speaking of jobst: wheelbuilding query

[Nigel Grinter]

Will someone please explain what this thread is about?

Nigel Grinter

[email protected] wrote in message news:<xqzFa.1518$%[email protected]>...
> Matt O'Toole writes:
>
> >> I keep comments about postings here to the group -- maybe it would annoy him (or anyone else)
> >> to get rebuttals filling up his inbox.
>
> > Whether they fill up my inbox or not, I find emailed Usenet replies extremely annoying. Not
> > because I mind email -- I welcome it. But I hate replying to an email, only to find out later
> > that my reply should have been posted. Hey, if I'm reading the group at all, I'll see it,
> > dammit.
>
> > Some people do this without realizing -- their mail/news programs are set to send both by
> > default. And we all hit the wrong button occasionally.
>
> This is exactly what I have responded to people who do this, and from the interpretation of my
> responses in this thread, these people are unclear on what this means. As it is now, I read no
> mail with wreck.bike subjects until I have read the newsgroup. There are still writers who are
> amazed that they can select many options and send their compositions to many destinations at a
> single click.
>
> These folks do not get an e-mail response.
>
> Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Mike S.]

"Nigel Grinter" <[email protected]> wrote in message ne
> >
> > >> I keep comments about postings here to the group -- maybe it would annoy him (or anyone else)
> > >> to get rebuttals filling up his inbox.
> >
> > > Whether they fill up my inbox or not, I find emailed Usenet replies extremely annoying. Not
> > > because I mind email -- I welcome it. But I hate replying to an email, only to find out later
> > > that my reply should have been posted. Hey, if I'm reading the group at all, I'll see it,
> > > dammit.
>
> Will someone please explain what this thread is about?
>
> Nigel Grinter
>

Read the OP.

Mike

 

[Rocky]

spokes don't stretch. old spokes are better than new since they've proven that they've been properly
stress relieved. Unless of course your spokes are all breaking.

Rocky

"NS>" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:fM%Ea.889141$OV.831980@rwcrnsc54...
> Wheel building newbie here....
>
> Wouldn't the old spokes be stretched? Or is that the point of transferring them?
>
>
> NS

 

[Nigel Grinter]

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:<rZHFa.151361$eJ2.111263@fed1read07>...
> "Nigel Grinter" <[email protected]> wrote in message ne
> > >
> > > >> I keep comments about postings here to the group -- maybe it would annoy him (or anyone
> > > >> else) to get rebuttals filling up his inbox.
>
> > > > Whether they fill up my inbox or not, I find emailed Usenet replies extremely annoying. Not
> > > > because I mind email -- I welcome it. But I hate replying to an email, only to find out
> > > > later that my reply should have been posted. Hey, if I'm reading the group at all, I'll see
> > > > it, dammit.
> >
> > Will someone please explain what this thread is about?
> >
> > Nigel Grinter
> >
>
> Read the OP.
>
> Mike

What the heck is the OP? Why does no one use words any more? Does the use of obscure
abbreviations make people feel superior to those who, like me, don't understand them? If you are
referring to David Johnson's message that apparently provoked this thread, I read it and and it
shed no light at all.

Nigel Grinter

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:48:14 +0000, Nigel Grinter wrote:

>
> What the heck is the OP? Why does no one use words any more? Does the use of obscure
> abbreviations make people feel superior to those who, like me, don't understand them? If you are
> referring to David Johnson's message that apparently provoked this thread, I read it and and it
> shed no light at all.

Actually, it wasn't my post that started this. Mine was simply a reply. Your newsreader should be
able to go back to the top of the subject. It was an OT (excuse me, off-topic) tangent to the
original posts wondering whether Jobst had disappeared. He has not, but that is beside the point of
the current thread.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is _`\(,_ | not that they are
extreme, but that they are intolerant. (_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nigel
Grinter) wrote:

> "Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:<rZHFa.151361$eJ2.111263@fed1read07>...
> > "Nigel Grinter" <[email protected]> wrote in message ne
> >
> > > Will someone please explain what this thread is about?
> >
> > Read the OP.
>
> What the heck is the OP? Why does no one use words any more? Does the use of obscure
> abbreviations make people feel superior to those who, like me, don't understand them? If you are
> referring to David Johnson's message that apparently provoked this thread, I read it and and it
> shed no light at all.

OP = Original Post(er). As for what this thread is about, it's mainly about a set of drifting topics
and nothing in particular. Sort of like an unfunny episode of "Seinfeld" (which was most of them).

Acronyms and other code words are (probably subconsciously) intended to signify who's hip and who
isn't. Bicycling has its own arcana of terms, and so does Usenet- this newsgroup gets the dubious
benefits of both. In newsgroups, many of the acronyms developed a shorthand for commonly used
phrases (IMHO= In My Humble Opinion, ISTR = I Seem To Recall, RTFM = Read The F____ Manual, ROTFLMAO
- Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off, etc).

 

[Dave Kahn]

[email protected] (Nigel Grinter) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> > Read the OP.

> What the heck is the OP? Why does no one use words any more? Does the use of obscure abbreviations
> make people feel superior to those who, like me, don't understand them?

It's partly an in-crowd thing and it's partly useful. Jargon has its place. To save you coming
back to ask for help every time you encounter a new acronym you might want to bookmark the
following links.

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/acronym (simplified acronym finder)

--
Dave...

 

[Fred Clydesdale]

> > Don't send him a personal E-mail, he really doesn't like that.....
>
> reply was cordial. I keep comments about postings here to the group -- maybe it would annoy him
> (or anyone else) to get rebuttals filling up his inbox.

depends on whether or not he's been on his meds. the man's a crotchety old coot. he may be an
*intelligent* crotchety old coot, but he's become unpleasant enough that i no longer believe the
value of his advice outweighs the constant stream of insults he spews out. there are plenty of
people here who can answer a question accurately without finding a way to squeeze in "oh, and you're
an idiot."

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:18:20 -0700, "Rocky" <[email protected]> wrote:

>spokes don't stretch. old spokes are better than new since they've proven that they've been
>properly stress relieved. Unless of course your spokes are all breaking.

But, uh, well.. don't you have to do the stressrelieving again when you make a new wheel? It's all
in the elastic deformation phase, as I understood it.

Jasper

 

[Nigel Grinter]

[email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Nigel Grinter) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > > Read the OP.
>
> > What the heck is the OP? Why does no one use words any more? Does the use of obscure
> > abbreviations make people feel superior to those who, like me, don't understand them?
>
> It's partly an in-crowd thing and it's partly useful. Jargon has its place. To save you coming
> back to ask for help every time you encounter a new acronym you might want to bookmark the
> following links.
>
> http://www.acronymfinder.com/
>
> http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/acronym (simplified acronym finder)

Acronyms and abbreviations are useful when you are using the same word/group of words repeatedly in
the one document. This frequently occurs in scientific literature where authors are obliged to
define their abbreviations at the outset. If you only use the phrase once, there is no need for the
acronym as it is neither saving you (the author) significant time nor is it making the document
easier to read; it may actually make it incomprehensible to some.

Nigel Grinter

 

[Peter Cole]

"Jasper Janssen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:18:20 -0700, "Rocky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >spokes don't stretch. old spokes are better than new since they've proven that they've been
> >properly stress relieved. Unless of course your spokes are all breaking.
>
> But, uh, well.. don't you have to do the stressrelieving again when you make a new wheel? It's all
> in the elastic deformation phase, as I understood it.

I don't think you did understand it. The purpose of stress relieving is to remove stresses caused by
forming operations during manufacturing (thread rolling, elbow bending). Once they're gone, they're
gone, the proof is many miles without spoke breakage. Stress relief is a one time thing.

 

[John Retchford]

"Jasper Janssen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:18:20 -0700, "Rocky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> But, uh, well.. don't you have to do the stressrelieving again when you make a new wheel? It's all
> in the elastic deformation phase, as I understood it.
>
You need plastic deformation, at least locally, to achieve stress relief. Elastic deformation is, by
definition, reversible and will achieve nothing.

John Retchford

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Jasper Janssen writes:

>> Spokes don't stretch. Old spokes are better than new since they've proven that they've been
>> properly stress relieved. Unless of course your spokes are all breaking.

> But, uh, well.. don't you have to do the stressrelieving again when you make a new wheel? It's all
> in the elastic deformation phase, as I understood it.

What stresses do you believe need relieving. The purpose of transferring spokes, one at a time, to a
new rim is to assure that the spoke shapes remain identical after transfer to their shape in the
previous rim. Therefore, no stress relieving is necessary, although it never hurts.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Dave Kahn]

[email protected] (Nigel Grinter) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

> > It's partly an in-crowd thing and it's partly useful. Jargon has its place. To save you coming
> > back to ask for help every time you encounter a new acronym you might want to bookmark the
> > following links.

> Acronyms and abbreviations are useful when you are using the same word/group of words repeatedly
> in the one document. This frequently occurs in scientific literature where authors are obliged to
> define their abbreviations at the outset. If you only use the phrase once, there is no need for
> the acronym as it is neither saving you (the author) significant time nor is it making the
> document easier to read;

Common acronyms carefully used make posts easier to read once you've got over the hump of getting
familiar with them. YMMV. Your point about the use of abbreviations in scientific papers is valid up
to a point, although these have much more rigid conventions than Usenet, but what should we regard
as a single document? A post, a thread, or an entire group?

--
Dave...

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:48:53 GMT, "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jasper Janssen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> But, uh, well.. don't you have to do the stressrelieving again when you make a new wheel? It's
>> all in the elastic deformation phase, as I understood it.
>
>I don't think you did understand it. The purpose of stress relieving is to remove stresses caused
>by forming operations during manufacturing (thread rolling, elbow bending). Once they're gone,
>they're gone, the proof is many miles without spoke breakage. Stress relief is a one time thing.

Ah, right. I was under the impression it was the stresses of building and truing the wheel that
needed to be relieved, not manufacturing ones.

Jasper

 

[Erik Brooks]

> Common acronyms carefully used make posts easier to read once you've got over the hump of getting
> familiar with them. YMMV. Your point about the use of abbreviations in scientific papers is valid
> up to a point, although these have much more rigid conventions than Usenet, but what should we
> regard as a single document? A post, a thread, or an entire group?

Good point.

I'd think it should be possible for a newsreader program to automatically expand common acronyms for
us - is there a newsreader or a browser add on already that does this?

Erik

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") wrote:

> You mean like this?
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> >Chris, is there any way to add a quote string to the newsreader you use? It would make your posts
> >so much easier to follow.

Yah, that was what I was thinking.

> Yes, but I have to do it manually. Place a hard return at the beginning of each line then a ">"
> sign. I use the quotation marks because saves me a lot of work, especially if it's a long quote.

Wow, what a pain in the neck! What software does WebTV use?

> Would some sort of spacing work?
>
>
> Like that?

I've seen some people do a <quote> and </quote> as a way to bracket off quoted material from
original material.

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Jasper Janssen writes:

>>> But, uh, well... don't you have to do the stressrelieving again when you make a new wheel? It's
>>> all in the elastic deformation phase, as I understood it.

>> I don't think you did understand it. The purpose of stress relieving is to remove stresses caused
>> by forming operations during manufacturing (thread rolling, elbow bending). Once they're gone,
>> they're gone, the proof is many miles without spoke breakage. Stress relief is a one time thing.

> Ah, right. I was under the impression it was the stresses of building and truing the wheel that
> needed to be relieved, not manufacturing ones.

Your impression is correct but there are no building induced stresses because the wheel was already
built and stress relieved. That is the reason for not moving spokes from their original positions in
the stress relieved wheel.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Erik Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'd think it should be possible for a newsreader program to automatically expand common acronyms
> for us - is there a newsreader or a browser add on already that does this?

Not that I know of. However, Knode automatically prints *this* kind of emphasis in bold.

Matt O.

 

[Peter Cole]

"Rocky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> You do need to stress relieve again after rebuilding or tightening spokes. Any bend or other
> plastic deformation done during building needs to be relieved.

Yes, but there shouldn't be any if you're just transferring spokes.

> Increasing stress by tightening also needs to be relieved.

You can't relieve this stress.