Originally Posted by
meanwhile
Yes, John, you make a lot of assumptions. One of your assumptions was that I'd know you had only made two posts in the thread, another that I'd see your second original post close to the first and not in a post quoting it, etc. This sort of "I can assume what I want to" is one of the things that makes your posts so rich in balderdash.
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
Now, how about we stop this name-calling stuff, and get down to a real debate. Have you now looked at Dr. Mills Figure 14.2, and seen the relationship between the crushing time and the peak impact forces?
John - no one doubts the relationship between time and force; why this seems to be a revelation to you when it is widely understand by 12 year olds I don't know. However, it isn't the point. What the point is you'll probably never get. Even though it has been explained to you dozens of times.
Meanwhile,
The paper we discussed above did not test helmets, only the liners. If you had read it, you would know that. It dropped the headform onto the flat liner.
Now, with that last statement, you are saying that you know without a doubt that helmets work to mitigate the forces of those falls.
John