I also question the validity of the assumptions. I haven't taken the time to fully understand the analysis, but from what I see aren't you using static analysis on a problem affected strongly by dynamics? Aren't impact loads modeled by energy methods in conjunction with rates?

I don't know the answer (obviously), and don't have a better way to analyze the situation. I'd like to see how closely it correlates with some (here we go..) experimental results.

You never know, a few experiments just might give closer data clusters than we would expect.

Anyone got some spare time?

> George, I have to admit to having trouble following your information
> on your page. There is no mention of a load factor until you graph
> it. What is it and how does it relate back to reality? Is higher "better"
> or "worse"? Can you explain what you feel your conclusions
> are based on this modeling? If you were to perform an imaginary "ideal"
> physical test, what would the results look like? How much more/less
> energy can a 1/4" wood - 6 oz glass panel absorb than an 1/8"
> - 4 oz? Which can I hit harder with a sledge hammer before it fails
> and how does your information show it.

> Help me out here. Nick