Talk:Shock (mechanics)

Highest g-forces survived by humans

This was excised from the g-force article and it has been suggested it could be put here.

"Formula One racing car driver David Purley survived an estimated 179.8 g in 1977 when he decelerated from 173 km/h (108 mph) to rest over a distance of 66 cm (26 inches) after his throttle got stuck wide open and he hit a wall.

Indy Car driver Kenny Bräck crashed on lap 188 of the 2003 race at Texas Motor Speedway. Bräck and Tomas Scheckter touched wheels, sending Bräck into the air at 200+ mph, hitting a steel support beam for the catch fencing. According to Bräck's site his car recorded 214 g.

According to the FIA, Robert Kubica of BMW Sauber experienced 75g during his 2007 Canadian Grand Prix crash."

What do you think? --John (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer engineering studies to be referenced. The magnitude of shock during a car crash depends a lot on how and where it is instrumented. Also, the peak level of a shock, by itself, does not describe the shock well: the duration, form of the shock pulse, and any filtering are equally important. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent comment needs response.

Is anyone going to respond to the following highly pertinent (and embarrassing) observation? from some 2 years ago? JonRichfield (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

christian: The article suggests that shock is equivalent to acceleration, which it isn't. Instead, shock is the delta of an acceleration divided by the delta of time. Often shock is specified in g, but this is misleading, it should be g/s instead.

Shock was framed

Folks, I am no engineer nor physicist, so this might be nonsense, but on skimming the article I get the impression that it is one-sided. What it deals with is fine as far as it goes, but what about the positive value of shock in engineering and sport? In applying a bat to a ball, you don't want more cushioning than is necessary to prevent harm. In applying a hammer to a metal workpiece the greater the shock, the greater the benefit as a rule, punching a neat hole often is best done with a shock, as is explosive forming or welding etc. Any takers for expanding the article accordingly? I am not the man for it, but if I can help, I will. JonRichfield (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

These are some issues I have with the page as it is now:

- the use mechanical or physical-- is there really a difference?

- positive or negative -- it is redundant to specific the direction of the acceleration here -- the sign of acceleration is arbitrary, depending on reference frames -- i suspect the person who put 'acceleration or deceleration' has a fetish and doesn't want to let go of their (worthless) contribution

- defining a term with examples is not good practice. I'll give an abstract demonstration : X is Y caused by, for example, Z. it should be read: A is B caused by C, for example D or E

"A mechanical shock is the sudden acceleration of matter caused by external stimuli such as an earthquake or explosion. "

- shock is a term for extreme forces that matter is subjected to -- we have had a definition of shock in the first paragraph -- we do not need another that doesn't add anything new. i'd argue this doesn't capture the essence of Shock -- extreme forces are in fact the cause of shock -- it's pointless to say that shock is a vector, this naturally follows from being related to acceleration -- Shock itself doesn't have units of acceleration (that'd be obviously be acceleration) -- the essence of Shock is: acceleration as a function of time -- ("sudden acceleration": we are talking about acceleration and specifying that it happens in a short amount of time - The unit g represents multiples of the acceleration of gravity and is conventionally used -- this sentence doesn't read well -- there are no examples of g being used -- g isn't a unit.... g is a physical constant (the acceleration of free fall). ***edit***: i don't know these examples so i'd like to know what this person is getting at

I will allow time for a rebuttal -- If my issues cannot be addressed I will make edit the page accordingly

*****my apologises for shady formatting******

The above unsigned comments are attributed to "Wrrdsck" 23 April 2015

Thank you for your questions. I have moved your input to the bottom of the page as is customary. I suggest that you review the Wikipedia procedures for making contributions to the Talk page. Please sign and date all comments in the future.
Please review some of the cited material for a background on shock. Mil Std 810 might be a good start.
Your input is welcome but please post specific editorial proposals to get a consensus.
Pkgx (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh, hi. i didn't see your words. thanks and also apologises. clearly i don't know the ways i'll study the wiki-ways. honestly i am not a shock expert, i initially got involved with this page because a few technicalities really bugged me. i'll check your suggestion too n get back soon ^_^ WRRDSCK {{{}}} THURSDAY 23th 23:33pm (Western Europe Time)

Please see: Help:Introduction to talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. When you close your entry, use four "~" to have a date stamp. Pkgx (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]