Sad helmet incident

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 2:50:59 AM UTC, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:38:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

"100 percent greater blunt impact protection "

My freshman-year English teacher would have marked that as a
grammatical error because it doesn't say 100% of *what*.

It was on the final:
Correct "Crumpet Creek butter is definitely better".

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

Absolutely. There was a time when it wasn't an infra dig solecism to correct the grammar of the less fortunate.

Andre Jute
I'd be a stickler for correct grammar except I don't want to be called a hypocrite

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:25:17 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 3:40:13 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:30:18 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better minds than
mine have given the thing great thought and consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-.../this-lighter-
stronger-combat-helmet-is-headed-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable injury is
not the point. What they use now works better than what they had before.

Is that from the testing lab chair polishers or the people on the ground
under fire?

My 2c is does it come fitted with a multiphase shock asorbing lining. The
MSR (bicycle) helmet I had had such and it was the only bicycle helmet
that could take real damage unlike the plastic and styofoam stuff we have
now.

So I'm wondering if in seeking a lighter military helmet, how much impact
resistance/protection they have thrown away. Plus, being made of plastic,
there is also the age question as all plastic hardens and that
brittleness turns lack of resiliance. Anyway.

At another forum the usual helmet crap came up and someone had a reference to how well helmets compared to the international standard. It turned out that most of the expensive helmets came in around 1.2 times better than the standard. These helmets met this simply by making the thickness of the Styrofoam a little more than necessary. The cheap Chinese helmets like Schwinn etc. had 1.5 or even more that of the standard and again that was simply by making the helmet marginally larger and adding additional Styrofoam.

Specialized I believe had the best of all performance. They did this not by adding more Styrofoam or making the helmet larger but have very high quality controlled Styrofoam with very carefully controlled bubble size in the foam.

Of course being three times as effective was measured simply by how far you could drop it with a head weight in it and maintain the deceleration rate in the standard. Since this rate is too high, almost all of these helmets were worthless standard or no.

Interestingly, the Trek/Bontrager helmets met the International standard despite having a deceleration rate much lower than the Styrofoam helmets. All this means is that as the Q-Cells collapse they meet a point at which they have smashed together so much that they then decelerated at the normal standard speed. This is hardly the point since the initial deceleration rate of 2/3's or so that of Styrofoam is the important part.

This testing didn't even mention that surprising reduction of deceleration and hence the improvement of concussion rates of 48 time lower brain damage.

IF you wear a helmet I would really recommend the Bontrager Q-Cell standard helmets. When they tested the MIPS they found no improvement but they do provide a MIPS liner for those who believe that it decreases injuries.

What is this "International Standard"? I ask as I did a search for
such a thing and I can't seem to find it, although I did find:

CPSC Standard - The U.S. Law that covers all helmets produced for the
US market after March 10, 1999.

ASTM F1447- more than 70 per cent of the world's bicycle helmet
production had been certified to the standard of the American Society
for Testing and Materials.

The Australian standard, which is superior in some respects to any of
the U.S. standards.

The Canadian standard has also been rigorous, and has been updated to
reduce the permissible G level for child helmets

There were national standards in effect in various European countries,
but Europe now has a CEN standard that covers all member states

Japan has a standard of its own.

The site I found says that " Our Helmet Standards Comparison includes
as many of the standards as we have been able to get copies of to
date, at last count fifteen, but it may not be entirely up to date."

But no "International Standard".

Is this, yet again, proof that Tommy doesn't know what he is talking
about?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:57:53 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:38:56 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 23:40:06 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

My 2c is does it come fitted with a multiphase shock asorbing lining.
The MSR (bicycle) helmet I had had such and it was the only bicycle
helmet that could take real damage unlike the plastic and styofoam stuff
we have now.

So I'm wondering if in seeking a lighter military helmet, how much
impact resistance/protection they have thrown away. Plus, being made of
plastic,
there is also the age question as all plastic hardens and that
brittleness turns lack of resiliance. Anyway.

see
https://www.military.com/kitup/2019/...-armys-newest-
combat-helmet-revealed.html

"100 percent greater blunt impact protection "

So it has doubled the past protection from being hit over the head by a
4x4?

the irony from this articles is that they been chasing lighter and lghter
helment, but also come uo with a new system to attach junk/weight to it?

I think the reasoning is "that as we want to attach a lot of junk the
helmet needs to be made lighter" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:59:08 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:50:51 -0500, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:38:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

"100 percent greater blunt impact protection "

My freshman-year English teacher would have marked that as a
grammatical error because it doesn't say 100% of *what*.

"100% greater blunt impact protection"? "Blunt Impact" is something,
see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma

" Blunt trauma is physical trauma to a body part, either by impact,
injury or physical attack. The latter is usually referred to as blunt
force trauma. Blunt trauma is the initial trauma, from which develops
more specific types such as contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and/or
bone fractures. Blunt trauma is contrasted with penetrating trauma, in
which an object such as a projectile or knife enters the body. "

[snipped quote]

But what is the blunt-impact protection 100% greater than?


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 21:54:24 -0500, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:59:08 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:50:51 -0500, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:38:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

"100 percent greater blunt impact protection "

My freshman-year English teacher would have marked that as a
grammatical error because it doesn't say 100% of *what*.

"100% greater blunt impact protection"? "Blunt Impact" is something,
see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma

" Blunt trauma is physical trauma to a body part, either by impact,
injury or physical attack. The latter is usually referred to as blunt
force trauma. Blunt trauma is the initial trauma, from which develops
more specific types such as contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and/or
bone fractures. Blunt trauma is contrasted with penetrating trauma, in
which an object such as a projectile or knife enters the body. "

[snipped quote]

But what is the blunt-impact protection 100% greater than?

:-) Well the subject under discussion is blunt trauma protection,
and discussing new helmets, so one would assume that if the new helmet
gives 100% better protection then it is 100%, i.e., double the
protection of the old helmet against getting hit on the head with a
baseball bat (for example) :-)

Just as I hear people say "Oh! I've gained weight!", or what might be
a classic, "She lost her husband" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:27:50 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 4:52:16 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:31:49 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:13:16 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:29:00 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some
idea of the things that were being used in the 80's

80's, Recent?

I worked at Sandia National Labs and Lawrence Livermore Labs which is
next door in the 2005 time period and the improvement of the old tin
hat started in the 1980's with improvements every couple of years and
enough improvement to make full scale changes about every 5 years.
That means that the latest improvements have gone on-line about
something in the last five years.

But the stuff I was hearing about is still at least 10 years off.
Through with the papers I have recently read I can see pretty much
how it will be done.

What have you done with your time besides posting here?

You wouldn't believe it.

Be3cause you're a smart ass that ****es me off doesn't mean that I
wouldn't believe you. I do think that you can discuss things
intellectually if the time is right.

Sorry tommie. it isn't time for more tommie fairy tales.

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 05:34:56 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:57:53 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:38:56 +0700, John B. wrote:


"100 percent greater blunt impact protection "

So it has doubled the past protection from being hit over the head by a
4x4?

the irony from this articles is that they been chasing lighter and
lghter helment, but also come uo with a new system to attach junk/weight
to it?

I think the reasoning is "that as we want to attach a lot of junk the
helmet needs to be made lighter" :-)

I can not help but think ofd those Prussin(?) calvary helmets with great
'oblongs' on top.

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:25:17 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 3:40:13 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:30:18 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better minds than
mine have given the thing great thought and consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-.../this-lighter-
stronger-combat-helmet-is-headed-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable injury is
not the point. What they use now works better than what they had
before.

Is that from the testing lab chair polishers or the people on the
ground under fire?

My 2c is does it come fitted with a multiphase shock asorbing lining.
The MSR (bicycle) helmet I had had such and it was the only bicycle
helmet that could take real damage unlike the plastic and styofoam
stuff we have now.

So I'm wondering if in seeking a lighter military helmet, how much
impact resistance/protection they have thrown away. Plus, being made of
plastic,
there is also the age question as all plastic hardens and that
brittleness turns lack of resiliance. Anyway.

At another forum the usual helmet crap came up and someone had a
reference to how well helmets compared to the international standard. It
turned out that most of the expensive helmets came in around 1.2 times
better than the standard. These helmets met this simply by making the
thickness of the Styrofoam a little more than necessary. The cheap
Chinese helmets like Schwinn etc. had 1.5 or even more that of the
standard and again that was simply by making the helmet marginally
larger and adding additional Styrofoam.

Specialized I believe had the best of all performance. They did this not
by adding more Styrofoam or making the helmet larger but have very high
quality controlled Styrofoam with very carefully controlled bubble size
in the foam.

Of course being three times as effective was measured simply by how far
you could drop it with a head weight in it and maintain the deceleration
rate in the standard. Since this rate is too high, almost all of these
helmets were worthless standard or no.

Interestingly, the Trek/Bontrager helmets met the International standard
despite having a deceleration rate much lower than the Styrofoam
helmets. All this means is that as the Q-Cells collapse they meet a
point at which they have smashed together so much that they then
decelerated at the normal standard speed. This is hardly the point since
the initial deceleration rate of 2/3's or so that of Styrofoam is the
important part.

This testing didn't even mention that surprising reduction of
deceleration and hence the improvement of concussion rates of 48 time
lower brain damage.

IF you wear a helmet I would really recommend the Bontrager Q-Cell
standard helmets. When they tested the MIPS they found no improvement
but they do provide a MIPS liner for those who believe that it decreases
injuries.

Sounds to me that bicycle helmet standards are still to work out what
they were/are/should be developed for. In this country, the initial
standard were only met by a canoeing helmet and the MSR climbing helmet.
Then they redrafted it and the new rules excluded them and included the
styrofoam models. The next redraft, or the one after that killed off the
mushroom shape because of neck twisting from side impacts and now we have
the ear scrappers.

All the tests seemed to revolve around people suddenly catapaulting into
the air and impacting on a pole or sign post or the ground, when the
biggest danger is side and rear impact from motor vehicles.

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:41:06 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 05:34:56 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:57:53 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:38:56 +0700, John B. wrote:


"100 percent greater blunt impact protection "

So it has doubled the past protection from being hit over the head by a
4x4?

the irony from this articles is that they been chasing lighter and
lghter helment, but also come uo with a new system to attach junk/weight
to it?

I think the reasoning is "that as we want to attach a lot of junk the
helmet needs to be made lighter" :-)

I can not help but think ofd those Prussin(?) calvary helmets with great
'oblongs' on top.

Polish, I believe.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 1/25/2020 3:21 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:41:06 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 05:34:56 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:57:53 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:38:56 +0700, John B. wrote:


"100 percent greater blunt impact protection"

So it has doubled the past protection from being hit over the head by a
4x4?

the irony from this articles is that they been chasing lighter and
lghter helment, but also come uo with a new system to attach junk/weight
to it?

I think the reasoning is "that as we want to attach a lot of junk the
helmet needs to be made lighter" :-)

I can not help but think ofd those Prussin(?) calvary helmets with great
'oblongs' on top.

Polish, I believe.


Pretty sure picklehaube are Prussian from early 1800s before
Germany was a nation and when Poland was segmented and occupied.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971