reillyshoe wrote:
I don't blame you Pat, this thread started out really interesting and I for one took it as information. I did not take it that you were coming out and saying it was the answer to all shoeing. Some have bludgeoned this thread with nonsense and I for one have no interest in following it anymore.

Feel free to share it over on our forum no censorship and no favoritism.

reillyshoe wrote:Pat,
I for one find your work very interesting and informative. I do however fully understand and share in your frustration and disgust.

irishcas wrote:I'll second that. Hope to see you there:)
George

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.

Tom, you need to present media to support a post such as this one.

Baron

tbloomer wrote:

Cyber Farrier wrote:Do I really I need to explain triangle geometry with graphics?

Ok,the following link is a good review of triangle geometry.

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

It starts off with basic definitions. Further down the page the supporting math and proofs become more complex.

Then folks can look at Ron Alders' media where the base of support and COA are marked.

The Greek math reference was about guy named Euclid of Alexandria.

Thus I withdraw with a last reference; Matthew 18

Mr. Bloomer.

It appears you like triangles and force vectors. Perhaps you played a triangle in a band? Just joking.

For you and everyone - in case you do not have it handy it may help you explain things, here is a three dimensional force vector diagram. You may use it - it is a standard geometrically vector applied practice.

The diagram, the "Theta(s) represent the included angles of the force vector to the axis being referenced. This is NOT a a statement of the Pythagorean theorem in three dimensions. The force vector is definedby the angles of direction between it and opposite axes.

The values of the angles are restricted to values within zero and one-hundred-eighty degrees and relate to the projection onto a rectangular coordinate system wherein the lies the definition of scalar product.

Of course you seem aware of the directional cosines of the vector already and it's related quantity.

Ax = A * i = A *cos(theta(x))
Ay = A * j = A *cos(theta(y))
Az = A * k = A *cos(theta(z))

Further

A = A * [ cos(theta(x) * i + cos(theta(y) * j + cos(theta(z) * k ] = Ae

As you can see - Ae represents the unit force vector in the direction of applied force.


The magnitude of A can be expressed using the scalar product - which will seem very familiar to you I expect:

A * A = A(x) * A(x) + A(y) * A(y) + A(z) * A(z)

or

e = cos(theta(x)) * i + cos(theta(y)) * j + cos(theta(z)) * k

and the rectangular projections of the unit vector are therefore

e * e = cos(theta(x)) * cos(theta(x)) + cos(theta(y)) * cos(theta(y)) + cos(theta(z)) * cos(theta(z))

FYI - this is a unit vector with magnitude of value "1" so {e * e = 1}

the direction angles are therefore NOT independent as they are part of the overall applied direction of force.

Yes, vector sums based on those will work as long as you maintain proper force orientation - additive and subtractive.

I sure wish I could use super and subscript = squares as in Pythagorean Theorem, so I could simply back up my forces statement given earlier - I will work on it. For now it is this and Paint Shop Pro V5.0 !!

Lastly, vectors can be used without magnitude in unit component form and then multiplied by the resultant. So:

A = Ax + Ay + Az will apply as a total and simply use the components to fulfill the final magnitude.

SORRY - can't seem to get my attachment in here - it is at bottom of page

===================



DeniseMc

I see you are a senior member. Therefore I would ask what qualifies you to assume anyone has a genius engineering mind? If you can provide those details - may I use you as a reference on a resume? Sorry dear, I am with age and therefore prone to rambling. My mind wanders and travels the possibilities of multiplicity - you must travel the various paths (multiplicity - there are many) and attempt to solve a problem from differing angles, approaches or perspectives until they all make sense at the same time. That is a necessity in order to achieve true peace of mind and some assurance you are somewhat correct. Everything should find itself in a state of harmony with the other approaches and they will meld as one - it's a wave . . no . . . its a particle . . . use the force. Ah, the joys of electro-magnetism, shiver my timbers!

Does the Mc at the end of your name mean you are in a motorcycle gang?

I feel the mind - stated long ago by someone else - and I agree, is like a piece of fruit. As long as it grows, it continues to ripen. Once a person believes they know everything, and closes it off, like a piece of fruit, it has reached maturity and immediately begins to rot. Keep an open mind even about what you know to be true, there will be a surprise once or twice in a lifetime that you will not wish to miss.

Yeah, I know what I said - but I am not finished.

Pat, my opinion unfortunately, you do have some interesting data if you apply it in a different context, it probably does point to some conclusions based on that horse as more clinical trial (only you would know at this time) and I only speak of forces, relieving forces, possibly relieving pain, . .. . if you are looking to not necessarily draw the conclusion drawn by statement of forces alone being the proof - as I see it. I submit you may wish to look over the data without presupposing the result first. Look at the data as gathered, what it actually measures and then draw a revised conclusion. Some times we find what we are not looking for to begin with - I know, no one wants to hear it so I move on to my own critique of ME.

I do not know a lot or even possibly 5% of what some of you do. I am positive there are more intelligent people out there than me - hey, like I said the proof is the pudding and I like eating pudding. I do know quite a bit about a few things some of you don't - I am sure. So let's move on. I guess this is my introduction statement. It's a tough crowd to break into. Somewhere there is a five-year-old smarter than all of us - good thing he is too young to get a job.

What I am positive about is that it is all about the animal and it's welfare. That should be the focus, not personal or ego. I have been around in other venues and it always rears it's head. I respect people that simply do their best - it is all we can do. I knew this vet, my cat got bile duct cancer. Most would say - sonogram - put him down. Full of it, he jaundiced. I asked for options and he told me, I could try to clean it out - it will com back, snip out some other stuff and create a new bile duct - may be possible, no guarentee on lifespan, perhaps six months or maybe a year. I said go, he did it, I fed the cat for three months through a tube attached to his stomach, gave him stole relaxers, and damn, he recovered for two more years until he jaundiced again - no more could be done. That cat slept on my chest every night, he had a good couple years after the tube came out - looked normal and I enjoyed every day he was around.

Now, what I stated about contours and the effects of forces is true, and they apply, but there is much more that is not stated. As you can tell, the triangle bit took me an hour - I am not setup to use the tools provided - and explanations for some of it - I send you to Statics, strengths, Vector Mechanics (a few of you at least) and structural analysis books. Be prepared to spend hours getting a feel for it. But anyone can do it - I did so why not you?

As to "scientific method" the way I see it - it is kind of like licking a sucker. Then stating it tastes sweet, but not understanding the mechanism of that sweetness. Was it sugar, saccharin, equal or perhaps . . . just fruit juice? So I by no means covered it in depth, I just scratched the surface slightly. Does everything always apply to a given situation? No, sometimes there are those "negligible" factors - there are items that can be ignored if they are not directly affecting the result - if they do not influence the result - if you can ignore them based on good and sound practices. Back to the sucker, sweet is still sweet, if that is all you were looking for then it was found. Later, this sucker stand is closed for the week. Sweeeeettttttt . . . .

Gentlemen,

This was one terrific thread. Pat, please do continue to post. The group is simply throwoing out every idea that your work has brought to their minds and they are looking for answers where there may be none, but where there may be some room for further research.

As an owner, consulting veterinarian, and former quality assurance officer of a research laboratory, I would say this was a well done trial. It does raise far more questions than it does answers, but every trial with small numbers does this. The only absolute conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that in a limited number of horses the removal of the dorsal wall increased loading of the toe as seen by the type of measurement device utilized, nothing more. It does make one pause to think about what is happening, but it does not tell you everything that is actulally occurring within the entire horse as the whole horse was not measured. My company deals with research of external and internal parasites of animals and we can only report what is requested by the sponsor of the product tested. We do not draw any conclusions, only that the product had a success (or failure) rate at a certain percentage in the population tested. Twelve subjects is the smallest number to yield statistically significant results and between twenty to forty is much better for certainty of repeatability. Horses make poor research subjects and biomechanical studies are even more difficult as so many factors tend to confuse the data. Keep up with the good work and keep everybody thinking. You brought out the best in this group, certainly the deepest thinking I have ever seen the group as whole do. They are a tough bunch, but they will keep you on your toes.

M. W. Myers, D.V.M.

Newbie with a Sharpie wrote:
Actually Ernie, the proof is in the tasting. As in "the proof of the pudding is in the tasting."

On another note, the posting requirements require you to use both you first and last name as your signature.

I know this is just a small oversight on your part and one which you will correct and not repeat. For that, I thank you.

Rick

Rick Burten wrote:The forum rules also require media . . .

tbloomer wrote:
and video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHQ_aTjXObs

tasty looking pudding but i prefer this me self.

mwmyersdvm wrote:Speaking for myself only, IT DEPENDS.

Click here for supporting media GAIT ANALYSIS on staying on your toes.

I have a gender bias about keeping "you" on your toes. I do very much appreciate the aesthetic of a woman in high heels. However, If "you" isn't a woman, I have no interest in how you stand. AND I am loath to use a wedge on a horse. :cool:

reillyshoe in gray

I do think that I am done posting here. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be a forum conducive to presenting this type of information. Thank you for you interest, and thanks to those who have sent positive messages.

I started to send this by PM, but thought it might be better stated in public.

Don't let the bastards get you down!

If the naysayers can't deal with the data, they can go pee up a rope! Quite selfishly, I ask that you reconsider your decision because I'm learning a great deal from your observations.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
I'll second that!!

Baron

Hi Hurleycane,

Woah!!! Please explain Mr Talisman! Why was the wall removed from any supporting role?

That hoof was a barefoot hoof and was the result of a 90klm endurance ride. Nothing on that hoof was removed by the farrier or trimmer, it wore away during the ride.

That horse is as sound as can be, was then and still is now. The reasons for my comments in this thread. Interesting isn't it