Please observe our rules: No profanity. No flaming. No commercial messages. No personal messages please.

Trap Line Archives
 
Traps and Equipment Archives
 
Trap Line Home   Trap Line Forum   Trap Line Help   Trap Line Photo   Old Hollow Blog   Archives
Page 10 of 10 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10
Topic Options
#8493 - 04/03/06 06:45 AM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Buzzard.. Offline
Member

Registered: 02/26/03
Posts: 859
Loc: North Carolina
I have experienced the gregerson lock on deer first hand while I was snaring deer on purpose.

I was ignorant enough not to know what was suppose to happen and it did perfectly w/ a neck snared deer. The lock failed and I had a live one on my hands.

While a bit off topic, cam locks, even tho they are relaxing locks so to speak "kill" quite well w/ neck snared deer.

Top
#8494 - 04/03/06 02:31 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Hal Offline
Moderator

Registered: 07/17/00
Posts: 9936
Loc: Blue Creek, Ohio, USA
"Gregarson? had his locks tested and the results were published."
Gregerson locks were tested in the 1990 study. The mean breaking strength was 339 pounds.

"the cable would cut through the thin metal of the lock when the captured animal attempts to free itself. Is there any application here to s-hook BAD systems" I don't see how. It is an entirely different system.

"Hal I would love for you to attempt to tear one of these locks out.." Heck, I'll bet you would. I'll bet you'd love to have me mow your lawn too. smile You seem to be as interested in this as anyone, in fact more so. Again I invite you or anyone else to undertake some of this on your own.

Frankly, I'm not going to do anymore of this until I get a different system set up. Something on the order of what Ric has. But that doesn't mean the tests I have used are invalid, the testing system is just a little slow.

But before this thread ends, maybe I should delineate a simple testing system, and how anybody can do this test at home.



For starters, you'll need a some sort of a scale, a bathroom scale will do. You'll also need a comealong to pick up the weights, and you'll obviously need a place to hang the comealong. I hang mine from a beam in the ceiling.

My original set up employed concrete blocks and a couple pieces of pipe to hold them. Set the blocks up endways and run a piece of pipe through them. I used two rows of block with two pipes. Then I used a piece of chain to capture the ends of the pipes sticking out of the blocks. For the pulling mandrel, I used a piece of pipe about 12 inches long. (If you want to replicate the 1990 DWR tests, get a piece of 2.5" inside diameter pipe, this will be about 2.9" outside diameter.) I would capture one end of the pipes sticking out of the blocks, run the chain through the hollow of the pulling pipe, and then capture the other end of the pipes sticking out of the blocks..

You need to weigh everything below the comealong, the blocks, the pipes, the chains, the pull pipe, -- everything. Do this incrementally and add up your total. It is best to start with a weight below the expected breaking point of the BAD. Unhook the chain, thread a snare on the pull pipe, then rehook the chain.

Working the handle of the comealong slowly, pick up the load. (Don't jerk or bounce the load.) All you need to do is clear the load from the floor a fraction of an inch. If the BAD doesn't let go. Set the load back down carefully.

Next you will need some items of known weight to add to the load. I used bricks there's so many different kinds that I can't give you an approximate weight for one brick, but to speed up the process of doing this test, add weight in 10 pound increments. If your bricks weigh approximately 5 pounds, add them to the load two at a time.

Eventually, the BAD will fail. At this point you can weigh the total additional weight you have added to the pile and come up with a total weight number for that trail. Don't rely on just one trial. There can be variances in these things. You should do at least ten trials and take an average.

Note, that you should always use a new lock, and new BAD for each trail. The hole on a lock tends to distort once it has been subject to a BAD failure. And BADs should never be considered to be re-usable.

BE CAREFUL! BE SAFE!
These BADs can fail violently, with pieces being propelled away from the snare with some force. Please wear some form of eye protection. Also be mindful that a load this heavy could very quickly smash your toes. I circumvent this by standing on a ladder to work the comealong. I stand on the first step of the ladder, and my feet are thusly off the floor.

smile -- Hal
_________________________
Endeavor to persevere.

Top
#8495 - 04/03/06 05:54 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
WACKYQUACKER Offline
Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 683
Loc: CORRALES, NM
Come now, you stand on the ladder so you can reach the come-a-long handle...the safety aspect was serendipidous.

Top
#8496 - 04/04/06 09:28 AM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Hal Offline
Moderator

Registered: 07/17/00
Posts: 9936
Loc: Blue Creek, Ohio, USA
In fact it wasn't. At first I positioned the comealong so I could reach it from the floor. But to use it, you have to lean out over the pile of weights. This puts your toes very close to the load. A couple of times watching a 300 pound pile of blocks crash to the floor, inches from my toes, was enough to scare me.

I drug the ladder in, moved the comealong higher, and got my feet off the floor. Actually it's easier to work the comealong off a ladder because you can snuggle the ladder right up next to the load, and you can safely stand closer to the load with your feet up on a the ladder.

smile -- Hal
_________________________
Endeavor to persevere.

Top
#8497 - 04/06/06 06:03 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
archer01 Offline
Member

Registered: 03/25/05
Posts: 340
Loc: N.E. Penna.
Hal , Thanks for letting us see the diagram of your testing devise. Crude but eficient.
I believe most of us following this thread would love to see you
go on and finish your quest.
What is your plan from here?
We will support you all the way.

I have my own plan. I will, over the summer make sometype of tester. I'll probably wait and see what your new one looks like.

After I find out all the facts and new news on any changes for next year . I will buy, or build and play with several different BAD's I'd like to try a bunch of them, . Then put them to the tester to see which one I like the best. I will build my own better Pa. cable restraint and remain within the law.......

Top
#8498 - 04/07/06 08:15 AM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Hal Offline
Moderator

Registered: 07/17/00
Posts: 9936
Loc: Blue Creek, Ohio, USA
My hope is to get manufacturers and retailers to subscribe to this test when rating their BADs. That way, we will all be on the same page, and the customer will be better able to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the device he buys, no matter who he buys it from.

Also, individual inventors and experimenters will have basis from which to conduct test. Maybe we will see some more innovations in this field.

Part of making this happen will be that customers demand verification of the devices retailers are selling. Ask how the device is rated or tested. If they can't answer your question, maybe embarrassment alone will spur on desire for standardization in determining the strength of BADs.

It will be very important that there be a single standardized testing procedure. If some manufacturers refuse to comply, it would not be unwarranted to assume that their products would not measure up to a standardized test.

smile -- Hal
_________________________
Endeavor to persevere.

Top
#8499 - 04/09/06 08:10 AM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Jim Johnson Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 04/04/04
Posts: 11
Loc: Dahlonega, Georgia
Hal, Please do not view this post as a negative thing but rather as constructive criticism. While I am not a Professional Engineer as defined by most criteria, I have been, until my retirement, involved in engineering and testing of electrical devices and many of the procedures and requirements are similar.
Your stated goal of getting all manufacturers and retailers of BADs to use this, or at last some standardized test is reasonable.
Your methodology seems to be on target, yet a few of your procedures are questionable. Any test that refers to the use of a bathroom scale for determining weight is going to be called into question, adding weights in 10 pound increments or an additional concrete block is also going to be suspect. I don't know what the potential market is for cable restraints utilizing BADs might be, or what the requirements for those BADs is in the various states requiring them, but I must assume it is a fairly small market. If that is in fact the case, standardized testing by some independent laboratory could well be cost prohibitive. Having said that, it might well be the only thing to save a manufacturer the cost of some fairly expensive litigation at both the state and federal level. Testing any device without having a standardized, calibrated test set up traceable to the U.S. Bureau of standards or a State agency may be hazardous to your pocket book. Underwriters Laboratories, and other testing institutions, already have in place test set ups that can measure to great accuracy the very things you are trying to test, they are costly, yet their label on your device may be invaluable. My only other comment would be to keep meticulous records of eeverything you do as you develop your procedures and test set up. Good luck to you in your efforts to get standards set, you may possibly be able to influence some common sense approach to this and other related issues.

Top
#8500 - 04/09/06 10:46 AM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Hal Offline
Moderator

Registered: 07/17/00
Posts: 9936
Loc: Blue Creek, Ohio, USA
Thanks for your input, but you may have missed this quote above.

"All it will cost you is your time. When you are done. You could pay a small cost to get them tested "officially"."

All the aforementioned was premised on an individual of limited means being able to do research and development on break-away devices with materials commonly available which would yield reasonably accurate results.

You seem to perceive of testing these things in the same manner as Newt did above. Some complicated, elaborate, and expensive procedure. Even done under even under controlled "laboratory" conditions -- it is not. You put a 3-inch diameter rod in a jig in a universal testing machine, cinch a BAD snare around it, pull until the BAD fails, and record the reading. Do that 12 times, and you an a North Dakota "officially sanctioned" certification. The current cost is $60.00.

I think there may be some confusion here between the terms "testing" and "certification". I propose that an individual do all his "testing" (in the form of research and development) at home. If you perform these "homemade" test carefully, your accuracy will be within 10%. When you are satisfied you have a reliable device, for a few bucks you can have it certified -- that is if you want to put it on the market.

Seriously, thanks for your concern. You are correct, any test calling for a bathroom scale and a comealong is probably not going to be approved by Underwriter's Laboratory. But it is good enough for the home shop, and will get you close enough that, if you want you can take it to a laboratory, pay a small fee for a certified test run, and market the device on the results.

smile -- Hal
_________________________
Endeavor to persevere.

Top
#8501 - 04/17/06 09:57 AM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Heimbrock Offline
Member

Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 36
Loc: Ohio
RE:" Having said that, it might well be the only thing to save a manufacturer the cost of some fairly expensive litigation at both the state and federal level.

Bingo.

That’s where I was going with this when I had time to get back here.

Should a BAD be involved in an incident where there are financial damages (and I can think of several I won’t post in public) there will be a liability issue.

Who will be held liable?

The purchaser and user?

The retailer?

The mfg?

Even if the BAD is not the prime causal factor a good lawyer is going to look at the process in place to warrant the assertions made by the mfg. That will include not only the testing but the quality control process, both of which appear substandard.

It is not about the BAD being good enough or hunting rabbits vs punching holes in paper, it is about convincing a jury.

I remember Richard Butera telling me stories about Victor and 330s and the consequences of the trap performing as it was SUPPOSED to.

It will be even worse for a device that doesn’t perform as it is supposed to or where a lawyer can paint a scenario that implies it couldn’t reliably perform as it was supposed to based on negligence of the mfg. And from [what] I learned from the lawyers the processes described herein are negligent.

I wouldn’t touch mfg and selling BADs with a lawyers hands.

Hope everyone had a Happy Meaningful Easter.

Top
#25451 - 10/25/17 01:31 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks [Re: Hal]
Archive Offline


Registered: 03/12/03
Posts: 1116
Dated for search.

Top
Page 10 of 10 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10

Moderator:  Archive 

 
Sullivan's Line - Trapping Books, Videos, and Other Products for the Trapper.
 
Design and Production by Sullivan Promotions
Copyright 2000-2017  Sullivan's Scents and Supplies - All rights reserved.