Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
August 18, 2019, 11:25:51 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
Author Topic: LPP Build  (Read 7403 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bruce McCrory
Bronze Member

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 68

« Reply #50 on: March 26, 2012, 04:07:35 PM »

I knew someone would send a book (including advertising testimonials) in response to my cautionary post. Of itself, SC is a great way to compare the stiffness of several pieces of indoor balsa in one's own box of balsa stock. Tim’s calculator is useless for anything else. Hunt’s is useless for anything else.

I will reply this one time. I won’t come back.

1. The Hunt Stiffness Coefficient is scientifically unrecognized for any structural engineering work. It was created specifically for us dummies who want a simplified comparison of wood stiffness. One-hundred vs. ninety SC.  It is not magic, or a unique design. Structural engineers use MOs numbers daily--including stiffness of materials.

BTW, I can compare stiffness with cantilevered spars and weights much faster ala Coslick, ala his mentor, Nolen who was, himself, or knew a structural engineer. If I record the data most duration builders keep for the next build, it can be used for standard structural calculations, which remove the game from the hocus-pocus of SC.

Buckling is a great way winnow out casehardened balsa (checked, and incorrectly termed "windblown").

2. My original issue was that anyone could change the program then hide the fact, as had been done.

Fred Rash modified Hunt's stiffness calculator for Tim, at Tim's request. Fred is innocent of any tampering—actually, he and anyone else can manipulate and modify the program. Tim admitted doing it, after pressure.

The result of the change was a net increase in stiffness of tested samples. "E" became "Unreal", or whatever he calls the handful of pieces he has posted for sale. My own tests bumped an '80' rated sample to over '100'. A 190 rated piece (Unreal Stiff!) I purchased tested at 140, based on an unmodified calculator. My 90% humidity compared to Tim’s 15% does not account for the difference in SC. And, I baked mine for another check. See how messy this is getting?

Tim essentially flooded the net with his modified program, so it would have credence through mass availability. Don S. removed Hunt's program from his Cleveland Clown's site, and all that remained were Tim's modified calculators and the text for Hunt's.

3. One key difference between Don's calculator and Tim's abbreviated versions was inclusion of MOe in Don's calculator—a standard structural wood property. I used Don's until it dropped from the internet.

Hunt and Taylor, I think, publically included MOE. His (Hunt) program was open.

Maxwell stripped away zeroes in the MOE for calculations ease and used the resulting ranges for his stiffness number. He preceded hand-held computers.

4. One needs to be a programmer to extract usable information from Tim’s Calculator.

5. These programs (except Tim's) base the numeric result on wads of sticks that were tested, averaged, meaned;  and finally, we have 100, or average. Tim for all I know flipped a coin for his adjustment.

6. Usually, when we get to this point in the argument, the defense blows everything off by saying SC is only a simplified method to compare wood stiffness. Someone else says it’s too much hassle. And everyone hides in a cave.

I say: You’ve had wood properties at your fingers for a hundred years. Your eensy-weensy stick follows those properties. The standard tables in the black book lack your acutely fractional needs—for a wood not used for structural building. You are creating and fine tuning the table every time you test. You are Star Trekking.

I thought, by now at least, the indoor world would wake up and follow world standards and use real numbers for engineering its wood.

Leo, I have a TI-6, 32k (upgrade from 16), BASICA computer that performs Hunt’s program. What do you think he used? Cut the BS. You just parked your credibility in the same den with Timmy.
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!