I agree with Pat, David, . . .
NOTE: all of my posts are MY opinions - ALL of you should take my comments with a grain of salt too. I prefer those that think for themselves and seek answers - some will mislead you, that may even be me - not really - but don't trust anyone unless it makes sense..
PAT - I find fault with your answer Pat, thanks to those that gave positive comments. You stand to learn more, present a better dissertation because of the "negative" comments - according to your wording. I see it as input - all of it - no negative or positive. If you have a problem with comments then, unfortunately, yes, you should be careful about what you post. Either way, some where down the road, some time, if you present an incomplete unsubstantiated proposal, some one will poke holes in it - unless you are prepared to prove them wrong. Nothing wrong with that. I encourage you to excel. Not use excel (Microsoft) but excel personally. If you wish only positive comments, then you need your own locked forum. I find that sad at best.
Why do I waste my time? Because we all are in it together and anything I can help you with may help me in the long run. Perhaps I should leave and you can present whatever you wish and have only positive comments. I tire of this.
I do find a few large holes in your approach. No, the baseline is not the data for the control I speak of in my meandering comments. I tried the politically correct approach - and it is, alas tiring for me. Let me put it this way, if the method of measurement is suspect, then the baseline is suspect.
Because I do comment, does not mean or imply you are not doing something that needs done! Nor does it mean you do not intend well! Nor does it mean or insinuate you should not continue. Stating that the publication will decide the groundwork - the necessity for proof - is incorrect. As a theorist (you threw your hat in the ring) , you bear the responsibility for your work and it's content. If all you wish to do is post results, without You need to continue where you begin. I did not come into this for personal gain and I assume you did not do so either.
There are forces and methods - I find fault with the application. I have been reading a few of the forums for some time, you are at a University? You state that you can not get help from the other departments? Perhaps if you approach them, ask for a graduate student from either the Physics or Chemistry Department to be assigned as a second hand (third party) to insure proper scientific method is followed and the results speak clearly they would oblige.
Again, this is not an attack, but part of a plan and method to satisfy those that would fault your finding and have some reservation. It is to your benefit that I write this blurb. Theorems have been stated within the scientific community, without proofs. Often true proofs have only followed years later when the technology became available to "proof" them. Special Theory of Relativity - still some of it is being worked on and still it seems to hold water. Max Planck, Maxwell, Heisenberg . . . .all found holes in the others' work but applied mathematical proofs yielding a result proving them correct - like light is a wave AND a particle! curl B = 1/C^2 (j + dF/dt) still applies.
David (Gill). First - I apologize to you also because a lot of this is known by all but you asked, so I give!
Thanks, I understand there is not enough room to present everything Pat should. He is correct about perhaps the forum is not a perfect place - it is not even a perfect world. I am not perfect (close - but not). I have been wrong (not really - just off the mark a little - usually a misconception and perhaps this is one of mine based on what I know and have in hand). Moving on (two or three sentences is tough).
If you envision a grid of points - intersecting lines, and apply a point load to each point on the grid, the grid itself deforms based on the lines of force - the force is not entirely down - there are those "lateral" force components - part of Tom's vector diagrams at each and every point that combine to a total force vector in any defined direction with a magnitude equivalent to the sum of those force components acting in said direction. The "net grid" deforms as a unit - not as a one point depressing independent of thoe other point loads. Forces are distributed evenly across the vector sum in the direction of said focre component yielding - hey, yield of the matrix. We see this as a convex/concave (depends on the forces and directional components) surface. If I were to apply differing point loads across the "net grid points" then you would see a difference of "contour" of the surface in question.
That being stated, the "pad" in this experiment has forces other than down or point loads due to the "mesh" of the material. It is inherent that the forces are connected - even if you put a glass of wine on one of those "NASA" foam beds - there is distortion about the actual person jumping up and down and where the glass of wine is standing on the bed. They are different for sure, but connected. The wine may not spill (at least for them in the commercial) but the wine still moves in the glass - because there are residual forces acting on the "fabric" grid.
How can we expect a silicone pad to behave differently? Must be a miracle pad! I am NOT, NOT NOT NOT (shouting) attempting to discredit Pat's work. He has started to do what some one needs to do and I thank him for his work. It is a start but it is as flawed by my understanding as I am by his. We are allowed to disagree, understand so.
Lets get back to the distributed forces for a minute. If we "break" the grid - remove the "lines between points" and actually measure the point loads - NOT the distributed loads, which are THEN being converted to assumed point loading, we come to a very different conclusion. We see deformation that is not uniform but independent. Isn't THAT the loading you are wondering about?
Using segmented or independent force load cells - envision as a bunch of small rods tightly packed together to form a shape - let's use a square of about ten inches width - then you step down upon it and you will see each rod depress independently and yield a load at that point. This will tell you depression and load can be calculated - it is like forensics a little (how tall and what was the perpetrators weight (or do I mean mass folks) - and the "distributed load is TRUE.
Ok, so what is wrong with my proposal? Well, for one, since the inner hoof is a "fabric" it will somewhat deform like the first conditional statement - like a "grid" and not a point. So it appears Pat is correct - he can use a pad for measurement because he is measuring the same thing because of the mechanical nature of the beast. No, not the case. In fact, due to the scar tissue applying load (a resistance force in this case) against the movement of the grid - the forces are no longer distributed and should not be measured as such. Once you remove the column and remeasure the forces, of course they will differ! You have also extended the span once again - greater distance - on which the same forces act upon when loaded. The point load at application will NOT change (as long as you use the same mass) - but the forces at distributed points along the grid will decrease. Expected. There are more points to share the load!
If I place the grid across a gap - bridge for instance - and place a concrete column under the bridge span at a point somewhere between the abutment at ground and the midspan - I have CHANGED the way it will behave and therefore the forces measured will change - for sure - but the measured forces at some other point are not true to the ACTUAL forces encountered. The POINT load I applied to test my hypothesis will not change - it is the same.
Also, this hoof is in motion. The acceleration forces are a large component of the forces at impact. If you run, you hammer the foot more than if you walk. Why? It is due to the distance between the foot and ground or the velocity? Somewhat but acceleration is part of the velocity component. The next question is what component is more important? I may give this to Pat - velocity. It is the final velocity at impact, I believe on initial thought, that will give the result desired.
Since I tire, I need to go guys and girls, in more ways than one - the hoof wall is in effect a solid and the tissue is a grid. They are connected, but they interact just as in what I tried to convey in the previous statements. So, where is the separation of forces, BEFORE they are brought together as the forces at the edge of the interface will be even DIFFERENT. Add biological organism to the mix and holy, well, there are more issues. They can be dealt with on a as a subjective conclusion and will be, but a lot of work is required to prove it with any certainty.
Conclusion
Pat, I applaud your work and your attempts to further understanding even if I find fault with it.
I agree with Tom on the forces and conclusions - of his earlier comments and I do not believe he is argumentative.
Phil, pretty sharp - only my opinion - I see the wheels turning . . . .
Others wish to accept and not think. Because others wish to learn, and can see fault, they ask questions because they seek answers - NOT because they are argumentative. I listened while others presented information, then I then presented mine and actually, truth be told, the witch hunt is at my and those others that question doors.
Perhaps I will ask for my own forum - so we can discuss forces and loads as they work in the real world.
Please, if you hold another view, do not enter. I have no use for you either. That is censorship and that is favoritism. Only in America.
I withdraw.