J
jim beam
Guest
Tom Sherman wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water vapor
>>>>>>>> in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be attracted
>>>>>>> to the surface?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube,
>>>>>> lightweight?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>
>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>
>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats an
>>>> afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>>
>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>
>> so go there then!!!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>
>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>
>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>
>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just **** and moan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your
>>>>>>> fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and you just **** and moan.
>>>>>
>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know what
>>>> they're doing and who won't put their money where their lazy-ass
>>>> mouth is.
>>>
>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>
>>
>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>
> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
>
that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding yourself,
maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/ "evidence" of
wheel strength?
ball's in your court. lightweight.
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water vapor
>>>>>>>> in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be attracted
>>>>>>> to the surface?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube,
>>>>>> lightweight?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>
>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>
>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats an
>>>> afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>>
>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>
>> so go there then!!!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>
>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>
>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>
>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just **** and moan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your
>>>>>>> fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and you just **** and moan.
>>>>>
>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know what
>>>> they're doing and who won't put their money where their lazy-ass
>>>> mouth is.
>>>
>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>
>>
>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>
> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
>
that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding yourself,
maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/ "evidence" of
wheel strength?
ball's in your court. lightweight.
