Spoke tension Question

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> Your figure of 1mm is based on Ian Smith's FEA I think
>>> (http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html).
>>>
>>> He's modelling a rim with a similar section to an MA-2 with 36 spokes.
>>> It's not obvious how things change when you use a stiffer rim with a
>>> deeper cross-section.
>> It's not that complicated, you just have to know the elasticity of a
>> spoke.
>
> I would have thought the stiffness of the rim would also influence how
> many spokes went slack, and therefore by how much, for a given load.

Well, that wasn't your initial issue. In any case, it doesn't really
matter, the spokes will go slack before the rim deforms, how much load
that takes is proportional to spoke tension.

>
> [...]
>>> But I have another question:
>>>
>>> That displacement doesn't tell you anything about the total stress on
>>> the rim. It tells you what the change in stress was when loading was
>>> applied (if you know the stiffness).
>> Doesn't matter, spoke will be slack at ~1mm, the most a rim can be
>> permanently bent after that will be much less than 1mm.
>
> Well I think I'd still rather not have a flat spot, even if it were only
> 1mm, than have one.

Then make your spokes tight.

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> Your figure of 1mm is based on Ian Smith's FEA I think
>>> (http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html).
>>>
>>> He's modelling a rim with a similar section to an MA-2 with 36 spokes.
>>> It's not obvious how things change when you use a stiffer rim with a
>>> deeper cross-section.
>> It's not that complicated, you just have to know the elasticity of a
>> spoke.
>
> I would have thought the stiffness of the rim would also influence how
> many spokes went slack, and therefore by how much, for a given load.

Well, that wasn't your initial issue. In any case, it doesn't really
matter, the spokes will go slack before the rim deforms, how much load
that takes is proportional to spoke tension.

>
> [...]
>>> But I have another question:
>>>
>>> That displacement doesn't tell you anything about the total stress on
>>> the rim. It tells you what the change in stress was when loading was
>>> applied (if you know the stiffness).
>> Doesn't matter, spoke will be slack at ~1mm, the most a rim can be
>> permanently bent after that will be much less than 1mm.
>
> Well I think I'd still rather not have a flat spot, even if it were only
> 1mm, than have one.

Then make your spokes tight.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Your figure of 1mm is based on Ian Smith's FEA I think
>>>> (http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html).
>>>>
>>>> He's modelling a rim with a similar section to an MA-2 with 36 spokes.
>>>> It's not obvious how things change when you use a stiffer rim with a
>>>> deeper cross-section.
>>> It's not that complicated, you just have to know the elasticity of a
>>> spoke.
>>
>> I would have thought the stiffness of the rim would also influence how
>> many spokes went slack, and therefore by how much, for a given load.
>
> Well, that wasn't your initial issue. In any case, it doesn't really
> matter, the spokes will go slack before the rim deforms, how much load
> that takes is proportional to spoke tension.

The rim deforms _as_ the spokes go slack, or they wouldn't go slack.

If you meant to say "before the rim deforms plastically", then I don't
believe you know that. Or if you do you aren't sharing your calculations
with the rest of us.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Your figure of 1mm is based on Ian Smith's FEA I think
>>>> (http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html).
>>>>
>>>> He's modelling a rim with a similar section to an MA-2 with 36 spokes.
>>>> It's not obvious how things change when you use a stiffer rim with a
>>>> deeper cross-section.
>>> It's not that complicated, you just have to know the elasticity of a
>>> spoke.
>>
>> I would have thought the stiffness of the rim would also influence how
>> many spokes went slack, and therefore by how much, for a given load.
>
> Well, that wasn't your initial issue. In any case, it doesn't really
> matter, the spokes will go slack before the rim deforms, how much load
> that takes is proportional to spoke tension.

The rim deforms _as_ the spokes go slack, or they wouldn't go slack.

If you meant to say "before the rim deforms plastically", then I don't
believe you know that. Or if you do you aren't sharing your calculations
with the rest of us.

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Your figure of 1mm is based on Ian Smith's FEA I think
>>>>> (http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html).
>>>>>
>>>>> He's modelling a rim with a similar section to an MA-2 with 36 spokes.
>>>>> It's not obvious how things change when you use a stiffer rim with a
>>>>> deeper cross-section.
>>>> It's not that complicated, you just have to know the elasticity of a
>>>> spoke.
>>> I would have thought the stiffness of the rim would also influence how
>>> many spokes went slack, and therefore by how much, for a given load.
>> Well, that wasn't your initial issue. In any case, it doesn't really
>> matter, the spokes will go slack before the rim deforms, how much load
>> that takes is proportional to spoke tension.
>
> The rim deforms _as_ the spokes go slack, or they wouldn't go slack.
>
> If you meant to say "before the rim deforms plastically", then I don't
> believe you know that. Or if you do you aren't sharing your calculations
> with the rest of us.

The most a rim can deform before spokes slack is ~1mm. That's not enough
to permanently deform.

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Your figure of 1mm is based on Ian Smith's FEA I think
>>>>> (http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html).
>>>>>
>>>>> He's modelling a rim with a similar section to an MA-2 with 36 spokes.
>>>>> It's not obvious how things change when you use a stiffer rim with a
>>>>> deeper cross-section.
>>>> It's not that complicated, you just have to know the elasticity of a
>>>> spoke.
>>> I would have thought the stiffness of the rim would also influence how
>>> many spokes went slack, and therefore by how much, for a given load.
>> Well, that wasn't your initial issue. In any case, it doesn't really
>> matter, the spokes will go slack before the rim deforms, how much load
>> that takes is proportional to spoke tension.
>
> The rim deforms _as_ the spokes go slack, or they wouldn't go slack.
>
> If you meant to say "before the rim deforms plastically", then I don't
> believe you know that. Or if you do you aren't sharing your calculations
> with the rest of us.

The most a rim can deform before spokes slack is ~1mm. That's not enough
to permanently deform.

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Your figure of 1mm is based on Ian Smith's FEA I think
>>>>>> (http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's modelling a rim with a similar section to an MA-2 with 36
>>>>>> spokes.
>>>>>> It's not obvious how things change when you use a stiffer rim with a
>>>>>> deeper cross-section.
>>>>> It's not that complicated, you just have to know the elasticity of a
>>>>> spoke.
>>>> I would have thought the stiffness of the rim would also influence how
>>>> many spokes went slack, and therefore by how much, for a given load.
>>> Well, that wasn't your initial issue. In any case, it doesn't really
>>> matter, the spokes will go slack before the rim deforms, how much
>>> load that takes is proportional to spoke tension.
>>
>> The rim deforms _as_ the spokes go slack, or they wouldn't go slack.
>>
>> If you meant to say "before the rim deforms plastically", then I don't
>> believe you know that. Or if you do you aren't sharing your calculations
>> with the rest of us.
>
> The most a rim can deform before spokes slack is ~1mm. That's not enough
> to permanently deform.

you're scary. such an ignorant blanket statement, in a thread where,
yet again, you evidence not understanding the distinction between
elasticity and plasticity, is just ridiculous.

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Your figure of 1mm is based on Ian Smith's FEA I think
>>>>>> (http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's modelling a rim with a similar section to an MA-2 with 36
>>>>>> spokes.
>>>>>> It's not obvious how things change when you use a stiffer rim with a
>>>>>> deeper cross-section.
>>>>> It's not that complicated, you just have to know the elasticity of a
>>>>> spoke.
>>>> I would have thought the stiffness of the rim would also influence how
>>>> many spokes went slack, and therefore by how much, for a given load.
>>> Well, that wasn't your initial issue. In any case, it doesn't really
>>> matter, the spokes will go slack before the rim deforms, how much
>>> load that takes is proportional to spoke tension.
>>
>> The rim deforms _as_ the spokes go slack, or they wouldn't go slack.
>>
>> If you meant to say "before the rim deforms plastically", then I don't
>> believe you know that. Or if you do you aren't sharing your calculations
>> with the rest of us.
>
> The most a rim can deform before spokes slack is ~1mm. That's not enough
> to permanently deform.

you're scary. such an ignorant blanket statement, in a thread where,
yet again, you evidence not understanding the distinction between
elasticity and plasticity, is just ridiculous.

 

[jim beam]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Your figure of 1mm is based on Ian Smith's FEA I think
>>>>> (http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html).
>>>>>
>>>>> He's modelling a rim with a similar section to an MA-2 with 36 spokes.
>>>>> It's not obvious how things change when you use a stiffer rim with a
>>>>> deeper cross-section.
>>>> It's not that complicated, you just have to know the elasticity of a
>>>> spoke.
>>> I would have thought the stiffness of the rim would also influence how
>>> many spokes went slack, and therefore by how much, for a given load.
>> Well, that wasn't your initial issue. In any case, it doesn't really
>> matter, the spokes will go slack before the rim deforms, how much load
>> that takes is proportional to spoke tension.
>
> The rim deforms _as_ the spokes go slack, or they wouldn't go slack.

absolutely right!

>
> If you meant to say "before the rim deforms plastically", then I don't
> believe you know that. Or if you do you aren't sharing your calculations
> with the rest of us.

he's badly confused. elasticity precedes plasticity. if the rim is
compressed to its elastic limit, plasticity follows, and does do at the
tiniest of additional displacements.

 

[jim beam]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-11-06, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Your figure of 1mm is based on Ian Smith's FEA I think
>>>>> (http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html).
>>>>>
>>>>> He's modelling a rim with a similar section to an MA-2 with 36 spokes.
>>>>> It's not obvious how things change when you use a stiffer rim with a
>>>>> deeper cross-section.
>>>> It's not that complicated, you just have to know the elasticity of a
>>>> spoke.
>>> I would have thought the stiffness of the rim would also influence how
>>> many spokes went slack, and therefore by how much, for a given load.
>> Well, that wasn't your initial issue. In any case, it doesn't really
>> matter, the spokes will go slack before the rim deforms, how much load
>> that takes is proportional to spoke tension.
>
> The rim deforms _as_ the spokes go slack, or they wouldn't go slack.

absolutely right!

>
> If you meant to say "before the rim deforms plastically", then I don't
> believe you know that. Or if you do you aren't sharing your calculations
> with the rest of us.

he's badly confused. elasticity precedes plasticity. if the rim is
compressed to its elastic limit, plasticity follows, and does do at the
tiniest of additional displacements.

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> Probably flat-spotting. We had a thread recently where we discussed how
>> tension might affect propensity to flat-spot. With high tensions the rim
>> will flat spot more easily if it reaches yield stress before the spokes
>> go slack.
>
> But it won't, as you can see if you use numbers. There's a reason that
> low spoke count wheels spec higher spoke tensions.


but they don't, as you can see if you use numbers.

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> Probably flat-spotting. We had a thread recently where we discussed how
>> tension might affect propensity to flat-spot. With high tensions the rim
>> will flat spot more easily if it reaches yield stress before the spokes
>> go slack.
>
> But it won't, as you can see if you use numbers. There's a reason that
> low spoke count wheels spec higher spoke tensions.


but they don't, as you can see if you use numbers.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-11-07, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> If you meant to say "before the rim deforms plastically", then I don't
>> believe you know that. Or if you do you aren't sharing your calculations
>> with the rest of us.
>
> he's badly confused. elasticity precedes plasticity. if the rim is
> compressed to its elastic limit, plasticity follows, and does do at the
> tiniest of additional displacements.

Yes, that's what I thought.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-11-07, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> If you meant to say "before the rim deforms plastically", then I don't
>> believe you know that. Or if you do you aren't sharing your calculations
>> with the rest of us.
>
> he's badly confused. elasticity precedes plasticity. if the rim is
> compressed to its elastic limit, plasticity follows, and does do at the
> tiniest of additional displacements.

Yes, that's what I thought.

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-07, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The most a rim can deform before spokes slack is ~1mm. That's not enough
>> to permanently deform.
>
> That ~1mm is the _change in deformation_, not the total deformation. The
> rim is already precompressed.

Spoke tension causes a circumferential force, load/impact a radial
force, they are orthogonal.

The stress from spoke tension is the circumferential force divided by
the rim cross section area, nominally estimated to be <1/4 of yield.


> That extra ~1mm could bring it to yield if
> it has enough precompression.

Theoretically, but if you consider it would require ~4x nominal spoke
tension to get that rim compression, that would be very difficult. Worst
case, that would only give a conceivable maximum 1mm yield.


>
> And ~1mm is not an upper bound. It's an estimate based on an FEA of a
> particular rim. In particular the tyre wasn't simulated-- Ian says:

Again, the actual deflection before the spoke goes slack is easily
determined from the spoke elasticity, that's all you need to know. The
actual number for a thin spoke at 100kgf is 0.75mm, more tension means
more deflection (linear), thicker spokes mean less, 1mm is a
conservative estimate. You don't need the FEA.

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-07, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The most a rim can deform before spokes slack is ~1mm. That's not enough
>> to permanently deform.
>
> That ~1mm is the _change in deformation_, not the total deformation. The
> rim is already precompressed.

Spoke tension causes a circumferential force, load/impact a radial
force, they are orthogonal.

The stress from spoke tension is the circumferential force divided by
the rim cross section area, nominally estimated to be <1/4 of yield.


> That extra ~1mm could bring it to yield if
> it has enough precompression.

Theoretically, but if you consider it would require ~4x nominal spoke
tension to get that rim compression, that would be very difficult. Worst
case, that would only give a conceivable maximum 1mm yield.


>
> And ~1mm is not an upper bound. It's an estimate based on an FEA of a
> particular rim. In particular the tyre wasn't simulated-- Ian says:

Again, the actual deflection before the spoke goes slack is easily
determined from the spoke elasticity, that's all you need to know. The
actual number for a thin spoke at 100kgf is 0.75mm, more tension means
more deflection (linear), thicker spokes mean less, 1mm is a
conservative estimate. You don't need the FEA.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-11-07, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-07, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> The most a rim can deform before spokes slack is ~1mm. That's not enough
>>> to permanently deform.
>>
>> That ~1mm is the _change in deformation_, not the total deformation. The
>> rim is already precompressed.
>
> Spoke tension causes a circumferential force, load/impact a radial
> force, they are orthogonal.

But the spokes are pulling radially so isn't that also a radial force?

> The stress from spoke tension is the circumferential force divided by
> the rim cross section area, nominally estimated to be <1/4 of yield.

Now I'm lost. How do you get that estimate?

>> That extra ~1mm could bring it to yield if
>> it has enough precompression.
>
> Theoretically, but if you consider it would require ~4x nominal spoke
> tension to get that rim compression, that would be very difficult. Worst
> case, that would only give a conceivable maximum 1mm yield.

Not sure what you mean by ~4x nominal spoke tension.

But anyway, if the rim is flimsy enough that 1500N spoke tension brings
it right up to yield, then yes, there is a maximum ~1mm deep
deformation.

>> And ~1mm is not an upper bound. It's an estimate based on an FEA of a
>> particular rim. In particular the tyre wasn't simulated-- Ian says:
>
> Again, the actual deflection before the spoke goes slack is easily
> determined from the spoke elasticity, that's all you need to know. The
> actual number for a thin spoke at 100kgf is 0.75mm, more tension means
> more deflection (linear), thicker spokes mean less, 1mm is a
> conservative estimate. You don't need the FEA.

Yes, I figured that out eventually.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-11-07, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-07, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> The most a rim can deform before spokes slack is ~1mm. That's not enough
>>> to permanently deform.
>>
>> That ~1mm is the _change in deformation_, not the total deformation. The
>> rim is already precompressed.
>
> Spoke tension causes a circumferential force, load/impact a radial
> force, they are orthogonal.

But the spokes are pulling radially so isn't that also a radial force?

> The stress from spoke tension is the circumferential force divided by
> the rim cross section area, nominally estimated to be <1/4 of yield.

Now I'm lost. How do you get that estimate?

>> That extra ~1mm could bring it to yield if
>> it has enough precompression.
>
> Theoretically, but if you consider it would require ~4x nominal spoke
> tension to get that rim compression, that would be very difficult. Worst
> case, that would only give a conceivable maximum 1mm yield.

Not sure what you mean by ~4x nominal spoke tension.

But anyway, if the rim is flimsy enough that 1500N spoke tension brings
it right up to yield, then yes, there is a maximum ~1mm deep
deformation.

>> And ~1mm is not an upper bound. It's an estimate based on an FEA of a
>> particular rim. In particular the tyre wasn't simulated-- Ian says:
>
> Again, the actual deflection before the spoke goes slack is easily
> determined from the spoke elasticity, that's all you need to know. The
> actual number for a thin spoke at 100kgf is 0.75mm, more tension means
> more deflection (linear), thicker spokes mean less, 1mm is a
> conservative estimate. You don't need the FEA.

Yes, I figured that out eventually.

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-07, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-11-07, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The most a rim can deform before spokes slack is ~1mm. That's not enough
>>>> to permanently deform.
>>> That ~1mm is the _change in deformation_, not the total deformation. The
>>> rim is already precompressed.
>> Spoke tension causes a circumferential force, load/impact a radial
>> force, they are orthogonal.
>
> But the spokes are pulling radially so isn't that also a radial force?

Yes, but (locally) when the spoke goes slake, that component is gone.


>> The stress from spoke tension is the circumferential force divided by
>> the rim cross section area, nominally estimated to be <1/4 of yield.
>
> Now I'm lost. How do you get that estimate?

From Jobst's book -- it gives the circumferential force. Stress is
force/area, so it's easy (if you have the cross section area) to compute
the stress (which is uniform across the cross section).


>>> That extra ~1mm could bring it to yield if
>>> it has enough precompression.
>> Theoretically, but if you consider it would require ~4x nominal spoke
>> tension to get that rim compression, that would be very difficult. Worst
>> case, that would only give a conceivable maximum 1mm yield.
>
> Not sure what you mean by ~4x nominal spoke tension.

If you calculate the stress from rim compression, you get somewhere
around 70MPa, about 1/4 yield, you'd have to increase the spoke tension
4x to bring the cross section into the region of yield (but the spokes
would snap, and/or the rim would buckle long before that).


> But anyway, if the rim is flimsy enough that 1500N spoke tension brings
> it right up to yield, then yes, there is a maximum ~1mm deep
> deformation.

No rim is that flimsy, not even the old school ones.


>
>>> And ~1mm is not an upper bound. It's an estimate based on an FEA of a
>>> particular rim. In particular the tyre wasn't simulated-- Ian says:
>> Again, the actual deflection before the spoke goes slack is easily
>> determined from the spoke elasticity, that's all you need to know. The
>> actual number for a thin spoke at 100kgf is 0.75mm, more tension means
>> more deflection (linear), thicker spokes mean less, 1mm is a
>> conservative estimate. You don't need the FEA.
>
> Yes, I figured that out eventually.

Keep going.

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-07, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-11-07, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The most a rim can deform before spokes slack is ~1mm. That's not enough
>>>> to permanently deform.
>>> That ~1mm is the _change in deformation_, not the total deformation. The
>>> rim is already precompressed.
>> Spoke tension causes a circumferential force, load/impact a radial
>> force, they are orthogonal.
>
> But the spokes are pulling radially so isn't that also a radial force?

Yes, but (locally) when the spoke goes slake, that component is gone.


>> The stress from spoke tension is the circumferential force divided by
>> the rim cross section area, nominally estimated to be <1/4 of yield.
>
> Now I'm lost. How do you get that estimate?

From Jobst's book -- it gives the circumferential force. Stress is
force/area, so it's easy (if you have the cross section area) to compute
the stress (which is uniform across the cross section).


>>> That extra ~1mm could bring it to yield if
>>> it has enough precompression.
>> Theoretically, but if you consider it would require ~4x nominal spoke
>> tension to get that rim compression, that would be very difficult. Worst
>> case, that would only give a conceivable maximum 1mm yield.
>
> Not sure what you mean by ~4x nominal spoke tension.

If you calculate the stress from rim compression, you get somewhere
around 70MPa, about 1/4 yield, you'd have to increase the spoke tension
4x to bring the cross section into the region of yield (but the spokes
would snap, and/or the rim would buckle long before that).


> But anyway, if the rim is flimsy enough that 1500N spoke tension brings
> it right up to yield, then yes, there is a maximum ~1mm deep
> deformation.

No rim is that flimsy, not even the old school ones.


>
>>> And ~1mm is not an upper bound. It's an estimate based on an FEA of a
>>> particular rim. In particular the tyre wasn't simulated-- Ian says:
>> Again, the actual deflection before the spoke goes slack is easily
>> determined from the spoke elasticity, that's all you need to know. The
>> actual number for a thin spoke at 100kgf is 0.75mm, more tension means
>> more deflection (linear), thicker spokes mean less, 1mm is a
>> conservative estimate. You don't need the FEA.
>
> Yes, I figured that out eventually.

Keep going.