disk brake debate - summary II

jim beam wrote:

wrote:

An interesting spin on the available data. Your 20kN force has been
totally blown away. Wouldn't it be best to admit you were mistaken
there? Jobst has a point about fretting over time for indentation
reinforcement.


i'm delighted that number's "blown away"! i said from the beginning
that my figure was a guesstimate.

You said "a rough calc shows the clamping force for a normal skewer is
~20kN", which has been shown to be out by a factor of about 3 from a
plausible upper limit and more like an order of magnitude according to
actual measurements.

No doubt you'll be "delighted" once you work out that the rest of your
argument is similarly wrong.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

41 wrote:

James Annan wrote:

jim beam wrote:

yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move on,
can't you? If you pulled your head out of your arse for once you might
be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an interesting
on e...


But that would require far more than 20kN, which Mr "Metallurgy School"
Jim Beam admits he cannot generate. You see, you have neglected to
account for the mechanical interlock that has resulted from so much
fretting.

Even if such forces were made available to shear the damn thing out,
your assessment of the results is wildly overoptimistic. L


chuckle.

Thanks for that, I can't honestly say it made 700 posts worth reading,
but it paid back something anyway!

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

James Annan wrote:
41 wrote:

James Annan wrote:

jim beam wrote:

yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move on,
can't you? If you pulled your head out of your arse for once you might
be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an interesting
on e...


But that would require far more than 20kN, which Mr "Metallurgy School"
Jim Beam admits he cannot generate. You see, you have neglected to
account for the mechanical interlock that has resulted from so much
fretting.

Even if such forces were made available to shear the damn thing out,
your assessment of the results is wildly overoptimistic. L


chuckle.

Thanks for that, I can't honestly say it made 700 posts worth reading,
but it paid back something anyway!

It's my pleasure.

Posters here, please note my reply to Mr "Metallurgy School" Jim Beam
in the other thread, which I reproduce in full he
================================================== =======
41 Oct 19, 11:16 am

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
From: "41" Date: 19 Oct 2005 08:16:37 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 19 2005 11:16 am
Subject: summary - the disk brake debate

jim beam wrote:
dvt wrote:
jim beam wrote:

well, the analysis process has been started - material shear is the
place to look.

I'd say the available test data points to the conclusion that material
shear is *not* t he place to look. Read Joe Riel's posts from yesterday
to see that analysis. Is there something wrong with that analysis?

to be honest, i'm out of screen real estate and can't follow the thread
very well any more. if you'd kindly repost in the summary II thread,
i'd love to look at it.

This is a tactic we've seen from you before. Out of screen real
estate??? In other words, you realize you have been completely
discredited in this thread, and so would like to start all over again
in a new thread, so everything has to be repeated all over again and
again and again. Nobody should fall for this. Summary II thread should
be reserved for disk-brake content-free, but highly a propos ridicule
of its originator.
================================================== ======================

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:42:11 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On 18 Oct 2005 21:50:17 -0700, "
wrote:


jim beam wrote:
1. in the absence of an iso pullout figure, [and conveniently ignoring
lawyer lips] there is no argument against disk brake ejection because
there is no pullout figure that the ejection force can easily be shown
to exceed.

2. according to the naysayers, pullout force is apparently /not/ a
function of qr clamping force in conjunction with mechanical interlock
caused by indentation. because by conveniently not acknowledging the
effect of clamping force and interlock, they have no argument. [see
point 1. above.]

3. if pullout force /were/ to be a function of mechanical interlock, no
one has yet shown any willingness to analyze existing estimates of the
material shear force that breaking that interlock would create.

An interesting spin on the available data. Your 20kN force has been
totally blown away.

But he put "summary" in the subject of this thread, so doesn't that
mean he's pulling together the best available knowledge?

I believe that it may be a summary in the same sense as the various
summaries that are supplied to W on a daily basis. One can probably
construct a number of summaries of the threads with wildly different
conclusions supported.

I, for one, have decided not to worry about the issue.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

jim beam wrote:
dvt wrote:

dvt wrote:

The data in another thread shows evidence that indented/embossed fork
ends don't greatly affect pullout force. Here's the message ID for
that data in case you missed it: .



I just saw your note in the other thread. Use groups.google.com's
advanced search and plug in the message ID I gave above.

"Steel on steel static friction is in the range of .74 to .78 (dry).
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister III, T. (1987). Marks' standard handbook
for mechanical engineers (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Phil H"

correct?

Nope. You have to plug the message ID specifically into the message ID
box on the advanced search page. Try this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...bb1680e2?hl=en

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

In article ,
dvt wrote:

jim beam wrote:
that's another example of the logical disconnect that allows you to
claim that indented fork ends don't affect pullout force.

The data in another thread shows evidence that indented/embossed fork
ends don't greatly affect pullout force. Here's the message ID for that
data in case you missed it: .

We are better off when you enclose the message ID in angle
brackets. Then the reader of the message can retrieve it
from his ISP's news server by clicking on it.


I want to avoid the google interface. Usenet is a plain
text medium run off port 119, not a mark up medium run off
port 80. google interferes with the plain text format.
They treat us like they own usenet.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
dvt wrote:

jim beam wrote:
dvt wrote:

dvt wrote:

The data in another thread shows evidence that indented/embossed fork
ends don't greatly affect pullout force. Here's the message ID for
that data in case you missed it: .



I just saw your note in the other thread. Use groups.google.com's
advanced search and plug in the message ID I gave above.

"Steel on steel static friction is in the range of .74 to .78 (dry).
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister III, T. (1987). Marks' standard handbook
for mechanical engineers (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Phil H"

correct?

Nope. You have to plug the message ID specifically into the message ID
box on the advanced search page. Try this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...bb1680e2?hl=en

As you see, google has substituted their proprietary
identification with the public identification
.

--
Michael Press

In article
. com,
"41" wrote:

James Annan wrote:
41 wrote:

James Annan wrote:

jim beam wrote:

yet more self-flagellation. Stop humiliating yourself and move on,
can't you? If you pulled your head out of your arse for once you might
be able to make a useful contribution, or at least an interesting
on e...


But that would require far more than 20kN, which Mr "Metallurgy School"
Jim Beam admits he cannot generate. You see, you have neglected to
account for the mechanical interlock that has resulted from so much
fretting.

Even if such forces were made available to shear the damn thing out,
your assessment of the results is wildly overoptimistic. L

Here is what this newsgroup was meant for.



chuckle.

Thanks for that, I can't honestly say it made 700 posts worth reading,
but it paid back something anyway!

It's my pleasure.

Posters here, please note my reply to Mr "Metallurgy School" Jim Beam
in the other thread, which I reproduce in full he

Except for the message ID
.com

================================================== =======
41 Oct 19, 11:16 am

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
From: "41" Date: 19 Oct 2005 08:16:37 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 19 2005 11:16 am
Subject: summary - the disk brake debate

jim beam wrote:
dvt wrote:
jim beam wrote:

well, the analysis process has been started - material shear is the
place to look.

I'd say the available test data points to the conclusion that material
shear is *not* t he place to look. Read Joe Riel's posts from yesterday
to see that analysis. Is there something wrong with that analysis?

to be honest, i'm out of screen real estate and can't follow the thread
very well any more. if you'd kindly repost in the summary II thread,
i'd love to look at it.

This is a tactic we've seen from you before. Out of screen real
estate??? In other words, you realize you have been completely
discredited in this thread, and so would like to start all over again
in a new thread, so everything has to be repeated all over again and
again and again. Nobody should fall for this. Summary II thread should
be reserved for disk-brake content-free, but highly a propos ridicule
of its originator.
================================================== ======================

That he cannot keep straight his own work is refutation to
his professions of technical competence, and should
persuade all that his assertions must be discounted. I
predict that he will find another forum to join. Likely
sci.engr.metallurgy.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
James Annan wrote:

jim beam wrote:

wrote:

An interesting spin on the available data. Your 20kN force has been
totally blown away. Wouldn't it be best to admit you were mistaken
there? Jobst has a point about fretting over time for indentation
reinforcement.


i'm delighted that number's "blown away"! i said from the beginning
that my figure was a guesstimate.

You said "a rough calc shows the clamping force for a normal skewer is
~20kN", which has been shown to be out by a factor of about 3 from a
plausible upper limit and more like an order of magnitude according to
actual measurements.

No doubt you'll be "delighted" once you work out that the rest of your
argument is similarly wrong.

That 5 mm skewer will plastically deform at 20 kN tension.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press wrote:
In article
. com,
"41" wrote:

Posters here, please note my reply to Mr "Metallurgy School" Jim Beam
in the other thread, which I reproduce in full he

Except for the message ID
.com

Thanks for that completion.


================================================== =======
41 Oct 19, 11:16 am

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
From: "41" KingGeorge...@yaho o.fr Date: 19 Oct 2005 08:16:37 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 19 2005 11:16 am
Subject: summary - the disk brake debate

jim beam wrote:
dvt wrote:
jim beam wrote:

well, the analysis process has been started - mat erial shear is the
place to look.

I'd say the available test data points to the conclusion that material
shear is *not* t he place to look. Read Joe Riel's posts from yesterday
to see that analysis. Is there something wrong with that analysis?

to be honest, i'm out of screen real estate and can't follow the thread
very well any more. if you'd kindly repost in the summary II thread,
i'd love to look at it.

This is a tactic we've seen fr om you before. Out of screen real
estate??? In other words, you realize you have been completely
discredited in this thread, and so would like to start all over again
in a new thread, so everything has to be repeated all over again and
again and again. Nobody should fall for this. Summary II thread should
be reserved for disk-brake content-free, but highly a propos ridicule
of its originator.
================================================== ======================

That he cannot keep straight his own work is refutation to
his professions of technical competence, and should
persuade all that his assertions must be discounted. I
predict that he will find another forum to join. Likely
sci.engr.metallurgy.

He probably realizes he'll find no takers there. He could try
alt.metallurgyskool.diplomas.by.correspondence.