Joe Riel wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>
>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders
>>>>> of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>
>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>
>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>
>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>
> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some proportion
> the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its much greater
> bulk modulus?
>
>>>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not
>>>>> possible to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid
>>>>> "spring" in the shock will be affected.
>>>>
>>>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>>>
>>> Lots of things can be and are tested.
>>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> Feel free to ford all streams and rivers then.
so, when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
>>> But feel free to live out in the forest if you do not believe so.
>>
>> more civil engineering wisdom?
>
> If you want to avoid structures that have not been destructively tested,
> there is little choice but to live out in the open. I suppose you could
> buy a series of small prefabricated sheds and test them to destruction
> with wind, snow and earthquake loads.
>
feel free to test a nice convenient little wheel tom. then we'll know
you're serious, not just bleating to relieve your own boredom.
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>
>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders
>>>>> of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>
>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>
>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>
>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>
> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some proportion
> the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its much greater
> bulk modulus?
>
>>>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not
>>>>> possible to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid
>>>>> "spring" in the shock will be affected.
>>>>
>>>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>>>
>>> Lots of things can be and are tested.
>>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> Feel free to ford all streams and rivers then.
so, when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
>>> But feel free to live out in the forest if you do not believe so.
>>
>> more civil engineering wisdom?
>
> If you want to avoid structures that have not been destructively tested,
> there is little choice but to live out in the open. I suppose you could
> buy a series of small prefabricated sheds and test them to destruction
> with wind, snow and earthquake loads.
>
feel free to test a nice convenient little wheel tom. then we'll know
you're serious, not just bleating to relieve your own boredom.
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>
>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders
>>>>> of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>
>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>
>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>
>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>
> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some proportion
> the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its much greater
> bulk modulus?
missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried nitrogen. but since i
don't have any, and i'll take normal air.
btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to **** and
moan? [rhetorical]
>
>>>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not
>>>>> possible to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid
>>>>> "spring" in the shock will be affected.
>>>>
>>>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>>>
>>> Lots of things can be and are tested.
>>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> Feel free to ford all streams and rivers then.
>
>>> But feel free to live out in the forest if you do not believe so.
>>
>> more civil engineering wisdom?
>
> If you want to avoid structures that have not been destructively tested,
> there is little choice but to live out in the open. I suppose you could
> buy a series of small prefabricated sheds and test them to destruction
> with wind, snow and earthquake loads.
>
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>
>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders
>>>>> of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>
>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>
>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>
>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>
> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some proportion
> the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its much greater
> bulk modulus?
missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried nitrogen. but since i
don't have any, and i'll take normal air.
btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to **** and
moan? [rhetorical]
>
>>>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not
>>>>> possible to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid
>>>>> "spring" in the shock will be affected.
>>>>
>>>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>>>
>>> Lots of things can be and are tested.
>>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> Feel free to ford all streams and rivers then.
>
>>> But feel free to live out in the forest if you do not believe so.
>>
>> more civil engineering wisdom?
>
> If you want to avoid structures that have not been destructively tested,
> there is little choice but to live out in the open. I suppose you could
> buy a series of small prefabricated sheds and test them to destruction
> with wind, snow and earthquake loads.
>
"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:
>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four
>>>>>> orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>
>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>>
>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>>
>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>
>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
>> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some
>> proportion the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its
>> much greater bulk modulus?
>>
>>>>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not
>>>>>> possible to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid
>>>>>> "spring" in the shock will be affected.
>>>>>
>>>>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't
>>>>> test.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of things can be and are tested.
>>>
>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>
>> Feel free to ford all streams and rivers then.
>
> so, when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
Come up with a few hundred millions dollars, and we can have that
arranged. In the meanwhile, buy extra grease - submerging your bearing
while fording is hard on them.
>>>> But feel free to live out in the forest if you do not believe so.
>>>
>>> more civil engineering wisdom?
>>
>> If you want to avoid structures that have not been destructively
>> tested, there is little choice but to live out in the open. I suppose
>> you could buy a series of small prefabricated sheds and test them to
>> destruction with wind, snow and earthquake loads.
>>
>
> feel free to test a nice convenient little wheel tom. then we'll know
> you're serious, not just bleating to relieve your own boredom.
Why should I do YOUR work for you, "jim"?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
"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:
>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four
>>>>>> orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>
>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>>
>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>>
>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>
>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
>> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some
>> proportion the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its
>> much greater bulk modulus?
>>
>>>>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not
>>>>>> possible to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid
>>>>>> "spring" in the shock will be affected.
>>>>>
>>>>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't
>>>>> test.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of things can be and are tested.
>>>
>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>
>> Feel free to ford all streams and rivers then.
>
> so, when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
Come up with a few hundred millions dollars, and we can have that
arranged. In the meanwhile, buy extra grease - submerging your bearing
while fording is hard on them.
>>>> But feel free to live out in the forest if you do not believe so.
>>>
>>> more civil engineering wisdom?
>>
>> If you want to avoid structures that have not been destructively
>> tested, there is little choice but to live out in the open. I suppose
>> you could buy a series of small prefabricated sheds and test them to
>> destruction with wind, snow and earthquake loads.
>>
>
> feel free to test a nice convenient little wheel tom. then we'll know
> you're serious, not just bleating to relieve your own boredom.
Why should I do YOUR work for you, "jim"?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
"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:
>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four
>>>>>> orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>
>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>>
>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>>
>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>
>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
>> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some
>> proportion the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its
>> much greater bulk modulus?
>
> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried nitrogen. but since i
> don't have any, and i'll take normal air.
So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so significant as
to make it worth your while to go to the welding supply shop for a tank
of compressed nitrogen? Despite water having a bulk modulus four orders
of magnitude greater than air? So relative proportions do matter?
> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to **** and
> moan? [rhetorical]
Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
"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:
>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four
>>>>>> orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>
>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>>
>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>>
>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>
>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
>> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some
>> proportion the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its
>> much greater bulk modulus?
>
> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried nitrogen. but since i
> don't have any, and i'll take normal air.
So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so significant as
to make it worth your while to go to the welding supply shop for a tank
of compressed nitrogen? Despite water having a bulk modulus four orders
of magnitude greater than air? So relative proportions do matter?
> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to **** and
> moan? [rhetorical]
Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
"jim beam" wrote:
> Joe Riel wrote:
>> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>
>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>
>
> lol!
So the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge is still standing? Did it fail
from excess static loading?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
"jim beam" wrote:
> Joe Riel wrote:
>> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>
>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>
>
> lol!
So the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge is still standing? Did it fail
from excess static loading?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
Joe Riel wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>
butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma Narrows
Bridge".
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
Joe Riel wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>
butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma Narrows
Bridge".
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> Joe Riel wrote:
>> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>
>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>
> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
> Narrows Bridge".
TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
my comment applies to.
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> Joe Riel wrote:
>> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>
>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>
> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
> Narrows Bridge".
TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
my comment applies to.
Joe Riel wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>>
>> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
>> Narrows Bridge".
>
> TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
> when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
> I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
> my comment applies to.
>
I had to apply clarification for some of the regulars who would
otherwise miss the point.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
Joe Riel wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>>
>> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
>> Narrows Bridge".
>
> TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
> when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
> I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
> my comment applies to.
>
I had to apply clarification for some of the regulars who would
otherwise miss the point.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
On Nov 4, 11:57 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > "jim beam" wrote:
> >> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>> meb wrote:
> >>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a
> >>>>>>> high
> >>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock
> >>>>>>> to 160
> >>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
> >>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
> >>>>>>> uncoupled
> >>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
> >>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
> >>>>>>> AD-5?
>
> >>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
> >>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>
> >>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>
> >>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but with
> >>>>> the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>
> >>>> grow up.
>
> >>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
> >>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>
> >>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
> >>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the cold
> >>>>>> season.
>
> >>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>
> >>>> and compared to air, that is....
>
> >>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
> >>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa
> >>> (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders of
> >>> magnitude lower than water.
>
> >> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
> >> nothing to see here.
>
> > The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>
> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>
>
>
> >>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not possible
> >>> to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid "spring" in
> >>> the shock will be affected.
>
> >> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>
> > Lots of things can be and are tested.
>
> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
At 6:05 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_Bridge
> > But feel free to live out in the
> > forest if you do not believe so.
>
> more civil engineering wisdom?
On Nov 4, 11:57 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > "jim beam" wrote:
> >> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>> meb wrote:
> >>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a
> >>>>>>> high
> >>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock
> >>>>>>> to 160
> >>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
> >>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
> >>>>>>> uncoupled
> >>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
> >>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
> >>>>>>> AD-5?
>
> >>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
> >>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>
> >>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>
> >>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but with
> >>>>> the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>
> >>>> grow up.
>
> >>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
> >>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>
> >>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
> >>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the cold
> >>>>>> season.
>
> >>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>
> >>>> and compared to air, that is....
>
> >>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
> >>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa
> >>> (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders of
> >>> magnitude lower than water.
>
> >> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
> >> nothing to see here.
>
> > The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>
> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>
>
>
> >>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not possible
> >>> to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid "spring" in
> >>> the shock will be affected.
>
> >> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>
> > Lots of things can be and are tested.
>
> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
At 6:05 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_Bridge
> > But feel free to live out in the
> > forest if you do not believe so.
>
> more civil engineering wisdom?
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Joe Riel wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>>>
>>> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
>>> Narrows Bridge".
>>
>> TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
>> when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
>> I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
>> my comment applies to.
>>
> I had to apply clarification for some of the regulars who would
> otherwise miss the point.
>
