22/7 wrote:unc, I read back through a number of your posts, and I keep finding inconsistencies and inaccuracies that indicate a lack of understanding of what's going on here. For example,
Looking back on my posts now to pick out errors? Seems like you're a little more concerned with scoring points against me than actually making a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. You asked a very simple question in your last post and I responded - why not address that instead?
22/7 wrote:This simply isn't true. The foam compresses regardless of the magnitude of the impact. Do you understand this?
I already addressed this a number of times - again, the rock also compressed regardless of the magnitude of the impact, and hitting rocks doesn't prevent concussions - is the compression actually significant enough to notably reduce concussions? Is the reduction in peak force 1% or 75%? It's an important question and you've avoided answering it every time.
22/7 wrote:For concussions, the fact that the area of your skull doesn't change doesn't matter. Concussions aren't caused by pressure, they're caused by acceleration.
And that acceleration is caused by a force that's applied across the surface of the skull - ie, a pressure. The total force applied to any local region of the skull can be reduced by the helmet by distributing it across the surface of the skull, but the total force on the skull is equal to the total force on the brain - the force isn't distributed anywhere else.
Is nitpicking the semantics of my previous posts helping you on your way to actually demonstrating the argument you're trying to make?
22/7 wrote:Of course concussions are still going to occur when helmets are worn. This is for the same reason that clavicles will still break when seat belts are worn. What we're arguing is that everything gets moved down the scale.
and I've argued that because helmets are designed to reduce fractures, they're probably not effective at reducing concussions. You can't simply argue that since helmets reduce one form of head injury that they're effective in reducing all head injuries - that's why helmets are designed differently for different activities.
22/7 wrote:Ignoring the fact that your grasp of how materials compress and break is dodgy at best, explain to me why you're allowed to make judgments like "doesn't compress significantly" but then demand numbers when I or anyone else claims that any reduction in impulse is beneficial? If you're going to use that kind of language and expect it to carry any weight whatsoever[...]
It was stated that helmets can prevent concussions, and I don't accept that claim without some form of solid proof. The references I've made to the nature of the properties of the foam are simply to illustrate that the claim isn't substantiated merely by referencing the general fact that elastic materials compress under load. Why can't you be bothered to just simply apply the equations you so extensively explained to prove your point?
Show me the actual magnitude of the reduction in impact on the brain, and it'll be settled - until then, I'll be conservative in my estimation of the capabilities of safety gear. The onus is on you to quantify your claim, not on me.
22/7 wrote:I want some proof that you're at least as qualified as I am to make such hand-wavy statements.
I'm sure you're awfully proud of whatever "qualifications" you feel you may have to make posts on a comic strip forum, but this thread isn't about your qualifications, and I'd more interested in discussing the topic at hand.