ever wonder what the tape is doing ?
datakoll
Jobst Brandt
http://www.texturetechnologies.com/adhesives_papers.html
As I suspected Johannes van der Waal is not mentioned in any of those
web sites. Why things stick is a mystery to engineers in that field.
That's why we can't get a tire patch to stick either. The patch folks
don't know what makes things stick.
Jobst Brandt
Michael Press
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@sonic.net> wrote:
Consider two (neutral) atoms. The electron in one
attracts the nucleus of the other, and repels the
electrons of the other. This mutual interaction gives
each atom a dipole moment. Electric dipoles experience
an attractive force in non-homogenous electric fields.
--
Michael Press
Joe
<rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I'm _considering_, but does the above explain why a patch sticks, or does
not stick?
--- Joe
Phil H
> In article <rubrum-496373.12160222122...@news.albasani.net>, Michael Press
>
>
>
>
>
> <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article <4b30258b$0$1628$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> > Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.texturetechnologies.com/adhesives_papers.html
>
> > > As I suspected Johannes van der Waal is not mentioned in any of those
> > > web sites. Why things stick is a mystery to engineers in that field.
> > > That's why we can't get a tire patch to stick either. The patch folks
> > > don't know what makes things stick.
>
> > Consider two (neutral) atoms. The electron in one
> > attracts the nucleus of the other, and repels the
> > electrons of the other. This mutual interaction gives
> > each atom a dipole moment. Electric dipoles experience
> > an attractive force in non-homogenous electric fields.
>
> I'm _considering_, but does the above explain why a patch sticks, or does
> not stick?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, but there is a little more involved in the process. Getting
enough atoms close enough to each other is an important part of the s(t
(r)ick).
Phil H
Michael Press
<none-22120...@dialup-4.231.168.43.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net>
,
no...@given.now (Joe) wrote:
How well it sticks, how well it stays stuck is where
art begins to matter. That a patch sticks at all is
hard science.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<c4ef8180-63dc-4f64...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Phil H <phol...@gmail.com> wrote:
Liquids.
--
Michael Press
Jobst Brandt
http://www.texturetechnologies.com/adhesives_papers.html
>>>> As I suspected Johannes van der Waal is not mentioned in any of
>>>> those web sites. Why things stick is a mystery to engineers in
>>>> that field. That's why we can't get a tire patch to stick
>>>> either. The patch folks don't know what makes things stick.
>>> Consider two (neutral) atoms. The electron in one attracts the
>>> nucleus of the other, and repels the electrons of the other. This
>>> mutual interaction gives each atom a dipole moment. Electric
>>> dipoles experience an attractive force in non-homogeneous electric
>>> fields.
>> I'm _considering_, but does the above explain why a patch sticks,
>> or does not stick?
> How well it sticks, how well it stays stuck is where art begins to
> matter. That a patch sticks at all is hard science.
Unfortunately that is what "common knowledge" tells us but it ain't
so. van der Waal had a hard time explaining it in his day but today
we have better physicists and know what causes adhesion... except for
some folks in the bicycle industry among others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
http://www.huwu.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1910/waals-bio.html
In essence, their retort is: "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me
with facts!" I sensed that with the REMA patch man at InterBike when
he explained how to make a patch stick in contrast to the explanation
I had given him and proved by pulling off his patch when he claimed it
was permanently in place.
It's a common human foible. Just consider the book "the Bicycle
Wheel" and the retorts it receives because it analyzes the workings of
spoked wheels that are different from what "common knowledge" claims.
Jobst Brandt
Michael Press
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> http://www.texturetechnologies.com/adhesives_papers.html
>
> >>>> As I suspected Johannes van der Waal is not mentioned in any of
> >>>> those web sites. Why things stick is a mystery to engineers in
> >>>> that field. That's why we can't get a tire patch to stick
> >>>> either. The patch folks don't know what makes things stick.
>
> >>> Consider two (neutral) atoms. The electron in one attracts the
> >>> nucleus of the other, and repels the electrons of the other. This
> >>> mutual interaction gives each atom a dipole moment. Electric
> >>> dipoles experience an attractive force in non-homogeneous electric
> >>> fields.
>
> >> I'm _considering_, but does the above explain why a patch sticks,
> >> or does not stick?
>
> > How well it sticks, how well it stays stuck is where art begins to
> > matter. That a patch sticks at all is hard science.
>
> Unfortunately that is what "common knowledge" tells us but it ain't
> so.
What is it you are saying is common knowledge but is not so?
> van der Waal had a hard time explaining it in his day but today
> we have better physicists and know what causes adhesion... except for
> some folks in the bicycle industry among others.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
> http://www.huwu.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1910/waals-bio.html
[...]
--
Michael Press
Ozark Bicycle
[...]
> Just consider the book "the Bicycle
> Wheel" and the retorts it receives
Poor Jobst Brandt! He's suffering from Adulation Deficit Disorder
(IOW, no one is telling him how great he is). C'mon folks, step up and
give ol' Jobst a few 'attaboys', lest he tear his rotator cuff as he
reaches around to pat himself on the back.
Tim McNamara
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <none-22120...@dialup-4.231.168.43.dial1.losangeles1.level3.ne
Tim McNamara
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <c4ef8180-63dc-4f64...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> Phil H <phol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 11:01锟絧m, n...@given.now (Joe) wrote:
> > > In article <rubrum-496373.12160222122...@news.albasani.net>,
> > > Michael Press
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <4b30258b$0$1628$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, 锟絁obst
> > > > Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 锟絟ttp://www.texturetechnologies.com/adhesives_papers.html
> > >
> > > > > As I suspected Johannes van der Waal is not mentioned in any
> > > > > of those web sites. 锟絎hy things stick is a mystery to
> > > > > engineers in that field. That's why we can't get a tire patch
> > > > > to stick either. 锟絋he patch folks don't know what makes
> > > > > things stick.
> > >
> > > > Consider two (neutral) atoms. The electron in one attracts the
> > > > nucleus of the other, and repels the electrons of the other.
> > > > This mutual interaction gives each atom a dipole moment.
> > > > Electric dipoles experience an attractive 锟絝orce in
> > > > non-homogenous electric fields.
> > >
> > > I'm _considering_, but does the above explain why a patch sticks,
> > > or does not stick?
> > >
> > > --- 锟絁oe- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Yes, but there is a little more involved in the process. Getting
> > enough atoms close enough to each other is an important part of the
> > s(t (r)ick).
>
> Liquids.
Cohesive versus adhesive forces.
Michael Press
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <rubrum-F0B797....@news.albasani.net>,
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <c4ef8180-63dc-4f64...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> > Phil H <phol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 22, 11:01 pm, n...@given.now (Joe) wrote:
> > > > In article <rubrum-496373.12160222122...@news.albasani.net>,
> > > > Michael Press
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > In article <4b30258b$0$1628$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, Jobst
> > > > > Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > http://www.texturetechnologies.com/adhesives_papers.html
> > > >
> > > > > > As I suspected Johannes van der Waal is not mentioned in any
> > > > > > of those web sites. Why things stick is a mystery to
> > > > > > engineers in that field. That's why we can't get a tire patch
> > > > > > to stick either. The patch folks don't know what makes
> > > > > > things stick.
> > > >
> > > > > Consider two (neutral) atoms. The electron in one attracts the
> > > > > nucleus of the other, and repels the electrons of the other.
> > > > > This mutual interaction gives each atom a dipole moment.
> > > > > Electric dipoles experience an attractive force in
> > > > > non-homogenous electric fields.
> > > >
> > > > I'm _considering_, but does the above explain why a patch sticks,
> > > > or does not stick?
> > > >
> > > > --- Joe- Hide quoted text -
> > > >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > >
> > > Yes, but there is a little more involved in the process. Getting
> > > enough atoms close enough to each other is an important part of the
> > > s(t (r)ick).
> >
> > Liquids.
>
> Cohesive versus adhesive forces.
Hunh?
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
Thumbnail sketch of that site?
--
Michael Press
Jobst Brandt
http://www.texturetechnologies.com/adhesives_papers.html
>>>>> As I suspected Johannes van der Waal is not mentioned in any of
>>>>> those web sites. Why things stick is a mystery to engineers in
>>>>> that field. That's why we can't get a tire patch to stick
>>>>> either. The patch folks don't know what makes things stick.
>>>> Consider two (neutral) atoms. The electron in one attracts the
>>>> nucleus of the other, and repels the electrons of the other.
>>>> This mutual interaction gives each atom a dipole moment.
>>>> Electric dipoles experience an attractive force in
>>>> non-homogeneous electric fields.
>>> I'm _considering_, but does the above explain why a patch sticks,
>>> or does not stick?
>> How well it sticks, how well it stays stuck is where art begins to
>> matter. That a patch sticks at all is hard science.
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/adhesives.html
That isn't even a "Popular Science" quality article. What makes
things stick is van der Waal's forces and these are not known to these
guesstimators.
Jobst Brandt
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jobst,
"One of the main factors is called adsorption. When you spread
adhesive, it wets the surface you apply it to. Lots of very weak
electrostatic forces between the glue molecules and the molecules in
the surface (called van der Waals forces for the physicist Johannes
Diderik van der Waals (1837�1923) who discovered them) hold the two
things together. For adhesives to work well like this, they have to
spread thinly and wet the surfaces very well. There's no actual
chemical bond between the glue and the surface it's sticking to, just
a huge number of tiny attractive forces. The glue molecules stick to
the surface molecules like millions of microscopic magnets."
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/adhesives.html
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Cole
> Unfortunately that is what "common knowledge" tells us but it ain't
> so. van der Waal had a hard time explaining it in his day but today
> we have better physicists and know what causes adhesion... except for
> some folks in the bicycle industry among others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanical_explanation_of_intermolecular_interactions
"Hydrogen bonding, dipole�dipole interactions, and London (Van der
Waals) forces are most naturally accounted for by Rayleigh-Schr�dinger
perturbation theory (RS-PT). In this theory�applied to two monomers A
and B�one uses as unperturbed Hamiltonian the sum of two monomer
Hamiltonians, ..."
{...}
"The early theoretical work on intermolecular forces was invariably
based on RS-PT and its antisymmetrized variants. However, since the
beginning of the 1990s it has become possible to apply standard quantum
chemical methods to pairs of molecules. This approach is referred to as
the supermolecule method. In order to obtain reliable results one must
include electronic correlation in the supermolecule method (without it
dispersion is not accounted for at all), and take care of the basis set
superposition error. This is the effect that the atomic orbital basis of
one molecule improves the basis of the other. Since this improvement is
distance dependent, it easily gives rise to artifacts."
Sounds simple enough. I don't know why bike industry people have such
difficulty.
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
Clean surfaces
Phil H
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Jobst Brandt wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately that is what "common knowledge" tells us but it ain't
> > so. van der Waal had a hard time explaining it in his day but
> > today we have better physicists and know what causes adhesion...
> > except for some folks in the bicycle industry among others.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanical_explanation_of_intermo
> lecular_ interactions
>
> "Hydrogen bonding, dipole�dipole interactions, and London (Van der
> Waals) forces are most naturally accounted for by
> Rayleigh-Schr�dinger perturbation theory (RS-PT). In this
> theory�applied to two monomers A and B�one uses as unperturbed
> Hamiltonian the sum of two monomer Hamiltonians, ..."
>
> {...}
>
> "The early theoretical work on intermolecular forces was invariably
> based on RS-PT and its antisymmetrized variants. However, since the
> beginning of the 1990s it has become possible to apply standard
> quantum chemical methods to pairs of molecules. This approach is
> referred to as the supermolecule method. In order to obtain reliable
> results one must include electronic correlation in the supermolecule
> method (without it dispersion is not accounted for at all), and take
> care of the basis set superposition error. This is the effect that
> the atomic orbital basis of one molecule improves the basis of the
> other. Since this improvement is distance dependent, it easily gives
> rise to artifacts."
>
> Sounds simple enough. I don't know why bike industry people have such
> difficulty.
"All the differences between de-finite conceptual systems and finite,
yet nonconceptual total Universe seem to provide a fundamental means of
identifying the physical phenomenon entropy. Entropy no longer means
inherent -escape of energy from any local system, or decrease of local
order, or increase to disorder. Entropy now means the invisible
extraction from any local definitive system of the negative conceptual
entity; i.e., one negative tetrahedron deposited into Universe. balance
of energy conservation, permitting the local extraction of any visible,
orderly conceptual system. Entropy is not random: it is always one
negative tetrahedron."
Peter Cole
> In article <hhaclq$fl9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Jobst Brandt wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately that is what "common knowledge" tells us but it ain't
>>> so. van der Waal had a hard time explaining it in his day but
>>> today we have better physicists and know what causes adhesion...
>>> except for some folks in the bicycle industry among others.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanical_explanation_of_intermo
>> lecular_ interactions
>>
>> theory�applied to two monomers A and B�one uses as unperturbed
Trevor?