T
Tom Sherman
Guest
"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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than
>>>>>> yourself, "jim"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.
>>>>
>>>> Yes you do. You complain that Jobst Brandt did not perform a
>>>> realistic test because he loaded the wheel with a torque concentric
>>>> to the axle, but then you claim your static test of a wheel with
>>>> missing spokes proves that those spokes are not needed to make the
>>>> wheel functional.
>>>
>>> again, you're putting false words in my mouth.
>>
>> So you admit your missing spokes static test does NOT prove the wheel
>> is functional?
>
> i said it supports load and will ride. you trying to misconstrue that
> as "functional" is ********.
Hardly the way it was presented? And if so, why does "jim" wait until
now to mention it?
>>> 1. the pic is necessarily static because of the tensiometer. [duh]
>>> 2. it really doesn't matter /what/ the orientation is to evidence
>>> that this wheel supports load, but the orientation shown is the worst
>>> possible.
>>> 3. that wheel is clearly not "functional". as i've stated before,
>>> you wouldn't ride that wheel regularly - it's obviously hard to true,
>>> the spokes make a heck of a racket, and things will just get worse as
>>> the spoke nipples unscrew themselves. BUT, it supports weight, and
>>> will ride - should you be so inclined.
>>>
>>> and
>>> 4. most importantly, it doesn't "collapse" because some spokes are
>>> missing and the others slack!!!
>>
>> Where is the proof of item 3? Do we take the word of a sock puppet as
>> gospel?
>
> this tom, is where your engineering prowess comes into play. you want
> to prove me wrong, you go do this to your own wheel.
Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove a
sock puppet's point?
>>>>> ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test
>>>>> your own wheel and try to prove me wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Why should I do your work for you?
>>>
>>> not my work, lightweight, /your/ work. you specify the tests you
>>> want, you go test them.
>>
>> Double standard for Jobst Brandt - he needs to load the wheel
>> according to actual riding conditions, while "jim beam" does not.
>> Sheeesh!
>
> get your facts straight. i address "collapse", not long term
> serviceability [obviously], and am drawing "collapse" conclusions
> accordingly. jobst is addressing combination loading with single load
> orientation - and drawing combination loading conclusions. if i were
> trying to draw fatigue conclusions from a static load, that would be a
> different matter, but i'm not, so don't make false accusations.
So all you are trying to prove is a wheel with missing spokes will
support static loads? How useful!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than
>>>>>> yourself, "jim"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.
>>>>
>>>> Yes you do. You complain that Jobst Brandt did not perform a
>>>> realistic test because he loaded the wheel with a torque concentric
>>>> to the axle, but then you claim your static test of a wheel with
>>>> missing spokes proves that those spokes are not needed to make the
>>>> wheel functional.
>>>
>>> again, you're putting false words in my mouth.
>>
>> So you admit your missing spokes static test does NOT prove the wheel
>> is functional?
>
> i said it supports load and will ride. you trying to misconstrue that
> as "functional" is ********.
Hardly the way it was presented? And if so, why does "jim" wait until
now to mention it?
>>> 1. the pic is necessarily static because of the tensiometer. [duh]
>>> 2. it really doesn't matter /what/ the orientation is to evidence
>>> that this wheel supports load, but the orientation shown is the worst
>>> possible.
>>> 3. that wheel is clearly not "functional". as i've stated before,
>>> you wouldn't ride that wheel regularly - it's obviously hard to true,
>>> the spokes make a heck of a racket, and things will just get worse as
>>> the spoke nipples unscrew themselves. BUT, it supports weight, and
>>> will ride - should you be so inclined.
>>>
>>> and
>>> 4. most importantly, it doesn't "collapse" because some spokes are
>>> missing and the others slack!!!
>>
>> Where is the proof of item 3? Do we take the word of a sock puppet as
>> gospel?
>
> this tom, is where your engineering prowess comes into play. you want
> to prove me wrong, you go do this to your own wheel.
Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove a
sock puppet's point?
>>>>> ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test
>>>>> your own wheel and try to prove me wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Why should I do your work for you?
>>>
>>> not my work, lightweight, /your/ work. you specify the tests you
>>> want, you go test them.
>>
>> Double standard for Jobst Brandt - he needs to load the wheel
>> according to actual riding conditions, while "jim beam" does not.
>> Sheeesh!
>
> get your facts straight. i address "collapse", not long term
> serviceability [obviously], and am drawing "collapse" conclusions
> accordingly. jobst is addressing combination loading with single load
> orientation - and drawing combination loading conclusions. if i were
> trying to draw fatigue conclusions from a static load, that would be a
> different matter, but i'm not, so don't make false accusations.
So all you are trying to prove is a wheel with missing spokes will
support static loads? How useful!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
