What gives better english 12mm or 13mm shaft
audio...@my-deja.com
size is better 12mm or 13mm?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Fred Agnir
audio...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8fhoik$mt4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I see a lot of people at the tournament i play at use 12mm shafts.What
>size is better 12mm or 13mm?
>
It ain't the size of the wand; it's how you wave it. Is that right?
Patrick Johnson
> What size is better 12mm or 13mm?
Some people think smaller tips produce better spin/speed ratios (more
rotation per inch traveled). Some think it's because of hitting closer
to the center of the shaft. Others think it's because of the sharper
curve of the tip (even though the curve isn't necessarily sharper).
Still others don't know why and don't care, as long as it's true.
I don't buy it. I think maybe it *feels* like you're getting more spin
because when you move your hand the same amount as before you do get
more spin. But that's because you're hitting farther from center
(because the edge of the shaft is farther from center). If you move
your hand in so you're hitting the same place as before, I think you get
the same amount of spin.
Or if you change to a thinner shaft you might go through a "new
equipment rush" where your game picks up just because of heightened
interest. The same thing could happen with a change to a thicker shaft.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Greg Miller
<audio...@my-deja.com> wrote
> I see a lot of people at the tournament i play at use 12mm shafts.What
The tip end mass of a 12mm is about 85% that of a 13mm. This might give
less squirt.
Why did the Predator people go with a hollowed out shaft when they could get
the same tip end mass with an 11mm solid end stick? Is 11mm too weak?
Maybe it was determined that 13mm was a much easier sell.
Patrick Johnson
> Why did the Predator people go with a hollowed out shaft when they could get
> the same tip end mass with an 11mm solid end stick?
Maybe it has something to do with the special soft ferrule. If it's
actually bending, maybe the hollow shaft is necessary to accommodate
that.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
sam
>
I use a 12mm shaft and find that it suits my little fingers AND is more
SENSITIVE to spin. In other words, I don't believe that it can give you MORE
spin, but that very slight movements left, right, up, or down has MORE effect on
the cueball than a 13mm tip. Just my opinion. :o) Sincerely, Sam
>I see a lot of people at the tournament i play at use 12mm shafts.What
>size is better 12mm or 13mm?
>
>
swn99
#1 its the quality/hardness of the tip
#2 how good your stroke is
#3 the weight of the cueball
#4 dont forget to chalk it!
#5 the humidity helps to, on those hot sticky days, the balls
just
grab the cloth
I tend to get better english with a 13mm tweeten triangle tip,
on
my tim scruggs cue....
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
daniz2pac
Danny
tom simpson
<REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote:
Or maybe it's simply because American pool players are used to
12-3/4 to 13 mm, so they wanted to offer an improvement in
that range? It's hard enough getting pool players to try
something a little different -- a drastic diameter change is
more than most players will consider.
tom simpson
lfigueroa
Lou Figueroa
Greg Miller <gre...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:wA1T4.15200$Pk.53...@news1.mia...
>
> <audio...@my-deja.com> wrote
> > I see a lot of people at the tournament i play at use 12mm shafts.What
> > size is better 12mm or 13mm?
>
> The tip end mass of a 12mm is about 85% that of a 13mm. This might give
> less squirt.
> Why did the Predator people go with a hollowed out shaft when they could
get
donald tees
daniz2pac wrote in message <10ba6abd...@usw-ex0104-032.remarq.com>...
dha...@cyberweek.com
shop for two months, I used a 13 mm. It didn't give me nearly as much
spin control, but I had more control for cut shots.
One little test is to put the CB on the head spot and shoot it straight
ahead into the middle diamond at the foot. Put as much left/right
English on it as you can and shoot as if you were lagging (medium-soft)
to maximize spin effect. See where the CB hits the side rail. With the
smaller tip, I usually end up within 2 diamonds of the foot rail. With
the larger tip, the ball often hits the side below the pocket.
Mike Gralnick
to 13 than 12.75mm.
--
----------------
Mike Gralnick
Cuephoria Cue Collection
http://customcues.bizland.com/
Buy, Sell, Trade and Find Custom Cues.
--
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:uVcT4.64039$fV.39...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Ron Shepard
><REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote:
>
>::Greg Miller wrote:
>::
>get
>::> the same tip end mass with an 11mm solid end stick?
>::Maybe it has something to do with the special soft ferrule. If it's
>::actually bending, maybe the hollow shaft is necessary to accommodate
>::that.
>::
>::Pat Johnson
>::Chicago
>
>Or maybe it's simply because American pool players are used to
>12-3/4 to 13 mm, so they wanted to offer an improvement in
>that range? It's hard enough getting pool players to try
>something a little different -- a drastic diameter change is
>more than most players will consider.
I'm not a structural engineer, but it is commonly accepted that for a given
amount of material, a big hollow tube is stronger than a solid cylinder of the
same length. Look at almost anything around you, a lawn chair or a bicycle for
example. Instead of a thin aluminum rod, the lawn chair is made from a hollow
tube.
I remember someone posting that Clawson was experimenting with snooker shafts.
Anyone know the design of the prototypes? I'm guessing they were hollow too.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
>ahead into the middle diamond at the foot. Put as much left/right
>English on it as you can and shoot as if you were lagging (medium-soft)
>to maximize spin effect. See where the CB hits the side rail. With the
>smaller tip, I usually end up within 2 diamonds of the foot rail. With
>the larger tip, the ball often hits the side below the pocket.
I have a couple of extra suggestions for this test shot. First, in order to
maximize the spin/speed ratio, you don't want to hit the cue ball at 9:00 or
3:00. You want to hit a little below center. The "best" point to hit, for a
given tip displacement from center, is on the image of a "small circle" with
half the diameter of the cue ball projected onto the cue ball so that it
touches the cloth at the bottom and the center of the cue ball at the top.
There are pictures in APAPP if this isn't clear.
The second comment is that you should be miscueing a good fraction of the time.
You are trying to hit right at the maximum displacement. It isn't fair to hit
at the maximum displacment for one tip and not the other, you should hit at the
maximum displacement for both. One way to do that is to make sure you are
right at the miscue limit.
Also, make sure that both tips are holding chalk the same way (e.g. if one is
slick and the other has a good texture, then that's not fair either).
When you do all of these things (aim on the small circle at the maximum
displacment with a well-textured tip), then you will probably conclude that you
can get the same effect on the cue ball with any shaft. This is good because
it means that you can select the shaft for other reasons (squirt, hit,
flexibility, taper, etc.), and you don't have to compromise these other things
for "spin".
$.02 -Ron Shepard
donald tees
<20000513143328...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>I'm not a structural engineer, but it is commonly accepted that for a given
>amount of material, a big hollow tube is stronger than a solid cylinder of
the
>same length. Look at almost anything around you, a lawn chair or a bicycle
for
>example. Instead of a thin aluminum rod, the lawn chair is made from a
hollow
>tube.
>
Change the word length above to mass, and you would be correct.
However, while that might be true given a fixed amount of material, it is
certainly not true for a given diameter. In your above example, the reason
is not greater strength but better strength for a specific amount of
aluminium. Those chairs, made out of solid aluminium of the same diameter,
would be thousands of times stronger.
When you hollow out a cue, you do not get to use the wood saved out of the
core to make ten more cues as is the case for aluminium and lawn chairs.
Maybe you are better off not trying to make a living as an engineer. <G>
Hollowing out the core is going to make it both weaker and lighter.
Refilling the hollow with something other than wood is going to do something
else again, depending on what you fill it with.
Ron Shepard
><20000513143328...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>
>>I'm not a structural engineer, but it is commonly accepted that for a given
>>amount of material, a big hollow tube is stronger than a solid cylinder
>of
>the
>>same length. Look at almost anything around you, a lawn chair or a bicycle
>for
>>example. Instead of a thin aluminum rod, the lawn chair is made from a
>hollow
>>tube.
>>
>
>Change the word length above to mass, and you would be correct.
For a given amount of material, the mass is constant.
>Maybe you are better off not trying to make a living as an engineer. <G>
Perhaps. But read what I said. Maybe you are better off not trying to make a
living reading. :-)
I believe the above is why the Predator shafts are hollow. For a given amount
of material (wood), a hollow shaft is stronger than a solid shaft of the same
length. The amount of material determines the end mass, which in turn
determines the squirt.
I don't know about the plastic ferrule material and the hollow insert. I've
asked here in RSB before whether this is denser or lighter than wood, and no
one has told us yet. I'd guess that it is about the same density as wood, or
perhaps a little heavier.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Patrick Johnson
> >...for a given amount of material, a big hollow tube is
> >stronger than a solid cylinder of the same length.
> Don corrected:
> Change the word length above to mass, and you would be correct.
His statement looks correct to me. He said "for a given amount of
material", so the mass is the same by definition. And strength
(rigidity?) over a given span (length) is an appropriate measure.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Dick Moecia
filling the insides with cork to get more "pop"?
Donlad Tees writes:
"Hollowing out the core is going to make it both weaker and lighter.
Refilling the hollow with something other than wood is going to do something
else again, depending on what you fill it with."
Dick Moecia, fka poolcue
http://ourworld.cs.com/poolhalloffame
dha...@cyberweek.com
Yeah, I miscue about 20% of time when I try this test shot. Thinking
about it at 6:44 a.m., I believe I do hit a little below 9:00. Nothing
intentional, just trial-and-error "instinct."
You very tactfully suggest that I should be able to get the same result
from any well-groomed cue. I infer that my stroke must be different
somehow from one cue to another to get distinctly and consistent
different results. I'll have to watch that and see what's happening.
In article <20000513144720...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
donald tees
somewhere else. Please scrap the last post.
Ron Shepard wrote in message
<20000513155342...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>>Ron Shepard wrote in message
>><20000513143328...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>>
>>>I'm not a structural engineer, but it is commonly accepted that for a
given
>>>amount of material, a big hollow tube is stronger than a solid cylinder
>>of
>>the
>>>same length. Look at almost anything around you, a lawn chair or a
bicycle
>>for
>>>example. Instead of a thin aluminum rod, the lawn chair is made from a
>>hollow
>>>tube.
>>>
>>
>>Change the word length above to mass, and you would be correct.
>
>For a given amount of material, the mass is constant.
>
>>Maybe you are better off not trying to make a living as an engineer. <G>
>
>Perhaps. But read what I said. Maybe you are better off not trying to
make a
>living reading. :-)
>
>I believe the above is why the Predator shafts are hollow. For a given
amount
donald tees
Patrick Johnson wrote in message <391DCD60...@21stCentury.net>...
>> >Ron wrote:
>
>> >...for a given amount of material, a big hollow tube is
>> >stronger than a solid cylinder of the same length.
>
>> Don corrected:
>> Change the word length above to mass, and you would be correct.
>
Otto
piled.
Otto
"donald tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote in message
news:8fma4t$ms1$1...@news.igs.net...
> Ron, I somehow read that post entirely wrong. My head must have been
> somewhere else. Please scrap the last post.
>
> Ron Shepard wrote in message
> <20000513155342...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
> >>Ron Shepard wrote in message
> >><20000513143328...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
> >>
> >>>I'm not a structural engineer, but it is commonly accepted that for a
> given
> >>>amount of material, a big hollow tube is stronger than a solid cylinder
> >>of
> >>the
> >>>same length. Look at almost anything around you, a lawn chair or a
> bicycle
> >>for
> >>>example. Instead of a thin aluminum rod, the lawn chair is made from a
> >>hollow
> >>>tube.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Change the word length above to mass, and you would be correct.
> >
> >For a given amount of material, the mass is constant.
> >
> >>Maybe you are better off not trying to make a living as an engineer. <G>
> >
> >Perhaps. But read what I said. Maybe you are better off not trying to
> make a
> >living reading. :-)
> >
> >I believe the above is why the Predator shafts are hollow. For a given
> amount
Rankin Johnson IV
solid one. I know that is counter-intuitive, but that is what I remeber. (I
think that is part of why bones are hollow. Some birds, for example, have
hollow spaces in their bones, not filled with marrow.) Are there any engineers,
or maybe people who remember college physics better than I, who can confirm or
deny?
/s/ Rankin Johnson IV
donald tees wrote:
> Ron Shepard wrote in message
> <20000513143328...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>
> >I'm not a structural engineer, but it is commonly accepted that for a given
> >amount of material, a big hollow tube is stronger than a solid cylinder of
> the
> >same length. Look at almost anything around you, a lawn chair or a bicycle
> for
> >example. Instead of a thin aluminum rod, the lawn chair is made from a
> hollow
> >tube.
> >
>
> Change the word length above to mass, and you would be correct.
>
> However, while that might be true given a fixed amount of material, it is
> certainly not true for a given diameter. In your above example, the reason
> is not greater strength but better strength for a specific amount of
> aluminium. Those chairs, made out of solid aluminium of the same diameter,
> would be thousands of times stronger.
>
> When you hollow out a cue, you do not get to use the wood saved out of the
> core to make ten more cues as is the case for aluminium and lawn chairs.
> Maybe you are better off not trying to make a living as an engineer. <G>
>
> Hollowing out the core is going to make it both weaker and lighter.
> Refilling the hollow with something other than wood is going to do something
> else again, depending on what you fill it with.
--
Fighting for justice, but I'll settle for a reversal.
Patrick Johnson
> I think that, for a given diameter, a hollow wooden cylinder is stronger than a
> solid one.
Doesn't make sense. Take a hollow wooden cylinder and fill it with
wood. How would that make it weaker? You're thinking of the fact that
a hollow cylinder is stronger than a solid one *if you use the same
amount of material for each*.
> (I think that is part of why bones are hollow. Some birds, for example, have
> hollow spaces in their bones, not filled with marrow.)
They're hollow so you have a place to make blood cells and because they
can be stronger for the same weight (see above). Birds' hollow bones
allow them to fly.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Mountain Mike^^
"Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message > Doesn't make
sense. Take a hollow wooden cylinder and fill it with> wood. How would
that make it weaker? You're
I think he's right about this. Compression vs. elasticity or some such
thing. This is the reason that wooden sailing ships used hollow spars for
example. I know that a hollow metal tube resists bending more than one of
the same diameter that is solid. I don't really recall the dynamics
involved, though. MM^^
Rankin Johnson IV
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> Rankin Johnson IV wrote:
>
> > I think that, for a given diameter, a hollow wooden cylinder is stronger than a
> > solid one.
>
> Doesn't make sense. Take a hollow wooden cylinder and fill it with
> wood. How would that make it weaker? You're thinking of the fact that
> a hollow cylinder is stronger than a solid one *if you use the same
> amount of material for each*.
I agree that it does not make sense. Regardless, I accurately expressed what I was
thinking. Wrong or not, I was thinking (and still think) that a hollow cylinder is
stronger than a solid one of the same diameter.
/s/ Rankin Johnson IV
dave y.
They hollow shafts out to make them lighter, not to make
them stronger. The deal is, you lose weight quicker than
you lose strength, so it's a good tradeoff.
dave y.
QuantumDot
12" long. Try to bend 'em. The tube stock is harder to bend because
while one side in in compression, the other side is in expansion.
Rankin Johnson IV wrote:
>
> Patrick Johnson wrote:
>
> > Rankin Johnson IV wrote:
> >
> > > I think that, for a given diameter, a hollow wooden cylinder is stronger than a
> > > solid one.
> >
> > Doesn't make sense. Take a hollow wooden cylinder and fill it with
> > wood. How would that make it weaker? You're thinking of the fact that
> > a hollow cylinder is stronger than a solid one *if you use the same
> > amount of material for each*.
>
> I agree that it does not make sense. Regardless, I accurately expressed what I was
> thinking. Wrong or not, I was thinking (and still think) that a hollow cylinder is
> stronger than a solid one of the same diameter.
>
> /s/ Rankin Johnson IV
> --
> Fighting for justice, but I'll settle for a reversal.
--
_______________________________________________________________
"A mature woman doesn't have to push, and she doesn't have to
depend on gimmicks or beauty aids. It's her attitude toward life
that makes her mature and attractive."
- Paul Newman
"Neither technology nor efficiency can aquire more time for
you, because time is not a thing you have lost. It is not
a thing you ever had..."
-William Gibson
"The Sun has left his blackness & has found a fresher
morning
And the fair Moon rejoices in the clear and cloudless night;
For Empire is no more, and now the Lion & Wolf shall cease..."
-William Blake
"America: A Prophesy"
Patrick Johnson
> Take a 1/2" piece of drill rod 12" long, and a 1/2" piece of tube stock
> 12" long. Try to bend 'em. The tube stock is harder to bend because
> while one side in in compression, the other side is in expansion.
The hollow tube is entirely present within the solid rod, so how does it
act differently because it's filled?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
J&W Ardans
Mountain Mike^^ wrote in message <8gn3v...@news2.newsguy.com>...
I know that a hollow metal tube resists bending more than one of the
same diameter that is solid. This is why wooden sailing ships used
hollow spars. I don't really recall the dynamics involved, though. MM^^
=====================================
Adding material to an object can only make it stronger, not weaker.
The correct statement is: A hollow metal tube resists bending
more than one of the same WEIGHT that is solid. See "Formulas
for Stress and Strain" by Roark for actual strength comparisons.
John E. Ardans Vacaville CA arda...@inreach.com
=====================================
Mountain Mike^^
"Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message > The hollow
tube is entirely present within the solid rod, so how does it> act
differently because it's filled?
>
than solid masts *of the same amount of material*. The reason is that teh
two walls work with each other, one in tension, the other in compression, to
resist side load. .....the material in the center has no value in resisting
buckling, becasue it neither takes compression or tension. In fact, the
material in the center may actually weaken a solid spar, because in a
buckle, the center material is pressed upon by the compressed side, and it
in turn presses out on the tension side, becoming in effect a fulcrum over
which the tension side can crack."
"Sailboat Design", Meade Gougeon & Tyrus Knoy. Courier Books. 1973. pages
68-69.
Hope this helps. MM^^
QuantumDot
Steve <-- beginning to realize MM is quite the renaissance man
waldo...@my-deja.com
different thicknesses at different stress areas. I'm not sure if this
applies to wood as much as other metals. Aluminum, Titanaum, steel,
alloy etc... Can wood have the same effect?
I know I shoot with a 17 oz cue which means it's hollow for 6-12 inches
in the butt. Does this mean that the wood now is stronger in the butt?
Ww
In article <392EC092...@easystreet.com>,
Rankin Johnson IV <rank...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> I think that, for a given diameter, a hollow wooden cylinder is
stronger than a
> solid one. I know that is counter-intuitive, but that is what I
remeber. (I
> think that is part of why bones are hollow. Some birds, for example,
have
> hollow spaces in their bones, not filled with marrow.) Are there any
engineers,
> or maybe people who remember college physics better than I, who can
confirm or
> deny?
>
> /s/ Rankin Johnson IV
>
> donald tees wrote:
>
> > Ron Shepard wrote in message
> > <20000513143328...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
> >
> > >I'm not a structural engineer, but it is commonly accepted that for
a given
> > >amount of material, a big hollow tube is stronger than a solid
> --
> Fighting for justice, but I'll settle for a reversal.
>
>
donald tees
>I agree that it does not make sense. Regardless, I accurately expressed
what I was
>thinking. Wrong or not, I was thinking (and still think) that a hollow
cylinder is
>stronger than a solid one of the same diameter.
>
No, it is not. A hollow cylinder is stronger than a solid cylinder made
from the same amount of material, but it is also larger in diameter (which
is the main reasons that it is stronger). The same effect is true for an
I-beam, the I-beam shape is stronger than a rectangle using the same amount
of steel. If the diameter is the same, however, the solid cylinder will be
the stronger.
Mountain Mike^^
If the diameter is the same, however, the solid cylinder will be> the
stronger.
>
being flat and all:)
MM^^<---everyone's entitled to *prove* their thesis.
Patrick Johnson
> Hope this helps.
I hope it helps you, since it's exactly what I've been saying, and not
what you said.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Hillbilly
> act differently because it's filled?
>
Because it has more weight and therefore requires less force to bend.
Either way, this thread depends on your idea of "stronger". Yes a
hollow piece resists bending better than a solid piece. Take those 2
pieces of wood, play darts with them, manly style, and tell me which one
splinters first.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mountain Mike^^
"Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message > I hope it
helps you, since it's exactly what I've been saying, and not> what you said.
>
stronger? And didn't you get an answer? Personally, I couldn't give a shit.
Either way is ok with me.
MM^^<--damnliberals (all one word)
Patrick Johnson
> Gee, Pat, didn't you ask the question as to *why* a hollow rod might be
> stronger?
Kinda.
> And didn't you get an answer?
I know the answer. My question was rhetorical. I was trying to point
out to you that your earlier comment in this thread isn't supported by
the quote from your boat building book (as you seem to think it is).
Here's what you said earlier:
> "I know that a hollow metal tube resists bending more
> than one of the same diameter that is solid."
Here's what your boat building book says:
> "Hollow masts [...] have greater resistance to buckling
> than solid masts *of the same amount of material*."
These statements aren't the same. A hollow mast of the same *diameter*
as a solid one isn't the same as a hollow mast of the same *amount of
material* as a solid one. A hollow mast of the same amount of material
is larger in diameter. That's what makes it stronger.
The other part of the quote from your book (the part that says the
material in the center of a solid spar may actually weaken it) is wrong
and incongruous with the first part. If it was true, they wouldn't have
to qualify their first statement with the bit about "the same amount of
material."
Consider this: Take a hollow tube and make its walls thicker (by adding
material to the inside so the diameter is the same). Would it be
stronger or weaker? Now make them thicker still. Stronger or weaker?
Continue until you fill the hollow space. At what point does it
suddenly get weaker? (This is a rhetorical question to illustrate my
point.)
Here's where the reasoning in your book goes goofy:
"the material in the center may actually weaken a solid spar, because in
a buckle, the center material is pressed upon by the compressed side,
and it in turn presses out on the tension side, becoming in effect a
fulcrum over which the tension side can crack"
What's wrong with it? The part that says "in a buckle". The material
in the center *prevents* buckling. Buckling is something hollow rods do
(because the side caves in).
Are you building a sailboat on your mountaintop because you heard about
the damnliberal plot to flood the world and rust your guns? Hope you
figure out what else is wrong in that book before the water reaches you.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Mountain Mike^^
"Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message > The other
part of the quote from your book (the part that says the> material in the
center of a solid spar may actually weaken it) is wrong> and incongruous
with the first part. If it was true, they wouldn't have
I used (*) to quote the part that *agreed* with you. I did this to be fair
with my source material and to actually show the inconsistency of the second
part. I had suspected that these guys were structural engineers of some kind
and maybe they hadn't yet proved their thesis. However, it seemed logical to
me based on previous car, boat, machinery and building that I have done. I
also pointed this out in case maybe there had been new discoveries made
regarding structural analysis and someone here would have either confirmed
or denied the claim.
I have followed the experimental aircraft building advancements closely
the last few decades, especially with Kevlar and other fibers used in tube
and monocoque construction. The structural strength advancements have been
phenomonal. All panels are *layered* construction, meaning the outside skin
handles all the stresses. The inner *core* is only there to give aerodynamic
shape.
However, I'll yield *this* debate to whomever has the background in this
specific science. Because I really don't know for sure. So.....allow me to
change my statement from "I know that a hollow rod resists bending more than
a solid piece of the same diameter" to "I've *heard* that..........Fair
enough? MM^^
Ron Shepard
>"Hollow masts, of either wood or metal, have greater resistance to buckling
>than solid masts *of the same amount of material*. [...]
This was the phrase I used when I started the whole argument, wasn't it? "Of
the same amount of material" means that the hollow tube will be larger in
diameter than the solid tube. It does NOT mean that a hollow tube of the same
diameter will be stronger than a solid tube of the same diameter. "Of the same
diameter" is not the same thing as "of the same amount of material."
I'm not so sure about bending, but when it comes to torison, all of the tension
in a solid bar is near the outside surface. You can remove the inside core
material because it basically doesn't do anything. If it is worth the effort,
or if weight is important, then torison rods are almost always hollow for this
reason.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
SxyRedChef
>monocoque construction.
Exactly what is a monocoque. I've heard this term many times over the years
but never knew what it meant.
Bert <-- insatiably curious about EVERYTHING
Frank
Pronunciation: 'mä-n&-"kOk, -"käk
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from mon- + coque shell, probably from Latin coccum
kermes -- more at COCOON
Date: 1913
1 : a type of construction (as of a fuselage) in which the outer skin carries
all or a major part of the stresses
2 : a type of vehicle construction (as of an automobile) in which the body is
integral with the chassis
--
---
Frank (spyder...@suespammers.org)
New Opcode
"SxyRedChef" <sxyre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000528091219...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
JavaMan
cannot make it stronger -- but you do improve the strenth/weight ratio.
On the other hand, for anything being bent or twisted, there is an area
which undergoes absolutely no stress. In building construction, this is
usually the middle bit of the I-beam. In a pool cue, it is the center of
the cylinder or shaft. Taking away material does not *_significantly_*
reduce the ability to resist deflection, which I think is the only part of
"strength" we are concerned with.
Cheers,
Dean
On 27-May-2000, Rankin Johnson IV <rank...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> Patrick Johnson wrote:
>
> > Rankin Johnson IV wrote:
> >
> > > I think that, for a given diameter, a hollow wooden cylinder is
> > > stronger than a
> > > solid one.
> >
> > Doesn't make sense. Take a hollow wooden cylinder and fill it with
> > wood. How would that make it weaker? You're thinking of the fact that
> > a hollow cylinder is stronger than a solid one *if you use the same
> > amount of material for each*.
>
> I agree that it does not make sense. Regardless, I accurately expressed
> what I was
> thinking. Wrong or not, I was thinking (and still think) that a hollow
> cylinder is
> stronger than a solid one of the same diameter.
>
> /s/ Rankin Johnson IV
Patrick Johnson
> I have followed the experimental aircraft building advancements closely
> the last few decades, especially with Kevlar and other fibers used in tube
> and monocoque construction. The structural strength advancements have been
> phenomonal. All panels are *layered* construction, meaning the outside skin
> handles all the stresses. The inner *core* is only there to give aerodynamic
> shape.
I believe this, because the inner core of aircraft would probably be
lighter material. If it was the same material as the outer skin, it
would add strength, but it would be too heavy.
> However, I'll yield *this* debate to whomever has the background in this
> specific science. Because I really don't know for sure.
Beyond general principles and basic physics, neither do I.
> So.....allow me to
> change my statement from "I know that a hollow rod resists bending more than
> a solid piece of the same diameter" to "I've *heard* that..........Fair
> enough?
Cool. You remind me (in some ways) of one of my best friends. He could
fabricate anything out of any material(s), and had the shop to do it.
We shared a cabinet-making business for awhile, blew glass together
(including building our own furnaces, annealing ovens, etc. and
machining our own pipes), and generally acted like Gyro Gearloose
wannabes until we decided incomes would be nice.
So what *are* you building up there? Selector sear pin conversion kits?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Mountain Mike^^
"Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message >
>
required for any puposes I have in mind. I think a 4" pattern at 2000 yards
is a much better deterrent....
But, to answer you question....I experiment with systems that make me more
self reliant. Water turbines, solar panels, heat exchangers, high
performance batteries, and self contained green houses. I also try out
inexpensive building materials such as soil-cement and ram-earth walls. Just
about anything that I get interested in, I'll experiment with. As you know,
I love to challenge the existing *truths* about just about everything. Most
of the time, I re-invent the wheel. But there are other times when I find
out that the earth is not flat after all......MM^^
SxyRedChef
>I think a 4" pattern at 2000 yards
>is a much better deterrent....
Damn, Mike, if you can make a 4' pattern at 2000 yards Im not getting anywhere
near your place without permission. You can keep that homegrown <g>
You sound like an interesting character. I am sorry that I'm not in SoCal
anymore coz I sure would like to meet ya
Bert