Re: disk brake debate - summary II

James Annan said:

jim beam wrote:

yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move on,
can't you? If you pulled your head out of your [censored] for once you might
be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an interesting
one...

James

that's another example of the logical disconnect that allows you to
claim that indented fork ends don't affect pullout force. james, your
theory is incomplete. you don't address pullout force; and without
that, your ejection force means nothing. all while we're ignoring the
elephant in the room, the presence of lawyer lips. you need to get with
the math. "move on" indeed.

James Annan said:

jim beam wrote:

yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move on,
can't you? If you pulled your head out of your [censored] for once you might
be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an interesting
on e...

But that would require far more than 20kN, which Mr "Metallurgy School"
Jim Beam admits he cannot generate. You see, you have neglected to
account for the mechanical interlock that has resulted from so much
fretting.

Even if such forces were made available to shear the damn thing out,
your assessment of the results is wildly overoptimistic. L

jim beam said:

that's another example of the logical disconnect that allows you to
claim that indented fork ends don't affect pullout force.

The data in another thread shows evidence that indented/embossed fork
ends don't greatly affect pullout force. Here's the message ID for that
data in case you missed it: [email hidden].

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

dvt said:

The data in another thread shows evidence that indented/embossed fork
ends don't greatly affect pullout force. Here's the message ID for that
data in case you missed it: [email hidden].

I just saw your note in the other thread. Use groups.google.com's
advanced search and plug in the message ID I gave above.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

dvt said:

dvt said:

The data in another thread shows evidence that indented/embossed fork
ends don't greatly affect pullout force. Here's the message ID for
that data in case you missed it: [email hidden].

I just saw your note in the other thread. Use groups.google.com's
advanced search and plug in the message ID I gave above.

"Steel on steel static friction is in the range of .74 to .78 (dry).
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister III, T. (1987). Marks' standard handbook
for mechanical engineers (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Phil H"

correct?

those figures are for smooth surfaces, not what we have here.

41 said:

James Annan said:

jim beam wrote:

yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move on,
can't you? If you pulled your head out of your [censored] for once you might
be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an interesting
on e...

But that would require far more than 20kN, which Mr "Metallurgy School"
Jim Beam admits he cannot generate. You see, you have neglected to
account for the mechanical interlock that has resulted from so much
fretting.

Even if such forces were made available to shear the damn thing out,
your assessment of the results is wildly overoptimistic. L

chuckle.

Thanks for that, I can't honestly say it made 700 posts worth reading,
but it paid back something anyway!

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

jim beam said:

dvt said:

dvt said:

The data in another thread shows evidence that indented/embossed fork
ends don't greatly affect pullout force. Here's the message ID for
that data in case you missed it: [email hidden].

I just saw your note in the other thread. Use groups.google.com's
advanced search and plug in the message ID I gave above.

"Steel on steel static friction is in the range of .74 to .78 (dry).
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister III, T. (1987). Marks' standard handbook
for mechanical engineers (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Phil H"

correct?

Nope. You have to plug the message ID specifically into the message ID
box on the advanced search page. Try this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/d9c5065bbb1680e2?hl=en

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

In article <[email hidden]>,

dvt said:

jim beam said:

that's another example of the logical disconnect that allows you to
claim that indented fork ends don't affect pullout force.

The data in another thread shows evidence that indented/embossed fork
ends don't greatly affect pullout force. Here's the message ID for that
data in case you missed it: [email hidden].

We are better off when you enclose the message ID in angle
brackets. Then the reader of the message can retrieve it
from his ISP's news server by clicking on it.
<[email hidden]>

I want to avoid the google interface. Usenet is a plain
text medium run off port 119, not a mark up medium run off
port 80. google interferes with the plain text format.
They treat us like they own usenet.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

dvt said:

jim beam said:

dvt said:

dvt wrote:

> The data in another thread shows evidence that indented/embossed fork
> ends don't greatly affect pullout force. Here's the message ID for
> that data in case you missed it: [email hidden].

I just saw your note in the other thread. Use groups.google.com's
advanced search and plug in the message ID I gave above.

"Steel on steel static friction is in the range of .74 to .78 (dry).
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister III, T. (1987). Marks' standard handbook
for mechanical engineers (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Phil H"

correct?

Nope. You have to plug the message ID specifically into the message ID
box on the advanced search page. Try this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/d9c5065bbb1680e2?hl=en

As you see, google has substituted their proprietary
identification with the public identification
<[email hidden]>.

--
Michael Press

41 said:

James Annan said:

41 said:

James Annan wrote:

>jim beam wrote:
>
>yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move on,
>can't you? If you pulled your head out of your [censored] for once you might
>be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an interesting
>on e...

But that would require far more than 20kN, which Mr "Metallurgy School"
Jim Beam admits he cannot generate. You see, you have neglected to
account for the mechanical interlock that has resulted from so much
fretting.

Even if such forces were made available to shear the damn thing out,
your assessment of the results is wildly overoptimistic. L

chuckle.

Thanks for that, I can't honestly say it made 700 posts worth reading,
but it paid back something anyway!

It's my pleasure.

A conveniently apropos picture which just popped up in another ng:

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SimplyMagic/sunshine.jpg

I daresay you could be right, it looks like a tight interlock. jim might
not hear UNLESS WE SHOUT!

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

"dvt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

dvt said:

dvt wrote:

> The data in another thread shows evidence that indented/embossed
> fork ends don't greatly affect pullout force. Here's the message ID
> for that data in case you missed it: [email hidden].

I just saw your note in the other thread. Use groups.google.com's
advanced search and plug in the message ID I gave above.

"Steel on steel static friction is in the range of .74 to .78 (dry).
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister III, T. (1987). Marks' standard
handbook
for mechanical engineers (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Phil H"

correct?

Nope. You have to plug the message ID specifically into the message ID
box on the advanced search page. Try this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/d9c5065bbb1680e2?hl=en

The article implies pullout force is equal to clamping force which
results in u = .25 for steel on steel. That is only 1/3 of the cited
value. As Jim pointed out, u = .74 - .78 is for smooth surfaces. One
would expect this figure to be higher with a serrated QR.

Phil H

James Annan said:

41 said:

James Annan said:

41 wrote:

>James Annan wrote:
>
>
>>jim beam wrote:
>>
>>yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move on,
>>can't you? If you pulled your head out of your [censored] for once you might
>>be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an interesting
>>on e...
>
>
>But that would require far more than 20kN, which Mr "Metallurgy School"
>Jim Beam admits he cannot ge nerate. You see, you have neglected to
>account for the mechanical interlock that has resulted from so much
>fretting.
>
>Even if such forces were made available to shear the damn thing out,
>your assessment of the results is wildly ov eroptimistic. L
>

chuckle.

Thanks for that, I can't honestly say it made 700 posts worth reading,
but it paid back something anyway!

It's my pleasure.

A conveniently apropos picture which just popped up in another ng:

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SimplyMagic/sunshine.jpg

I daresay you could be right, it looks like a tight interlock. jim might
not hear UNLESS WE SHOUT!

HOLY [censored]! So we know where his monitor is, and the mouse too I
suppose, but I'm wondering: where does he keep the keyboard?

But no doubt, like everything else, he somehow faked the picture.e

"41" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

James Annan said:

41 said:

James Annan wrote:

>41 wrote:
>
>
>>James Annan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move
>>>on,
>>>can't you? If you pulled your head out of your [censored] for once you
>>>might
>>>be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an interesting
>>>on e...
>>
>>
>>But that would require far more than 20kN, which Mr "Metallurgy
>>School"
>>Jim Beam admits he cannot ge nerate. You see, you have neglected
>>to
>>account for the mechanical interlock that has resulted from so
>>much
>>fretting.
>>
>>Even if such forces were made available to shear the damn thing
>>out,
>>your assessment of the results is wildly ov eroptimistic. L
>>
>
>chuckle.
>
>Thanks for that, I can't honestly say it made 700 posts worth
>reading,
>but it paid back something anyway!

It's my pleasure.

A conveniently apropos picture which just popped up in another ng:

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SimplyMagic/sunshine.jpg

I daresay you could be right, it looks like a tight interlock. jim
might
not hear UNLESS WE SHOUT!

HOLY [censored]! So we know where his monitor is, and the mouse too I
suppose, but I'm wondering: where does he keep the keyboard?

But no doubt, like everything else, he somehow faked the picture.e

Why does he need to fake it when its not very difficult to produce? With
a 6061-T6 bearing allowable of around 300 MPa, those indentations would
require a clamp-up force of 4kN for an indentation area of 15mm^2 (22
indentations of 2 x .35). An unremarkable result well within the realm
of possibility.

Phil H

Phil Holman said:

"41" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

James Annan said:

41 wrote:

> James Annan wrote:
>
>>41 wrote:
>>
>>
>>> James Annan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move
>>>>on,
>>>>can't you? If you pulled your head out of your [censored] for once you
>>>>might
>>>>be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an interesting
>>>>on e...
>>>
>>>
>>>But that would require far more than 20kN, which Mr "Metallurgy
>>>School"
>>>Jim Beam admits he cannot ge nerate. You see, you have neglected
>>>to
>>>account for the mechanical interlock that has resulted from so
>>>much
>>>fretting.
>>>
>>>Even if such forces were made available to shear the damn thing
>>>out,
>>>your assessment of the results is wildly ov eroptimistic. L
>>>
>>
>>chuckle.
>>
>>Thanks for that, I can't honestly say it made 700 posts worth
>>reading,
>>but it paid back something anyway!
>
>
> It's my pleasure.
>

A conveniently apropos picture which just popped up in another ng:

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SimplyMagic/sunshine.jpg

I daresay you could be right, it looks like a tight interlock. jim
might
not hear UNLESS WE SHOUT!

HOLY [censored]! So we know where his monitor is, and the mouse too I
suppose, but I'm wondering: where does he keep the keyboard?

But no doubt, like everything else, he somehow faked the picture.e

Why does he need to fake it when its not very difficult to produce? With
a 6061-T6 bearing allowable of around 300 MPa, those indentations would
require a clamp-up force of 4kN for an indentation area of 15mm^2 (22
indentations of 2 x .35). An unremarkable result well within the rea lm
of possibility.

Oh, puh-lease, no serious posts in this thread! But if you read the
exchanges on this topic, I think you'll find what's wrong with your
argument, explicitly. But please, post anything serious elsewhere.
Like, why not where the discussion actually occurred, in response to
the actual posts that discussed the matter? At the same time you could
read them, which would save repetition.

And by the way, those dropouts shown were chrome-plated steel, not
aluminum. The aluminum ones he showed before that had no indentations
at all, only a little burnishing.

"41" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman said:

"41" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

James Annan wrote:
> 41 wrote:
>
> > James Annan wrote:
> >
> >>41 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> James Annan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>jim beam wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move
> >>>>on,
> >>>>can't you? If you pulled your head out of your [censored] for once
> >>>>you
> >>>>might
> >>>>be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an
> >>>>interesting
> >>>>on e...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>But that would require far more than 20kN, which Mr "Metallurgy
> >>>School"
> >>>Jim Beam admits he cannot ge nerate. You see, you have
> >>>neglected
> >>>to
> >>>account for the mechanical interlock that has resulted from so
> >>>much
> >>>fretting.
> >>>
> >>>Even if such forces were made available to shear the damn thing
> >>>out,
> >>>your assessment of the results is wildly ov eroptimistic. L
> >>>
> >>
> >>chuckle.
> >>
> >>Thanks for that, I can't honestly say it made 700 posts worth
> >>reading,
> >>but it paid back something anyway!
> >
> >
> > It's my pleasure.
> >
>
> A conveniently apropos picture which just popped up in another ng:
>
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SimplyMagic/sunshine.jpg
>
> I daresay you could be right, it looks like a tight interlock. jim
> might
> not hear UNLESS WE SHOUT!

HOLY [censored]! So we know where his monitor is, and the mouse too I
suppose, but I'm wondering: where does he keep the keyboard?

But no doubt, like everything else, he somehow faked the picture.e

Why does he need to fake it when its not very difficult to produce?
With
a 6061-T6 bearing allowable of around 300 MPa, those indentations
would
require a clamp-up force of 4kN for an indentation area of 15mm^2 (22
indentations of 2 x .35). An unremarkable result well within the rea
lm
of possibility.

Oh, puh-lease, no serious posts in this thread! But if you read the
exchanges on this topic, I think you'll find what's wrong with your
argument, explicitly. But please, post anything serious elsewhere.
Like, why not where the discussion actually occurred, in response to
the actual posts that discussed the matter? At the same time you could
read them, which would save repetition.

41 wrote.....
"Like everything else, he somehow faked the picture"

Sorry, I took "everything else" to mean, well, everything else.

Quoted message said:

And by the way, those dropouts shown were chrome-plated steel, not
aluminum. The aluminum ones he showed before that had no indentations
at all, only a little burnishing.

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/indented.jpeg

Burnishing, please be serious.

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/nishiki_indent.jpeg

What do you think, are the dropouts decorative chrome or hard chrome?

Phil H

Phil Holman said:

please be serious.

Not in this thread.

Anyrate, you have a bicycle, you have a quick release, the dropouts
have indentations: why not install the QR with serrations out of phase
with the old ones, and see if you get a new set with one normal
clamping operation, no riding? Good luck!!

Phil Holman said:

The article implies pullout force is equal to clamping force which
results in u = .25 for steel on steel. That is only 1/3 of the cited
value. As Jim pointed out, u = .74 - .78 is for smooth surfaces. One
would expect this figure to be higher with a serrated QR.

Precisely the point. If the serrated QR was able to "dig in" the
dropouts, then the measured pullout force would be higher than predicted
by friction. But the measurements show that the pullout force is less
than or equal to that predicted by friction. Therefore if the QR is
digging in, it isn't adding much to the pullout force.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

"dvt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman said:

The article implies pullout force is equal to clamping force which
results in u = .25 for steel on steel. That is only 1/3 of the cited
value. As Jim pointed out, u = .74 - .78 is for smooth surfaces. One
would expect this figure to be higher with a serrated QR.

Precisely the point. If the serrated QR was able to "dig in" the
dropouts, then the measured pullout force would be higher than
predicted by friction. But the measurements show that the pullout
force is less than or equal to that predicted by friction. Therefore
if the QR is digging in, it isn't adding much to the pullout force.

It isn't adding much is an understatement; with a measurement of less
pullout force, the data isn't consistent. Something isn't right.

Phil H

"41" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman said:

please be serious.

Not in this thread.

Anyrate, you have a bicycle, you have a quick release, the dropouts
have indentations: why not install the QR with serrations out of phase
with the old ones, and see if you get a new set with one normal
clamping operation, no riding? Good luck!!

My point is to remove the "luck" element.

Phil H