What is the Rock Exotica Enforcer used for in the arborist world?

colb said:
Hi Tony,

Evidence... what type? I'm willing to expand on any problem areas. I don't think empirical evidence is needed for all claims and I tried to limit my comments to matters that are straightforward.

I think the relevant aerial friction devices are the safebloc, rings, and notch triple thimble. You might be able to argue that the bend radius on the safebloc and notch are too small, but then the rings are still left. Even though rings don't provide much friction, they're still more effective than blocks in negative rigging - more friction, fewer parts, less weight, cheaper... midline attachability may be desired for some individuals, but is an added step when blocking down a spar.

It would be easy to say that an afd such as the treestuff thingy are not suitable for negative rigging. Hopefully those devices are not part of this discussion.

2:1 on an up-and-down pulley system is a fairly standard theoretical concept, right? Are you saying that it is different, empirically?

I'm going to tactfully note that I am not making claims based on empirical evidence, and that if empirical claims are being made, they should be in the form of fully analyzed numbers. The word "preliminary" and the lack of numbers make the argument look more like bluster. Sorry for coming across harsh - I'm sure there is a more polite way I could say that, but it's not coming to me, lol. I sincerely appreciate your effort to generate quality data on the topic and hope it comes to fulfillment.
Click to expand...

I can think of a number of disadvanatges to rings. Possibility of rope pinch. Not midline. Increased friction (heat generation). Increased wear (Rope and Ring).

Does not mean rings are bad. Doesn’t mean blocks are good. Rings for arborist rigging are not even new, just reintroduced in another form.

You are making assumptions, right or wrong, they are assumptions and opinion. I wouldn’t want someone to understand them for anything but.

And yes I am talking empirical data. I am sorry my use of the word “preliminary” sounds like bluster. I am a little more sorry you talking out of your ass made me comment on this post. It’s O. K. I am over the sympathy. ( I gave up not trying to be harsh)

I don’t lack numbers. I just didn’t nor will I probably take the time to post them here in this forum. I have other priorities and venues.

Tony
 
I would *love* to see an AIC evidence ratio ranking of generalized linear models based on force on the stem rigging point (measured with a load cell) as the response variable, and all the rigging permutations (block, double whip block, double whip afd, afd, ring, double whip ring, etc.) as separate models.

The last TCIA article on aerial friction devices was unfortunate, so I'm glad it's being followed up on. It's a great conversation to be having since there is a lack of empirical evidence on the loads that are generated.
 
colb said:
I would *love* to see an AIC evidence ratio ranking of generalized linear models based on force on the stem rigging point (measured with a load cell) as the response variable, and all the rigging permutations (block, double whip block, double whip afd, afd, ring, double whip ring, etc.) as separate models.

The last TCIA article on aerial friction devices was unfortunate, so I'm glad it's being followed up on. It's a great conversation to be having since there is a lack of empirical evidence on the loads that are generated.[/

colb said:
I would *love* to see an AIC evidence ratio ranking of generalized linear models based on force on the stem rigging point (measured with a load cell) as the response variable, and all the rigging permutations (block, double whip block, double whip afd, afd, ring, double whip ring, etc.) as separate models.

The last TCIA article on aerial friction devices was unfortunate, so I'm glad it's being followed up on. It's a great conversation to be having since there is a lack of empirical evidence on the loads that are generated.
Click to expand...

What was unfortunate about the last article on aerial friction was the overblown, very personal response aimed at the author.

As for the precieved “lack”. I’d start with Don Blair’s Rigging for Removal, move on to Donzelli and Lilly and the Art and science of Practical Rigging, then here for a nice summary of those two,as well as new empirical and in field data.

All those resources will introduce even more.

Tony
Click to expand...
 
Tony said:
I think your analogy if off. The SRS/ MRS discussion is about systems. This seems to be focusing on components of a system.
Click to expand...

My comparison was to the dialogue I’ve heard in both the MRS/SRS “debate” and now the block/ring “debate”. The common issue I see is with either being a debate at all, that there are blanket claims of one being superior to the other. Whether system or component, my point was that claiming one to be the future and the other old hat is amiss.
 
Crimsonking said:
My comparison was to the dialogue I’ve heard in both the MRS/SRS “debate” and now the block/ring “debate”. The common issue I see is with either being a debate at all, that there are blanket claims of one being superior to the other. Whether system or component, my point was that claiming one to be the future and the other old hat is amiss.
Click to expand...

I get it now. Good point.

Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom