Spoke tension Question

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote: <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>
>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>
>>
>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>> me wrong.
>
> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.

Why?" Because "jim beam" doesn't understand scientific method or basic
logic, Tom. He is of the belief that facts don't matter, it's the
loudest opinion that wins the day.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote: <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>
>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>
>>
>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>> me wrong.
>
> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.

Why?" Because "jim beam" doesn't understand scientific method or basic
logic, Tom. He is of the belief that facts don't matter, it's the
loudest opinion that wins the day.

 

[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:
>>>>>>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my bit.
>>>>>>>> bye.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and do
>>>>>> your own research big guy. you have the components. put your
>>>>>> money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove me
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>>
>>
>> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do your
>> own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept for you
>> civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your own product.]
>
> Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel with
> missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An engineer
> would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make such an assumption.
>

do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.

 

[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:
>>>>>>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my bit.
>>>>>>>> bye.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and do
>>>>>> your own research big guy. you have the components. put your
>>>>>> money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove me
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>>
>>
>> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do your
>> own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept for you
>> civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your own product.]
>
> Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel with
> missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An engineer
> would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make such an assumption.
>

do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.

 

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote: <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>
>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>
>>>
>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>>> me wrong.
>>
>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>
> Why?" Because "jim beam" doesn't understand scientific method or basic
> logic, Tom. He is of the belief that facts don't matter, it's the
> loudest opinion that wins the day.

says timmy the retard!

 

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote: <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>
>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>
>>>
>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>>> me wrong.
>>
>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>
> Why?" Because "jim beam" doesn't understand scientific method or basic
> logic, Tom. He is of the belief that facts don't matter, it's the
> loudest opinion that wins the day.

says timmy the retard!

 

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>
>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my bit. bye.
>>
>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can support a
>> static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>
> "jim" can't be bothered to push his "proof" further because he knows
> riding that wheel could disprove. It's as simple as that. He's not
> interested in actually being right, only in "winning" the argument.

says timmy the retard. it's /so/ much easier to sit about throwing
stones than to get off your lardy ass and prove me wrong, isn't it.

 

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>
>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my bit. bye.
>>
>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can support a
>> static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>
> "jim" can't be bothered to push his "proof" further because he knows
> riding that wheel could disprove. It's as simple as that. He's not
> interested in actually being right, only in "winning" the argument.

says timmy the retard. it's /so/ much easier to sit about throwing
stones than to get off your lardy ass and prove me wrong, isn't it.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote: <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>
>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>
>>>
>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>>> me wrong.
>>
>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>
> Why?" Because "jim beam" doesn't understand scientific method or basic
> logic, Tom. He is of the belief that facts don't matter, it's the
> loudest opinion that wins the day.

Well, at least Andres Muro finds that entertaining.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote: <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>
>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>
>>>
>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>>> me wrong.
>>
>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>
> Why?" Because "jim beam" doesn't understand scientific method or basic
> logic, Tom. He is of the belief that facts don't matter, it's the
> loudest opinion that wins the day.

Well, at least Andres Muro finds that entertaining.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[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:
>>>>>>>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my bit.
>>>>>>>>> bye.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put your
>>>>>>> money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>>>>> me wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>>>
>>>
>>> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do
>>> your own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept for
>>> you civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your own
>>> product.]
>>
>> Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel with
>> missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An
>> engineer would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make such
>> an assumption.
>>
>
> do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.

No, prove yourself right.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[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:
>>>>>>>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my bit.
>>>>>>>>> bye.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put your
>>>>>>> money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>>>>> me wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>>>
>>>
>>> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do
>>> your own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept for
>>> you civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your own
>>> product.]
>>
>> Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel with
>> missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An
>> engineer would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make such
>> an assumption.
>>
>
> do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.

No, prove yourself right.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote: <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>>>> me wrong.
>>>
>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>
>> Why?" Because "jim beam" doesn't understand scientific method or
>> basic logic, Tom. He is of the belief that facts don't matter, it's
>> the loudest opinion that wins the day.
>
> says timmy the retard!

Now that is a snappy comeback - NOT!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote: <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove
>>>> me wrong.
>>>
>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>
>> Why?" Because "jim beam" doesn't understand scientific method or
>> basic logic, Tom. He is of the belief that facts don't matter, it's
>> the loudest opinion that wins the day.
>
> says timmy the retard!

Now that is a snappy comeback - NOT!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[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:
>>>>>>>>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>>>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that
>>>>>> screen where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to
>>>>>> prove me wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do
>>>> your own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept for
>>>> you civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your own
>>>> product.]
>>>
>>> Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel with
>>> missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An
>>> engineer would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make such
>>> an assumption.
>>>
>>
>> do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.
>
> No, prove yourself right.
>
i did. your contention is that i'm wrong. prove 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:
>>>>>>>>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>>>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that
>>>>>> screen where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to
>>>>>> prove me wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do
>>>> your own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept for
>>>> you civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your own
>>>> product.]
>>>
>>> Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel with
>>> missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An
>>> engineer would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make such
>>> an assumption.
>>>
>>
>> do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.
>
> No, prove yourself right.
>
i did. your contention is that i'm wrong. prove it.

 

[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:
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>>>>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>>>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that
>>>>>>> screen where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try
>>>>>>> to prove me wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>>>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do
>>>>> your own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept
>>>>> for you civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your
>>>>> own product.]
>>>>
>>>> Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel with
>>>> missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An
>>>> engineer would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make
>>>> such an assumption.
>>>>
>>>
>>> do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.
>>
>> No, prove yourself right.
>>
> i did. your contention is that i'm wrong. prove it.

Where did you prove the wheel will handle the normal dynamic loads
produced when riding?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[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:
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and
>>>>>>>>> do your own research big guy. you have the components. put
>>>>>>>>> your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his
>>>>>>>> own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that
>>>>>>> screen where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try
>>>>>>> to prove me wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>>>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do
>>>>> your own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept
>>>>> for you civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your
>>>>> own product.]
>>>>
>>>> Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel with
>>>> missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An
>>>> engineer would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make
>>>> such an assumption.
>>>>
>>>
>>> do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.
>>
>> No, prove yourself right.
>>
> i did. your contention is that i'm wrong. prove it.

Where did you prove the wheel will handle the normal dynamic loads
produced when riding?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[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:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead
>>>>>>>>>> and do your own research big guy. you have the components.
>>>>>>>>>> put your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove
>>>>>>>>> his own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that
>>>>>>>> screen where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try
>>>>>>>> to prove me wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>>>>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do
>>>>>> your own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept
>>>>>> for you civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your
>>>>>> own product.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel
>>>>> with missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An
>>>>> engineer would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make
>>>>> such an assumption.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.
>>>
>>> No, prove yourself right.
>>>
>> i did. your contention is that i'm wrong. prove it.
>
> Where did you prove the wheel will handle the normal dynamic loads
> produced when riding?
>
where did you prove it didn't? lightweight. do your own testing.

 

[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:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my
>>>>>>>>>>>> bit. bye.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can
>>>>>>>>>>> support a static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead
>>>>>>>>>> and do your own research big guy. you have the components.
>>>>>>>>>> put your money where your [bored and useless] mouth is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove
>>>>>>>>> his own contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that
>>>>>>>> screen where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try
>>>>>>>> to prove me wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous
>>>>>>> missing spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do
>>>>>> your own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept
>>>>>> for you civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your
>>>>>> own product.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel
>>>>> with missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An
>>>>> engineer would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make
>>>>> such an assumption.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.
>>>
>>> No, prove yourself right.
>>>
>> i did. your contention is that i'm wrong. prove it.
>
> Where did you prove the wheel will handle the normal dynamic loads
> produced when riding?
>
where did you prove it didn't? lightweight. do your own testing.