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.
>
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "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?
>
is it still standing because it was designed by a civil engineer?
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "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?
>
is it still standing because it was designed by a civil engineer?
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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>
>> 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.
>
so, you're just here to **** and moan. very intelligent.
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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>
>> 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.
>
so, you're just here to **** and moan. very intelligent.
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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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"?
>
it's your experiment from now on, lightweight. i look forward to your
results. baaaa.
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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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"?
>
it's your experiment from now on, lightweight. i look forward to your
results. baaaa.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> 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.
You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> 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.
You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.
"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:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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"?
>>
>
> it's your experiment from now on, lightweight. i look forward to your
> results. baaaa.
>
Why does "jim beam" claim a result, but refuse to do the proper tests to
prove it?
--
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:
>>>>>>>>> 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"?
>>
>
> it's your experiment from now on, lightweight. i look forward to your
> results. baaaa.
>
Why does "jim beam" claim a result, but refuse to do the proper tests to
prove it?
--
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:
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>
> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced into the shock
may condense into liquid water at some point, no?
>>> 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.
>>
>
> so, you're just here to **** and moan. very intelligent.
This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst Brandt on
Usenet for some time.
--
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:
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>
> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced into the shock
may condense into liquid water at some point, no?
>>> 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.
>>
>
> so, you're just here to **** and moan. very intelligent.
This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst Brandt on
Usenet for some time.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "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?
>>
>
> is it still standing because it was designed by a civil engineer?
Would the metallurgist even have a clue on how to go about designing a
bridge? Would they spend twice the funds to destructively test every
bridge built, then rebuild it?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "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?
>>
>
> is it still standing because it was designed by a civil engineer?
Would the metallurgist even have a clue on how to go about designing a
bridge? Would they spend twice the funds to destructively test every
bridge built, then rebuild it?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> 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.
>
> You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
> Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.
Certain people have made things clear in their posts - unless of course
they are constantly playing the fool.
Note the word "some" is not the same as "all".
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> 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.
>
> You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
> Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.
Certain people have made things clear in their posts - unless of course
they are constantly playing the fool.
Note the word "some" is not the same as "all".
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> 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.
> >
> > You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
> > Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.
>
> Certain people have made things clear in their posts - unless of course
> they are constantly playing the fool.
>
> Note the word "some" is not the same as "all".
Then you can name names.
Whom exactly are you calling
too dull to catch the joke?
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> 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.
> >
> > You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
> > Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.
>
> Certain people have made things clear in their posts - unless of course
> they are constantly playing the fool.
>
> Note the word "some" is not the same as "all".
Then you can name names.
Whom exactly are you calling
too dull to catch the joke?
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> 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.
>>> You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
>>> Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.
>> Certain people have made things clear in their posts - unless of course
>> they are constantly playing the fool.
>>
>> Note the word "some" is not the same as "all".
>
> Then you can name names.
> Whom exactly are you calling
> too dull to catch the joke?
>
I would not want to embarrass anyone by naming names.
Don't get your cycling shorts in a knot, Mr. Press, I was not referring
to you.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
