spoke fatigue troll

[jim beam]

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:
>>>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] 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?
>>>>>
>>>> Valid versus invalid. Duh.
>>>
>>> says the guy that doesn't understand work hardening!
>>>
>> Hint for "jim", if the hardness test (particularly Rockwell) is
>> performed on an improperly prepared surface, the test will not be valid.
>
> balderdash. you were bleating about work hardening, and getting it
> badly wrong. and here you are strawman bullshitting about surface
> preparation. tom, you're a goddamned lightweight.
>
>
>>
>>>>> 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????
>>>>>
>>>> Of course it will indent further, but not as far as if the test was
>>>> performed on a non work-hardened area.
>>>
>>> dude, you are /hopelessly/ confused. /any/ indentation is subject to
>>> work hardening. casting or forging. period. [and no hubs are cast
>>> btw.] work hardening is not a step function.
>>>
>> So I can run multiple hardness tests on the same location on a piece
>> of metal, and the results will not change between tests?
>
> you're not running multiple tests, your

"you're"

> proving that under increasing
> load, the indenter impression continues to deepen. 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>> What does "cretian" mean?
>>>>
>>>
>>> it's a more clinical form of "lightweight".
>>
>> gene does a better job of mangling English, since his distortions are
>> deliberate.
>>
>
> so are mine - goddamned lightweight.

 

[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:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> So "jim" is still ducking the question.
>>>
>>> ok, let me translate: "my privacy trumps your irritation".
>>>
>> I am not irritated at all. I enjoy pointing out the cowardice of
>> hiding behind a sock puppet.
>
> cowardice??? like you'd say that to my face! i simply choose not to
> play your game. goddamned lightweight.
>
How could I say anything to your face when you hide behind a sock puppet?

>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of a forged hub, the Meyer hardness would not change
>>>> with indention depth, since the material started out being work
>>>> hardened. For a cast hub flange, the Meyer hardness would
>>>> continually increase as the test load was increased due to the cold
>>>> working of the material.
>>>
>>> whoa - castings work harden but forgings don't???
>>
>> Did I write that? No.
>
> you wrote:
> "Meyer hardness would not change with indention depth, since the
> material started out being work hardened".
>
> you clearly don't understand what work hardening is. or meyer hardness
> for that matter. work hardening is a continuous function - it doesn't
> just reach a certain level, then stop.

Did I ever write that work hardening was not a continuous function? No.
"jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.

> meyer hardness is for the
> projected area of the impression, not just the indenter impression.
>
No kidding. But Meyer (not "meyer") hardness does not typically change
with indentation depth for a work hardened material, but does change
with indentation depth for an annealed or normalized material.

>> I wrote that the Meyer hardness would not change, not that the
>> material could not be further work hardened. The two are not the same.
>> Learn to read.
>
> oh, the hypocrisy. you goddamned lightweight.
>
"jim" has a non-standard definition of hypocrisy it seems.

>>> wtf is it with you
>>> engineers? don't you guys /ever/ pay attention in class??? that's a
>>> classic right up there along with eliminating fatigue from a material
>>> with no endurance limit!
>>>
>> Ibid.
>
> see above.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Prove the existence of God then.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you want a sock puppet to do that? come on tom, that's too lightweight,
>>> even for you.
>>
>> You are the one who brought God into the discussion, "jim".
>>
>
> so you really /do/ want a sock puppet to theologize for you??? what a
> goddamned lightweight!

So why did you bring God (not "god") into the discussion, "jim"?

--
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:
>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] 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?
>>>>>
>>>> Valid versus invalid. Duh.
>>>
>>> says the guy that doesn't understand work hardening!
>>>
>> Hint for "jim", if the hardness test (particularly Rockwell) is
>> performed on an improperly prepared surface, the test will not be valid.
>
> balderdash. you were bleating about work hardening, and getting it
> badly wrong. and here you are strawman bullshitting about surface
> preparation. tom, you're a goddamned lightweight.
>
Oh no, "jim" is resorting to insults again.

>>>>> 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????
>>>>>
>>>> Of course it will indent further, but not as far as if the test was
>>>> performed on a non work-hardened area.
>>>
>>> dude, you are /hopelessly/ confused. /any/ indentation is subject to
>>> work hardening. casting or forging. period. [and no hubs are cast
>>> btw.] work hardening is not a step function.
>>>
>> So I can run multiple hardness tests on the same location on a piece
>> of metal, and the results will not change between tests?
>
> you're not running multiple tests, your proving that under increasing
> load, the indenter impression continues to deepen. goddamned lightweight.
>
Why is "jim" imagining what I am doing? Weird.

>>>>>>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>> What does "cretian" mean?
>>>>
>>>
>>> it's a more clinical form of "lightweight".
>>
>> gene does a better job of mangling English, since his distortions are
>> deliberate.
>>
>
> so are mine - goddamned lightweight.

Yes, but gene's distortions are funny, "jim's" are not.

--
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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So "jim" is still ducking the question.
>>>>
>>>> ok, let me translate: "my privacy trumps your irritation".
>>>>
>>> I am not irritated at all. I enjoy pointing out the cowardice of
>>> hiding behind a sock puppet.
>>
>> cowardice??? like you'd say that to my face! i simply choose not to
>> play your game. goddamned lightweight.
>>
> How could I say anything to your face when you hide behind a sock puppet?

saying it to a sock puppet sure makes it easier for you tom! trust me
on that.



>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of a forged hub, the Meyer hardness would not change
>>>>> with indention depth, since the material started out being work
>>>>> hardened. For a cast hub flange, the Meyer hardness would
>>>>> continually increase as the test load was increased due to the cold
>>>>> working of the material.
>>>>
>>>> whoa - castings work harden but forgings don't???
>>>
>>> Did I write that? No.
>>
>> you wrote:
>> "Meyer hardness would not change with indention depth, since the
>> material started out being work hardened".
>>
>> you clearly don't understand what work hardening is. or meyer
>> hardness for that matter. work hardening is a continuous function -
>> it doesn't just reach a certain level, then stop.
>
> Did I ever write that work hardening was not a continuous function? No.
> "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.

you wrote:

"In the case of a forged hub, the Meyer hardness would not change
with indention depth, since the material started out being work
hardened. For a cast hub flange, the Meyer hardness would
continually increase as the test load was increased due to the cold
working of the material."

so you specifically state that the forged hub will not experience
additional work hardening, in contrast to the cast hub which will.

1. there are no cast hubs.
2. BOTH materials work harden.
3. they work harden continuously!

you clearly don't understand deformation. or if that's not what you
meant to say, then re-state it, don't accuse me of "misrepresenting"
your words which quite plainly show your misunderstanding.


>
>> meyer hardness is for the projected area of the impression, not just
>> the indenter impression.
>>
> No kidding. But Meyer (not "meyer") hardness does not typically change
> with indentation depth for a work hardened material, but does change
> with indentation depth for an annealed or normalized material.

clueless idiot!!! work hardening is a continuous function!



>
>>> I wrote that the Meyer hardness would not change, not that the
>>> material could not be further work hardened. The two are not the
>>> same. Learn to read.
>>
>> oh, the hypocrisy. you goddamned lightweight.
>>
> "jim" has a non-standard definition of hypocrisy it seems.

lightweight idiot that doesn't understand basic testing procedure!


>
>>>> wtf is it with you
>>>> engineers? don't you guys /ever/ pay attention in class??? that's a
>>>> classic right up there along with eliminating fatigue from a material
>>>> with no endurance limit!
>>>>
>>> Ibid.
>>
>> see above.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove the existence of God then.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you want a sock puppet to do that? come on tom, that's too
>>>> lightweight,
>>>> even for you.
>>>
>>> You are the one who brought God into the discussion, "jim".
>>>
>>
>> so you really /do/ want a sock puppet to theologize for you??? what a
>> goddamned lightweight!
>
> So why did you bring God (not "god") into the discussion, "jim"?
>

eh?

if you spent less time allowing people to have fun needling you with
sock puppets and theology, maybe you could open one of the old text
books you bought but never read and figure out how hardness testing
really works.

or you can be a clueless, easily goaded lightweight forever. much more
enjoyable for me that way!

[signal/noise tom. you should think about it.]

 

[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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Valid versus invalid. Duh.
>>>>
>>>> says the guy that doesn't understand work hardening!
>>>>
>>> Hint for "jim", if the hardness test (particularly Rockwell) is
>>> performed on an improperly prepared surface, the test will not be valid.
>>
>> balderdash. you were bleating about work hardening, and getting it
>> badly wrong. and here you are strawman bullshitting about surface
>> preparation. tom, you're a goddamned lightweight.
>>
> Oh no, "jim" is resorting to insults again.
>
>>>>>> 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????
>>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it will indent further, but not as far as if the test was
>>>>> performed on a non work-hardened area.
>>>>
>>>> dude, you are /hopelessly/ confused. /any/ indentation is subject to
>>>> work hardening. casting or forging. period. [and no hubs are cast
>>>> btw.] work hardening is not a step function.
>>>>
>>> So I can run multiple hardness tests on the same location on a piece
>>> of metal, and the results will not change between tests?
>>
>> you're not running multiple tests, your proving that under increasing
>> load, the indenter impression continues to deepen. goddamned
>> lightweight.
>>
> Why is "jim" imagining what I am doing? Weird.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>> What does "cretian" mean?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it's a more clinical form of "lightweight".
>>>
>>> gene does a better job of mangling English, since his distortions are
>>> deliberate.
>>>
>>
>> so are mine - goddamned lightweight.
>
> Yes, but gene's distortions are funny, "jim's" are not.
>

this is not your best work tom. [but what is?]

clueless goddamned lightweight

 

[A Muzi]

-much snip-
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Yes, but gene's distortions are funny, "jim's" are not.

Any guru or oracle worth his salt writes with both strong imagery and
ambiguity.
Like Gene.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[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:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So "jim" is still ducking the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, let me translate: "my privacy trumps your irritation".
>>>>>
>>>> I am not irritated at all. I enjoy pointing out the cowardice of
>>>> hiding behind a sock puppet.
>>>
>>> cowardice??? like you'd say that to my face! i simply choose not to
>>> play your game. goddamned lightweight.
>>>
>> How could I say anything to your face when you hide behind a sock puppet?
>
> saying it to a sock puppet sure makes it easier for you tom! trust me
> on that.
>
Big talk for a sock puppet, eh?

>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case of a forged hub, the Meyer hardness would not change
>>>>>> with indention depth, since the material started out being work
>>>>>> hardened. For a cast hub flange, the Meyer hardness would
>>>>>> continually increase as the test load was increased due to the
>>>>>> cold working of the material.
>>>>>
>>>>> whoa - castings work harden but forgings don't???
>>>>
>>>> Did I write that? No.
>>>
>>> you wrote:
>>> "Meyer hardness would not change with indention depth, since the
>>> material started out being work hardened".
>>>
>>> you clearly don't understand what work hardening is. or meyer
>>> hardness for that matter. work hardening is a continuous function -
>>> it doesn't just reach a certain level, then stop.
>>
>> Did I ever write that work hardening was not a continuous function?
>> No. "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
>
> you wrote:
>
> "In the case of a forged hub, the Meyer hardness would not change
> with indention depth, since the material started out being work
> hardened. For a cast hub flange, the Meyer hardness would
> continually increase as the test load was increased due to the cold
> working of the material."
>
> so you specifically state that the forged hub will not experience
> additional work hardening, in contrast to the cast hub which will.
>
No, I did NOT say that the forged hub would not experience more work
hardening, simply that Meyer hardness would not vary significantly with
test load. Duh.

> 1. there are no cast hubs.

Citation? Not even the cheap ones?

> 2. BOTH materials work harden.

How much does the spoke work harden during spoke squeezing?

> 3. they work harden continuously!
>
Did I write that they did not?

> you clearly don't understand deformation. or if that's not what you
> meant to say, then re-state it, don't accuse me of "misrepresenting"
> your words which quite plainly show your misunderstanding.
>
I did not say anything. If "jim" stops misrepresenting what I wrote, I
will stop saying that "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.

>>> meyer hardness is for the projected area of the impression, not just
>>> the indenter impression.
>>>
>> No kidding. But Meyer (not "meyer") hardness does not typically change
>> with indentation depth for a work hardened material, but does change
>> with indentation depth for an annealed or normalized material.
>
> clueless idiot!!! work hardening is a continuous function!
>
I was referring to Meyer hardness measurement, not whether or not work
hardening is a continuous function.

>>>> I wrote that the Meyer hardness would not change, not that the
>>>> material could not be further work hardened. The two are not the
>>>> same. Learn to read.
>>>
>>> oh, the hypocrisy. you goddamned lightweight.
>>>
>> "jim" has a non-standard definition of hypocrisy it seems.
>
> lightweight idiot that doesn't understand basic testing procedure!
>
And "jim" does not comprehend written English.

>>>>> wtf is it with you
>>>>> engineers? don't you guys /ever/ pay attention in class??? that's a
>>>>> classic right up there along with eliminating fatigue from a material
>>>>> with no endurance limit!
>>>>>
>>>> Ibid.
>>>
>>> see above.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove the existence of God then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you want a sock puppet to do that? come on tom, that's too
>>>>> lightweight,
>>>>> even for you.
>>>>
>>>> You are the one who brought God into the discussion, "jim".
>>>>
>>>
>>> so you really /do/ want a sock puppet to theologize for you??? what
>>> a goddamned lightweight!
>>
>> So why did you bring God (not "god") into the discussion, "jim"?
>>
>
> eh?
>
Who mentioned God first (hint, not me)?

> if you spent less time allowing people to have fun needling you with
> sock puppets and theology, maybe you could open one of the old text
> books you bought but never read and figure out how hardness testing
> really works.
>
> or you can be a clueless, easily goaded lightweight forever. much more
> enjoyable for me that way!
>
> [signal/noise tom. you should think about it.]

Hey, I am just working to entertain Andres Muro and annoy "jim beam".

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> -much snip-

Indeed.

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Yes, but gene's distortions are funny, "jim's" are not.
>
> Any guru or oracle worth his salt writes with both strong imagery and
> ambiguity.
> Like Gene.

gene is a genius!

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> [...]
>
> this is not your best work tom. [but what is?]
>
Here is a hint "jim" - if it gets sealed with a stamp I take it
seriously [1]. If I am arguing with a sock puppet on Usenet, I do not.

[1] As I am legally liable.

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

 

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> this is not your best work tom. [but what is?]
>>
> Here is a hint "jim" - if it gets sealed with a stamp I take it
> seriously [1]. If I am arguing with a sock puppet on Usenet, I do not.
>
> [1] As I am legally liable.
>

you're legally liable for junkmail??? [oh dear, i'm getting sucked into
the lightweight vortex of trivial response-compulsive ********......]

you're a clueless lightweight idiot tom.

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> this is not your best work tom. [but what is?]
>>>
>> Here is a hint "jim" - if it gets sealed with a stamp I take it
>> seriously [1]. If I am arguing with a sock puppet on Usenet, I do not.
>>
>> [1] As I am legally liable.
>>
>
> you're legally liable for junkmail??? [oh dear, i'm getting sucked into
> the lightweight vortex of trivial response-compulsive ********......]
>
W H O O S H !

I believe this answers Frank Krygowski's question in the negative - "jim
beam" does NOT have a stamp to seal deliverables.

Here is a hint for "jim":
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=professional+stamps&btnG=Google+Search>.

By the way, I have never seen junk mail sealed with a stamp, or even
postage paid with a stamp. "jim" must be clueless if he has not noticed
that junk mail is sent without postage stamps, and is only metered when
sent in relatively small batches.

> you're a clueless lightweight idiot tom.

So "jim", do you have any professional registrations?

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

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> "jim beam" wrote:
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> this is not your best work tom. [but what is?]
> >>>
> >> Here is a hint "jim" - if it gets sealed with a stamp I take it
> >> seriously [1]. If I am arguing with a sock puppet on Usenet, I do
> >> not.
> >>
> >> [1] As I am legally liable.
> >>
> >
> > you're legally liable for junkmail??? [oh dear, i'm getting sucked
> > into the lightweight vortex of trivial response-compulsive
> > ********......]
> >
> W H O O S H !
>
> I believe this answers Frank Krygowski's question in the negative -
> "jim beam" does NOT have a stamp to seal deliverables.
>
> Here is a hint for "jim":
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=professional+stamps&btnG=Google+
> Search>.
>
> By the way, I have never seen junk mail sealed with a stamp, or even
> postage paid with a stamp. "jim" must be clueless if he has not
> noticed that junk mail is sent without postage stamps, and is only
> metered when sent in relatively small batches.
>
> > you're a clueless lightweight idiot tom.
>
> So "jim", do you have any professional registrations?

Probably not. He clearly could not pass the tests for licensure.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> this is not your best work tom. [but what is?]
>>>>>
>>>> Here is a hint "jim" - if it gets sealed with a stamp I take it
>>>> seriously [1]. If I am arguing with a sock puppet on Usenet, I do
>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> [1] As I am legally liable.
>>>>
>>> you're legally liable for junkmail??? [oh dear, i'm getting sucked
>>> into the lightweight vortex of trivial response-compulsive
>>> ********......]
>>>
>> W H O O S H !
>>
>> I believe this answers Frank Krygowski's question in the negative -
>> "jim beam" does NOT have a stamp to seal deliverables.
>>
>> Here is a hint for "jim":
>> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=professional+stamps&btnG=Google+
>> Search>.
>>
>> By the way, I have never seen junk mail sealed with a stamp, or even
>> postage paid with a stamp. "jim" must be clueless if he has not
>> noticed that junk mail is sent without postage stamps, and is only
>> metered when sent in relatively small batches.
>>
>>> you're a clueless lightweight idiot tom.
>> So "jim", do you have any professional registrations?
>
> Probably not. He clearly could not pass the tests for licensure.

That would explain the resentment, eh?

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