How can I blacken stainless steel spokes?
Johan Bornman
indeed, find stock of all the permutations. How do they blacken spokes
and can this be done in a workshop as and when needed?
Helmut Springer
> Nowadays with all the spoke options I am hard-pressed to keep, or
> indeed, find stock of all the permutations.
Get a tool to cut&roll your own?
> How do they blacken spokes and can this be done in a workshop as
> and when needed?
Not in any durable way that would compare to the manufacturer.
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei
fri...@public.com
it is done and do it on a small scale for spokes.
hope this helps
greg :)
"Johan Bornman" <cold...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:b05cc7ef-068f-40fa...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Tosspot
Can't you just heat them up and dunk them in motor oil. I seem to
recall that from boyhood buggerings about.
Tim McNamara
<b05cc7ef-068f-40fa...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Johan Bornman <cold...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
A Sharpie? Krylon spray paint? Electrical tape?
SMS
Use heat shrinkable tubing.
datakoll
Prudhomme's Barbecue Sauce
Recipe By :
Serving Size : 1 Preparation Time :0:00
Categories : Barbecue Sauces
Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
***SEASONING MIX ***
1 t Onion powder
1 t Salt
1/2 tsp Cayenne
1/2 lb Bacon -- minced
2 c Pork, beef or chicken stock
1 c Honey
5 tb Orange juice < and pulp
1 t Tabasco sauce
1 1/2 tsp Black pepper
1/2 tsp White pepper
1 t Garlic powder
***MAIN INGREDIENTS***
1 1/2 c Onions -- chopped
1 1/2 c Chili sauce
3/4 c Dry roasted pecans -- chopped
1/2 Orange
2 tb Garlic -- minced
4 tb Butter
one pint latex paint
Combine the seasoning mix ingredients in a small bowl and set aside.
In a 2 quart saucepan, fry the bacon over high heat until crisp.
Stir in the onions, cover pan, and continue cooking until onions are
dark brown but not burned, about 8 to 10 min., stirring occasionally.
Stir in the seasoning mix and cook about 1 min.
Add the stock, chili sauce, honey, pecans, orange juice, lemon juice,
orange and lemon rinds and pulp, garlic and tabasco, stirring well.
Reduce heat to low continue cooking about 10 min. stirring
frequently.
Remove orange and lemon rinds.
Continue cooking and stirring about 15 more min.to let flavors marry.
Add the butter and stir until melted; remove from heat.
Let cool about 30 min. then pour into food processor and process until
pecans and bacon are finely chopped.
This sauce may be used to bbq Chicken, pork or ribs.
Makes 5 cups. May be stored in refrigerator up to 30 days.
Mike Rocket J Squirrel
> black anodized steel is a common thing, all you have to do is find out how
> it is done and do it on a small scale for spokes.
> hope this helps
> greg :)
I'm pretty sure that anodizing isn't used on steel.
"Anodic films are most commonly applied to protect aluminium alloys,
although processes also exist for titanium, zinc, magnesium, and niobium.
This process is not a useful treatment for iron or carbon steel because
these metals exfoliate when oxidized; i.e. the iron oxide (also known as
rust) flakes off, constantly exposing the underlying metal to corrosion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anodize
I wonder how stainless parts are made black, commercially... some Googling
turned up:
"...there is a commercial proprietary product available for blackening
stainless steel based on copper-selenium chemistry. It is used at room
temperature. More information can be obtained by doing an internet search
under the term �blackening process.�
http://www.pfonline.com/articles/clinics/0206cl_plate3.html
--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"
Bend, Oregon
jim beam
not while keeping their full work hardened strength.
Brian Huntley
Wouldn't blackened spokes be even harder for squirrels to see?
Bill Sornson
Wok with motor oil. Turn on high.
fri...@public.com
Stainless Steel Blackener 370 is an acidic liquid concentrate used full
strength or diluted with up to 3 parts water to blacken stainless steel at
room temperature. Recommended for color coding parts and blackening
engravings on stainless steels. Produces a pleasing dark gray/black finish.
No sealer required.
link here:
http://www.caswellplating.com/kits/black.htm#stainless
========
This is a posibility.
There is a mention that there is a process of applying aluminum to stainless
steel and then anodizing it the color you want:
December 10, 2008
You can also treat stainless steel with IVD - ion vapour deposition - to
give an aluminium coating. You can then anodise it in the same way as
aluminium.
Andrew Pridmore
- Gillingham, Kent, UK
link here:
http://www.finishing.com/245/20.shtml
Good luck, cause some of this stuff you would have to buy it, and the cost
is high compared to the need for black spokes.
hope this helps
greg :)
"Mike Rocket J Squirrel" <litlemik...@GOLLYgmail.com> wrote in message
news:guddqv$abt$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> On 5/12/2009 1:42 PM nept...@att.net wrote:
>
>> black anodized steel is a common thing, all you have to do is find out
>> how it is done and do it on a small scale for spokes.
>> hope this helps
>> greg :)
>
> I'm pretty sure that anodizing isn't used on steel.
>
> "Anodic films are most commonly applied to protect aluminium alloys,
> although processes also exist for titanium, zinc, magnesium, and niobium.
> This process is not a useful treatment for iron or carbon steel because
> these metals exfoliate when oxidized; i.e. the iron oxide (also known as
> rust) flakes off, constantly exposing the underlying metal to corrosion."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anodize
>
> I wonder how stainless parts are made black, commercially... some Googling
> turned up:
>
> "...there is a commercial proprietary product available for blackening
> stainless steel based on copper-selenium chemistry. It is used at room
> temperature. More information can be obtained by doing an internet search
> under the term �blackening process.�
Tosspot
Ah. Probably best not do that then :(
Andre Jute
You can have the spokes polished and black-chromed . However.
chromeplating covers cracks and may even cause them, which is why
stressed parts should not be chrome-plated.
The same applies to ion-plating, which is good for a matte result.
Or you can dip the spokes in hot oil and then bake it on in an oven. I
don't know if a microwave will do the the job.
Carl Sundquist
Is there any sort of oxide treatment that might be suitable?
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Johan,
Modern black stainless steel spokes seem to be coated or plated:
"Today’s fashion is black or coloured spokes. Although the coating is
very tough, it is not entirely scratchproof. This means that the
wheelbuilder has to take this risk into account and match his
procedure accordingly. For Holland Mechanics the black spoke fashion
meant that new
sensors to detect black spokes had to be developed for the trueing
machines. With the new sensor, the machine will even indicate when
various spokes are mixed up in one wheel."
http://www.hollandmechanics.com/2007/pdf/HMToday_3.pdf
"DT says its black spokes are the same strength as its silver spokes
and that the coating doesn't affect the strength."
"As I understand it, some black spokes are coloured by a plating
process that's more-or-less chroming. Chrome plating has been known
for years to make spokes brittle, which is why silver-coloured chrome-
plated spokes all but vanished in the 80s."
"But the bike industry has the knowledge retention of a goldfish."
--John Stevenson, Editor-in-chief, Future cycling
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14576705&sid=55558eb52bdc97259b93f08a217c8bba
***
Highwheeler spokes were often covered with black enamel from the rim
to roughly the crossing, and then nickel-plated the rest of the way to
the hub, like this:
http://home.att.net/~jfgorham/images/20060727_02.jpg
Enamel resisted pitting and wear better than nickel plating--the
tougher enamel was better suited to the end of the spoke down in the
dirt-road mud and dust (and could be renewed by the owner, with some
effort), while the more fragile but more attractive nickel plating
(which few owners could re-do on their own) stood a better chance of
surviving a foot or so above the road.
Once you've seen the real thing or a color photo like the one above,
the nickel-plated starburst at the hub is obvious in black-and-white
photos:
http://www.pepcak.webzdarma.cz/vyspan620.jpg
Like modern black spokes, the black and nickel combination was prized
for looks, but they enamel and nickel-plating also offered some
protection to the non-stainless steel spokes, and the practice
continued when safeties were introduced:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2146/2430488292_1d29411184_o.jpg
Bikes #1 and #2 in this photo have nickel-plated starburst spokes:
http://i36.tinypic.com/vfdx1c.jpg
Here's an early explanation of the enamel-nickel combination:
"If your wheels are not yet built up, do not attempt the removal of
hardened cups from hubs. The rims should be store enamelled before
wheels are built, and the spokes carefully brush enamelled after
completion; this insures good wearing cups. Many of our large firms
run the risk of softening cases by enamelling complete for sake of
appearance. If you must have perfection in appearance and finish, have
your spokes nickel-plated right through if direct; and if tangent,
plate 3 in. from headed end, and brush enamel up to where spokes cross
each other."
--"English Mechanic," 1894
http://books.google.com/books?id=DIUAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA367&output=textwith
some odd colors:
Black wasn't the only color for spoke enamel:
"Model 40 [safety from Warwick in 1898], the highest grade ladies'
Cleveland, is one of the most notable productions of the year, with
specifications, in part, as follows : 28-inch wheels, with blue
spokes . . ."
--"Outing," 1898
http://books.google.com/books?id=PKzQAAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA517,M1
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Nate Nagel
I'd think that would possibly change the heat treating properties of the
steel, if any. (what you're describing is basically oil quenching...)
I'd be tempted to try a home blueing kit intended for firearms - you
won't get a perfectly black finish but close to it, and it won't look
like paint either
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
AMuzi
> On May 12, 1:18 pm, Johan Bornman <coldb...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> Nowadays with all the spoke options I am hard-pressed to keep, or
>> indeed, find stock of all the permutations. How do they blacken spokes
>> and can this be done in a workshop as and when needed?
>
> Dear Johan,
>
> Modern black stainless steel spokes seem to be coated or plated:
>
"Store enamelled" possibly "stove enamelled"
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
P. Chisholm
Are you in the US? A bike shop?
If so I can give you the name of my spoke supplier, DT spokes, all
lengths, black or silver, various gauges.
jim beam
you guys, with respect, are smoking crack. the per-item cost to do all
this stuff is just ridiculously high compared to purchase of the
requisite parts form an expert manufacturer that will not weaken or
fatigue or corrode their own product. just buy the freakin' things and
quit this ridiculous festival of ignorance.
jim beam
destroys their strength.
jim beam
andre, as an engineering expert, you should know that heating and work
hardening don't mix. spokes derive their strength from the latter. oh,
and you got the oil/heating thing the wrong way around too.
RonSonic
>Tosspot wrote:
>> Johan Bornman wrote:
>>> Nowadays with all the spoke options I am hard-pressed to keep, or
>>> indeed, find stock of all the permutations. How do they blacken spokes
>>> and can this be done in a workshop as and when needed?
>>
>> Can't you just heat them up and dunk them in motor oil. I seem to
>> recall that from boyhood buggerings about.
>
>I'd think that would possibly change the heat treating properties of the
>steel, if any. (what you're describing is basically oil quenching...)
>
>I'd be tempted to try a home blueing kit intended for firearms - you
>won't get a perfectly black finish but close to it, and it won't look
>like paint either
Tried it. You can get some permanent darkening, to a light smoke color, but the
blackening rubs off with little more difficulty than soot.
Mike Rocket J Squirrel
The OP just asked how if it could be done. Maybe he's a home hobbyist who
likes to tinker. I ain't judging him, man.
Mike Rocket J Squirrel
Black oxide is the usual finish for blackening steel, but I don't know
whether it works on stainless. For normal steel, black oxide does not
prevent moisture from getting on the steel, so either wax or oil is
applied as a rust preventative.
As Peter Chisholm say, probably miles easier to buy black spokes.
Bill Sornson
sigh.
carl...@comcast.net
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>> Here's an early explanation of the enamel-nickel combination:
>>
>> "If your wheels are not yet built up, do not attempt the removal of
>> hardened cups from hubs. The rims should be store enamelled before
>> wheels are built, and the spokes carefully brush enamelled after
>> completion; this insures good wearing cups. Many of our large firms
>> run the risk of softening cases by enamelling complete for sake of
>> appearance. If you must have perfection in appearance and finish, have
>> your spokes nickel-plated right through if direct; and if tangent,
>> plate 3 in. from headed end, and brush enamel up to where spokes cross
>> each other."
>>
>> --"English Mechanic," 1894
>
>"Store enamelled" possibly "stove enamelled"
Dear Andrew,
You're right--Google Books text just runs the blurry image through an
optical character reader. Unfortunately, "store" made sense as
"store-bought" as opposed to the advice to brush some stuff on
yourself.
Google reads it as "store" in that line, but it looks more like
"stove" to me and it's clearly "stove" later in the same paragraph,
past the quote:
"If wheels are already built, and yon think it advisable to stove
enamel complete, send with cups in, and on return from stoving note if
temper has been drawn."
The OCR often goofs things up. The replies to questions in "English
Mechanic" used the same sort of pseudonyms popular nowadways in RBT,
with replies signed "Fifty-Eight Inch" (a rather large size
highwheeler, the equivalent of someone posting today as "55x11").
The author of the reply in question was "Derwent", but the OCR mangled
it to "Deewe�t"--he was one of the more prolific bicycle posters and
something of a columnist for the "English Mechanic" magazines.
Similarly, "S. Bottone" turns into "S. Bottonk" and then "S. Bottose"
on that page, "An Amatkdr" was probably "An Amateur", and "Molkch"
became "Moloch", which detracted from his Biblical pretensions.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Cole
> Nowadays with all the spoke options I am hard-pressed to keep, or
> indeed, find stock of all the permutations. How do they blacken spokes
> and can this be done in a workshop as and when needed?
>
http://www.assda.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=98
Surface Blackening
Stainless steel surfaces can be readily blackened, the most common
process is by immersion in a molten salt bath of sodium dichromate. This
practice is widely used by the automotive industry to blacken stainless
steel parts, such as windscreen wipers, and it is used by manufacturers
of stainless steel solar collection panels and trivets for domestic gas
stoves. The process applies a very thin smooth black oxide film to the
surface of all stainless steel types. The film is normally dull black in
colour, but it can be brightened by the application of oils or waxes.
The film shows no tendency to age or lose colour in service; it is
ductile, will not chip or peel, and it is resistant to heat-up to the
normal scaling temperature of the stainless steel. A blackened stainless
steel can be deformed moderately without harm and the film exhibits good
resistance to abrasion.
A black surface can also be produced by black chromium plating.
Colouring
A proprietary process used for colouring stainless steels entails
immersing it in a hot chromic/sulphuric acid solution, followed by a
cathodic hardening treatment in another acidic solution. The reaction of
the base material with the hot acid produces a transparent film which in
itself is basically colourless, but which shows colours through light
interference. Colours produced in normal time sequence are bronze, blue,
gold, red, purple and green, and within this range a wide variety of
shades can be obtained. Black finish is also available. Appearance is
also dependent on the nature of the starting surface; matt and satin
surfaces produce matt colours, polished surfaces exhibit a high degree
of metallic lustre.
Carl Sundquist
Why would rust be any more of a factor on an oxided stainless spoke than
an uncoated stainless one?
Brewster Fong
It appears Wheelsmith spokes, or at least their db14s - 2.0/1.7/2.0 ,
come in both silver and black too:
http://www.wheelsmith.com/spokes_db14.html
Good Luck!
Chalo
He's oversimplifying. Some surface treatments (e.g. oil residue) will
blacken well below the annealing point of stainless, and others
won't. For instance, the wok turns black without ever having reached
a temperature that would anneal steel or stainless. (I probably would
not want a greasy-wok-like finish on my spokes, unless they were for a
barbecue trike or something.) But if you heat clean stainless until
it glows and turns black just from exposure to air, you've crossed the
line and annealed it.
Anything that uses open flame to apply a surface color creates a risk
of annealing the spoke. Stainless steel has a low heat capacity and a
strong tendency to spot heat.
Chalo
AMuzi
> you guys, with respect, are smoking crack. the per-item cost to do all
> this stuff is just ridiculously high compared to purchase of the
> requisite parts form an expert manufacturer that will not weaken or
> fatigue or corrode their own product. just buy the freakin' things and
> quit this ridiculous festival of ignorance.
Mr Beam and I agree.
What exactly is the problem with stainless steel spokes
anyway?? Black on stainless is virtually a burka on a babe.
Peter Cole
I think from the context, it's obvious that spoke blackening is not a
DIY activity. Nobody is praising black spokes, either. I don't like
nukes, wouldn't consider making one at home, but that doesn't mean I
don't find the subject interesting.
I have done anodizing, electro-polishing and plating, for fun, not
profit. Cool stuff. This is rec.bike.tech, right? Not rec.bike.consumer,
or rec.bike.fashion.
Mike Rocket J Squirrel
Right on. That was the the spirit in which I took the question.
> I have done anodizing, electro-polishing and plating, for fun, not
> profit. Cool stuff. This is rec.bike.tech, right? Not rec.bike.consumer,
> or rec.bike.fashion.
Need a rec.metalplating NG to fully explore this.
Followed closely by
rec.metalplating.help-Ive-just-been-diagnosed-with-pancreatic-cancer-and-theres-a-guy-from-the-
EPA-in-the-driveway
RonSonic
<stilln...@stillnodomains.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 22:05:52 GMT, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>> I don't like
>>nukes, wouldn't consider making one at home, but that doesn't mean I
>>don't find the subject interesting.
>
>I think you need to open up your horizons a little more. Backyard
>ICBM's can be an enjoyable hobby.
Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority is the new stainless gas grill.
Mike Rocket J Squirrel
Which we can make black.
jim beam
local electrode potentials and thus pitting. potentially anyway.
jim beam
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Johan Bornman wrote:
>>>>> Nowadays with all the spoke options I am hard-pressed to keep, or
>>>>> indeed, find stock of all the permutations. How do they blacken
>>>>> spokes and can this be done in a workshop as and when needed?
>>>> Wok with motor oil. �Turn on high.
>>> destroys their strength.
>> sigh.
>
> He's oversimplifying. Some surface treatments (e.g. oil residue) will
> blacken well below the annealing point of stainless,
you can soften well below annealing chalo. you /do/ know about
martensitic transitions don't you?
> and others
> won't. For instance, the wok turns black without ever having reached
> a temperature that would anneal steel or stainless. (I probably would
> not want a greasy-wok-like finish on my spokes, unless they were for a
> barbecue trike or something.) But if you heat clean stainless until
> it glows and turns black just from exposure to air, you've crossed the
> line and annealed it.
>
> Anything that uses open flame to apply a surface color creates a risk
> of annealing the spoke. Stainless steel has a low heat capacity and a
> strong tendency to spot heat.
listen to the expert!
Tosspot
Not without annealing the metal and causing nuclear Armagedon.
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Johan Bornman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nowadays with all the spoke options I am hard-pressed to keep, or
> >>>>> indeed, find stock of all the permutations. How do they blacken
> >>>>> spokes and can this be done in a workshop as and when needed?
> >>>>
> >>>> Wok with motor oil. Turn on high.
> >>>
> >>> destroys their strength.
> >>
> >> sigh.
> >
> > He's oversimplifying. Some surface treatments (e.g. oil residue) will
> > blacken well below the annealing point of stainless,
>
> you can soften well below annealing chalo. you /do/ know about
> martensitic transitions don't you?
Stainless spokes are always made of 300-series _austenitic_ stainless
alloy, doctor. They don't heat treat. You can have martensitic
spokes or whatever you like, but you'll have to make them yourself.
A distinguished metallurgical expert like you certainly knows that at
about 1100F, or about the temperature at which a steel item _glows red
in normal room lighting_, 304 stainless begins to become "sensitized",
or what most of us would think of as starting the annealing process.
By the time it reaches 1850F it's fully annealed.
It'd take a hell of a wok to dish up 1100F. By then you'd have a fire
anyway if there were oil involved.
Maybe you were thinking about those, ahem, "clever" aluminum spokes
made by your favorite rim manufacturer?
Chalo
jim beam
> jim beam wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>> Johan Bornman wrote:
>>>>>>> Nowadays with all the spoke options I am hard-pressed to keep, or
>>>>>>> indeed, find stock of all the permutations. How do they blacken
>>>>>>> spokes and can this be done in a workshop as and when needed?
>>>>>> Wok with motor oil. Turn on high.
>>>>> destroys their strength.
>>>> sigh.
>>> He's oversimplifying. �Some surface treatments (e.g. oil residue) will
>>> blacken well below the annealing point of stainless,
>> you can soften well below annealing chalo. �you /do/ know about
>> martensitic transitions don't you?
>
> Stainless spokes are always made of 300-series _austenitic_ stainless
> alloy, doctor. They don't heat treat. You can have martensitic
> spokes or whatever you like, but you'll have to make them yourself.
er, on deformation, they become martensitic, circus clown. that's why
they're magnetic. because you /do/ know austenitic steels are not
magnetic don't you? you /have/ put a magnet up against bike spokes and
pondered these things haven't you?
>
> A distinguished metallurgical expert like you certainly knows that at
> about 1100F, or about the temperature at which a steel item _glows red
> in normal room lighting_, 304 stainless begins to become "sensitized",
> or what most of us would think of as starting the annealing process.
> By the time it reaches 1850F it's fully annealed.
>
> It'd take a hell of a wok to dish up 1100F. By then you'd have a fire
> anyway if there were oil involved.
>
> Maybe you were thinking about those, ahem, "clever" aluminum spokes
> made by your favorite rim manufacturer?
what are you like underneath that big red nose and funny shoes chalo?
apart from being too dumb to know when you're hopelessly out of your
depth that is.
Johan Bornman
Carl - enamelling is not an option, but nice try. I love your links.
Peter suggested I just buy black spokes. Easier said than done. I'm
not in the US or UK but in South Africa. It's a small market and
finding non-standard spokes are difficult. I often have to repair X
wheel with two black bladed spokes that need replacement or someone
wants a Z wheel that matches his PowerTap or some other oddity. Buying/
importing a box of those specific spokes is not viable and secondly,
they're not locally available. As it is, I'm cutting and threading to
compensate for the lack of bladed spokes in the country, now I'm faced
with the additional problem of black too.
I'm looking for something whereby I can quickly/reasonably quickly
colour a silver spoke to match that in an existing wheel. I've checked
out the local electroplaters but I had no success. The only place that
seems to do it is an armaments company and they're not interested in
my half dozen spokes.
_
>>
>> Stainless spokes are always made of 300-series _austenitic_ stainless
>> alloy, doctor. They don't heat treat. You can have martensitic
>> spokes or whatever you like, but you'll have to make them yourself.
>
> er, on deformation, they become martensitic, circus clown. that's why
> they're magnetic. because you /do/ know austenitic steels are not
> magnetic don't you? you /have/ put a magnet up against bike spokes and
> pondered these things haven't you?
>
As always with the stuff "jim beam" posts, it is wise to check.
First off, a quick refresher on 300-series; these are Chromium-Nickle
Austentic steels - the book I grabbed uses the old SAE numbers, but the
last three digits are the same; 301 has the lowest Nickle, and 325 the
highest; the range is from about 6% to over 20% Nickle enhances the
stainless-ness, and most importantly in the instant discussion tends to
maintain the austentic structure, with the result that the steel remains
non-magnetic, even after cold-working.
I do not know what variety of stainless is found in the spokes I have used.
And, as we know, 'jim beam" places a value on experience that far exceeds
that of fact as reported by his elders and betters...
...so...
...I took a magnet - one of those good strong "super-magnets" that they put
in kids building toys, and went to where the spokes are.
First some spokes I pulled out of a push-bike wheel some time ago - butted,
stainless, marked with a "Z" (or perhaps an "N"; depends on how you look at
it). The magnet didn't attract any of them.
Next some spokes on the recumbent trike; straight, stainless, marked with
something that is either a shield of a thickish "U". The magnet didn't
attract any of 'em.
THEN, just for fun, some motor-bike spokes - a set that I built in the
70's, stainless butted spokes from Buchannan's. Not magnetic.
Another set from Buchannans, not built yet; also stainless and butted -
just got em a few weeks ago. Not magnetic.
This of course, is not exhaustive. And cold-working can & does affect the
magnetic qualities of some stainless steels; but so far, it appears that
for spokes is does so to a remarkable degree only in that small part of the
cycle world where the sky is a different colour and there are no
shift-keys.
AMuzi
For the occasional odd piece, we use a black paint pen.
http://www.marvy.com/product_details.aspx?ProductID=40
Faster than you'd expect.
Chalo
>
> jim beam wrote:
> >
I shouldn't even bother correcting "jim beam's" more noteworthy
technical errors within his purported field of expertise. All it nets
us us more erroneous bull puckey and unwarranted abuse.
But thanks for confirming what I was saying anyway.
Chalo
Dre
news:1tx8cc4u4j4b4$.8fqukceegy9c$.dlg@40tude.net...
<snip>
> This of course, is not exhaustive. And cold-working can & does affect the
> magnetic qualities of some stainless steels; but so far, it appears that
> for spokes is does so to a remarkable degree only in that small part of
> the
> cycle world where the sky is a different colour and there are no
> shift-keys.
LOL, that was a great post :)
Cheers Dre
Mike Rocket J Squirrel
Well, yeah. That goes without saying.
Michael Press
<6782ce50-627b-40af...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Chalo <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for recording the facts of the matter.
We all learn a little bit (except jim beam).
Furthermore, we must have the actual state of affairs
to stand against jim beam's misstatements. It is not
pleasant to do so. Thanks again.
--
Michael Press
jim beam
wow!
q: so how many liars does it take to deceive a clown?
a: none - he can deceive himself.
http://i42.tinypic.com/25ez3uf.jpg
of course, all the ignorati will get their panties in a bunch and shout
"superglue" long before they bother to get a magnet and expose the
idiocy of the famous jtaylor who apparently doesn't know what a magnet
is, but hey, stupidity is not a barrier to entry on usenet.
Hank Wirtz
>
> - Show quoted text -
RBT SATs time!
"Andre" is to "Scum" as "jim" is to "_____"
a) clown
b) ignorati
c) bullshitter
d) all of the above
bjwe...@gmail.com
I went in the back room and discovered easy access
to 13 (!) wheels. Out come the magnets. One of the
wheels had galvanized spokes and of course the magnet
was strongly attracted to those. A useful control.
Of the remaining 12 wheels with stainless spokes, the kitchen
magnet was very weakly attracted to 2, and not at all
to the remaining 10. The 2 that were slightly magnetic
both had DT 2.0/1.8mm butted spokes. However, I also
tried other wheels with DT butted and non-butted spokes
and found almost no attraction. A few wheels with Asahi and
Wheelsmith stainless spokes had no attraction.
Wheelsmith butted spokes have an obvious transition
diameter where the swaging takes effect and I tested that
part to see if the cold working had rendered them
ferromagnetic at that particular spot. Nope.
I then went back with a very strong magnet removed from
a hard drive, and confirmed that two wheels with DT spokes
were a little magnetic, the rest of the DT spokes were
slightly magnetic, and the Asahi/Wheelsmith spokes weren't
magnetic at all.
For comparison, I tested some other household goods.
Most stainless pans and my old film developing tanks are
non- or very weakly ferromagnetic. The only stainless items
I found to be strongly ferromagnetic were some
kitchen utensils, silverware, and knives, plus a climbing
implement. The ferromagnetic stainless utensils were labeled
"18/0" which of course means 18% chromium and 0% nickel.
This is relevant given the assertion above that higher nickel
content preserves austenitic structure and hence
non-magnetism.
This test is repeatable by anyone, so it shouldn't be hard
for rbt readers to verify for themselves.
Of course, getting a magnet to stick to spokes doesn't
prove they will be heat-annealed at the smoking temperature
of motor oil, but I think paint is a more likely method
for blackening spokes anyway.
Ben
_
> q: so how many liars does it take to deceive a clown?
> a: none - he can deceive himself.
>
> http://i42.tinypic.com/25ez3uf.jpg
>
> of course, all the ignorati will get their panties in a bunch and shout
> "superglue" long before they bother to get a magnet and expose the
> idiocy of the famous jtaylor who apparently doesn't know what a magnet
> is, but hey, stupidity is not a barrier to entry on usenet.
Now, this wouldn't be a repeat of the "jim beam" fabrication in the
brake-bolts-with-cut-threads vein, would it?
(For the newer readers, "jim beam" claimed that cut threads were a
"disaster waiting to happen", as they are weaker than rolled threads -
true, but such bolts even with such threads are strong enough for the
purpose, and no examples of broken brake bolts with cut threads have been
seen, even thoug they have been used on brake bolts; when this was pointed
out, "jim beam" posted a link to a photo of a brake with a broken bolt as
an example.
Unfortunately the text accompanying the photo in the link provided clearly
stated that the bolt was broken from a dfferent cause.)
jim beam
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:56:07 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>
>> q: so how many liars does it take to deceive a clown?
>> a: none - he can deceive himself.
>>
>> http://i42.tinypic.com/25ez3uf.jpg
>>
>> of course, all the ignorati will get their panties in a bunch and shout
>> "superglue" long before they bother to get a magnet and expose the
>> idiocy of the famous jtaylor who apparently doesn't know what a magnet
>> is, but hey, stupidity is not a barrier to entry on usenet.
>
> Now, this wouldn't be a repeat of the "jim beam" fabrication in the
> brake-bolts-with-cut-threads vein, would it?
>
> (For the newer readers, "jim beam" claimed that cut threads were a
> "disaster waiting to happen", as they are weaker than rolled threads -
> true, but such bolts even with such threads are strong enough for the
> purpose, and no examples of broken brake bolts with cut threads have been
> seen, even thoug they have been used on brake bolts; when this was pointed
> out, "jim beam" posted a link to a photo of a brake with a broken bolt as
> an example.
so my cite of a fatigued brake bolt was /not/ a cite of a fatigued brake
bolt??? even though the article clearly stated that it was???
>
> Unfortunately the text accompanying the photo in the link provided clearly
> stated that the bolt was broken from a dfferent cause.)
well, you're consistent in one thing jtaylor - the shamelessness of your
[non-magnetic] bullshit.
jim beam
remember i've said that i believe wheelsmith to be ground and polished?
well, apart from physical features being consistent with this, low
magnetism is another one of the reasons.
>
> For comparison, I tested some other household goods.
> Most stainless pans and my old film developing tanks are
> non- or very weakly ferromagnetic. The only stainless items
> I found to be strongly ferromagnetic were some
> kitchen utensils, silverware, and knives, plus a climbing
> implement.
consistent with being cold worked.
> The ferromagnetic stainless utensils were labeled
> "18/0" which of course means 18% chromium and 0% nickel.
no "of course" - it's /much/ more likely to actually be "1810", a common
kitchen grade. it's /highly/ unusual for a commercial stainless to have
a high chrome content with no nickel.
> This is relevant given the assertion above that higher nickel
> content preserves austenitic structure and hence
> non-magnetism.
indeed. but that phase will transition...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k651m3k611p31761/fulltext.pdf
>
> This test is repeatable by anyone, so it shouldn't be hard
> for rbt readers to verify for themselves.
the blowhards won't - it might get in the way of their circle-jerking
with jtaylor.
_
>> Now, this wouldn't be a repeat of the "jim beam" fabrication in the
>> brake-bolts-with-cut-threads vein, would it?
>>
>> (For the newer readers, "jim beam" claimed that cut threads were a
>> "disaster waiting to happen", as they are weaker than rolled threads -
>> true, but such bolts even with such threads are strong enough for the
>> purpose, and no examples of broken brake bolts with cut threads have been
>> seen, even thoug they have been used on brake bolts; when this was pointed
>> out, "jim beam" posted a link to a photo of a brake with a broken bolt as
>> an example.
>
> so my cite of a fatigued brake bolt was /not/ a cite of a fatigued brake
> bolt??? even though the article clearly stated that it was???
>
No, the article clearly stated that the bolt was inproperly tightened and
that that was the reason for failure.
And there was no indication that the bolt had cut threads.
This was pointed out to you at the time by several posters - perhaps you
hoped they would just take your word for it instead of clicking on the link
and reading the page.
_
> I went in the back room and discovered easy access
> to 13 (!) wheels. Out come the magnets. One of the
> wheels had galvanized spokes and of course the magnet
> was strongly attracted to those. A useful control.
> Of the remaining 12 wheels with stainless spokes, the kitchen
> magnet was very weakly attracted to 2, and not at all
> to the remaining 10. The 2 that were slightly magnetic
> both had DT 2.0/1.8mm butted spokes. However, I also
> tried other wheels with DT butted and non-butted spokes
> and found almost no attraction. A few wheels with Asahi and
> Wheelsmith stainless spokes had no attraction.
>
> Wheelsmith butted spokes have an obvious transition
> diameter where the swaging takes effect and I tested that
> part to see if the cold working had rendered them
> ferromagnetic at that particular spot. Nope.
>
> I then went back with a very strong magnet removed from
> a hard drive, and confirmed that two wheels with DT spokes
> were a little magnetic, the rest of the DT spokes were
> slightly magnetic, and the Asahi/Wheelsmith spokes weren't
> magnetic at all.
>
>
> For comparison, I tested some other household goods.
> Most stainless pans and my old film developing tanks are
> non- or very weakly ferromagnetic. The only stainless items
> I found to be strongly ferromagnetic were some
> kitchen utensils, silverware, and knives, plus a climbing
> implement.
All of which confirms that cycle spokes are not, in the main, martensitic,
even when cold-worked - at best a few were found to be "a little" or
"slightly" magnetic, indicating little change from austenitic steel.
Which of course means that "jim beams"s claim that if you put stainless
spokes in a kitchen oven they will come out austenitic is sort of correct -
because they were austenitic to begin with.
Hey ho.
Andre Jute
Hey, Wirtzie, you know that thing that you do that makes people think
you're a troll? You're doing it again.
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely
existing elegantly
Andre Jute
wrote:
And we should distinguish the effects of different levels of applied
heat. It is one thing to stick a spoke in boiling oil, or to make it
redhot and quench it in cold oil, and quite another to harden paint on
a spoke in an oven at a low temperature. This reflects one of the main
areas of low credibility when dealing with the anonymous "jim beam",
that, like too many inexperienced people who merely quote textbooks,
he has an on-off switch, that he insists every case is always either-
or, and that thus he altogether misses out on the subtleties of
materials and their applications.
Andre Jute
It is always in the subtleties of engineering that the beauty resides
_
Perhaps, but given the marking, much more likely that it is from not being
austenitic steel.
>
>> The ferromagnetic stainless utensils were labeled
>> "18/0" which of course means 18% chromium and 0% nickel.
>
> no "of course" - it's /much/ more likely to actually be "1810", a common
> kitchen grade. it's /highly/ unusual for a commercial stainless to have
> a high chrome content with no nickel.
>
Is the the famously experienced voice of "jim beam" speaking? Cordon Blue
chef, diesel mechanic to the stars, master of shift-less prose and the
delicate and oh-so-subtle riposte "...you're a retard."
Here's a quote from a page that is (currently) the first hit on google for
"18/0 stainless":
=============
Are flatware specs all the same quality? No, they are not the same quality
and vary considerably in price and composition. At first glance on the
flatware packaging, it may look like 18/10, but a closer inspection may
reveal, that it is actually only 18/0 flatware. This type of flatware
information can be very deceiving, no wonder the price seems so good. It's
actual a marketing ploy, and if these flatware specs are missing
altogether, this product may not really be stainless steel at all. So let’s
take a look at these flatware differences and what they mean.
Answer: Stainless steel used in flatware is a composite of different steels
and varies in terms of grades for different uses. The main ingredient in
flatware is chromium and nickel has been added to provide a resistance to
corrosion.
Therefore flatware that is 18/10 means that 18% is chromium and 10% is
nickel. The higher the nickel content, the more protection the flatware has
from corrosion. Prices of stainless steel flatware vary considerably
depending on these specs, so don’t be fooled into thinking you are buying
the best quality, if the nickel content is 0%.
However, some flatware manufacturers will label cutlery with a slighter
higher than 8% nickel content, such as 8.3% as 18/10, since it doesn’t
quite fit in the 18/8 category, and this is allowable. A little deceiving,
none the less.
=============
Now, consider - would a maker deliberately label the good stuff (18/10) as
the cheap stuff (18/0)?
Much more likely that those bits of kitchen-ware were what they said they
were - zero percent nickel, and so ferritic.
Of course, "bjw" could have fooled himself by using glue to stick the
magnet to the cutlery - it's the method "jim beam" came up with...
...but his time might have been better spent doing his homework.
_
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:03:10 -0700, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Of the remaining 12 wheels with stainless spokes, the kitchen
>>> magnet was very weakly attracted to 2, and not at all
>>> to the remaining 10. The 2 that were slightly magnetic
>>> both had DT 2.0/1.8mm butted spokes. However, I also
>>> tried other wheels with DT butted and non-butted spokes
>>> and found almost no attraction. A few wheels with Asahi and
>>> Wheelsmith stainless spokes had no attraction.
>>>
>
>>remember i've said that i believe wheelsmith to be ground and polished?
>> well, apart from physical features being consistent with this, low
>>magnetism is another one of the reasons.
>
> Hey Jimbo, you oddly missed commenting on the part where he found 10
> out of 12 spokes/wheel non-magnetic.
>
> Your comments please, vis-a-vis your previous suggestions in this
> thread.
And among those that were *not* non-magnetic, the most that was found was
described as "weakly" or "slightly" attracted.
(They would probably be much more strongly attached by "jim beam"'s glue
method.)
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Ben,
Will itty-bitty headphone magnets stick to your no-attraction spokes?
I vaguely remembered some faintly magnetic spokes, so I tested four of
my wheels.
It turned out that the last wheel fooled me and my hard drive magnet.
***
Wheel #1, galvanized spokes, hard drive magnet hangs handily from a
single spoke, satisfying clunk! as it grabs the spoke:
Wheels #2 & #3, aluminum spokes, hard drive magnet hangs, but only
barely and when pressed against two spokes near the crossing--the weak
attraction means that more metal surface is needed to support the hard
drive magnet.
Wheel #4, aluminum spokes, no attraction . . .
Oops!
Very careful testing of wheel #4 showed that the hard drive magnet
pulled sideways when dangled next to a spoke, but so weakly that there
was no hope of sticking to the spoke--it fell off if I let go.
But an itty-bitty ~6mm round headphone magnet is so small and light
that it sticks on all the spokes, as the photos below show.
Wheel #1 galvanized, hard drive magnet sticks strongly to one spoke:
http://i44.tinypic.com/2v8s2mg.jpg
Wheel #2 aluminum (same with wheel #3), hard drive magnet can barely
stick to the increased surface of two spokes at the crossing:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2sk6t.jpg
Wheel #4 aluminum, hard drive magnet won't stick by itself, even at a
spoke crossing, but it can just cling to a spoke if partly supported
by fishing line:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2mr76m8.jpg
You sampled far more wheels than I did, so I'm curious if my batch
just didn't include true no-attraction spokes.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
bjwe...@gmail.com
> > Most stainless pans and my old film developing tanks are
> > non- or very weakly ferromagnetic. The only stainless items
> > I found to be strongly ferromagnetic were some
> > kitchen utensils, silverware, and knives, plus a climbing
> > implement.
>
> consistent with being cold worked.
>
> > The ferromagnetic stainless utensils were labeled
> > "18/0" which of course means 18% chromium and 0% nickel.
>
> no "of course" - it's /much/ more likely to actually be "1810", a common
> kitchen grade. it's /highly/ unusual for a commercial stainless to have
> a high chrome content with no nickel.
>
> > This is relevant given the assertion above that higher nickel
> > content preserves austenitic structure and hence
> > non-magnetism.
Genius, I can read. They're inexpensive stainless
long spoons/ladle/turner you could buy for $3 at IKEA,
and I have four that say very clearly on the back
"18/0 stainless steel." If you contradict me again
I can post a picture. They look like these:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/30083334
I recommend them, by the way. Great value.
Don't use on non-stick cookware, of course.
Kitchen utensils commonly come in 18/10, 18/8, and 18/0.
These are partly marketing as they aren't guaranteed to
be exact. The 18/0 stuff is cheaper though it seems
to work fine. I have a couple of "18/10" pans that are
only magnetic in the distinct bottom layer that covers an
aluminum core - possibly the sides and base are made
of two different alloys.
Anyway, spokes are weakly magnetic at best.
You may question the qualifications and judgment
of various people you argue with on Usenet, but it
helps to represent the facts correctly.
Ben
_
Should have used "jim beam" brand glue.
> But an itty-bitty ~6mm round headphone magnet is so small and light
> that it sticks on all the spokes, as the photos below show.
>
> Wheel #1 galvanized, hard drive magnet sticks strongly to one spoke:
> http://i44.tinypic.com/2v8s2mg.jpg
>
> Wheel #2 aluminum (same with wheel #3), hard drive magnet can barely
> stick to the increased surface of two spokes at the crossing:
> http://i43.tinypic.com/2sk6t.jpg
>
> Wheel #4 aluminum, hard drive magnet won't stick by itself, even at a
> spoke crossing, but it can just cling to a spoke if partly supported
> by fishing line:
> http://i43.tinypic.com/2mr76m8.jpg
>
> You sampled far more wheels than I did, so I'm curious if my batch
> just didn't include true no-attraction spokes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Carl -
- did you happens to miss-pell "stainless" as "aluminum"?
AMuzi
> Carl -
> - did you happens to miss-pell "stainless" as "aluminum"?
I wondered about that, too. If they have magnetic aluminum
now in Colorado then "transparent aluminum" can't be far
away! Beam me up!
Tom_Sherman
> [...]
> remember i've said that i believe wheelsmith to be ground and polished?
> well, apart from physical features being consistent with this, low
I think "jim's" belief is out of date. Wheelsmith butted spokes were
ground when made in Montana, but after purchase of Wheelsmith by Hayes
Bicycle Group and the production moved to the corner of Florist and 64th
in Havenwoods, they started using the former Asahi equipment for spoke
production, which I believe forms the butting by swaging. Maybe Andrew
Muzi can wrangle a visit to confirm the current production method.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll
Tom_Sherman
Did you check the spokes at the elbows and threads, where the greatest
degree of cold working has taken place?
I have broken AISI 304 (aka 18/8) tensile specimens, and they are indeed
non-magnetic prior to testing, but slightly magnetic after testing ONLY
at the area where necking and fracture occurred.
I did a search of manufacturers websites a couple of years ago, and as
best as I could determine, DT, Wheelsmith and Sapim all used AISI 304
steel for their spokes.
Tom_Sherman
Some people are allergic to nickel, and should stick to utensils without
nickel content.
bjwe...@gmail.com
> Dear Ben,
>
> Will itty-bitty headphone magnets stick to your no-attraction spokes?
I don't know. I don't feel like taking apart any
headphones to find out. It wouldn't be the exact
same magnet as yours, so it wouldn't be a direct
comparison anyway. Stainless steels are
not generally absolute zero ferro-magnetism. They're
just weak to very weak compared to ordinary steels.
So if you can find a magnet with a high enough magnetism
to weight ratio, you may be able to get to get it to hang
on a spoke, but that doesn't change that stainless
spokes are noticeably less ferromagnetic than other
steel, including galvanized or chromed spokes.
The more interesting question would be if you and
others can find a correlation between, say, spoke
manufacturer or type and magnetizability, similar
to how I found that Asahi/Wheelsmith are less magnetic
than DT. Although to be honest, it isn't _that_ interesting.
Along with the others, I am sure you meant stainless
when you wrote "aluminum spokes" below. There are
(silly) aluminum-spoked wheels, but you don't own any.
Ben
Chalo
>
> Tom_Sherman wrote:
> >
> >Some people are allergic to nickel, and should stick to utensils without
> >nickel content.
>
It's true. Some folks can get blisters from handling change, just
from the small percentage of nickel in coins.
It seems like a pretty inconvenient allergy to have.
Chalo
bjwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 18:46:38 -0500, Tom_Sherman
>
> <sunsetss0003REMOVE_T...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Some people are allergic to nickel, and should stick to utensils without
> >nickel content.
>
As far as I know, nickel allergy results in contact
dermatitis, and is a problem for people who are in
prolonged contact with the metal, for example in
jewelry. Stainless steel is very non-reactive and
nickel does not leach out of it. So stainless is
supposed to not be a problem for the nickel-allergic.
Also if you cook with stainless steel, you aren't
going to wind up eating nickel.
While people should feel free to avoid nickel-containing
stainless steel if they wish, it would be quite difficult to
avoid it completely; you'd have to bring your own silverware
everywhere, among other things.
Ben
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jay,
Aaargh!
More sleep might help when squeezing tests and posts into the cracks
of the day, but I have an uneasy feeling that it was just native
imbecility.
On the other hand, thanks for the kindest correction I've ever
received.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Michael Press
<5ff92414-d150-4c14...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Already, put him on the enemies' list.
What is stopping you?
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<4f280eb3-221a-43c5...@s20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For comparison, I tested some other household goods.
> Most stainless pans and my old film developing tanks are
> non- or very weakly ferromagnetic. The only stainless items
> I found to be strongly ferromagnetic were some
> kitchen utensils, silverware, and knives, plus a climbing
> implement. The ferromagnetic stainless utensils were labeled
> "18/0" which of course means 18% chromium and 0% nickel.
> This is relevant given the assertion above that higher nickel
> content preserves austenitic structure and hence
> non-magnetism.
This cries out for explanation, as pure nickel is ferromagnetic,
yet alloying with iron results in non-ferromagnetic material.
--
Michael Press
_
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 18:46:38 -0500, Tom_Sherman
> <sunsetss000...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Some people are allergic to nickel, and should stick to utensils without
>>nickel content.
>
> Say what?
Yes - think I first read about this in the New Yorker in the 70's; if such
allergies had by then made it to a relatively mainstream press then they
probably have been known about for longer than that.
_
>>Carl -
>>
>>- did you happens to miss-pell "stainless" as "aluminum"?
>
> Dear Jay,
>
> Aaargh!
>
> More sleep might help when squeezing tests and posts into the cracks
> of the day, but I have an uneasy feeling that it was just native
> imbecility.
>
> On the other hand, thanks for the kindest correction I've ever
> received.
>
I could, I suppose, have said "You're a retard" - but I don't use his glue,
either.
bjwe...@gmail.com
> In article
> <4f280eb3-221a-43c5-938a-e8308b1fc...@s20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For comparison, I tested some other household goods.
> > Most stainless pans and my old film developing tanks are
> > non- or very weakly ferromagnetic. The only stainless items
> > I found to be strongly ferromagnetic were some
> > kitchen utensils, silverware, and knives, plus a climbing
> > implement. The ferromagnetic stainless utensils were labeled
> > "18/0" which of course means 18% chromium and 0% nickel.
> > This is relevant given the assertion above that higher nickel
> > content preserves austenitic structure and hence
> > non-magnetism.
>
> This cries out for explanation, as pure nickel is ferromagnetic,
> yet alloying with iron results in non-ferromagnetic material.
It doesn't require crying out really.
The answer is both basic and complex.
Ferromagnetism is not a linear property of
the alloy recipe ingredients. It depends on
the crystalline structure of the material. In
order to have ferromagnetism, the magnetic
dipole moments of nearby atoms have to
align themselves spontaneously, which means
the spin alignment interaction has to be
energetically favored. Whether this happens
depends on the crystalline structure because
it governs the distance between atoms and the
electron energy band structure.
Iron by itself and nickel by itself may have ferritic
crystalline structures, but it is possible to create
an iron-nickel alloy that has an austenitic structure.
(Austenitic = face centered cubic, ferritic = body
centered cubic). Stainless steel is like that (it has
a lot of chromium, too, of course, but stainless with
nickel appears to remain austenitic).
Cold working the stainless steel can change the
structure, rendering it magnetizable, although I don't
know if it ever gets as ferromagnetic as plain steel.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-dont-magnets-work-on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetic
Ben
_
Everything is affected by magnetic fields, more or less. For the materials
commonly understood to be "magnetic", that term either means that a magnet
will attract them, or sometimes the quality that have of being turned into
magnets themselves when exposed to a sufficiently strong magnetic field.
It's been some time since I first delved into this stuff, but from what I
recall there are regions called domains, and the magnetic alignment of the
domains is what determines the magnetic qualities of a particular
substance.
Without reading anything further I would hazard a guess that the size of
these domains, and the ease with which their orientation can be changed has
a great deal to do with it. Alloy steels obviously vary in their
structure, and the interactions between the constituents must easily be
complex enough that a simple "A is magnetic, B is magnetic, A+B should be
magnetic as well" may not be what is actually happening.
jim beam
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:00:49 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>> Now, this wouldn't be a repeat of the "jim beam" fabrication in the
>>> brake-bolts-with-cut-threads vein, would it?
>>>
>>> (For the newer readers, "jim beam" claimed that cut threads were a
>>> "disaster waiting to happen", as they are weaker than rolled threads -
>>> true, but such bolts even with such threads are strong enough for the
>>> purpose, and no examples of broken brake bolts with cut threads have been
>>> seen, even thoug they have been used on brake bolts; when this was pointed
>>> out, "jim beam" posted a link to a photo of a brake with a broken bolt as
>>> an example.
>> so my cite of a fatigued brake bolt was /not/ a cite of a fatigued brake
>> bolt??? even though the article clearly stated that it was???
>>
>
> No, the article clearly stated that the bolt was inproperly tightened and
> that that was the reason for failure.
comprehension - FAIL. the bolt failed because of fatigue. the fatigue
arose because of looseness which exacerbates the problem, but the bolt
still failed from fatigue.
>
> And there was no indication that the bolt had cut threads.
cut threads would have failed even sooner because they're not as fatigue
resistant!!!
>
> This was pointed out to you at the time by several posters - perhaps you
> hoped they would just take your word for it instead of clicking on the link
> and reading the page.
you know, this is a very strange thing for a guy who seems to be able to
read the same facts time and time again, utterly failing to understand
what they actually mean, to say.
jim beam
> my bench. It was even more strongly attracted to a "brand x" (head
> broken off) Japanese 2.0 spoke also lying there.
>> of course, all the ignorati will get their panties in a bunch and shout
>> "superglue" long before they bother to get a magnet and expose the
>> idiocy of the famous jtaylor who apparently doesn't know what a magnet
>> is, but hey, stupidity is not a barrier to entry on usenet.
>
>
liar! cheat! it was superglue! those spokes are not magnetic i tell you!
jim beam
in other words, you haven't a fucking clue.
jim beam
don't like that - "crystalline" thing - think it's confused. nickel is
fcc, iron is bcc at room temp - both very different crystals. but fcc
nickel is indeed [though not as strongly] ferromagnetic like bcc iron.
> but it is possible to create
> an iron-nickel alloy that has an austenitic structure.
indeed, that is what high grade stainless does. the nickel means the
austenitic structure is retained below iron's transition temperature.
> (Austenitic = face centered cubic, ferritic = body
> centered cubic).
fcc iron is not ferromagnetic, bcc is.
> Stainless steel is like that (it has
> a lot of chromium, too, of course, but stainless with
> nickel appears to remain austenitic).
ferritic stainless is regarded as low end. it's not as rust resistant
and is not as sound mechanically.
> Cold working the stainless steel can change the
> structure, rendering it magnetizable, although I don't
> know if it ever gets as ferromagnetic as plain steel.
depends on the degree of martensitic transformation. being as that's a
result of deformation, it's not a given.
jim beam
what's even more interesting is that the majority of the constituent of
austenitic stainless is still iron, but that's not magnetic either.
ben's more or less right. fcc [austenitic] iron, and the nickel means
iron retains this fcc structure at a lower temperature than normal,
doesn't allow for dipole alignment.
jim beam
> On May 15, 10:12�am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Dear Ben,
>>
>> Will itty-bitty headphone magnets stick to your no-attraction spokes?
>
> I don't know. I don't feel like taking apart any
> headphones to find out. It wouldn't be the exact
> same magnet as yours, so it wouldn't be a direct
> comparison anyway. Stainless steels are
> not generally absolute zero ferro-magnetism. They're
> just weak to very weak compared to ordinary steels.
if it's fully austenitic and there's been no martensitic transition,
they are not ferromagnetic.
> So if you can find a magnet with a high enough magnetism
> to weight ratio, you may be able to get to get it to hang
> on a spoke, but that doesn't change that stainless
> spokes are noticeably less ferromagnetic than other
> steel, including galvanized or chromed spokes.
depends on the degree of transition - see above. if fully transitioned
however, you're also looking at mechanical failure - as described by tom
sherman.
>
> The more interesting question would be if you and
> others can find a correlation between, say, spoke
> manufacturer or type and magnetizability, similar
> to how I found that Asahi/Wheelsmith are less magnetic
> than DT. Although to be honest, it isn't _that_ interesting.
hence the debate on manufacture method. dt and sapim are clearly
mechanically worked - the evidence is apparent under magnification.
wheelsmith, or at least the ones i have, show no work and are only very
slightly magnetic.
jim beam
but for you to say that would have been hypocrisy.
jim beam
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> [...]
>> remember i've said that i believe wheelsmith to be ground and
>> polished? well, apart from physical features being consistent with
>> this, low magnetism is another one of the reasons.[...]
>
> I think "jim's" belief is out of date. Wheelsmith butted spokes were
> ground when made in Montana, but after purchase of Wheelsmith by Hayes
> Bicycle Group and the production moved to the corner of Florist and 64th
> in Havenwoods, they started using the former Asahi equipment for spoke
> production, which I believe forms the butting by swaging. Maybe Andrew
> Muzi can wrangle a visit to confirm the current production method.
>
clarity would indeed be good. but there are a /lot/ of old spokes out
there muddying the water.
jim beam
>>
>>> For comparison, I tested some other household goods.
>>> Most stainless pans and my old film developing tanks are
>>> non- or very weakly ferromagnetic. �The only stainless items
>>> I found to be strongly ferromagnetic were some
>>> kitchen utensils, silverware, and knives, plus a climbing
>>> implement.
>>
>>> "18/0" which of course means 18% chromium and 0% nickel.
>> kitchen grade. �it's /highly/ unusual for a commercial stainless to have
>>
>>> This is relevant given the assertion above that higher nickel
>>> content preserves austenitic structure and hence
>>> non-magnetism.
>
> long spoons/ladle/turner you could buy for $3 at IKEA,
> and I have four that say very clearly on the back
> "18/0 stainless steel." If you contradict me again
> I can post a picture. They look like these:
> http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/30083334
> I recommend them, by the way. Great value.
> Don't use on non-stick cookware, of course.
>
> Kitchen utensils commonly come in 18/10, 18/8, and 18/0.
> These are partly marketing as they aren't guaranteed to
> be exact. The 18/0 stuff is cheaper though it seems
> to work fine. I have a couple of "18/10" pans that are
> only magnetic in the distinct bottom layer that covers an
> aluminum core - possibly the sides and base are made
> of two different alloys.
most likely. none of the stainless pans in my place are even slightly
magnetic, but they're relatively old and were expensive.
>
> Anyway, spokes are weakly magnetic at best.
not so. you should try a larger sample. include butted spokes in your
testing.
> You may question the qualifications and judgment
> of various people you argue with on Usenet, but it
> helps to represent the facts correctly.
>
> Ben
i have.
jim beam
> Tom_Sherman <sunsetss000...@yahoo.com> considered Fri, 15 May
> test for weakness prior to total failure?
potentially, but you'd only really be able to do it in the context of a
known system - you couldn't apply it generically.
jim beam
> On May 15, 4:44�pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com>
> wrote:
>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>> I went in the back room and discovered easy access
>>> to 13 (!) wheels. �Out come the magnets. �One of the
>>> wheels had galvanized spokes and of course the magnet
>>> was strongly attracted to those. �A useful control.
>>> magnet was very weakly attracted to 2, and not at all
>>> to the remaining 10. �The 2 that were slightly magnetic
>>> both had DT 2.0/1.8mm butted spokes. �However, I also
>>> tried other wheels with DT butted and non-butted spokes
>>> and found almost no attraction. �A few wheels with Asahi and
>>> Wheelsmith stainless spokes had no attraction.
>>> diameter where the swaging takes effect and I tested that
>>> part to see if the cold working had rendered them
>>> ferromagnetic at that particular spot. �Nope.
>>> I then went back with a very strong magnet removed from
>>> a hard drive, and confirmed that two wheels with DT spokes
>>> were a little magnetic, the rest of the DT spokes were
>>> slightly magnetic, and the Asahi/Wheelsmith spokes weren't
>>> magnetic at all.
>>> Most stainless pans and my old film developing tanks are
>>> non- or very weakly ferromagnetic. �The only stainless items
>>> I found to be strongly ferromagnetic were some
>>> kitchen utensils, silverware, and knives, plus a climbing
>>> implement.
>> even when cold-worked - at best a few were found to be "a little" or
>> "slightly" magnetic, indicating little change from austenitic steel. �
>>
>> Which of course means that "jim beams"s claim that if you put stainless
>> spokes in a kitchen oven they will come out austenitic is sort of correct -
>> because they were austenitic to begin with.
>>
>> Hey ho.
>
> And we should distinguish the effects of different levels of applied
> heat. It is one thing to stick a spoke in boiling oil, or to make it
> redhot and quench it in cold oil, and quite another to harden paint on
> a spoke in an oven at a low temperature. This reflects one of the main
> areas of low credibility when dealing with the anonymous "jim beam",
> that, like too many inexperienced people who merely quote textbooks,
> he has an on-off switch, that he insists every case is always either-
> or, and that thus he altogether misses out on the subtleties of
> materials and their applications.
>
> Andre Jute
> It is always in the subtleties of engineering that the beauty resides
andre, you're just a pig-ignorant poseur.
bjwe...@gmail.com
I have. 12 wheels wasn't large enough? All of
the stainless spokes were much less magnetic
than the galvanized spokes. Two wheels with
DT 2.0/1.8mm spokes were mildly magnetic, but
in another wheel with DT 1.8/1.7mm butted spokes
the spokes were hardly magnetic at all. I didn't
record all of the spoke diameters since the result
that stainless spokes are at best weakly
ferromagnetic was clear. It will be clear to any
rbt reader who tries for themselves, too.
Ben
AMuzi
>> [...]
>> remember i've said that i believe wheelsmith to be ground and
>> polished? well, apart from physical features being consistent with
Tom_Sherman wrote:
> I think "jim's" belief is out of date. Wheelsmith butted spokes were
> ground when made in Montana, but after purchase of Wheelsmith by Hayes
> Bicycle Group and the production moved to the corner of Florist and 64th
> in Havenwoods, they started using the former Asahi equipment for spoke
> production, which I believe forms the butting by swaging. Maybe Andrew
> Muzi can wrangle a visit to confirm the current production method.
I believe Tom gave a correct (& pithy) synopsis.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
_
> _ wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:00:49 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Now, this wouldn't be a repeat of the "jim beam" fabrication in the
>>>> brake-bolts-with-cut-threads vein, would it?
>>>>
>>>> (For the newer readers, "jim beam" claimed that cut threads were a
>>>> "disaster waiting to happen", as they are weaker than rolled threads -
>>>> true, but such bolts even with such threads are strong enough for the
>>>> purpose, and no examples of broken brake bolts with cut threads have been
>>>> seen, even thoug they have been used on brake bolts; when this was pointed
>>>> out, "jim beam" posted a link to a photo of a brake with a broken bolt as
>>>> an example.
>>> so my cite of a fatigued brake bolt was /not/ a cite of a fatigued brake
>>> bolt??? even though the article clearly stated that it was???
>>>
>>
>> No, the article clearly stated that the bolt was inproperly tightened and
>> that that was the reason for failure.
>
> comprehension - FAIL. the bolt failed because of fatigue. the fatigue
> arose because of looseness which exacerbates the problem, but the bolt
> still failed from fatigue.
>
No, it failed from "bending fatigue" (quote from the page) because it was
improperly fastened - nothing to do with cut threads.
>
>>
>> And there was no indication that the bolt had cut threads.
>
> cut threads would have failed even sooner because they're not as fatigue
> resistant!!!
>
So what?
This was the only example you could find of a brake-bolt failing in your
argument that cut threads were a disater waiting to happen. The point at
issue is not that cut threads are weaker - no one disputes that; but that
even so, brake bolts with cut threads are sufficiently strong.
As evidenced by the lack of evidence of broken brake bolts.
Except, of course, that one which was subject to such abuse that it would
have failed, cut threads or no.
_
>> Without reading anything further I would hazard a guess that the size of
>> these domains, and the ease with which their orientation can be changed has
>> a great deal to do with it. Alloy steels obviously vary in their
>> structure, and the interactions between the constituents must easily be
>> complex enough that a simple "A is magnetic, B is magnetic, A+B should be
>> magnetic as well" may not be what is actually happening.
>
> in other words, you haven't a fucking clue.
It'd be simple enough to find out - but we already know that you prefer to
rely on your 'experience' rather than published facts and statistics; have
you forgotten your "there are no two-strokes with camshafts" debacle?
_
>
>>
>> Anyway, spokes are weakly magnetic at best.
>
> not so. you should try a larger sample. include butted spokes in your
> testing.
>
You've been given the results from three different people, 24 different
sets of spokes. Assuming 36 spokes per wheel (the wheels I tested, even the
Buchannan-spoked ones had 36 spokes) that's getting close to a thousand
spokes, from different manufacturers - and they *included* butted spokes.
A few of the stainless spokes were, at most, "slightly" or "weakly"
magnetic.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of your assertion that they change from
austenitic to martensitic through cold-working; but it is no surprise to
find you glueing your arguments together with distortions of what others
actually post.