In reply to UKC Articles: Nice discussion - far better than in the original article, but in my opinion the original has quite a few flaws. I think it lacks credibility and personally don't trust their findings.
The original article left out a fair bit of information regarding the method, for example the temperature at the time of each test and the time between the original hole and the re-bored screw being placed.
It's also worth noting that the tests were carried out on lake ice not waterfall ice. This is important and is shown by the difference in results for the few abolokovs they did do on waterfall ice.
The article also draws some quite strong conclusions from quite variable data, which is due to such a small sample size and often they should have stated it was inconclusive or done more tests to explain the anomalies.
My final point, which is seriously poor form for any work, is that the article states the best configuration is with the largest area enveloped then contradicts this saying you should drill a 60x60x60 anchor. This does not envelope as much ice as a 45x45x90 triangle, which is the configuration recommended in Allen Fyffe and Iain Peters book, 'The Handbook of Climbing'.