Free Isaac system!

[TBreu007]

How about 26.5

[kevin22]

17.5

[gsbaker]

The mathematical model is telling us 23.6. However, we know there is a predicting error for this test protocol so I am not that optimistic.

My guess is 27.5.

Of course, the error could go the other way and we end up in the teens.

Yeah, I'm sandbaggin', but not much.

[itbgti]

44....Hope I lose

[Hammer]

28.5

[gsbaker]

It was your classic good-news, bad-news story with a new test. In this case the best sequence is bad news, good news, and really good news.

The Bad News
The bad news is that we had a malfunction. Nothing broke, but there was a hiccup that we thought might occur at these higher loads. The net result was that one side was rendered nonfunctional, and all the load was carried by the other side.

(Pleased note that this test was the examination of a design concept--one we don’t like, frankly. Only one prototype exists; no customer is using a hiccupable Isaac system. The same malfunction occurs with the HANS device on this sled, so don’t get excited.)

The Good News
We have a winner. The number was 46.6. That’s high, but given that we almost saved the dummy with ½ an Isaac system, it’s not too shabby.

The Really Good News
The really good news is that Bill’s (a.k.a. planet6racing) helmet mount adhesive put forth a performance that was positively stunning. It’s one thing to go through the calculations and bench testing knowing that the product works well, but it was quite a sight to see the entire load of a 70+G blast going though a single adhesive mount that had already taken a 50G hit--and come out untouched. I have not seen a video that scary since the original Alien movie. All hail Bill!

Congratulations to the winner!

[944-spec#94]

Greg,
Sorry to see that the design did not work as hoped.

Something tells me I know pretty much what you are working with this design.

All I can say is DAMN (insert your favorite 3 letter safety body).


Keep up the good work

[Racerlinn]

Um, I think I'll take, uh 46.6! Yeah, right, really!!

OK, maybe not...
I think itbgti is closest.

[Marcus Miller]

Good try!

Now, when will we see our next prototype testing?

Marcus

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by 944-spec#94@Sep 20 2005, 03:13 PM
Greg,
Sorry to see that the design did not work as hoped....

[snapback]60722[/snapback]

It's not as bad as it seems. Yes, technically, it did not work. But we knew that at some point of increasing loads it would not work, and that's exactly what this test proved.

It works at ~50Gs but not at ~70Gs, and that is why we do not like this design concept.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Marcus Miller@Sep 20 2005, 10:48 PM
Good try!

Now, when will we see our next prototype testing?

Marcus

[snapback]60770[/snapback]

Marcus,

Thanks.

We're noodling on the back of the envelope now. It will take several weeks to set something up.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Sep 15 2005, 01:17 PM
Shhhh. Quite Bill, we got 'em all fooled. We are attempting to project an image of money-grubbing scamsters.

[snapback]60278[/snapback]

Gregg,


Sorry that the design didn't work, but better to fail in testing, then in a real application. From what I could gather, looks like Alan L. was the winner. Congrats Alan!!!

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Marcus Miller@Sep 20 2005, 10:48 PM
Good try!

Now, when will we see our next prototype testing?

Marcus

[snapback]60770[/snapback]

Oh, about two hours ago.

Here's what the lab engineers thought:

Here's what we did to our competitors:

Here's the result:

Okay, I'm stretching things a bit, but not much (we would never take a hammer to our competitors).

Since the first test had a wrinkle, the results were not fair to those who made more accurate, i.e. lower, estimates. So, we are willing to give away another Isaac system to whomever picked the number closest to today's test value.

We'll give some time to anyone who missed out and wants to make a last minute guess of a value that has not already been picked.

Heh, heh... Yeah, baby.

[944-spec#94]

Originally posted by 944-spec#94@Sep 15 2005, 01:17 PM
17.5...

( Think it was open...)

[snapback]60306[/snapback]

I stand by this number...

[tcpip]

13.5

[JamesB]

16.8

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by JamesB@Nov 1 2005, 08:13 PM
16.8

[snapback]64235[/snapback]

Uh James, it's increments of .5 :P


And once again, I'd like to say how much of a class act that Gregg and his company are. Looking forward to using mine (wait, that doesn't sound quite right. )

[Wreckerboy]

Put me down for 12.5, please.

[JamesB]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 07:47 AM
Uh James, it's increments of .5 :P
And once again, I'd like to say how much of a class act that Gregg and his company are. Looking forward to using mine (wait, that doesn't sound quite right. )

[snapback]64265[/snapback]

yes I know that, I was being facisious. I already made my decision after lots of reading, consideration and finally trying on for fit and feel.

[RacerBill]

Originally posted by JamesB@Nov 2 2005, 10:52 AM
yes I know that, I was being facisious. I already made my decision after lots of reading, consideration and finally trying on for fit and feel.

[snapback]64291[/snapback]

I'll modify my first choice to fit the '.5' rule and say 19.5