>> citing a manufacturer web site as if to say stainless steel has >> fatigue endurance, when it doesn't actually say that, is not >> "citation of a reputable source"!!! > > No, the term is "endurance limit", and they did say that.
there's no "knee" in the graph...
No, of course not, there's no knee on the graph on the Sandvik site. Oh, but they're liars anyway. You're a riot.
the knee is what evidences a true endurance limit. i'm sorry that doesn't suit your argument, but it's the truth nevertheless.
Of course a knee shows endurance limit, there is a knee in the graph on the Sandvik (makers of spoke wire) site, plus a description of the knee in the accompanying text. Stop twisting, calling everyone "liars" and "stupid" and admit you are wrong.
jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>> citing a manufacturer web site as if to say stainless steel has >>> fatigue endurance, when it doesn't actually say that, is not >>> "citation of a reputable source"!!! >> >> No, the term is "endurance limit", and they did say that. > > there's no "knee" in the graph...
No, of course not, there's no knee on the graph on the Sandvik site. Oh, but they're liars anyway. You're a riot.
the knee is what evidences a true endurance limit. i'm sorry that doesn't suit your argument, but it's the truth nevertheless.
Of course a knee shows endurance limit, there is a knee in the graph on the Sandvik (makers of spoke wire) site, plus a description of the knee in the accompanying text. Stop twisting, calling everyone "liars" and "stupid" and admit you are wrong.
for stainless, the graph is simply bent. unless you're looking at something i haven't seen and you're [conveniently] not citing. what, peter cole [censored]? never!
Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote:
Quoted message said:
>>>> citing a manufacturer web site as if to say stainless steel has >>>> fatigue endurance, when it doesn't actually say that, is not >>>> "citation of a reputable source"!!! >>> >>> No, the term is "endurance limit", and they did say that. >> >> there's no "knee" in the graph... > > No, of course not, there's no knee on the graph on the Sandvik site. > Oh, but they're liars anyway. You're a riot.
the knee is what evidences a true endurance limit. i'm sorry that doesn't suit your argument, but it's the truth nevertheless.
Of course a knee shows endurance limit, there is a knee in the graph on the Sandvik (makers of spoke wire) site, plus a description of the knee in the accompanying text. Stop twisting, calling everyone "liars" and "stupid" and admit you are wrong.
for stainless, the graph is simply bent. unless you're looking at something i haven't seen and you're [conveniently] not citing. what, peter cole [censored]? never!
As I said (immediately above), the graph and description of the graph is on the Sandvik site. Your rebuttal is that they are liars. This is your standard reply when sources disagree with your beliefs.
jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> citing a manufacturer web site as if to say stainless steel has >>>>> fatigue endurance, when it doesn't actually say that, is not >>>>> "citation of a reputable source"!!! >>>> >>>> No, the term is "endurance limit", and they did say that. >>> >>> there's no "knee" in the graph... >> >> No, of course not, there's no knee on the graph on the Sandvik >> site. Oh, but they're liars anyway. You're a riot. > > the knee is what evidences a true endurance limit. i'm sorry that > doesn't suit your argument, but it's the truth nevertheless.
Of course a knee shows endurance limit, there is a knee in the graph on the Sandvik (makers of spoke wire) site, plus a description of the knee in the accompanying text. Stop twisting, calling everyone "liars" and "stupid" and admit you are wrong.
for stainless, the graph is simply bent. unless you're looking at something i haven't seen and you're [conveniently] not citing. what, peter cole [censored]? never!
As I said (immediately above), the graph and description of the graph is on the Sandvik site.
it's bent - that's not a "knee".
Quoted message said:
Your rebuttal is that they are liars.
no, my rebuttal was that they're simplifying to terminology "engineers" understand. [and evidently failing in this case.]
Quoted message said:
This is your standard reply when sources disagree with your beliefs.
why do you always twist and misinterpret? i've explained the graphical difference between a true endurance limit and the commonly cited "fatigue limit". i've even explained the mechanism as to why these two different phenomena are observed. but here you are reverting to deliberate misconstruction. what is your problem? what do you have to lose by learning?
