In reply to midgets of the world unite:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> Yes, as the text you quoted from me implies, if you think about it.
I don't necessarily think it does imply that. Since the whole debate is about whether the max tension does increase with the amount of slack in the system, I think I could have reasonably expected an explicit answer as to whether the elastic model correctly predicts whether this is the case.
> It's hard to know what you're on about since you mix radial and tangential with horizontal so confusingly - e.g. "The horizontal momentum at the moment of impact is entirely tangential"? I'm impressed you can accuse me of waffling whilst writing stuff like this.
On a vertical wall, the horizontal component of momentum at the moment of impact will be equal to the tangential component of momentum. What is wrong with that? Obviously this is not the case if the wall is not vertical.
> The reason you are struggling is that your 'radial' and 'tangential' co-ordinate system is non-inertial - your co-ordinate system itself accelerates as the climber falls and failure to account for this will cause all sorts of problems.
The only claim I made relevant to the conclusion of my argument was that The tangential force is equal to mass x rate of change of tangential speed. I now see that this was an error ignoring the extra term mass x radial speed x angular speed (my claim only holds true if the rope is not stretching).
> Instead, consider the following, basic scenario. We've got a vertical wall. We'll define horizontal and vertical coordinates...........The size of the horizontal component depends upon the magnitude of the tension in the rope, *and the angle of the rope*........
Sorry. I should not have said you were wrong to work with horizontal and vertical components rather than radial and tangential components. However, I chose (without success due to the above error I have admitted to!) radial and tangential for the following reason which I think your argument overlooks:
Yes, the force on the climber towards the wall is precisely the horizontal component of the tension in the rope and for a given tension this will be smaller for a smaller angle of the rope with the vertical as produced by having more slack in the system. BUT, having more slack in the system will also increase the magnitude of the tension in the rope (as you agreed the elastic model shows). This, of course, increases the horizontal component of the tension and it is not clear therefore whether these two competing factors actually do decrease the horizontal component of the tension. I think your argument is therefore inconclusive.
The reason I attempted to work with the tangential component of the force on the climber is that this is independent of the tension in the rope - it is the tangential component of his unchanging weight which clearly decrerases with the angle the rope makes with the vertical.
So, I think the jury is still out on this one (though experience suggests that extra slack does indeed decrease the speed with which the climber hits the wall). I think a solution of the full equations of motion are needed to see whether the elastic model predicts this and my initial jottings suggest that these are pretty messy!
>
> The distinction is quite clear, but only you have insisted on defining the 'hardness of fall' as the max tension in the rope, and did so without informing anyone else for a large part of the thread.
I admit I initially assumed that "hardness" meant max tension in rope and when I realised that different people were talking at cross purposes I thought I had made an honest attempt to separate and clarify the two issues of max tension and force of swinging into the wall. It seems I failed to do so. I hope things are clear now.
> Everyone else seems to be using a sensible, though vague, definition of fall hardness as "did that fall feel unpleasant".
Sensible, arguably, but, as you say, vague, and this was the problem which I tried to clear up by clearly separating the two issues.