cail

yeah i figured it had to be peter weller. i'll check out that movie...

james woods was never in those movies. but it definitely does look like him.

they already know what to do with the waste... at least from a toplevel viewpoint. the main issue with nuclear power plants is safety. i don't see why looking at alternative energies would be considered half-assed. there is considerable amount of effort and money being put into those types of technologies. and for good reason. the simplest solutions are not often the best long term solutions. solar energy would be the ultimate method to collect energy (since sunlight is the only energy input to the earth... ~1.5kW/m^2). no waste, low maintenance, $/kW-hr are lowering. alas, we will be using coal for a long time because we have such an abundance of it... and we already have the infrastructure (another reason oil won't be going out anytime soon).

that's awesome... Jiminy was my main mountain last year, maybe it will be again this year... half an hour away. i had no idea they were putting in a windmill. suits it though, real windy there.

oh boy, over half a million. should we start taking bets on the final price? i'm going with $850,000

i wonder what he anticipated the final bid to be when he first posted it.

alright, maybe i didnt read enough into it. if he was just being a jack@ss and going big, then yeah he's responsible. i do think that 14 still warrants some kind of change, even if it's more supervision or kicking people like this out. they're obviously dangerous (as in reckless), even for others. if all the injuries were simply due to stupidity then i'd say the jumps don't appear to be the problem. and carvedog, when i was talking about assessment of the jumps, i was talking about basic physics... if you take the average kid that's just hitting normal speed, not tryin to go big, that the impact isn't going to be such that the kids are going to get severly injured. if they're building jumps that are going to give 40 ft vertical with a flat landing at a normal speed without even trying, then that's a problem.

i'm with bumpyride on this... i don't think anyone would disagree that physics does play a role in jumping, so the least the resort could do was evaluate the hazard of it's jumps, and COME ON... you have how many inuries on your jumps and still dont make some dramatic changes that are obviously needed? like bob said, natural selection...for resorts, so i agree with the suit. sure the kid knows there are dangers, but should we have everybody calculate landing angle and impact before every jump? let's be realistic. these kids dont know physics, and the resorts know the kids arent going to assess dangers that are beyond their understanding. therefore they have a responsibility to making these jumps to a certain degree of safety. they know this, and when they dont act accordingly then they pay the price. real simple.

i agree with doing FEM simulations. only as bruce mentioned earlier, grain structure, flex patterns, etc would cause different results, so either assume those are constant, or get really creative.

thanks... i was only asking cause i'm doing a custom topsheet for mine, and i wanted to replicate the font, which was easier than i thought... it's Edwardian Script ITC. now i just gotta figure out a graphic for the tail end.

you can add a dynamic excitation to the board that varies over frequencies starting from below the first resonance of the board. measuring excitation force through the board and displacement across it simultaneously as functions of frequency allows one to calculate a complex stiffness function (force per unit displacement at a given frequency)... real component = stiffness imaginary component is associated with damping typically complex stiffness is represented by the real component and a loss function (loss fcn. = Im[cmplx stiffness] / Re[cmplx. stiffness])

hey peter, was that maple leaf design the standard, or did you do a custom?

looking for UFOs maybe?

some science group ordered a bunch of ps3s to use together as a supercomputer.

http://www.ps3power.com/ps3hardwarespecs.htm i forget who makes the Linux OS for the ps3 and havent read anything lately on it. i'd probably get it for mine too (if i had one).

i was just looking up some specs on Titanal (http://www.amag.at/en/fs_b.htm) and it has fairly high tensile strength (comparable to some PM steels..in fact it's yield strength is higher than a lot of PM steels). also, it's Brinell hardness is comparable too (slightly lower). anyway, in regards to BOBSI, i'm going to take a look at it to figure out why it would say that Titanal is "soft". basically, the calculation doesn't make any sense to me, especially since it has no units. measuring dynamic stiffness is more complicated than static measurements, but doable.

it's undeniable that the type of characteristics being discussed have an impact on how a board performs. yes, flex patterns and other considerations will contribute, but at least with some standards, there is a starting point which can be built upon so you can say "alright my board has this damping coefficient and this flex pattern, etc.... so i can assume it will be good for ice, etc." i'm not familiar with BOBSI (i.e. what it means, what it measures)

do any board makers use and/or experiment with using several materials on a given layer for different stiffnesses at different parts of the board?

even so, if there was such a tool available it could still be used to measure boards from people on a voluntary basis. vibration tests are non-destructive, and load tests wouldnt necessarily have to be performed. a database could be built and accessed by the public.

hey fin, how much of the stand is actually complete? if you have any pictures, could you post or send me an email? there's a couple ways to measure vibration, and yeah vibration/damping coefficient can definitely be taken with a single measurement. maybe if we got a complete prototype stand built it would be possible to test it on various boards... maybe take it to an ES! certainly someone would be interested... even if companies don't want to standardize, they'd probably want something similar for internal use (if they don't already).

ice climbing on a "glacier"... now that would be sweet. but Chile would also be an awesome trip. i've wanted to go.

yeah those should definitely be standard. shorter and longer boards would obviously have different characteristics, and that would be seen in the measurements. at least with these type of standards you would have a starting place on board decision. and yes of course, how it feels would be the final determining factor (if you get a chance to demo). i'd also like to see a comparison of base structures... i believe that i saw some AFM profiles of a base in a SWIX catalog... but i would have to double check. i've thought about contacting some companies to get some samples.

hey Gleb, what model and length did you get?

i ride east coast... mainly vt, ma and ny i'm just going to go with the metal i think.

thinking about getting a titanal over a std... you think the extra $200 is worth it?