Re: Bell cap how to

[Magnus]

I must however point out that I first came into contact with these bell-caps when in 1987 I was commissioned by the Vindolanda Trust to reproduce what is known as the Vindolanda chamfron ( cavalry equipment ) which of course I relate to in an earlier post. Then after also being commissioned to reproduce the Velsen Dagger I again came into contact with these things that were used on the belt which carried this dagger ( equipment waistbelts )

So now instead of evidence you are posting your resume. Sorry, but anyone who does this never has a leg to stand on in any debate that I have ever witnessed.

I became interested in these things 22 years ago as mentioned so I began to produce and use them, it was then that the diacovery was made that the engineering design of these things does indeed reduce the amount of poundage needed to lock a rivet as oppossed to that of a flat washer.

How was this measured and tested? What were the exact results of the study (which of course, I am assuming used scientific parameters in which to carry said testing out).

I do think that having proved this fact not just from the experience of the last 22 years of riveting but also from some 20 to 30 years previous to those years thus giving some 50 plus years experience, I do think myself capable of giving the estimate of to only 10% of that used for a flat washer.

But you haven't proved anything! You simply say it is so, and you expect us to take your word based on your resume instead of actual quantitative evidence! This holds no validity in any academic forum.

I do of course admit that this is only an estimate and not a dynamicaly tested amount.

This would be a more accurate statement. Not entirely 100%, but a bit closer than the absolute statements you've been posting previously. Given the degree of human error, I personaly would estimate that your 10% could in fact be closer to 0-3%, thus being a negligable amount.

I would therefore consider that what Matt referes to as only a theory of mine has been well and truely tested, infact should he or indeed anyone care to produce and use these things they will discover what both myself and Jurjen have found from them.

So the line prior to this, you say you've never actually measured the supposed efficiency, then you go on to say that your theory is proven...wow...it either IS something, or it ISN'T. Which is it? Because if you have no actual proof, then no theory can be proven. And I'm not making that up, that's standard in the scientific community. Saying you've used them for "X" number of years is not proof either. In fact, I would say that because of your bias towards them, you are unable to present an un-opinionated view of the items.