|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 13, 2014 7:42:05 GMT
Steel Slide, steel in motion, in Transport.I have seen the results and they are not nice... Strap a piece of steel pipe to the bed of a truck and get to about 40 mph. Stop suddenly....
Its NOT a Myth here, because I bloody well KNOW that steel pipe, steel sheet, or anything else that can get a slide on, WILL slide, and if not chained down properly, will go through the headboard of the truck and through the cab.
Now can Mythbusters please SHOW this in motion, so that all those (string of deleted insult) Rollerskate drivers can stop telling me its a MYTH and has never happened?...
Ta much.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 14, 2014 7:59:10 GMT
Myth evolution. I have it on good authority, so, read into that, someone swears that this be true, and nay sh---ing yer, ite been tested by that show mythbusters, (They have no idea of my alter-ego on this board by the way...) So this is claimed, that if you strap something to the headboard of a truck, it will not EVER go through that headboard.
Easy to test.... Strap something down that will pass through the headboard and test it on that sledge thing they do (No need to ruin a good truck here...), but strapo it down a good two foot back from the headboard.
Then strap it down exactly the same against the headboard and repeat.
Compare the two.
I think you may find not much difference?...
However, I will think you may find the "Truth" behind this myth is that if you actually use the headboard as an anchor point, you can get a heck of a lot more chain over something to prevent it moving in the first place?.....
Can you test that as well. As in, chain something down, properly, then chain it down again using the headboard as an extra anchor point.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 14, 2014 8:02:48 GMT
How much chain is too much?...
Answer, how much have you got?... and have you got any more?.... If in doubt, use another one.
Set off, brake sharply before you get out of the yard, if it moves at all, go get more chain.
Now you know as much as I do on that subject.
Except, if it moved, you dont have the experience I have, because NOTHING moves when I chain it down..... I have seen most everything, but am willing to see just one more trick if you got it?...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 20, 2014 6:08:30 GMT
as for the headboard myth - yes, starting with the load against the headboard makes a difference in comparison to starting with it chained a couple feet back from the headboard. That doesn't necessarily mean the load won't go through under any circumstances. consider: when you put on your seatbelt, do you put it on with a good foot of slack, or do you put it on snug? same deal with the headboard. the more space there is, the more energy the load will deliver when it shifts forward in a collision.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 20, 2014 13:25:14 GMT
a better myth would be that an kind of plate or sheet load will wander while in motion, unless properly secured down. - I am not sure steel will wander at highway speeds, but I can say for a fact that a stack of plywood will cheerfully play air-hockey at 60 MPH.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 2, 2014 8:55:38 GMT
I need to suggest a test. One that will get close to breaking the headboard....
Can it be shown that the load in motion will be stopped as effectively if against the restraint other than being slammed into the restraint from a foot or two back.
Proposition, a 1,000 lb load has "so much" kinetic energy when in motion. It therefore needs an opposing force of equal amount to bring it to a halt.... The headboard is the device that delivers that force. So the question has to be, just why does a couple of inches between load and restraint actually cause failure, if to bring it to a halt, "Theoretically", requires exactly the same force?...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 2, 2014 14:43:43 GMT
I need to suggest a test. One that will get close to breaking the headboard.... Can it be shown that the load in motion will be stopped as effectively if against the restraint other than being slammed into the restraint from a foot or two back. Proposition, a 1,000 lb load has "so much" kinetic energy when in motion. It therefore needs an opposing force of equal amount to bring it to a halt.... The headboard is the device that delivers that force. So the question has to be, just why does a couple of inches between load and restraint actually cause failure, if to bring it to a halt, "Theoretically", requires exactly the same force?... it has to do with deceleration rates. take a test car collision. if the car has an 8 foot long crumple zone, and the collision is such that it uses all of the crumple zone; if the dummy is securely belted to the seat, then as soon as the car impacts the barrier, he will begin decelerating, and will decelerate from the test velocity to zero in approximately 8 feet. on the other hand, if he is unbelted, he will continue at the test velocity until he strikes the steering wheel, before he begins decelerating - so there is an initial impact with the steering wheel and then the more rapid deceleration over the shorter distance (because part of the crumple zone has already crumpled before he hit the steering wheel.) or to use a different analog: you have two boxers. in test one, boxer one places his glove against boxer two's chin. in test two, he starts with his glove a foot back. in which test do you believe he will be able to hit boxer two harder? I huess to spell out what I am saying - you are not measuring the force required to bring the load to a stop - you are measuring the force that the load applies to keeping the guard in motion, and with a space between the two, the difference in kinetic energy at impact is different, which means that the load is striking the guard with more force. final analogy: if you are driving your car with a 1000# brakeless trailer hitched on, and make a panic braking, how much damage does it do to your car? then if you are driving your car with a plank in a 1000# car tailgating you and make a panic braking, how much damage does HE do to your car?
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 3, 2014 9:47:11 GMT
Not as much mess as I will make to his face..........
But I get your point.
I may have to go study some maths. Its not that I disbelieve, in truth, I always pack heavy items against the headboard as much as I can, throw extra restraints, and adopt the "Nobody move" approach to transporting items.... Its just I need to know why. I know why, I just dont know why I know why.... And now I am not making sense?...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 3, 2014 15:04:11 GMT
Not as much mess as I will make to his face.......... But I get your point. I may have to go study some maths. Its not that I disbelieve, in truth, I always pack heavy items against the headboard as much as I can, throw extra restraints, and adopt the "Nobody move" approach to transporting items.... Its just I need to know why. I know why, I just dont know why I know why.... And now I am not making sense?... it is about relative velocities and collision forces. with a proper load, the load and the guard are both going at the same speed on impact, so the interaction between them is more of a push with a space, the guard has already slowed down significantly before the load hits it, so it is a collision.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 4, 2014 5:59:47 GMT
But the load does not accelerate. Therefore its still the same force to be braked.
If a structure can hold an object to be de-accelerated, why can it not still hold that object if it gets a foot gap.
This is where a foot full of NOTHING makes all the difference, and why Zero is an important number....
I still think I know why it happens, because it always happens, but I need to know why it always happens, and I am again trying to make sense of something we all understand.... Including me... Its just I dont understand why it happens.
That may be good enough for some people, they dont understand how a car works, but they can still drive. Unfortunately, I dont work that way... I ask questions.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 4, 2014 15:09:38 GMT
But the load does not accelerate. Therefore its still the same force to be braked. If a structure can hold an object to be de-accelerated, why can it not still hold that object if it gets a foot gap. This is where a foot full of NOTHING makes all the difference, and why Zero is an important number.... I still think I know why it happens, because it always happens, but I need to know why it always happens, and I am again trying to make sense of something we all understand.... Including me... Its just I dont understand why it happens. That may be good enough for some people, they dont understand how a car works, but they can still drive. Unfortunately, I dont work that way... I ask questions. okay. take two trucks and put on a concrete roller - one chocked against the guard and one chocked a foot back from the guard. run the truck into a barrier such that it crushes 2 feet of the truck before it all comes to a stop. - from 50 MPH. truck 1, with the roller against the guard, will bring the roller to a stop in two feet. - when the force first hits the guard, the roller is going 50 MPH, and the guard is only marginally slower. truck 2, with the roller a foot back from the guard, will have already crushed a foot of the cab before the roller hits the guard and begins to decelerate. the guard is now trying to bring the same roller to a stop from the same velocity, in ONE foot. when the roller hits the guard, the roller is still going 50 MPH, but the guard has already been decelerated to around 25 MPH. addendum: I think it is a case of it being so simple, you're having trouble seeing it. if the load is against the guard, they are inertially coupled - in a collision, they stop as one. if the load is not against the guard, they are not coupled - and there is a collision between the load and the guard.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 5, 2014 12:43:25 GMT
And there is the problem in a couple of words, "they are inertially coupled".... Why DOES that make such a difference. How can contact alone increase strength..... ..... that concrete roller you have?.. if that is anything like a road roller, it would not be that far forward.... I would have its weight over the back axles of the trailer, as best as can be fitted on the trailer, or use a strengthened trailer, chained down with about a ton of chains, huge wooden bulks in front and behind the rollers, and a couple of extra chains, then strap the wooden bulks in place, and couple of extra chains to make sure, then a slow careful drive. NOTHING moves on my wagon.... Putting hue weights forwards of the axles has its own downfalls.... Well, you see officer, I was delivering this bridge......
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 5, 2014 13:39:47 GMT
And there is the problem in a couple of words, "they are inertially coupled".... Why DOES that make such a difference. How can contact alone increase strength..... ..... that concrete roller you have?.. if that is anything like a road roller, it would not be that far forward.... I would have its weight over the back axles of the trailer, as best as can be fitted on the trailer, or use a strengthened trailer, chained down with about a ton of chains, huge wooden bulks in front and behind the rollers, and a couple of extra chains, then strap the wooden bulks in place, and couple of extra chains to make sure, then a slow careful drive. NOTHING moves on my wagon.... Putting hue weights forwards of the axles has its own downfalls.... Well, you see officer, I was delivering this bridge......well, it has the commonality with a road roller that its working part is round. other than that, one is made of concrete and one is for pressing down asphalt. again, I say to you, if a guy is going to punch you in the chin, is it going to hurt more if he starts with his fist against your chin or if he starts from a foot back? if you do a panic braking is it going to damage your bumper more if you have a brakeless trailer on your trailer hitch, or if you have a plank sending a text message from a foot behind you? when a karate demonstrator breaks a board, does he start with his hand on it, or does he pull it back? what is the commonality? the difference between a push and a hit. if you take that road roller and set it so all the chains holding it back have a foot of slack in them, do you expect it will stop when it hits the end of them as well as it will stop if they are already drawn up tight? when you tow a stuck vehicle, do you draw the towline tight before you apply power, or do you leave slack in it? take your bathroom scale and set a 20 pound box on it. read the scale. now lift the box 6 inches and drop it on the scale. what was the peak weight the scale showed? if the load shifts forward and strikes the guard in a collision, it will deliver more kinetic energy than if it cannot take a running start at it. full stop. in short: it takes less strength to keep it from moving than to stop it once it starts. you KNOW this.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 5, 2014 13:42:42 GMT
as for having huge weights between the axles:
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 5, 2014 15:05:00 GMT
That is what I meant in case of the photographed STGO load above.(Crane in TLW's post) If I drop a 20kg on a stationary set of scales, the scales are not moving. If I drop a 20kg box attached to a set of scales, that is the readings that would make more sense, then dropping the box with a one inch gap between box and scales, and both are moving at the same speed, identical to the previous, and both have to stop with the same force, so why the difference in readings?... I know. Its because the scales will stop a micro-second before the box. But why does that make a difference?... the only thing that has changed is time its self, or the time of events. If you look at it in that way, it kind of infers that time has mass. And that cant be right?... Can it?... Brian Cox PhysicistAnd on that, if the time between impacts changes, from micro second to full second, how much difference is there in impact force?.... Is there a difference then between a load that is loosely leaning against the headboard, and one that is fixed there with bloody huge bolts. Is there a difference in force between dropped objects under gravity and objects at the same speed travelling horizontal. And if so, why?... I know, I am a bloody nuisance with all these questions.... Anyone got a link to Brian Cox?.... (The Brits amongst us may get that one quicker....) [edit, thats unfair, here, this is who he is... Brian Cox Physicist ]
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 5, 2014 17:43:56 GMT
That is what I meant in case of the photographed STGO load above.(Crane in TLW's post) If I drop a 20kg on a stationary set of scales, the scales are not moving. If I drop a 20kg box attached to a set of scales, that is the readings that would make more sense, then dropping the box with a one inch gap between box and scales, and both are moving at the same speed, identical to the previous, and both have to stop with the same force, so why the difference in readings?... I know. Its because the scales will stop a micro-second before the box. But why does that make a difference?... the only thing that has changed is time its self, or the time of events. If you look at it in that way, it kind of infers that time has mass. And that cant be right?... Can it?... Brian Cox PhysicistAnd on that, if the time between impacts changes, from micro second to full second, how much difference is there in impact force?.... Is there a difference then between a load that is loosely leaning against the headboard, and one that is fixed there with bloody huge bolts. Is there a difference in force between dropped objects under gravity and objects at the same speed travelling horizontal. And if so, why?... I know, I am a bloody nuisance with all these questions.... Anyone got a link to Brian Cox?.... (The Brits amongst us may get that one quicker....) [edit, thats unfair, here, this is who he is... Brian Cox Physicist ] there once was an engineer who had two horses that he couldn't tell apart, so he asked his friends for advice. the first said to shave one horse's mane off - but it grew back. the second said to shave one''s tail bare, but that also grew back. finally one said to measure the two. and that's how he figured out the black horse was 2 mm taller than the white horse. if you truly believe that allowing your load to move independently from the trailer, does not increase the chances of the load breaking through the guard, then you will start chaining your loads with slack in the chains; and you will place cleats and braces so there is space between them and the load. and you will stop wearing your seat belt, because in a collision, coming up against your seat belt will do your ribs no less harm than coming up against your steering wheel. tht or you will accept that I am saying about the cab guard what you, yourself say about chains, straps, and blocks. if your load is not properly secured, then it will shift in a collision, and when it shifts, it will cease to be part of your truck, and become a projectile striking your truck.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 5, 2014 17:48:16 GMT
let me try it another way - loading a load that has the potential to slide forward and not having it against the guard is like loading your truck and securing the load to your minimum satisfaction, then removing a tie down.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 6, 2014 6:06:03 GMT
I dont think this is going to make any more sense the longer we discuss it is it?... I know why I should, but its not making sense. Before they did the experiment, it was believed that two cars colliding at 30 mph made a 60 mph collision. We now know different. Perhaps I am asking the same kind of question.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 6, 2014 15:48:15 GMT
I dont think this is going to make any more sense the longer we discuss it is it?... I know why I should, but its not making sense. Before they did the experiment, it was believed that two cars colliding at 30 mph made a 60 mph collision. We now know different. Perhaps I am asking the same kind of question. perhaps. you should load cargo that has the potential to slip forward, against the cab guard for the same reason you should have all your tie downs secured tight. your cab guard is just another tie down, and not having it secure allows the load to start shifting. remember, it is not speed that does the damage - it is difference in speed.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 7, 2014 1:40:44 GMT
I dont think this is going to make any more sense the longer we discuss it is it?... I know why I should, but its not making sense. Before they did the experiment, it was believed that two cars colliding at 30 mph made a 60 mph collision. We now know different. Perhaps I am asking the same kind of question. perhaps. you should load cargo that has the potential to slip forward, against the cab guard for the same reason you should have all your tie downs secured tight. your cab guard is just another tie down, and not having it secure allows the load to start shifting. remember, it is not speed that does the damage - it is difference in speed. addendum: yes, the physics are different for a horizontal collision and a vertical one. you have the friction between the load and the trailer bed to consider and a slew of other things. all of which boil down to a fact you already know - it is easier to keep a load from shifting than to stop it once it has started to shift. the missing link is to remind you that force = mass X (difference in) velocity. so if the load is not against the guard at the time of impact, the more it slides, the greater the difference in velocity gets - and the more the force multiplies.
|
|