Light

[Clacon]

From Wikipedia:
"In 1950 Howard Head introduced the Head Standard, constructed by sandwiching aluminum alloy around a plywood core. The design included steel edges (invented in 1928 in Austria,[52]) and the exterior surfaces were made of phenol formaldehyde resin which could hold wax. This hugely successful ski was unique at the time in having been designed for the recreational market, rather than for racing.[53] 1962: a fibreglass ski, Kneissl's White Star, was used by Karl Schranz to win two gold medals at the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships.[53] By the late '60s fibreglass had mostly replaced aluminum."

According to "A Short History of Skis" on the "International Skiing History Association" website: Before 1926 they were made mostly of wood. After that year, steel edges were introduced. In 1928, in France, a solid aluminum ski was prototyped. By 1945, they had sandwiched wood between aluminum laminate, by 1946, the wood was sandwiched by a plastic material. See above Wikipedia quote for 1950. In 1952, the first fiberglass enforced plastic ski is introduced, but is only popularized by 1959.

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Krivonischenko-camera-film1-08.jpg

By the looks of the skis in the pictures they are really thin and I'm not sure you could get that curve upward with wood? We have to consider maybe too that they were students and probably couldn't afford the latest in ski technology; plus the fact that fiberglass skis were only popularized the year they died....I doubt they were fibreglass. The above picture appears to show ski poles that look almost like bamboo....note the notches in the wood.

So wooden ski poles....perhaps wooden skis?? But again, the skis just don't appear to be wooden to me. That leaves aluminum.
Although if a ski was "broken" as in the radiogram, I'm doubting it was aluminum, even the wood sandwiched by aluminum type. Unless it becomes brittle when frozen?? If a ski is broken it must have been wood or fiberglass.

Anyway....I am seriously doubting whether the wind could break either.

[Star man]

From Wikipedia:
"In 1950 Howard Head introduced the Head Standard, constructed by sandwiching aluminum alloy around a plywood core. The design included steel edges (invented in 1928 in Austria,[52]) and the exterior surfaces were made of phenol formaldehyde resin which could hold wax. This hugely successful ski was unique at the time in having been designed for the recreational market, rather than for racing.[53] 1962: a fibreglass ski, Kneissl's White Star, was used by Karl Schranz to win two gold medals at the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships.[53] By the late '60s fibreglass had mostly replaced aluminum."

According to "A Short History of Skis" on the "International Skiing History Association" website: Before 1926 they were made mostly of wood. After that year, steel edges were introduced. In 1928, in France, a solid aluminum ski was prototyped. By 1945, they had sandwiched wood between aluminum laminate, by 1946, the wood was sandwiched by a plastic material. See above Wikipedia quote for 1950. In 1952, the first fiberglass enforced plastic ski is introduced, but is only popularized by 1959.

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Krivonischenko-camera-film1-08.jpg

By the looks of the skis in the pictures they are really thin and I'm not sure you could get that curve upward with wood? We have to consider maybe too that they were students and probably couldn't afford the latest in ski technology; plus the fact that fiberglass skis were only popularized the year they died....I doubt they were fibreglass. The above picture appears to show ski poles that look almost like bamboo....note the notches in the wood.

So wooden ski poles....perhaps wooden skis?? But again, the skis just don't appear to be wooden to me. That leaves aluminum.
Although if a ski was "broken" as in the radiogram, I'm doubting it was aluminum, even the wood sandwiched by aluminum type. Unless it becomes brittle when frozen?? If a ski is broken it must have been wood or fiberglass.

Anyway....I am seriously doubting whether the wind could break either.

Have made a few checks on aluminium and it is unlikely to suffer from failures as a result of fatigue or brittle fracture under the conditions on Kholat Syakhl, even it was left in high winds and cold temperatures for 3 weeks.

Aluminium doesn't have a fatigue limit like steel, and remains ductile down to very low temperatures.  Although I haven't made any calculations on this, I can't see that a ski would fail due to wind speed.  If it was stuck in the ground then highest force would be on the bottom of the ski.  An aluminium clad plywood ski would also be very strong and plyable.  Ths leads me to think that if there was a broken ski then it was not something that happened after the group died.  In other words it broke before the event or during the event.

Where is the info on this broken ski?   It might be important.

Regards

Star man

[Clacon]

Hi Star Man - yes I am thinking the same thing....it could be a really important detail if it could not have been broken by the wind.

Nigel - I believe you posted the radiogram snippet....what are your thoughts on the matter? And is there any more detail with regards to broken skis anywhere in the case files??

[sarapuk]

The matter of the broken ski crops up elsewhere in the Forum as well.

[Clacon]

Okay so do you suggest I go to the "search tab" and enter "broken ski"?

[Star man]

I have used the search tool, but could only find reference to the broken ski pole.

Regards

Star man

[sarapuk]

Okay so do you suggest I go to the "search tab" and enter "broken ski"?

Try typing in SKI POLES in the search box.

[Clacon]

Is that in reference to the purposefully broken ski pole supposedly used to anchor the tent??

Star Man and I are after more info on a broken ski - not a broken ski pole.

[sarapuk]

Is that in reference to the purposefully broken ski pole supposedly used to anchor the tent??

Star Man and I are after more info on a broken ski - not a broken ski pole.

Well there is good old GOOGLE.

[Clacon]

LOL.

[sarapuk]

LOL.

I know. But seriously the amount  of information that can be got from the World Wide Web these days is amazing and its getting better and better.

[Clacon]

On a completely separately note - was just rereading this "Light" post and WAB's responses....do you think the "camera" around Semyon's neck (or as I believe - around his wrist) was this??:

https://d.radikal.ru/d06/1903/4c/ee48ef976978.jpg

It looks just like a camera....plus imagine the implications: Semyon would never have grabbed the camera to photograph something. It would simply have been a light source!!!

[sarapuk]

On a completely separately note - was just rereading this "Light" post and WAB's responses....do you think the "camera" around Semyon's neck (or as I believe - around his wrist) was this??:

https://d.radikal.ru/d06/1903/4c/ee48ef976978.jpg

It looks just like a camera....plus imagine the implications: Semyon would never have grabbed the camera to photograph something. It would simply have been a light source!!!

Yes and I think that Loosecannon has also said it was a flashlight. What surprises Me though is that the flashlight doesnt look that substantial for such an expedition  !  ? 

[WAB]

My Dear friends and colleagues!
Unfortunately I can answer only with some delay. At me the constant time trouble connected with the basic work. But I will try to answer that that I can find, read and I can answer that I know precisely.
I answer to this message with delay because I only have come nearer to it in reading.

On a completely separately note - was just rereading this "Light" post and WAB's responses....do you think the "camera" around Semyon's neck (or as I believe - around his wrist) was this??:

https://d.radikal.ru/d06/1903/4c/ee48ef976978.jpg

It looks just like a camera....plus imagine the implications: Semyon would never have grabbed the camera to photograph something. It would simply have been a light source!!!

If I have correctly understood question here it is told about that, could not be small lamp instead of the chamber round Simeon's neck.
In the photo it is visible that it is subject of form Parallelepiped (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelepiped ) with the rounded off edges. It is absolutely precisely identified as camera "Zorky" case. Till now it is not known, whether there was there camera or it there was empty case. Probably that before the beginning of events Simeon has left the camera in tent, and round Simeon's neck there is only empty case. It could so arrive because has decided not to remove case, and the camera place there only in the morning.
If it there had camera that his mothers have given the faulty camera will be strange. After such bathing in water the camera necessarily should become unfit for use. It had no protection against water.
The small lamp at it was nearby jacket pocket when they went on skis lengthways the river Auspia. It is visible in photos.
On the Maslennikov scheme is mark that on half of way from tent to cedar the small lamp has been found. Quite probably it also was Simeon's small lamp because on its jacket in the bottom of small lamp have not found.
All events occurred at night (in night-time) therefore such development of actions was quite possible.
But even on photo not so high quality mix small lamp and a case from the camera very difficultly.

[Clacon]

So you think what was around his neck was a camera case and not a square flashlight??

[sarapuk]

So you think what was around his neck was a camera case and not a square flashlight??

I believe thats what WAB means. I was of 2 minds as to whether or not it was a flashlight.

[Clacon]

Well....BOOOOOO. I thought I was on to something there.

So can we say for sure it was a camera case and NOT a flashlight??

[sarapuk]

Well....BOOOOOO. I thought I was on to something there.

So can we say for sure it was a camera case and NOT a flashlight??

I think WAB may want to answer that one. Iam not sure.

[Star man]

Well....BOOOOOO. I thought I was on to something there.

So can we say for sure it was a camera case and NOT a flashlight??

I believe they tried to develop the photos on Semyons camera but they were too damaged to be of any use. So I think it was a camera.


Regards
Star man

[Nigel Evans]

Well....BOOOOOO. I thought I was on to something there.

So can we say for sure it was a camera case and NOT a flashlight??

I believe they tried to develop the photos on Semyons camera but they were too damaged to be of any use. So I think it was a camera.


Regards
Star man

Damaged is debatable! - https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy#zolotaryovcamera   

[Ehtnisba]

It looks a lot more like camera to me, cause the round thing is in the middle of the rectangular base and this is how camera looks, opposed to flashlight where the round piece is on top of the rectangular base.
[/url]

[Ehtnisba]

[Clacon]

Okay - yes, I think it looks more like camera than a square flashlight.
I also think it looks more like a case than an actual camera as there aren't as many "details" on it as there should be and it is all one colour.

I'm also looking at this pic:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Zolotaryov-camera-18.jpg

and thinking that it DOES look a little bent - the lines of the rectangle shape aren't straight.

Could this be Semyon's camera case, while the actual camera was left inside the tent? This would put to rest the "secret camera" Semyon had.

Does anyone know for sure if his camera and the damaged roll of film in it was found on his body or in the tent?

I realize this should probably be a separate thread, but the square thing found on the body could have been a flashlight....thus posted in the "light" thread