Talk:Fall factor

What is the original source for the fall factor of 2?

How did people first calculate that a fall factor of 2 is as much as the human body can withstand? I've heard at least one rumor on this issue which is described in this mail I tried to send to snopes.com (but their submission form is broken):

I'd like to submit a rumor on the origins of the climbing fall factor. The fall factor is the amount of force due to de-acceleration that a human being can tolerate. See e.g. this Wikipedia article on the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_factor

The rumor that I've heard several times in climbing circles is that the original source for what the human body can tolerate in these circumstances are medical experiments performed by the Third Reich in Germany during World War 2.

However I haven't found anything online supporting this assertion, one paper which I've found which discusses fall factors located here:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=746

States in its acknowledgements section that:

"Calculations like these have been published many times over. As best as I can tell, their origin goes back to Belaying the Leader, Richard M. Leonard and Arnold Wexler, Sierra Club Bulletin 31 (1946)"

It would be interesting if you guys could debunk this and find out what is the original source for how much de-acceleration a human body can tolerate. Did someone do practical experiments on this (like the rumored Third Reich) or is the source derived from calculating how much stress the human skeleton can take or something else entirely?

The sources cited in this article don't give a definite answer to this question, it would be interesting if someone could add them. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

92.14.248.136 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the Fall Factor is defined as the length of the fall divided by the length of the rope, a climber can only climb up to the length of rope above an anchor point. Hence the total length of the fall can be up to twice the length of the rope, hence the limiting value of Fall factor two as the text says under the section on Lead Climbing. It has nothing to do with the amount of de acceleration that the human body can tolerate. For information on that topic, see http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2003/hsl03-09.pdf .

Units of variables needed

Please provide the units for the variables used in the equations (F, k, U, m, R, g). A diagram or two would also be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.59.149 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for the new version of December 4, 2010

The last version contained several errors, unclear passages, and uncommon use of variables and expressions:

1. Formula for maximum impact force F₁: With the spring constant k as it is used in physics, the dependency on the rope length is not correct (when k is defined as Elasticity modulus the dependency on the rope’s cross section is missing).
2. The calculation of k with parameters of the UIAA standard fall conditions is not transparent and not correct with respect to the dimensions. A more transparent formula is given with an explanation for its use.
3. Used variables such as r for length of rope and l for fall height are uncommon in physics and were replaced. The variable k as modulus of elasticity is not correctly used (see point 1.)
4. “Maximum impact force” is usually only called “impact force” by rope manufacturers.
5. A section on the deficiencies of the undamped harmonic oscillator model for describing a climbing rope has been added.
6. The formula of the impact force when the rope is clipped into several carabiners is cancelled, because 1. no reference is given (the cited reference does not show it), and 2. the situation is not described correctly, e.g. the angles between rope and carabiners for the dry friction are not considered (for the same number of carabiners a zig-zag clipping leads to more dry friction than a straight line clipping).
7. The order of chapters has been changed: theory at the beginning, applications at the end.
8. The references have been classified according to true references and external links.
9. “Category” has been expanded to include physics

--Iratheclimber (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

-- I am not happy with the current formulation of the page. While I appreciate the original research of Ulrich Leuthäusser, published on his website, this is a classic case of Original Research that is not suitable for the Wikipedia. My main complaint is that this is not "Fall Factor" as understood in the climbing community, but instead is a considerably more thorough examination of rope physics - and thoroughly confuses the matter. I suggest that the article would be MUCH BETTER if it was based on Goldstone's article (published in the prestigious journal Rockclimbing.com) and the other 'External Sources'. Not sure how many people are following this article... please pipe in with an opinion. Thanks. Ratagonia (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Worse, the final formula (for Fmax) cannot possibly be right, because it doesn't depend on h, the supposed height of the fall. (Clearly a fall of one metre vs one millimetre will result in very difference forces, even if the fall factor is the same.) Sadly, I don't know enough physics to fix it.