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

Re: [SCA-Siege] Re: Ammo question

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 25 , Dec 14, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                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.