Anodizing effect on fatigue life of aluminum alloy

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <675a6a87-097d-4d19-b681-2318db1331d9@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
> >>>>>>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
> >>>>>>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.
> >>>>>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
> >>>>>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
> >>>>>> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ... not only do you defend
> >>>>>>> these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!
> >>>>>> This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
> >>>>>> it's hilarious!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
> >>>>>>> tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....
> >>>>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
> >>>>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
> >>>>> H2 is much larger than He.
> >>>>>
> >>>> in the chosen world of michael press. because he gets to exclude facts
> >>>> that don't suit him!
> >>> You misspelled my name.
> >> no i didn't!
> >
> > Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
> >
> >>> You cannot support the claim about the relative sizes of H2 and He.
> >> and you're retreating to the last argument you lost? that's not too smart.
> >
> > Winning and losing? H2 and He molecules are the same size.
> > Their van der Waals b parameters are 2.65e-5 and 2.34e-5 m^3/mole
> > respectively. Nothing like much larger as you said.
> >
>
> so that's why they have different diffusion rates??? tell me, what are
> the diffusion rates for both through rubber and through steel? that's
> public data. cite and explain.

Diffusion of H2 into steel involves chemical transformation.
This is hydrogen embrittlement as you very well know since
you have cited hydrogen embrittlement yourself. You are being
misleading. He is inert with regard to steel. This is
sufficient to induce a wide difference in diffusion rates.

What are the rates through butyl rubber? What are the
absorbtion properties of butyl rubber and H2? The absorbtion
properties have great effect on diffusion. CO2 is larger and
heavier than O2 an N2, yet it diffuses through butyl rubber
faster than O2 and N2, so diffusion rates cannot be used to
make reliable estimates of relative size.

--
Michael Press

 

[Bill Sornson]

{Essential elements of the exchange retained}
{"Essential" being a quite generous term. LOL }

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>> You misspell my name.

>>>> no i didn't!

>>> Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

>> i spell it appropriately. all lower case. like you.

> Not so.

I trimmed the other ELEVEN KILOBYTES O' BLATHER for you.

HTH (BKIW),

Bill "hint, hint" S.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> {Essential elements of the exchange retained}
> {"Essential" being a quite generous term. LOL }
>
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> You misspell my name.
>
> >>>> no i didn't!
>
> >>> Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
>
> >> i spell it appropriately. all lower case. like you.
>
> > Not so.
>
> I trimmed the other ELEVEN KILOBYTES O' BLATHER for you.

Thank you Bill. I assumed, quite improperly,
that nobody was paying attention.

--
Michael Press

 

[Bill Sornson]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> {Essential elements of the exchange retained}
>> {"Essential" being a quite generous term. LOL }
>>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> You misspell my name.
>>
>>>>>> no i didn't!
>>
>>>>> Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
>>
>>>> i spell it appropriately. all lower case. like you.
>>
>>> Not so.
>>
>> I trimmed the other ELEVEN KILOBYTES O' BLATHER for you.
>
> Thank you Bill. I assumed, quite improperly,
> that nobody was paying attention.

You're welcome, Michael. That no one is likely following the discussion is
even more reason to delete excess (old, no longer being addressed) text.
IMO, that is.

I just tend to read or at least skim new posts, if for no other reason than
to remove them from the queue.

Bill S.

 

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <675a6a87-097d-4d19-b681-2318db1331d9@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
>>>>>>>>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
>>>>>>>>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.
>>>>>>>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
>>>>>>>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
>>>>>>>> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... not only do you defend
>>>>>>>>> these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!
>>>>>>>> This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
>>>>>>>> it's hilarious!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
>>>>>>>>> tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....
>>>>>>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>>>>>>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
>>>>>>> H2 is much larger than He.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> in the chosen world of michael press. because he gets to exclude facts
>>>>>> that don't suit him!
>>>>> You misspelled my name.
>>>> no i didn't!
>>> Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
>>>
>>>>> You cannot support the claim about the relative sizes of H2 and He.
>>>> and you're retreating to the last argument you lost? that's not too smart.
>>> Winning and losing? H2 and He molecules are the same size.
>>> Their van der Waals b parameters are 2.65e-5 and 2.34e-5 m^3/mole
>>> respectively. Nothing like much larger as you said.
>>>
>> so that's why they have different diffusion rates??? tell me, what are
>> the diffusion rates for both through rubber and through steel? that's
>> public data. cite and explain.
>
> Diffusion of H2 into steel involves chemical transformation.

be specific. what "transformation" is that?


> This is hydrogen embrittlement as you very well know since
> you have cited hydrogen embrittlement yourself. You are being
> misleading. He is inert with regard to steel. This is
> sufficient to induce a wide difference in diffusion rates.

eh? inertness "is sufficient to induce a wide difference in diffusion
rates"??? what utter ********!



>
> What are the rates through butyl rubber? What are the
> absorbtion properties of butyl rubber and H2? The absorbtion
> properties have great effect on diffusion.

"absorption"? there's another, er, "spelling variance" that has a
greater effect - what is it?


> CO2 is larger and
> heavier than O2 an N2, yet it diffuses through butyl rubber
> faster than O2 and N2, so diffusion rates cannot be used to
> make reliable estimates of relative size.
>

dude, you're a bullshitter.

i asked WHY hydrogen and helium have different diffusion rates in those
materials for a reason - to see if you could actually state the science
rather than continue to spew ********. and the latter prevails. what a
schmuck.

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 28, 12:24 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> outside of lugs, [and even then, not all lugs],
>>>> name a single cast bike component. [this is going to be fun!]
>>> How about this one:
>>> http://www.asiancastings.com/bicycle_parts.htm
>>> Look familiar? It's a "handlebar bracket." It's not a lug.
>> how many "cast" parts on your bike krygowski?
>
> Funny! jim beam asks for "a single cast bike component." I
> provide him with a single cast bike component - the very one I'd
> linked to in the previous post.

so you have one on your bike? what do you have on /your/ bike that's
cast???


>
> But we don't hear "Well, OK, that is a casting after all; I was
> wrong." Instead, we get a demand for a cast part on _my_ bike.
>
> What's next, jim, a demand for a cast part on the front half of my
> bike? A cast part on the front half of my bike between 20" and 30"
> above the ground? A cast part facing due north?

you can cast whole wheels, but as you may have noticed, they're never
used!!!


>
>> how about your seat post?
>> your brakes? your crank? your handlebars? your stem? your
>> fasteners? come on idiot, be /real/ specific.
>
> People are also supposed to be real specific about whether
> they're engineers or not. Until it turns out I am, and you are not.
>
> Here's another link:
>
> http://www.allproducts.com/manufacture12/goldenpond/p6.html
>
> Note the cast brake levers, brake lever bodies, brake arms, and
> pedals.

they're not liquidus cast idiot. they're "die cast" aka "thixo-formed".
simple mechanical testing will show you the difference. looking down
a microscope more so. [and the really spastic thing about this is that
you /have/ this equipment in your department, so you have ZERO excuse
for being so ignorant.]


>
> Oh, and I've got several bikes. Each of those components I just
> mentioned are on at least one of my bikes.

but they're not cast, idiot!!!


>
> Not that it matters much. Your original claim was "No bike parts are
> cast."
>
> But you still don't have enough class to admit you were very, very
> wrong. Again.
>

you're a complete blathering idiot krygowski.

and you still haven't answered my question. "exactly /why/ are turbine
blades cast? list the properties casting gives that application".

you've had over a week for this assignment.

 

[[email protected]]

On May 4, 5:32 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 12:24 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> outside of lugs, [and even then, not all lugs],
> >>>> name a single cast bike component. [this is going to be fun!]
> >>> How about this one:
> >>>http://www.asiancastings.com/bicycle_parts.htm
> >>> Look familiar? It's a "handlebar bracket." It's not a lug.
> >> how many "cast" parts on your bike krygowski?
>
> > Funny! jim beam asks for "a single cast bike component." I
> > provide him with a single cast bike component - the very one I'd
> > linked to in the previous post.
>
> so you have one on your bike? what do you have on /your/ bike that's
> cast???
>
>
>
> > But we don't hear "Well, OK, that is a casting after all; I was
> > wrong." Instead, we get a demand for a cast part on _my_ bike.
>
> > What's next, jim, a demand for a cast part on the front half of my
> > bike? A cast part on the front half of my bike between 20" and 30"
> > above the ground? A cast part facing due north?
>
> you can cast whole wheels, but as you may have noticed, they're never
> used!!!
>
>
>
> >> how about your seat post?
> >> your brakes? your crank? your handlebars? your stem? your
> >> fasteners? come on idiot, be /real/ specific.
>
> > People are also supposed to be real specific about whether
> > they're engineers or not. Until it turns out I am, and you are not.
>
> > Here's another link:
>
> >http://www.allproducts.com/manufacture12/goldenpond/p6.html
>
> > Note the cast brake levers, brake lever bodies, brake arms, and
> > pedals.
>
> they're not liquidus cast idiot. they're "die cast" aka "thixo-formed".
> simple mechanical testing will show you the difference. looking down
> a microscope more so. [and the really spastic thing about this is that
> you /have/ this equipment in your department, so you have ZERO excuse
> for being so ignorant.]
>
>
>
> > Oh, and I've got several bikes. Each of those components I just
> > mentioned are on at least one of my bikes.
>
> but they're not cast, idiot!!!
>
>
>
> > Not that it matters much. Your original claim was "No bike parts are
> > cast."
>
> > But you still don't have enough class to admit you were very, very
> > wrong. Again.
>
> you're a complete blathering idiot krygowski.
>
> and you still haven't answered my question. "exactly /why/ are turbine
> blades cast? list the properties casting gives that application".
>
> you've had over a week for this assignment.

Ah, the ever-shifting argument, with jim beam hoping to
eventually be right on _some_ detail of _some_ topic!

jim beam originally said no bike parts were cast. I've provided at
least four links to companies that cast bike parts.

Refusing to admit error, jim beam seemed to imply no parts on _my_
bikes were cast - as if that were necessary to prove him wrong!

Still, when told of several, jim tried to re-define die casting as not
being casting. That would be real news to the companies that do it.
It would also be real news to the people at http://www.foundryccma.org/
!

Now, probably realizing he's lost all of those points, he's hoping to
change the topic entirely, to turbine blades, of all things.

jim, if you feel compelled to win an argument on _some_ topic, _any_
topic, you should stick to things you actually know, that aren't well
known by other people.

Possibilities might be your drinking habits.

Or your real name.

Or why you feel a compulsion to attack real engineers.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[A Muzi]

[email protected] wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> -snip- cast bike component
-snip-

I missed 3 weeks of r.b.t. and came back to ... 2007!

Sheesh, just pick up a Record Pista crank and a Veloce and flip 'em over!

"I didn't read newspapers for ten years; when I read one again, the news
was the same" - Tolstoy
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> <675a6a87-097d-4d19-b681-2318db1331d9@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
> >>>>>>>>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
> >>>>>>>>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.
> >>>>>>>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
> >>>>>>>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
> >>>>>>>> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ... not only do you defend
> >>>>>>>>> these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!
> >>>>>>>> This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
> >>>>>>>> it's hilarious!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
> >>>>>>>>> tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....
> >>>>>>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
> >>>>>>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
> >>>>>>> H2 is much larger than He.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> in the chosen world of michael press. because he gets to exclude facts
> >>>>>> that don't suit him!
> >>>>> You misspelled my name.
> >>>> no i didn't!
> >>> Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
> >>>
> >>>>> You cannot support the claim about the relative sizes of H2 and He.
> >>>> and you're retreating to the last argument you lost? that's not too smart.
> >>> Winning and losing? H2 and He molecules are the same size.
> >>> Their van der Waals b parameters are 2.65e-5 and 2.34e-5 m^3/mole
> >>> respectively. Nothing like much larger as you said.
> >>>
> >> so that's why they have different diffusion rates??? tell me, what are
> >> the diffusion rates for both through rubber and through steel? that's
> >> public data. cite and explain.
> >
> > Diffusion of H2 into steel involves chemical transformation.
>
> be specific. what "transformation" is that?

As I said, you yourself have invoked hydrogen embrittlement,
so you already know this.

> > This is hydrogen embrittlement as you very well know since
> > you have cited hydrogen embrittlement yourself. You are being
> > misleading. He is inert with regard to steel. This is
> > sufficient to induce a wide difference in diffusion rates.
>
> eh? inertness "is sufficient to induce a wide difference in diffusion
> rates"??? what utter ********!

Chemical potential for diffusion of H2 into Fe.
No chemical potential for diffusion of He into Fe.

> >
> > What are the rates through butyl rubber? What are the
> > absorbtion properties of butyl rubber and H2? The absorbtion
> > properties have great effect on diffusion.
>
> "absorption"? there's another, er, "spelling variance" that has a
> greater effect - what is it?
>
>
> > CO2 is larger and
> > heavier than O2 an N2, yet it diffuses through butyl rubber
> > faster than O2 and N2, so diffusion rates cannot be used to
> > make reliable estimates of relative size.
> >
>
> dude, you're a bullshitter.

Nevertheless, everything I have said here is the case.

> i asked WHY hydrogen and helium have different diffusion rates in those
> materials for a reason - to see if you could actually state the science
> rather than continue to spew ********. and the latter prevails. what a
> schmuck.

Hydrogen embrittlement.

--
Michael Press

 

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <675a6a87-097d-4d19-b681-2318db1331d9@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
>>>>>>>>>>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.
>>>>>>>>>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
>>>>>>>>>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
>>>>>>>>>> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ... not only do you defend
>>>>>>>>>>> these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!
>>>>>>>>>> This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
>>>>>>>>>> it's hilarious!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
>>>>>>>>>>> tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....
>>>>>>>>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>>>>>>>>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
>>>>>>>>> H2 is much larger than He.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in the chosen world of michael press. because he gets to exclude facts
>>>>>>>> that don't suit him!
>>>>>>> You misspelled my name.
>>>>>> no i didn't!
>>>>> Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You cannot support the claim about the relative sizes of H2 and He.
>>>>>> and you're retreating to the last argument you lost? that's not too smart.
>>>>> Winning and losing? H2 and He molecules are the same size.
>>>>> Their van der Waals b parameters are 2.65e-5 and 2.34e-5 m^3/mole
>>>>> respectively. Nothing like much larger as you said.
>>>>>
>>>> so that's why they have different diffusion rates??? tell me, what are
>>>> the diffusion rates for both through rubber and through steel? that's
>>>> public data. cite and explain.
>>> Diffusion of H2 into steel involves chemical transformation.
>> be specific. what "transformation" is that?
>
> As I said, you yourself have invoked hydrogen embrittlement,
> so you already know this.

no, i invoked hydrogen diffusion. and you still haven't answered.


>
>>> This is hydrogen embrittlement as you very well know since
>>> you have cited hydrogen embrittlement yourself. You are being
>>> misleading. He is inert with regard to steel. This is
>>> sufficient to induce a wide difference in diffusion rates.
>> eh? inertness "is sufficient to induce a wide difference in diffusion
>> rates"??? what utter ********!
>
> Chemical potential for diffusion of H2 into Fe.
> No chemical potential for diffusion of He into Fe.

you're still confused. or avoiding the question. what are the
diffusion rates?



>
>>> What are the rates through butyl rubber? What are the
>>> absorbtion properties of butyl rubber and H2? The absorbtion
>>> properties have great effect on diffusion.
>> "absorption"? there's another, er, "spelling variance" that has a
>> greater effect - what is it?
>>
>>
>>> CO2 is larger and
>>> heavier than O2 an N2, yet it diffuses through butyl rubber
>>> faster than O2 and N2, so diffusion rates cannot be used to
>>> make reliable estimates of relative size.
>>>
>> dude, you're a bullshitter.
>
> Nevertheless, everything I have said here is the case.

why? what is your compulsion?


>
>> i asked WHY hydrogen and helium have different diffusion rates in those
>> materials for a reason - to see if you could actually state the science
>> rather than continue to spew ********. and the latter prevails. what a
>> schmuck.
>
> Hydrogen embrittlement.
>

since when was embrittlement diffusion?????? schmuck.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

On May 4, 9:39 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> > jim, if you feel compelled to win an argument on _some_ topic, _any_
> > topic, you should stick to things you actually know, that aren't well
> > known by other people.
>
> > Possibilities might be your drinking habits.
>
> > Or your real name.
>
> > Or why you feel a compulsion to attack real engineers.
>
> what? the "real" engineer that's only done one year in a "real" job in
> his life? and only because it was a compulsory secondment? the "real"
> engineer that would have lost his teaching job if he'd have deferred it
> any further? the "real" engineer that bust a gut getting back into his
> nice comfy faculty asap after fulfilling minimum secondment time because
> responsibility for his mistakes was getting too damned uncomfortable?
> the "real" engineer that doesn't know the difference between a casting
> and a thixo-forming? even though his own department has the test
> equipment necessary to observe the differences?
>

Wrong, jim beam - again, and again, and again, and again...

Stick to what you know.

And consider professional help.

- Frank Krygowski