water in Cane Creek AD-5
meb
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?
--
meb
jim beam
i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble. water is essentially
incompressible and can over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and
burst things as we enter the cold season.
Tom Sherman
> 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.
> 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.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
jim beam
> "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.
>
>> 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....
Tom Sherman
> 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.
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.
jim beam
only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks - nothing
to see here.
>
> 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.
Tom Sherman
The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>> 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. But feel free to live out in the
forest if you do not believe so. ;)
jim beam
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?
> But feel free to live out in the
> forest if you do not believe so. ;)
more civil engineering wisdom?
Tom Sherman
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. ;)
>> 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. ;)
Joe Riel
> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
--
Joe [Smart Ass] Riel
jim beam
> jim beam <spamv...@bad.example.net> writes:
>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>
lol!
jim beam
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.
jim beam
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 piss and
moan? [rhetorical]
Tom Sherman
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
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 piss and
> moan? [rhetorical]
Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
Tom Sherman
So the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge is still standing? Did it fail
from excess static loading?
Tom Sherman
> jim beam <spamv...@bad.example.net> writes:
>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>
Bridge".
Joe Riel
> Joe Riel wrote:
>> jim beam <spamv...@bad.example.net> 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 [too subtle?] Riel
Tom Sherman
otherwise miss the point.
mike.a...@gmail.com
jim beam
> Joe Riel wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>>> jim beam <spamv...@bad.example.net> 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.
>
"whoosh"!
jim beam
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>> jim beam <spamv...@bad.example.net> 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?
jim beam
er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>
>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to piss
>> and moan? [rhetorical]
>
> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>
so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
jim beam
it's your experiment from now on, lightweight. i look forward to your
results. baaaa.
Michael Press
Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> Joe Riel wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Joe Riel wrote:
> >>> jim beam <spamv...@bad.example.net> 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.
--
Michael Press
Tom Sherman
prove it?
Tom Sherman
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 piss
>>> and moan? [rhetorical]
>>
>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>
>
> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst Brandt on
Usenet for some time.
Tom Sherman
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
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".
Michael Press
Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <fgl731$opt$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Joe Riel wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Joe Riel wrote:
> >>>>> jim beam <spamv...@bad.example.net> 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
Tom Sherman
Don't get your cycling shorts in a knot, Mr. Press, I was not referring
to you.
jim beam
at what point is that then? you know solubility of water vapor in air
increases with pressure, right?
>
>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to piss
>>>> and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>
>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>
>>
>> so, you're just here to piss 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 piss and moan.
jim beam
because i already have given you a result. your refusal to prove me
wrong otoh, speaks volumes.
Tom Sherman
"jim" has provided us with a result that does not reflect actual riding
conditions, and wants us to accept an extrapolation to those conditions
with no analysis to show that this should be so.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Tom Sherman
Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be attracted to the
surface?
>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to piss
>>>>> and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>
>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>> so, you're just here to piss 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 piss and moan.
That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your fellow
Jobst haters.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
jim beam
<snip crap>
>
> "jim" has provided us with a result that does not reflect actual riding
> conditions, and wants us to accept an extrapolation to those conditions
> with no analysis to show that this should be so.
>
what? like the "analysis" that says that wheels "collapse" as soon as a
spoke goes slack?
you're clutching at straws, lightweight. put you money where your big
bored mouth is. slack spoke a wheel and prove it won't ride. prove me
wrong. pussy.
jim beam
how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube, lightweight?
and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>
>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to
>>>>>> piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> so, you're just here to piss 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 piss and moan.
>
> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your fellow
> Jobst haters.
>
and you just piss and moan.
Tom Sherman
Ooooooooooh, insults!
"jim beam" criticizes Jobst Brandt for testing a wheel in a manner that
does not reflect the actual loads occurring during riding. Then "jim
beam" turns around and performs a test on a wheel that does not reflect
the actual loads occurring during riding, but claims that it is a valid
test. Bloody great mistake or hypocrisy?
Tom Sherman
Fiber optic probe?
> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to
>>>>>>> piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so, you're just here to piss 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 piss and moan.
>>
>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your
>> fellow Jobst haters.
>>
>
> and you just piss and moan.
And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
jim beam
eh? i give you a photo of static because that way, the tensiometer does
not fall off. and it's guaranteed to show the missing spokes at the
bottom where they are not supporting the wheel. but the wheel continues
to rotate and support load. as you'd know IF YOU DID THE FREAKIN'
EXPERIMENT FOR YOUR LAZY-ASS SELF. goddamned lightweight.
jim beam
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?
>
>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>
> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
that is /so/ dumb...
>
>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to
>>>>>>>> piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss 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 piss and moan.
>>>
>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your
>>> fellow Jobst haters.
>>>
>>
>> and you just piss 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.
Tom Sherman
Ooooooh, more insults, but no answer. Why do apply a different criteria
to your tests than to Jobst Brandt's?
Tom Sherman
A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to
>>>>>>>>> piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss 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 piss and moan.
>>>>
>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your
>>>> fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>
>>>
>>> and you just piss 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?
jim beam
er, what's confusing you about me say that jobst's test is not
representative? or are you just pissing and moaning?
jim beam
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
>>>>>>>>>> piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss 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 piss and moan.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your
>>>>> fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and you just piss 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.
Tom Sherman
This is less comprehensible than gene daniels' deliberate mangling of
the English language (and gene is much more entertaining).
Tom Sherman
No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
jim beam
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.
Bill Sornson
Psst... fellas. TRIM YOUR GODDAMNED CRAP!
Gee, thanks.
Tom Sherman
Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than yourself, "jim"?
jim beam
eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.
ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test your
own wheel and try to prove me wrong?
A Muzi
> 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:
Could you 2 guys just get a room? Nobody else much cares at this point
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tom Sherman
Andres Muro has claim in the past to enjoy others arguing with "jim beam".
Tom Sherman
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.
> 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?
jim beam
again, you're putting false words in my mouth.
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!!!
>
>> 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.
Tom Sherman
So you admit your missing spokes static test does NOT prove the wheel is
functional?
> 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?
>>> 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!
jim beam
i said it supports load and will ride. you trying to misconstrue that
as "functional" is bullshit.
>
>> 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.
>
>>>> 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.
Tom Sherman
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!
jim beam
because it's fucking obvious, that's why!
>
>>>> 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?
injury? on a bent? what a joke! reality is, i'm right, you know it,
and you're too damned pussy to put your money where your mouth is to try
proving me wrong. but you're just here to piss and moan, so that's ok.
>
>>>>>> 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!
don't follow arguments well, do you. goddamned lightweight.
Tom Sherman
What does fucking have to do with bicycle wheels? Wait - that answer
belongs on the "sex with a bicycle" thread.
>>>>> 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?
>
> injury? on a bent? what a joke! reality is, i'm right, you know it,
> and you're too damned pussy to put your money where your mouth is to try
> proving me wrong. but you're just here to piss and moan, so that's ok.
Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the one
trying to prove something, not me.
>>>>>>> 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!
>
> don't follow arguments well, do you. goddamned lightweight.
Do not present arguments well, do you?
A Muzi
at this point you two should just get married.
then add one more for 'huit clois'.
Tom Sherman
I have never posted more than 250 times in one thread in an argument
with one person. This is not even coming close to that. ;)
Michael Press
Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove a
> sock puppet's point?
Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
--
Michael Press
jim beam
<snip crap>
>
> trying to prove something, not me.
there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have something
to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth is -
like i already have.
Tom Sherman
You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
load. BFD for the real world.
Tom Sherman
jim beam
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> <snip crap>
>>>
>>> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the one
>>> trying to prove something, not me.
>>
>> there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have something
>> to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth is -
>> like i already have.
>
> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
> load. BFD for the real world.
>
so prove it doesn't work in your little world then! you're the one
bellyaching about it, the little guy that's all hat but no cattle.
jim beam
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3...@registered.motzarella.org>,
>> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove
>>> a sock puppet's point?
>>
>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>
> Most likely.
>
so why don't you do it then?
Tom Sherman
Still trying to get others to do your work for you, "jim"?
jim beam
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3...@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to
>>>>> prove a sock puppet's point?
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>>>
>>> Most likely.
>>>
>>
>> so why don't you do it then?
>
> Still trying to get others to do your work for you, "jim"?
>
eh? how could your failure to do your own experiments /possibly/ be
/my/ attempt to outsource /my/ experiments??? either you got
unbelievable chutzpah, or you're unbelievably stupid!
Tom Sherman
Why does "jim" promote a pointless experiment - what use is a bicycle
wheel with missing spokes that can only support static loads?
Tom Sherman
Why does "jim" keep on insisting I do his/her/its work for him/her/it?
jim beam
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the
>>>>> one trying to prove something, not me.
>>>>
>>>> there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have
>>>> something
>>>> to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth is -
>>>> like i already have.
>>>
>>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
>>> load. BFD for the real world.
>>>
>>
>> so prove it doesn't work in your little world then! you're the one
>> bellyaching about it, the little guy that's all hat but no cattle.
>
> Why does "jim" keep on insisting I do his/her/its work for him/her/it?
>
your experiment, your work, chutzpah king!
jim beam
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3...@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to
>>>>>>> prove a sock puppet's point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Most likely.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> so why don't you do it then?
>>>
>>> Still trying to get others to do your work for you, "jim"?
>>>
>>
>> eh? how could your failure to do your own experiments /possibly/ be
>> /my/ attempt to outsource /my/ experiments??? either you got
>> unbelievable chutzpah, or you're unbelievably stupid!
>
> Why does "jim" promote a pointless experiment - what use is a bicycle
> wheel with missing spokes that can only support static loads?
>
why does the man with the hat but no cattle, propose experiments, then
refuse to undertake them? afraid of the result perhaps?
Tom Sherman
But I am not the one who made the claims about the missing spoke wheel,
and then refused to back them up with loading conditions that reflect
actual bicycle use.
Tom Sherman
Well "jim" (whoever you are), why did you post the results of an
experiment that does not duplicate the loads occurring in real riding,
but then criticize Jobst Brandt for doing the same?
jim beam
Tom Sherman
So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
jim beam
seems you don't read too well tom. go back to my discussion of
ridability of this wheel. then feel free to dispute my work by doing
your own experiments. if you have the wherewithal. i'm not going to
you your work for you.
Tom Sherman
Where?
> then feel free to dispute my work by doing
> your own experiments. if you have the wherewithal. i'm not going to
> you your work for you.
Where is the "lightweight" comment?
jim beam
for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the spoke
nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue? paper planes demonstrate
aerodynamic principles, but they are not a means of transportation.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
> load. BFD for the real world.
I don't see why this experiment wasn't done with only one spoke (or a
pair) between the hub and the top of the rim. Statically this will
show the load hanging from the top and that the omitted spokes have no
purpose. It could also be used to prove benefits of paired spoking.
Jobst Brandt
Tom Sherman
LOL :)
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>
>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>
>
> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the spoke
> nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an otherwise
identical wheel with a full spoke complement.
> paper planes demonstrate
> aerodynamic principles, but they are not a means of transportation.
>
You could build an airplane using parchment covering, however.
jim beam
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> - delete excess text -
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>
>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>
>>
>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the
>> spoke nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
>
> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an otherwise
> identical wheel with a full spoke complement.
you tell me! do the experiment!
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>> - delete excess text -
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>
>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the
>>> spoke nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
>>
>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an
>> otherwise identical wheel with a full spoke complement.
>
> you tell me! do the experiment!
Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.
A Muzi
>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
>> load. BFD for the real world.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> I don't see why this experiment wasn't done with only one spoke (or a
> pair) between the hub and the top of the rim. Statically this will
> show the load hanging from the top and that the omitted spokes have no
> purpose. It could also be used to prove benefits of paired spoking.
One spoke, like a Citroen steering wheel - Cool! You could get much more
than just a squirrel in a wheel like that!
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/squirrel.jpg
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tom Sherman
>> Tom Sherman writes:
>>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
>>> load. BFD for the real world.
>
> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> I don't see why this experiment wasn't done with only one spoke (or a
>> pair) between the hub and the top of the rim. Statically this will
>> show the load hanging from the top and that the omitted spokes have no
>> purpose. It could also be used to prove benefits of paired spoking.
>
> One spoke, like a Citroen steering wheel - Cool! You could get much more
> than just a squirrel in a wheel like that!
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/squirrel.jpg
Sheldon Brown was first:
<http://sheldonbrown.com/nanodrive/bianchi-quarter.jpg>.
jim beam
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>>
>>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the
>>>> spoke nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
>>>
>>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an
>>> otherwise identical wheel with a full spoke complement.
>>
>> you tell me! do the experiment!
>
> Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.
>
er, we've already discussed "functional" - read up thread. /you/ want
to test "reliable", and for that, the ball is in /your/ court. i look
forward to your contribution.
Tom Sherman
I make no claims of expectation of the wheel being reliable. The static
test is rather pointless as regards real world use, no?
jim beam
its point is to demonstrate that the wheel doesn't "collapse" with slack
and/or missing spokes, contrary to jobstian wheel theory. in that
regard, it is utterly /on/ point.
what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about trying to
prove it won't last in service, something that should be obvious to even
civil engineers that aren't typically familiar with "real world" testing.
Tom Sherman
Where is the contradiction to Jobst Brandt's wheel theory? As for
collapsing, "jim's" static test is not as severe for a front wheel as
hitting a pothole during hard braking would be (this may not be obvious
to the materials' scientist).
> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about trying to
> prove it won't last in service, something that should be obvious to even
> civil engineers that aren't typically familiar with "real world" testing.
"jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end products we
design are tested in use, and we are legally responsible to the owner if
they fail to perform as specified (another concept that appears to be
foreign to the materials' scientist).
jim beam
jobst tells us that a wheel with slack spokes will, his word,
"collapse". it doesn't.
> As for
> collapsing, "jim's" static test is not as severe for a front wheel as
> hitting a pothole during hard braking would be (this may not be obvious
> to the materials' scientist).
no shit sherlock. but my 205# ass sitting directly above a slack, spoke
deficient wheel defies jobstian "standing" theory.
>
>> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about trying to
>> prove it won't last in service, something that should be obvious to
>> even civil engineers that aren't typically familiar with "real world"
>> testing.
>
> "jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end products we
> design are tested in use, and we are legally responsible to the owner if
> they fail to perform as specified (another concept that appears to be
> foreign to the materials' scientist).
raw nerve about civil engineers not testing their own products? or
you're worried about standing behind the words coming out of your own
big mouth because of legal liability? that's bullshit. you won't act
because you're a lightweight.
Tom Sherman
Under what loading conditions?
>> As for collapsing, "jim's" static test is not as severe for a front
>> wheel as hitting a pothole during hard braking would be (this may not
>> be obvious to the materials' scientist).
>
> no shit sherlock. but my 205# ass sitting directly above a slack, spoke
> deficient wheel defies jobstian "standing" theory.
It does?
>>> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about trying
>>> to prove it won't last in service, something that should be obvious
>>> to even civil engineers that aren't typically familiar with "real
>>> world" testing.
>>
>> "jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end products we
>> design are tested in use, and we are legally responsible to the owner
>> if they fail to perform as specified (another concept that appears to
>> be foreign to the materials' scientist).
>
> raw nerve about civil engineers not testing their own products?
Huh?
> or
> you're worried about standing behind the words coming out of your own
> big mouth because of legal liability?
Huh?
> that's bullshit. you won't act because you're a lightweight.
No, why should I spend my own money and risk injury to do "jim's" work
for him/her/them/it?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.
jim beam
ask jobst! he's the one making underinformed presumptive blanket
statements.
>
>>> As for collapsing, "jim's" static test is not as severe for a front
>>> wheel as hitting a pothole during hard braking would be (this may not
>>> be obvious to the materials' scientist).
>>
>> no shit sherlock. but my 205# ass sitting directly above a slack,
>> spoke deficient wheel defies jobstian "standing" theory.
>
> It does?
i'm sorry, did the wheel collapse? or is the picture a fraud and it's
actually supporting no weight at all?
>
>>>> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about trying
>>>> to prove it won't last in service, something that should be obvious
>>>> to even civil engineers that aren't typically familiar with "real
>>>> world" testing.
>>>
>>> "jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end products we
>>> design are tested in use, and we are legally responsible to the owner
>>> if they fail to perform as specified (another concept that appears to
>>> be foreign to the materials' scientist).
>>
>> raw nerve about civil engineers not testing their own products?
>
> Huh?
>
>> or you're worried about standing behind the words coming out of your
>> own big mouth because of legal liability?
>
> Huh?
>
>> that's bullshit. you won't act because you're a lightweight.
>
> No, why should I spend my own money and risk injury to do "jim's" work
> for him/her/them/it?
>
you have a.s. you can't address reality. you're fixated by trivia and
paralyzed by your inability to deal.
Tom Sherman
But a static test is not representative of riding conditions, eh?
As to whether or not the picture is a fraud, that goes to the
credibility of the poster. How much credibility do sock puppets have,
anyhow?
>>>>> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about trying
>>>>> to prove it won't last in service, something that should be obvious
>>>>> to even civil engineers that aren't typically familiar with "real
>>>>> world" testing.
>>>>
>>>> "jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end products we
>>>> design are tested in use, and we are legally responsible to the
>>>> owner if they fail to perform as specified (another concept that
>>>> appears to be foreign to the materials' scientist).
>>>
>>> raw nerve about civil engineers not testing their own products?
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>> or you're worried about standing behind the words coming out of your
>>> own big mouth because of legal liability?
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>> that's bullshit. you won't act because you're a lightweight.
>>
>> No, why should I spend my own money and risk injury to do "jim's" work
>> for him/her/them/it?
>>
>
> you have a.s.
Do you find that humorous?
> you can't address reality.
Says Mr. Sock Puppet.
> you're fixated by trivia and paralyzed by your inability to deal.
Deal what (missing object)?
jim beam
no? so when is the last time you tested a full size bridge to
destruction then?
>
> As to whether or not the picture is a fraud, that goes to the
> credibility of the poster. How much credibility do sock puppets have,
> anyhow?
how much to lightweights have?
>
>>>>>> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about
>>>>>> trying to prove it won't last in service, something that should be
>>>>>> obvious to even civil engineers that aren't typically familiar
>>>>>> with "real world" testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end products we
>>>>> design are tested in use, and we are legally responsible to the
>>>>> owner if they fail to perform as specified (another concept that
>>>>> appears to be foreign to the materials' scientist).
>>>>
>>>> raw nerve about civil engineers not testing their own products?
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>>> or you're worried about standing behind the words coming out of
>>>> your own big mouth because of legal liability?
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>>> that's bullshit. you won't act because you're a lightweight.
>>>
>>> No, why should I spend my own money and risk injury to do "jim's"
>>> work for him/her/them/it?
>>>
>>
>> you have a.s.
>
> Do you find that humorous?
no. i think you need help.
>
>> you can't address reality.
>
> Says Mr. Sock Puppet.
>
>> you're fixated by trivia and paralyzed by your inability to deal.
>
> Deal what (missing object)?
>
see above.
Tom Sherman
Silly question. However, since the Tacoma Narrows failure, bridges have
been analyzed for BOTH static and dynamic loading conditions.
>> As to whether or not the picture is a fraud, that goes to the
>> credibility of the poster. How much credibility do sock puppets have,
>> anyhow?
>
> how much to lightweights have?
Well, people actually build stuff using my designs, and none of it has
failed yet.
Legally, you can not use deliverables from anonymous people for design.
I wonder why?
>>>>>>> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about
>>>>>>> trying to prove it won't last in service, something that should
>>>>>>> be obvious to even civil engineers that aren't typically familiar
>>>>>>> with "real world" testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end products
>>>>>> we design are tested in use, and we are legally responsible to the
>>>>>> owner if they fail to perform as specified (another concept that
>>>>>> appears to be foreign to the materials' scientist).
>>>>>
>>>>> raw nerve about civil engineers not testing their own products?
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>>> or you're worried about standing behind the words coming out of
>>>>> your own big mouth because of legal liability?
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>>> that's bullshit. you won't act because you're a lightweight.
>>>>
>>>> No, why should I spend my own money and risk injury to do "jim's"
>>>> work for him/her/them/it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> you have a.s.
>>
>> Do you find that humorous?
>
> no. i think you need help.
Says the person with the obsession with Jobst Brandt.
>>> you can't address reality.
>>
>> Says Mr. Sock Puppet.
>>
>>> you're fixated by trivia and paralyzed by your inability to deal.
>>
>> Deal what (missing object)?
>>
>
> see above.
See above what?
Joe Riel
> Silly question. However, since the Tacoma Narrows failure, bridges
> have been analyzed for BOTH static and dynamic loading conditions.
They were analyzed for dynamic loads well before that. The dynamic
load of a steam locomotive was a challenging problem for engineers.
The stress in beams would change sign as the train crossed, causing
significant fatigue problems. I believe that early strain gauges were
invented for this purpose (measuring the strain in the bridge supports
during a train crossing).
However, that is a different issue than the aerodynamic loading
that cause the failure of the Tacoma Narrows bridge.
--
Joe Riel
jim beam
really? one rule for me, another for you - is that the way you want to
play? and you wonder why you get called out as a lightweight???
> However, since the Tacoma Narrows failure, bridges have
> been analyzed for BOTH static and dynamic loading conditions.
>
>>> As to whether or not the picture is a fraud, that goes to the
>>> credibility of the poster. How much credibility do sock puppets have,
>>> anyhow?
>>
>> how much to lightweights have?
>
> Well, people actually build stuff using my designs, and none of it has
> failed yet.
so you say...
>
> Legally, you can not use deliverables from anonymous people for design.
> I wonder why?
great - /you/ do your wheel testing and post your results then!!!
there's help available.