spoke fatigue troll

jim beam

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-05-04, daveornee <daveornee.38wdaz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> Ben C Wrote:
>>> On 2008-05-04, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-05-01, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
>>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> brinell hardness # = P/pi.D.t
>>>>
>>>> where P = indenter load, D = indenter ball diameter and t = depth of
>>>> impression.
> [...]
>>> Not sure exactly what Jobst means by "asymptotic" but I thought they
>>> were saying that depth of impression increased by rapidly less and
>>> less
>>> as load was increased?
>> As the spoke indents further up to half it's diameter the surface area
>> involved gets larger, thus the force/penetration is not linearly
>> proportional.
>
> Yes, and I do remember that was the point from earlier discussions.
>
> Now, in P/pi.D.t, I reckon D must be the diameter of the indentation,
> not the diameter of the ball.
>
> Because BHN is supposed to be P / surface area of indentation.
>
> The surface area of the indentation can't be proportional to t, it must
> be proportional to something more like t^2.

go back to the original cite - two formulae, one for indenter width, one
for depth. we measure width because it's easier, but it's depth that
makes the math easier and the concept easier to grasp. and it's where
rockwell hardness testing comes from.


>
> I think D and t both increase together as the ball sinks in, so t is not
> proportional to P at all. Nobody except me said it was.

Tom Sherman

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> nothing like the mental deformation we see from so-called
>>>>>>>>> "engineers"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, they are not "so-called" if granted a PE by a licensing
>>>>>>>> board.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is your professional registration?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> when they doggedly try to justify their underinformed
>>>>>>>>> misconceptions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No hint of resentment here, eh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refusing to address the "engineering" then tom? shouldn't be too
>>>>>>> hard for a "professional" to do. unless they're a lightweight of
>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jim" refuses to answer the question - does "he" have any
>>>>>> professional registration?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you want a sock puppet to answer? are you some kind of retard?
>>>>>
>>>>> discuss the engineering, s/n < 1:100 goddamned lightweight.
>>>>
>>>> "jim's" silence is deafening.
>>>>
>>>
>>> goddamned hypocrite!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> goddamned lightweight.
>>
>> Note "jim's" continued refusal to answer the question.
>>
>
> are you some kind of retard? where will a "sock puppet" get any kind of
> accreditation? muppet university?
>
Does the person with his hand up the sock puppet's posterior have any
type of professional accreditation?

> and get back to the engineering tom. here, let me replace what you
> snipped:
>
> "brinell hardness # = P/pi.D.t
>
> where P = indenter load, D = indenter ball diameter and t = depth of
> impression."
>
> so, as an "engineer", where's your argument about load and indenter depth?
>
With the material previously work hardened or not? One does not run
repetitive hardness tests on the same area, no?

> goddamned lightweight.

Ooooh, the wit of your insult is scathing.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2008-05-02, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Stress relief.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think deformation of flange holes in aluminum hubs is being
>>>>>>>>>> mis-characterized, leading to incorrect assumptions about
>>>>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>>>>> spoke hole position before and after stress relieving and that
>>>>>>>>>> trueness of the wheel suffers from the process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hole deformation is an asymptotic effect that with reasonable
>>>>>>>>>> spoke
>>>>>>>>>> tension is already as deep as it will get. If that were not so,
>>>>>>>>>> spokes would gradually sink through the flange and pull out.
>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>> about a third of the spoke diameter bears fully on the flange
>>>>>>>>>> hole it
>>>>>>>>>> is as deep as it will go while subsequent stress relief cannot
>>>>>>>>>> "bed
>>>>>>>>>> them in" any deeper as the process is often depicted here.
>>>>>>>>>> The terms
>>>>>>>>>> bedding in or stabilizing are a misnomers chosen by people who
>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>> visualize mechanical stress relief or that spokes bed in
>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>> from initial spoke tension.
>>>>>>>>> The Rockwell hardness test (B scale, used for materials like
>>>>>>>>> aluminum) uses a 1/16" (1.6mm) steel ball and measures the
>>>>>>>>> depth indented with 100kgf. Typical hardness numbers for
>>>>>>>>> aluminum would indicate a depth of around 0.14mm (into a flat
>>>>>>>>> surface of reasonable thickness). While the scenario is a bit
>>>>>>>>> different, the dimensions and forces are similar. Given that
>>>>>>>>> the spoke and hole diameters are close and the angle is small,
>>>>>>>>> it seems that the absolute "bedding in" is small and happens
>>>>>>>>> early (with tension). From there it seems safe to assume that
>>>>>>>>> stress relief doesn't cause any significant additional "bedding
>>>>>>>>> in".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps this issue is finally put to bed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not quite ready to put it to bed yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The most likely explanation in my mind is that during
>>>>>>>> stabilization the
>>>>>>>> spoke cuts into a new part of the hub flange (the outside edge
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> hole probably) that it wasn't quite bearing on before. The parts
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> already been pulled against by tensioning don't deform any
>>>>>>>> further for
>>>>>>>> the reasons you state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this is /so/ basic. if you increase the force, you get a bigger
>>>>>>> indentation. all you have to do is look at the formula:
>>>>>>> http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art140.htm [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does not the area deformed during initial tensioning work harden,
>>>>>> and would that not reduce the deformation from spoke squeezing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> why do you think hardness numbers are comparatively, not
>>>>> quantitatively correlated with strength?
>>>>>
>>>> For different materials obviously, but for the same material?
>>>>
>>>
>>> oh dear, another "engineer" unclear on the concept. i'll ask again,
>>> "why do you think hardness numbers are comparatively, not
>>> quantitatively correlated with strength?".
>>>
>> That is irrelevant to the question at hand. In either case, work
>> hardening of the hub flange at the spoke holes will reduce the amount
>> of plastic deformation for a given future applied load, no?
>
> of course yes, but if you're unclear on the concept, and if you can't
> read the math, then you're a goddamned lightweight if you think it's not
> part of the hardness numbers!!!
>
Again, "jim" is introducing things tangential to the discussion at hand.

>>> goddamned lightweight.
>>
>> You have keyboard macro's for insults?
>>
>
> no, it's lovingly typed out by hand, just for you. and it's an
> observation of fact. goddamned lightweight.

"How to Win Friends and Influence People" - revised and updated by "jim
beam".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

jim beam

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> nothing like the mental deformation we see from so-called
>>>>>>>>>> "engineers"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, they are not "so-called" if granted a PE by a licensing
>>>>>>>>> board.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is your professional registration?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> when they doggedly try to justify their underinformed
>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No hint of resentment here, eh?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> refusing to address the "engineering" then tom? shouldn't be
>>>>>>>> too hard for a "professional" to do. unless they're a
>>>>>>>> lightweight of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "jim" refuses to answer the question - does "he" have any
>>>>>>> professional registration?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you want a sock puppet to answer? are you some kind of retard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> discuss the engineering, s/n < 1:100 goddamned lightweight.
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim's" silence is deafening.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> goddamned hypocrite!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> goddamned lightweight.
>>>
>>> Note "jim's" continued refusal to answer the question.
>>>
>>
>> are you some kind of retard? where will a "sock puppet" get any kind
>> of accreditation? muppet university?
>>
> Does the person with his hand up the sock puppet's posterior have any
> type of professional accreditation?

the puppeteer needs no accreditation - all they need is the sock's consent.


>
>> and get back to the engineering tom. here, let me replace what you
>> snipped:
>>
>> "brinell hardness # = P/pi.D.t
>>
>> where P = indenter load, D = indenter ball diameter and t = depth of
>> impression."
>>
>> so, as an "engineer", where's your argument about load and indenter
>> depth?
>>
> With the material previously work hardened or not? One does not run
> repetitive hardness tests on the same area, no?

look up meyer's law. then convince me that you've understood it.


>
>> goddamned lightweight.
>
> Ooooh, the wit of your insult is scathing.
>

"insult" and "scathing"??? it's simple observation of fact!

but i guess truth hurts. goddamned lightweight.

jim beam

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2008-05-02, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Stress relief.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think deformation of flange holes in aluminum hubs is being
>>>>>>>>>>> mis-characterized, leading to incorrect assumptions about
>>>>>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>>>>>> spoke hole position before and after stress relieving and that
>>>>>>>>>>> trueness of the wheel suffers from the process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hole deformation is an asymptotic effect that with reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>> spoke
>>>>>>>>>>> tension is already as deep as it will get. If that were not so,
>>>>>>>>>>> spokes would gradually sink through the flange and pull out.
>>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>>> about a third of the spoke diameter bears fully on the flange
>>>>>>>>>>> hole it
>>>>>>>>>>> is as deep as it will go while subsequent stress relief
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot "bed
>>>>>>>>>>> them in" any deeper as the process is often depicted here.
>>>>>>>>>>> The terms
>>>>>>>>>>> bedding in or stabilizing are a misnomers chosen by people
>>>>>>>>>>> who cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> visualize mechanical stress relief or that spokes bed in
>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>> from initial spoke tension.
>>>>>>>>>> The Rockwell hardness test (B scale, used for materials like
>>>>>>>>>> aluminum) uses a 1/16" (1.6mm) steel ball and measures the
>>>>>>>>>> depth indented with 100kgf. Typical hardness numbers for
>>>>>>>>>> aluminum would indicate a depth of around 0.14mm (into a flat
>>>>>>>>>> surface of reasonable thickness). While the scenario is a bit
>>>>>>>>>> different, the dimensions and forces are similar. Given that
>>>>>>>>>> the spoke and hole diameters are close and the angle is small,
>>>>>>>>>> it seems that the absolute "bedding in" is small and happens
>>>>>>>>>> early (with tension). From there it seems safe to assume that
>>>>>>>>>> stress relief doesn't cause any significant additional
>>>>>>>>>> "bedding in".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps this issue is finally put to bed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not quite ready to put it to bed yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The most likely explanation in my mind is that during
>>>>>>>>> stabilization the
>>>>>>>>> spoke cuts into a new part of the hub flange (the outside edge
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> hole probably) that it wasn't quite bearing on before. The
>>>>>>>>> parts it's
>>>>>>>>> already been pulled against by tensioning don't deform any
>>>>>>>>> further for
>>>>>>>>> the reasons you state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this is /so/ basic. if you increase the force, you get a bigger
>>>>>>>> indentation. all you have to do is look at the formula:
>>>>>>>> http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art140.htm [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does not the area deformed during initial tensioning work harden,
>>>>>>> and would that not reduce the deformation from spoke squeezing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why do you think hardness numbers are comparatively, not
>>>>>> quantitatively correlated with strength?
>>>>>>
>>>>> For different materials obviously, but for the same material?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> oh dear, another "engineer" unclear on the concept. i'll ask again,
>>>> "why do you think hardness numbers are comparatively, not
>>>> quantitatively correlated with strength?".
>>>>
>>> That is irrelevant to the question at hand. In either case, work
>>> hardening of the hub flange at the spoke holes will reduce the amount
>>> of plastic deformation for a given future applied load, no?
>>
>> of course yes, but if you're unclear on the concept, and if you can't
>> read the math, then you're a goddamned lightweight if you think it's
>> not part of the hardness numbers!!!
>>
> Again, "jim" is introducing things tangential to the discussion at hand.

eh? the math and theory behind hardness tester indentation is
"tangential" to spoke hole indentation??? what a goddamned lightweight!!!


>
>>>> goddamned lightweight.
>>>
>>> You have keyboard macro's for insults?
>>>
>>
>> no, it's lovingly typed out by hand, just for you. and it's an
>> observation of fact. goddamned lightweight.
>
> "How to Win Friends and Influence People" - revised and updated by "jim
> beam".
>

ask me if i give a flying one about the friendship and influence of
goddamned lightweights!

spikenettles@earthlink.net

On May 4, 11:18 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
> > On 2008-05-01, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
> >> Stress relief.
>
> >> I think deformation of flange holes in aluminum hubs is being
> >> mis-characterized, leading to incorrect assumptions about effective
> >> spoke hole position before and after stress relieving and that
> >> trueness of the wheel suffers from the process.
>
> >> Hole deformation is an asymptotic effect that with reasonable spoke
> >> tension is already as deep as it will get. If that were not so,
> >> spokes would gradually sink through the flange and pull out. Once
> >> about a third of the spoke diameter bears fully on the flange hole it
> >> is as deep as it will go while subsequent stress relief cannot "bed
> >> them in" any deeper as the process is often depicted here.
>
> > I am familiar with that theory which you and Peter Cole have explained
> > here before.
>
> > On that basis I thought stabilization quite likely worked predominantly
> > by deforming the spoke and not the hub.
>
> > Jim Beam had shown pictures earlier that a spoke removed from a finished
> > wheel doesn't necessarily show a big change in the elbow angle and that
> > the hub hole can get significantly deformed.
>
> > Here are his spokes:
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/331112190/
> > And this is the hub they came out of:
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/104463818/
>
> > But there's nothing there to suggest definitively that the hub hole
> > deformation didn't happen during the initial stages of tensioning rather
> > than during stabilization.
>
> it evidences a fundamental misunderstanding [or fundamental retardation]
> to claim that increasing spoke tension doesn't additionally indent a
> hub's spoke holes.
>
> brinell hardness # = P/pi.D.t
>
> where P = indenter load, D = indenter ball diameter and t = depth of
> impression.
>
> from there, you don't have to be enrico fermi to correlate increasing
> indenter load with increasing indenter depth. do you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > What has re-opened this discussion are the pictures daveornee posted.
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2443679334/
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2443679236/
>
> > In particular:
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2442851273/
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2443679416/
>
> > Seems to show more hub hole deformation and less spoke deformation when
> > compared with:
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2442851411/
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2442851349/
>
> > This implies to me strongly that stabilization can improve spoke line by
> > deforming the hub and not the spoke.
>
> > Otherwise why is the hub deformed more on the side on which spoke line
> > was not corrected before stabilization? During the initial stages of
> > tensioning (before spoke line correction on the side that was), both
> > sides of the hub were treated exactly the same. If all hub deformation
> > occurs during that phase, we would expect to see the same amount of
> > deformation on both sides.
>
> nothing like the mental deformation we see from so-called "engineers"
> when they doggedly try to justify their underinformed misconceptions.

Glad to see you're learning to capitalize some letters, e.g. The 'P'
and the 'D' in the formula you give for the definition of the Brinell
Hardness number. Now you need to learn basic algebra and realize that
their capitalization here means that they are constants and not
variables.

I had thought maybe you had washed out as a freshman engineering
student and that this accounted for you're rabid animosity toward
those with technical credentials. Was I wrong; obviously you couldn't
have gotten that far.

daveornee

Signal to Noise Ratio on this thread has gone below 0 dB.
I was hoping for reasoned response from Peter Cole.

jim beam

spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:
> On May 4, 11:18 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2008-05-01, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>>>> Stress relief.
>>>> I think deformation of flange holes in aluminum hubs is being
>>>> mis-characterized, leading to incorrect assumptions about effective
>>>> spoke hole position before and after stress relieving and that
>>>> trueness of the wheel suffers from the process.
>>>> Hole deformation is an asymptotic effect that with reasonable spoke
>>>> tension is already as deep as it will get. If that were not so,
>>>> spokes would gradually sink through the flange and pull out. Once
>>>> about a third of the spoke diameter bears fully on the flange hole it
>>>> is as deep as it will go while subsequent stress relief cannot "bed
>>>> them in" any deeper as the process is often depicted here.
>>> I am familiar with that theory which you and Peter Cole have explained
>>> here before.
>>> On that basis I thought stabilization quite likely worked predominantly
>>> by deforming the spoke and not the hub.
>>> Jim Beam had shown pictures earlier that a spoke removed from a finished
>>> wheel doesn't necessarily show a big change in the elbow angle and that
>>> the hub hole can get significantly deformed.
>>> Here are his spokes:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/331112190/
>>> And this is the hub they came out of:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/104463818/
>>> But there's nothing there to suggest definitively that the hub hole
>>> deformation didn't happen during the initial stages of tensioning rather
>>> than during stabilization.
>> it evidences a fundamental misunderstanding [or fundamental retardation]
>> to claim that increasing spoke tension doesn't additionally indent a
>> hub's spoke holes.
>>
>> brinell hardness # = P/pi.D.t
>>
>> where P = indenter load, D = indenter ball diameter and t = depth of
>> impression.
>>
>> from there, you don't have to be enrico fermi to correlate increasing
>> indenter load with increasing indenter depth. do you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> What has re-opened this discussion are the pictures daveornee posted.
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2443679334/
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2443679236/
>>> In particular:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2442851273/
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2443679416/
>>> Seems to show more hub hole deformation and less spoke deformation when
>>> compared with:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2442851411/
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17085834@N08/2442851349/
>>> This implies to me strongly that stabilization can improve spoke line by
>>> deforming the hub and not the spoke.
>>> Otherwise why is the hub deformed more on the side on which spoke line
>>> was not corrected before stabilization? During the initial stages of
>>> tensioning (before spoke line correction on the side that was), both
>>> sides of the hub were treated exactly the same. If all hub deformation
>>> occurs during that phase, we would expect to see the same amount of
>>> deformation on both sides.
>> nothing like the mental deformation we see from so-called "engineers"
>> when they doggedly try to justify their underinformed misconceptions.
>
> Glad to see you're learning to capitalize some letters, e.g. The 'P'
> and the 'D' in the formula you give for the definition of the Brinell
> Hardness number. Now you need to learn basic algebra and realize that
> their capitalization here means that they are constants and not
> variables.

er, actually, there's no reason ball size has to be a constant. nor
indenter force.

http://www.wilsoninstruments.com/ap...ns/brinell.aspx for the
peanut gallery.

there /are/ reasons to keep indenter size and indenter force in
proportion, but you already knew about that, right?

>
> I had thought maybe you had washed out as a freshman engineering
> student and that this accounted for you're rabid animosity toward
> those with technical credentials. Was I wrong; obviously you couldn't
> have gotten that far.

so shine your brilliant credentialed light on this debate then spike.
why would the ratio of P/D^2 need to be constant?

jim beam

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2:52 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Again, if you haven't read the book then you don't have a leg to stand
>> on. You're just repeating a misquote. Jobst (correctly) refers people to
>> his book. That's the "advice" you should take. The "details" don't get
>> "lost" if you buy the book.
>
> Strictly speaking, you don't have to buy the book. If, that is,
> you're afraid of contributing money to Jobst's nefarious plan to
> dominate the world, starting with its bicycle wheels.
>
> Just go to your library. If they don't have _The Bicycle Wheel_, they
> can get it through interlibrary loan.
>
> But Peter's right. It's a bit silly to join arguments about what the
> book contains if you haven't bothered to read it.

not as silly as not noticing its mistakes. and it's even sillier to
defend them!

Jay Beattie

On May 3, 7:23*pm, daveornee <daveornee.38v...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Peter Cole Wrote:
>
>
>
> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > Stress relief.
>
> > > I think deformation of flange holes in aluminum hubs is being
> > > mis-characterized, leading to incorrect assumptions about effective
> > > spoke hole position before and after stress relieving and that
> > > trueness of the wheel suffers from the process.
>
> > > Hole deformation is an asymptotic effect that with reasonable spoke
> > > tension is already as deep as it will get. *If that were not so,
> > > spokes would gradually sink through the flange and pull out. *Once
> > > about a third of the spoke diameter bears fully on the flange hole
> > it
> > > is as deep as it will go while subsequent stress relief cannot "bed
> > > them in" any deeper as the process is often depicted here. *The
> > terms
> > > bedding in or stabilizing are a misnomers chosen by people who
> > cannot
> > > visualize mechanical stress relief or that spokes bed in naturally
> > > from initial spoke tension.
>
> > The Rockwell hardness test (B scale, used for materials like aluminum)
> > uses a 1/16" (1.6mm) steel ball and measures the depth indented with
> > 100kgf. Typical hardness numbers for aluminum would indicate a depth
> > of
> > around 0.14mm (into a flat surface of reasonable thickness). While the
> > scenario is a bit different, the dimensions and forces are similar.
> > Given that the spoke and hole diameters are close and the angle is
> > small, it seems that the absolute "bedding in" is small and happens
> > early (with tension). *From there it seems safe to assume that stress
> > relief doesn't cause any significant additional "bedding in".
>
> > Perhaps this issue is finally put to bed.
>
> Clever use of "bed" here Peter.
> I don't have the explanations, but I am not against learning how to
> correlate observations with sound engineering explanations. * One
> correlation you can help me with is the .75 mm you used earlier in this
> thread and now the .14 mm.
> I understand the concept of asymptotic function and agree that there
> must be some point where the spokes approach it in normal operations. *
> I would like an explanation of "what gives" when I stabilize a wheel. *I
> build wheels to an even 100 kgf front and left rear. *I then stabilize
> the wheel be side loading until the spokes go to 150 kgf. *When I do
> this the front wheel needs 1/2 turn of the spokes to return to 100 kgf,
> while the same applies to the right rear, the left rear needs 3/4 turn.
> If all of the final adjustment were going to compensate for further
> bedding in, the further bedding would be ~.225 mm front and right rear
> and ~.38 mm left rear.
> If I can't attribute any or all of the "final adjustment" to bedding
> in, where would you attribute it to?
>

I don't want to get in to the bedding-in argument (being that I am not
an engineer or even good at algebra), but isn't it possible that a
small amount of spoke wind-up was relieved by side loading -- which
would account for some of the tension drop? A half or three-quarter
turn all the way around the wheel seems like a whole lot of additional
tension to account for a small amount of bedding in that occured with
the last side loading (I assume that the flange deformed progressively
as tension was added and the spokes were somewhat bedded in at 100kgf
before the final side loading). --- Jay Beattie

Bill Sornson

daveornee wrote:

> Signal to Noise Ratio on this thread has gone below 0 dB.

Ironic since you left 7 KBs of blather intact just to add that insightful
nugget.

HTH (BNHMB), BS

Tom Sherman

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2008-05-02, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stress relief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think deformation of flange holes in aluminum hubs is being
>>>>>>>>>>>> mis-characterized, leading to incorrect assumptions about
>>>>>>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>>>>>>> spoke hole position before and after stress relieving and that
>>>>>>>>>>>> trueness of the wheel suffers from the process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hole deformation is an asymptotic effect that with
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable spoke
>>>>>>>>>>>> tension is already as deep as it will get. If that were not
>>>>>>>>>>>> so,
>>>>>>>>>>>> spokes would gradually sink through the flange and pull
>>>>>>>>>>>> out. Once
>>>>>>>>>>>> about a third of the spoke diameter bears fully on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> flange hole it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is as deep as it will go while subsequent stress relief
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot "bed
>>>>>>>>>>>> them in" any deeper as the process is often depicted here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The terms
>>>>>>>>>>>> bedding in or stabilizing are a misnomers chosen by people
>>>>>>>>>>>> who cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> visualize mechanical stress relief or that spokes bed in
>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>> from initial spoke tension.
>>>>>>>>>>> The Rockwell hardness test (B scale, used for materials like
>>>>>>>>>>> aluminum) uses a 1/16" (1.6mm) steel ball and measures the
>>>>>>>>>>> depth indented with 100kgf. Typical hardness numbers for
>>>>>>>>>>> aluminum would indicate a depth of around 0.14mm (into a flat
>>>>>>>>>>> surface of reasonable thickness). While the scenario is a bit
>>>>>>>>>>> different, the dimensions and forces are similar. Given that
>>>>>>>>>>> the spoke and hole diameters are close and the angle is
>>>>>>>>>>> small, it seems that the absolute "bedding in" is small and
>>>>>>>>>>> happens early (with tension). From there it seems safe to
>>>>>>>>>>> assume that stress relief doesn't cause any significant
>>>>>>>>>>> additional "bedding in".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps this issue is finally put to bed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not quite ready to put it to bed yet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The most likely explanation in my mind is that during
>>>>>>>>>> stabilization the
>>>>>>>>>> spoke cuts into a new part of the hub flange (the outside edge
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> hole probably) that it wasn't quite bearing on before. The
>>>>>>>>>> parts it's
>>>>>>>>>> already been pulled against by tensioning don't deform any
>>>>>>>>>> further for
>>>>>>>>>> the reasons you state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this is /so/ basic. if you increase the force, you get a bigger
>>>>>>>>> indentation. all you have to do is look at the formula:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art140.htm [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does not the area deformed during initial tensioning work
>>>>>>>> harden, and would that not reduce the deformation from spoke
>>>>>>>> squeezing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why do you think hardness numbers are comparatively, not
>>>>>>> quantitatively correlated with strength?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> For different materials obviously, but for the same material?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> oh dear, another "engineer" unclear on the concept. i'll ask
>>>>> again, "why do you think hardness numbers are comparatively, not
>>>>> quantitatively correlated with strength?".
>>>>>
>>>> That is irrelevant to the question at hand. In either case, work
>>>> hardening of the hub flange at the spoke holes will reduce the
>>>> amount of plastic deformation for a given future applied load, no?
>>>
>>> of course yes, but if you're unclear on the concept, and if you can't
>>> read the math, then you're a goddamned lightweight if you think it's
>>> not part of the hardness numbers!!!
>>>
>> Again, "jim" is introducing things tangential to the discussion at hand.
>
> eh? the math and theory behind hardness tester indentation is
> "tangential" to spoke hole indentation??? what a goddamned lightweight!!!

Well, valid hardness tests are NOT performed on an area that has already
been tested, and we were discussing additional deformation of an area of
the spoke flange during spoke squeezing that was already deformed during
tensioning.

>>>>> goddamned lightweight.
>>>>
>>>> You have keyboard macro's for insults?
>>>>
>>>
>>> no, it's lovingly typed out by hand, just for you. and it's an
>>> observation of fact. goddamned lightweight.
>>
>> "How to Win Friends and Influence People" - revised and updated by
>> "jim beam".
>>
>
> ask me if i give a flying one about the friendship and influence of
> goddamned lightweights!

Yep, only because you hide behind a sock puppet. You would not be so
free with the insults if you had to use your real name, eh?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

daveornee

A reasonable question.
No spoke wind up as it was all removed as the spokes were tensioned.
I agree with your assertion (or assumption) that the flange deformed progressively
as tension was added and the spokes were somewhat bedded in at 100kgf
before the final side loading.

jim beam

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2008-05-02, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stress relief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think deformation of flange holes in aluminum hubs is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mis-characterized, leading to incorrect assumptions about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spoke hole position before and after stress relieving and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trueness of the wheel suffers from the process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hole deformation is an asymptotic effect that with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable spoke
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tension is already as deep as it will get. If that were
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spokes would gradually sink through the flange and pull
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out. Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about a third of the spoke diameter bears fully on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> flange hole it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is as deep as it will go while subsequent stress relief
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot "bed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in" any deeper as the process is often depicted here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bedding in or stabilizing are a misnomers chosen by people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> visualize mechanical stress relief or that spokes bed in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from initial spoke tension.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Rockwell hardness test (B scale, used for materials like
>>>>>>>>>>>> aluminum) uses a 1/16" (1.6mm) steel ball and measures the
>>>>>>>>>>>> depth indented with 100kgf. Typical hardness numbers for
>>>>>>>>>>>> aluminum would indicate a depth of around 0.14mm (into a
>>>>>>>>>>>> flat surface of reasonable thickness). While the scenario is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit different, the dimensions and forces are similar.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that the spoke and hole diameters are close and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> angle is small, it seems that the absolute "bedding in" is
>>>>>>>>>>>> small and happens early (with tension). From there it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>> safe to assume that stress relief doesn't cause any
>>>>>>>>>>>> significant additional "bedding in".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps this issue is finally put to bed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not quite ready to put it to bed yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The most likely explanation in my mind is that during
>>>>>>>>>>> stabilization the
>>>>>>>>>>> spoke cuts into a new part of the hub flange (the outside
>>>>>>>>>>> edge of the
>>>>>>>>>>> hole probably) that it wasn't quite bearing on before. The
>>>>>>>>>>> parts it's
>>>>>>>>>>> already been pulled against by tensioning don't deform any
>>>>>>>>>>> further for
>>>>>>>>>>> the reasons you state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> this is /so/ basic. if you increase the force, you get a bigger
>>>>>>>>>> indentation. all you have to do is look at the formula:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art140.htm [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does not the area deformed during initial tensioning work
>>>>>>>>> harden, and would that not reduce the deformation from spoke
>>>>>>>>> squeezing?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> why do you think hardness numbers are comparatively, not
>>>>>>>> quantitatively correlated with strength?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For different materials obviously, but for the same material?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh dear, another "engineer" unclear on the concept. i'll ask
>>>>>> again, "why do you think hardness numbers are comparatively, not
>>>>>> quantitatively correlated with strength?".
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is irrelevant to the question at hand. In either case, work
>>>>> hardening of the hub flange at the spoke holes will reduce the
>>>>> amount of plastic deformation for a given future applied load, no?
>>>>
>>>> of course yes, but if you're unclear on the concept, and if you
>>>> can't read the math, then you're a goddamned lightweight if you
>>>> think it's not part of the hardness numbers!!!
>>>>
>>> Again, "jim" is introducing things tangential to the discussion at hand.
>>
>> eh? the math and theory behind hardness tester indentation is
>> "tangential" to spoke hole indentation??? what a goddamned
>> lightweight!!!
>
> Well, valid hardness tests are NOT performed on an area that has already
> been tested, and we were discussing additional deformation of an area of
> the spoke flange during spoke squeezing that was already deformed during
> tensioning.

j.h.c. "valid" vs. "what" exactly tom??? or are you trying to be dense?

you've had a chance to do the math. you've had a chance to read the
cites. now, you tell me, if you have a rockwell hardness tester, under
"x" load it gives a reading, then, if you increase the load to "x+1",
same indentation, no withdrawal, are you telling me the indenter will
not sink further????


>
>>>>>> goddamned lightweight.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have keyboard macro's for insults?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no, it's lovingly typed out by hand, just for you. and it's an
>>>> observation of fact. goddamned lightweight.
>>>
>>> "How to Win Friends and Influence People" - revised and updated by
>>> "jim beam".
>>>
>>
>> ask me if i give a flying one about the friendship and influence of
>> goddamned lightweights!
>
> Yep, only because you hide behind a sock puppet. You would not be so
> free with the insults if you had to use your real name, eh?
>

if i were a lightweight like "tom sherman", i sure wouldn't use a real
name, that's for dead cretian!