking for 3408 and 3608 comparisons. All evidence has pointed at
                                                  > > these possibly being equivalent products and the only change was a
                                                  > > documentation one with ratings. However... this must be proven.
                                                  > > Need
                                                  > > Cold testing (easy for some in the winter)
                                                  > > Crush (X # of lbs used to compress the shafts IE a person of at least
                                                  > > 150lbs stomping on it)
                                                  > > Bend (Typical reforming/straightening stresses)
                                                  > > Wall strikes (head on from min range) If those pass then I would also
                                                  > like
                                                  > > some oblique strikes and typical inspection shots. This will be a stress
                                                  > > test and will give more data than simply if the two are equivalent.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > and one that covers all 4.
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >



                                                  --
                                                  "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
                                                  very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
                                                  It hopes we've learned something from yesterday."
                                                  -- John Wayne


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Rick Greene
                                                  Got it! And I like the reference... :) As I don t have a bolt-throwing engine of my own, I can t immediately help, but if anyone in the Western or Southern
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
                                                    Got it! And I like the reference... :)

                                                    As I don't have a bolt-throwing engine of my own, I can't immediately
                                                    help, but if anyone in the Western or Southern regions need an extra
                                                    hand to run tests, drop me a line, I'll see if I can get to you.

                                                    Wormwood

                                                    On 12/14/2012 3:07 PM, Diane Hauer wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Wormwood, not a stupid question at all.
                                                    > It is that "past the failure point" that I need to document in the testing
                                                    > procedure.
                                                    > If it is not destroyed with the written tests then... "Myth Buster" it and
                                                    > document what you did.
                                                    >
                                                    > ~Svan
                                                    >
                                                    > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Rick Greene <rickg@...
                                                    > <mailto:rickg%40datarealm.com>> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > > **
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Potentially stupid question from a MiT-
                                                    > >
                                                    > > When you do these kinds of tests on materials, do you test one (or more)
                                                    > > pieces past the failure point to be sure of what you get what that
                                                    > happens?
                                                    > >
                                                    > > I know the concern with wood, PVC, and fibreglass is splinters/shards
                                                    > > when it breaks, and I presume the 3408 was tested for that originally,
                                                    > > but should the 3608 be re-tested in that regard, along with the other
                                                    > > tests?
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Wormwood
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > On 12/14/2012 2:52 PM, Diane Hauer wrote:
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > I'm looking for 3408 and 3608 comparisons. All evidence has pointed at
                                                    > > > these possibly being equivalent products and the only change was a
                                                    > > > documentation one with ratings. However... this must be proven.
                                                    > > > Need
                                                    > > > Cold testing (easy for some in the winter)
                                                    > > > Crush (X # of lbs used to compress the shafts IE a person of at least
                                                    > > > 150lbs stomping on it)
                                                    > > > Bend (Typical reforming/straightening stresses)
                                                    > > > Wall strikes (head on from min range) If those pass then I would also
                                                    > > like
                                                    > > > some oblique strikes and typical inspection shots. This will be a
                                                    > stress
                                                    > > > test and will give more data than simply if the two are equivalent.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > and one that covers all 4.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > --
                                                    > "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
                                                    > very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
                                                    > It hopes we've learned something from yesterday."
                                                    > -- John Wayne
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                    >



                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • Taranach McLeod
                                                    I would love to perform that kind of testing as it is something I do in real life... however I do not have access to an engine right now (stored at Pennsic)
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
                                                      I would love to perform that kind of testing as it is something I do in
                                                      real life... however I do not have access to an engine right now (stored at
                                                      Pennsic) and I would have to set up and build some new bolts to do so...
                                                      that being said. I am more than willing to help out with questions and
                                                      specific tests to achieve the objectives we are looking for... I would also
                                                      suggest trying out some of the 4710 as well since it also exceeds the
                                                      original 3408 specifications.

                                                      I can work up some test procedures and tables for this if you'd like....


                                                      Taranach McLeod
                                                      �thelmearc Deputy Siege Brigadier
                                                      Shadowclans Eastern Outpost
                                                      Creator of fantastic Sci-Fi and Medieval wonders
                                                      "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."



                                                      On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Rick Greene <rickg@...> wrote:

                                                      > **
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Got it! And I like the reference... :)
                                                      >
                                                      > As I don't have a bolt-throwing engine of my own, I can't immediately
                                                      > help, but if anyone in the Western or Southern regions need an extra
                                                      > hand to run tests, drop me a line, I'll see if I can get to you.
                                                      >
                                                      > Wormwood
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > On 12/14/2012 3:07 PM, Diane Hauer wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Wormwood, not a stupid question at all.
                                                      > > It is that "past the failure point" that I need to document in the
                                                      > testing
                                                      > > procedure.
                                                      > > If it is not destroyed with the written tests then... "Myth Buster" it
                                                      > and
                                                      > > document what you did.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > ~Svan
                                                      > >
                                                      > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Rick Greene <rickg@...
                                                      > > <mailto:rickg%40datarealm.com>> wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > > **
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > Potentially stupid question from a MiT-
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > When you do these kinds of tests on materials, do you test one (or
                                                      > more)
                                                      > > > pieces past the failure point to be sure of what you get what that
                                                      > > happens?
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > I know the concern with wood, PVC, and fibreglass is splinters/shards
                                                      > > > when it breaks, and I presume the 3408 was tested for that originally,
                                                      > > > but should the 3608 be re-tested in that regard, along with the other
                                                      > > > tests?
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > Wormwood
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > On 12/14/2012 2:52 PM, Diane Hauer wrote:
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > I'm looking for 3408 and 3608 comparisons. All evidence has pointed
                                                      > at
                                                      > > > > these possibly being equivalent products and the only change was a
                                                      > > > > documentation one with ratings. However... this must be proven.
                                                      > > > > Need
                                                      > > > > Cold testing (easy for some in the winter)
                                                      > > > > Crush (X # of lbs used to compress the shafts IE a person of at least
                                                      > > > > 150lbs stomping on it)
                                                      > > > > Bend (Typical reforming/straightening stresses)
                                                      > > > > Wall strikes (head on from min range) If those pass then I would also
                                                      > > > like
                                                      > > > > some oblique strikes and typical inspection shots. This will be a
                                                      > > stress
                                                      > > > > test and will give more data than simply if the two are equivalent.
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > and one that covers all 4.
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > --
                                                      > > "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
                                                      > > very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
                                                      > > It hopes we've learned something from yesterday."
                                                      > > -- John Wayne
                                                      > >
                                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >


                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.