shoe soles
E Z Peaces
also brings dirt into a house. I'm much more concerned with traction on
wet wooden steps or a wet garage floor of sealed concrete. I've owned
shoes and boots that had aggressive treads but were dangerous on wet
surfaces. Tires have ratings for traction on wet roads. Why don't shoe
soles have similar ratings?
Static electricity is another problem. Polyurethane soles are popular,
but without an additive, polyurethane is such a good insulator that the
wearer may get static shocks. I would certainly avoid such shoes when
buying gasoline. Why don't shoe soles have static-drain ratings?
Al Bundy
The properties of a shoe are probably well known and documented within
the shoe company. The hardness of the rubber is measured on a
durometer scale and correlate with wear and softness of feel. They
know this and the static properties. I guess publishing such things
would suggest warranties beyond the general "fitness of purpose" and
create unnecessary liabilities.
If they can add warning signs on ladders such as "NOT MADE FOR BREAK
DANCING" , why not mention anti slip properties indeed?
E Z Peaces
I believe there are ANSI ratings for various properties of industrial
footwear. For people working around several hundred volts of
electricity, there's a rating that requires very low leakage under
several hundred volts. For people working around explosives, there's a
rating that requires low resistance to prevent static buildup. There's
also an in-between rating to give some protection from electric shock
and static buildup.
Apparently ANSI has no rating for wet traction. Avon once produced a
motorcycle tire called the SM MkII. The rubber provided high mileage
and the grip on dry pavement was mediocre. On wet roads, the grip was
much better than many other tires.
I have a $10 pair of shoes called Slip Guard. The rubber feels hard and
tough, like a truck tire. In dry weather they feel clumsy and cheap,
but they hold very well on wet, sealed concrete. I wish all my shoes
gripped as reliably.
Rod Speed
> On Oct 21, 9:59 pm, E Z Peaces <c...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Footwear often has a tread that might provide better traction in mud
>> but also brings dirt into a house. I'm much more concerned with
>> traction on wet wooden steps or a wet garage floor of sealed
>> concrete. I've owned shoes and boots that had aggressive treads but
>> were dangerous on wet surfaces. Tires have ratings for traction on
>> wet roads. Why don't shoe soles have similar ratings?
>>
>> Static electricity is another problem. Polyurethane soles are
>> popular, but without an additive, polyurethane is such a good
>> insulator that the wearer may get static shocks. I would certainly
>> avoid such shoes when buying gasoline. Why don't shoe soles have
>> static-drain ratings?
>
> The properties of a shoe are probably well known and documented within
> the shoe company. The hardness of the rubber is measured on a
> durometer scale and correlate with wear and softness of feel. They
> know this and the static properties. I guess publishing such things
> would suggest warranties beyond the general "fitness of purpose" and
> create unnecessary liabilities.
Or they rightly consider that few of the consumers would even
know what the numbers mean, and would care even less.
> If they can add warning signs on ladders such as "NOT MADE FOR
> BREAK DANCING" , why not mention anti slip properties indeed?
Because thats a hell of a lot harder to specify in a way that will be any use to consumers.
Seerialmom
Oh so is THAT why I'm constantly getting the zaps these days? BTW...I
make a point of discharging myself on the car door before taking the
gas pump nozzle.
E Z Peaces
Nowadays, the typical scenario is that somebody gets back in the car
while the tank is filling. Car manufacturers often cut corners by using
upholstery that will let a person build a charge as he exits. If the
person's shoes don't drain the charge, there could be a spark when he
again touches the nozzle.
As long as the vehicle's tires will drain static, there shouldn't be a
problem when a person puts the nozzle in. The nozzle should be
grounded, so any charge from the person would be drained when the person
touched the handle, before fumes were present. (A few years ago there
were tires that insulated too well to drain static. I don't know if
they still sell them. I think that might cause a spark when a person
put the nozzle in.)
I've had lots of shoes with polyurethane soles, but only one model has
caused static problems. A soap film will drain static, so I can remedy
the problem by wiping soap around the edges of the soles. If I walk
across wet grass, my protection will be gone.
Dennis
wrote:
>Nowadays, the typical scenario is that somebody gets back in the car
>while the tank is filling. Car manufacturers often cut corners by using
>upholstery that will let a person build a charge as he exits. If the
>person's shoes don't drain the charge, there could be a spark when he
>again touches the nozzle.
>
>As long as the vehicle's tires will drain static, there shouldn't be a
>problem when a person puts the nozzle in. The nozzle should be
>grounded, so any charge from the person would be drained when the person
>touched the handle, before fumes were present. (A few years ago there
>were tires that insulated too well to drain static. I don't know if
>they still sell them. I think that might cause a spark when a person
>put the nozzle in.)
That must explain all those fires and explosions at gas pumps that we
keep hearing about.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
E Z Peaces
http://www.firefighterhourly.com/firefighter_hourly/2008/09/gas-pump-explos.html
It's dangerous to fill a gas can in the back of a truck because the can
could have a charge, especially if there's a plastic bed liner.
Two safety rules are to put a can on the ground for filling and not to
get back in your car while your car's tank is filling.