|
Does OSHA have a set limit on cranes per acre?
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Does OSHA have a set limit on cranes per acre?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Well sometimes one isn't enough
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Well sometimes one isn't enough 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Well sometimes one isn't enough ALL HAIL
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
one crane, two crane red crane, blue crane one slip, big stain watch out, a brain
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Thought you were talkin about birds m8.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:ALL HAUL
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
E Equals MC Hammer posted:Thought you were talkin about birds m8. That happens as well 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Which seems a good time to post another old thread favourite: Sand Won't Save You This Time and the rest of that series, called "Things I Won't Work With". lost it at this
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Orgophlax posted:
Yep. The best PPE for a ClF3 fire is a good pair of running shoes. Ignition is a drat funny book and it's a shame that it's basically impossible to obtain legally.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
dis astranagant posted:Yep. The best PPE for a ClF3 fire is a good pair of running shoes. Ignition is a drat funny book and it's a shame that it's basically impossible to obtain legally. I'm reasonably sure that Ignition! is public domain.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Mozi posted:one crane, two crane Nice
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Explosionface posted:I'm reasonably sure that Ignition! is public domain. Either way, anyone who likes that kind of stuff or wants to learn more about horrible ways you can blow yourself up and/or die is welcome to join us in this thread Things that go FOOF in the night: PYF dangerous chemicals/etc.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
On the bright side, you can straight up pirate it via the author's Wikipedia article at the moment.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
dis astranagant posted:On the bright side, you can straight up pirate it via the author's Wikipedia article at the moment. The very first Google result for "Ignition book" appears to be the entire book as a PDF.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Explosionface posted:I'm reasonably sure that Ignition! is public domain. There's no reason I can see that it would be. It was published in 1972, copyright term is life of the author plus 70 years, he died in 1988, unless whoever held the rights after his death placed it into the public domain it's going to be under copyright until at least 2058 (and effectively forever since whenever the copyright's about to lapse on the mouse they'll just extend it again).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Maybe somebody is working on a reprint with new commentary and they're paving the way for that? Wishful thinking, probably.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Jet Jaguar posted:Maybe somebody is working on a reprint with new commentary and they're paving the way for that? The new version has rounded corners to comply with OSHA so idiot's don't poke their eyes out on pages.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Well sometimes one isn't enough I'm imagining one crane operator loving it all up by not hitting up when Crane Commander says up. loving Jim. always Jim.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:I'm imagining one crane operator loving it all up by not hitting up when Crane Commander says up. loving Jim. always Jim. I prefer to imagine a rube goldberg type series of dowels and string to synchronize all the controls. Then one guy (Jim) in charge and sneezing at a critical moment.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I prefer to imagine a rube goldberg type series of dowels and string to synchronize all the controls. Then one guy (Jim) in charge and sneezing at a critical moment. You aren't seriously suggesting that curtain rod and bailing wire pushrods aren't an appropriate control synchronization method, are you?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Currently in a meeting related to figuring out certification for trolley boom mobile cranes used in precast concrete lifting. I just found out that the ASME B30.5 standard for safe crane operation will be changed to remove any need for load charts to explain exactly what criteria they were determined by. The load charts will be just "This is your capacity at this boom length and angle. Don't exceed it." Why? Because so many operators look at a load chart that says it's based on 85% of the maximum and go "Huh, I can exceed the chart by 15% and still be okay!" And then they tip over. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Jan 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I prefer to imagine a rube goldberg type series of dowels and string to synchronize all the controls. Then one guy (Jim) in charge and sneezing at a critical moment. Actually there's a baby remote control crane at the controls of each one of those cranes all being controlled by the same remote.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Currently in a meeting related to figuring out certification for trolley boom mobile cranes used in precast concrete lifting. I just found out that the ASME B30.5 standard for safe crane operation will be changes to remove any need for load charts to explain exactly what criteria they were determined by. The load charts will be just "This is your capacity at this boom length and angle. Don't exceed it." It actually does seem stupid to provide operators with factor-of-safety margins, because they think it means it's safe to exceed that. On aircraft designs, for example, the "neutral point" of aerodynamic stability is a very important and key piece of information which gets loving buried to prevent dumb-asses from trying to be Chuck Yeager or Bob Hoover in a plane not designed for it, then getting themselves into an irrecoverable attitude because they hosed up the CoG loading and the aircraft is completely unstable now.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It actually does seem stupid to provide operators with factor-of-safety margins, because they think it means it's safe to exceed that. On aircraft designs, for example, the "neutral point" of aerodynamic stability is a very important and key piece of information which gets loving buried to prevent dumb-asses from trying to be Chuck Yeager or Bob Hoover in a plane not designed for it, then getting themselves into an irrecoverable attitude because they hosed up the CoG loading and the aircraft is completely unstable now. Someone mentioned that this was the cause of a recent crane collapse in NYC that killed people. The operator didn't want to climb back down to change slings and "knew" that the sling was rated for 500% its labeled capacity, so he lifted a load that grossly exceeded the sling's rated capacity. The sling promptly broke and the crane collapsed from the ensuing damage.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
High school kids plus 1940's era printing presses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOTYB6QHdM&t=2330s
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
IPCRESS posted:You aren't seriously suggesting that curtain rod and bailing wire pushrods aren't an appropriate control synchronization method, are you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_PA-97
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
I like that Piasecki has that project on their website, but makes absolutely no mention of what happened. In fact, they seem to continue to swoon over it? http://www.piasecki.com/heavylift_pa97.php
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It actually does seem stupid to provide operators with factor-of-safety margins, because they think it means it's safe to exceed that. On aircraft designs, for example, the "neutral point" of aerodynamic stability is a very important and key piece of information which gets loving buried to prevent dumb-asses from trying to be Chuck Yeager or Bob Hoover in a plane not designed for it, then getting themselves into an irrecoverable attitude because they hosed up the CoG loading and the aircraft is completely unstable now. No its not a dumb idea and the fact that you think the people lifting the load and standinh near it shouldn't know the capacity of everything they have is one of the stupidest things I've seen. Cause when poo poo does go wrong, it's the operator who was operating and it's his rear end and he better know his limits for straps and the crane. That's why you need thousands of hours to be a large crane operator.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Every time I look at that article I am still shocked that it says 1986 and not 1906.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:No its not a dumb idea and the fact that you think the people lifting the load and standinh near it shouldn't know the capacity of everything they have is one of the stupidest things I've seen. Cause when poo poo does go wrong, it's the operator who was operating and it's his rear end and he better know his limits for straps and the crane. That's why you need thousands of hours to be a large crane operator. *has thousands of hours doing crane poo poo* *exceeds the rated capacity because "it's fine, there's a factor of safety"* *people die*
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:No its not a dumb idea and the fact that you think the people lifting the load and standinh near it shouldn't know the capacity of everything they have is one of the stupidest things I've seen. Cause when poo poo does go wrong, it's the operator who was operating and it's his rear end and he better know his limits for straps and the crane. That's why you need thousands of hours to be a large crane operator. He was talking about the factor of safety margins, not the load capacity.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Hello I hope this hasn't been posted yet https://www.instagram.com/p/BFPKwEWCwtB/#scalping
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
 Taken to hospital, started immediate 9hr surgery, life saved. That's the sort of thing that makes you say thank god for modern medicine.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Syncopated posted:Hello I hope this hasn't been posted yet ...saw her bloody scalp lying on the floor, not where it should be. Understatement of the year.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Was it really necessary to add screaming to the CGI reenactment?  Notable usage of the phrase "not where it should be" in reference to a person's scalp. I wonder why they couldn't retrieve it from the drill and reattach it, rather than taking skin from elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Because of this thread, I now have videos like this coming up as suggested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30zO31Xwud8
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Z5KL_RMi0 You don't need eye protection if you just squint a little.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:No its not a dumb idea and the fact that you think the people lifting the load and standinh near it shouldn't know the capacity of everything they have is one of the stupidest things I've seen. Cause when poo poo does go wrong, it's the operator who was operating and it's his rear end and he better know his limits for straps and the crane. That's why you need thousands of hours to be a large crane operator. Most load charts aren't based on the maximum possible capacity at that boom length and angle. They're usually based on something like 85% of the maximum. The intention is that operators will never go close to the limits and the slings are designed to be stronger than the minimum necessary anyway just to provide a safety buffer in case it does get overloaded. The problem is that it's giving the operators just enough information to be dangerous. What's the old saying? "The only thing more dangerous than having no knowledge is having a little knowledge"? If a careless operator knows that the load chart is actually underestimating the capacity by 15%, there's a good chance that in a crunch (like when their boss is yelling at them to hurry the gently caress up, or they're too tired/lazy to go out and change the slings or get a new crane that can handle the load) they may go "Aww, I got an extra 15% anyway!" and lift something that exceeds the load chart. What usually happens is that they end up actually reaching the maximum capacity of the crane, or the crane or slings are worn and the effective maximum capacity isn't the awesome "rated for 500% the list capacity!" on the label anymore. So they go up to 100% or 105% of the crane's capacity and tip over, or the slings snap because they've worn down to only be capable of 200% the listed capacity and are now at their limit. The true maximum capacity is the point where you're supposed to stop. This is why when you're in between listed numbers on the load chart, you always use the next lowest numbers. If the boom lengths are listed in 10 foot increments and you're at 75 feet, you use the capacities listed for the less stable 80 feet instead of 70 feet. You always want to be operating within a good margin of safety, without maxing everything out. Edit: poo poo, even the 1000 hours doesn't mean anything when it comes to actual knowledge. A lot of operators pick up really bad habits after years or decades without an accident. My training institute gets tons of people who have been operating cranes for 5 years or more and don't even know how to read a load chart because they've been eyeballing it and just been lucky. The precast guys we were talking to this week rarely even look at their charts closely because they're almost always lifting loads of known weights and just do the same thing over and over. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jan 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 23:09
|
|