vacuum de-gas thread continued

Peter Cole wrote:
jim beam wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
jim beam wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
A more ductile
metal spoke will yield more extension before fracture.
A compromised spoke will elongate. If the rider notices
the wheel is untrue or that the spoke is loose he will
tighten the spoke. Thus the spoke comes to notice. If
it needs tightening more than once, which is more
likely with a more ductile spoke metal, the rider is
alerted.

OK, why would elastic elongation require the spoke to be
"retightened"?

What does elastic have to do with ductility (above)?

You still can't read.

and i can read you then trying to say that stress
increase always causes plastic deformation - it doesn't. and even
if we
try making sense of the example you keep changing, it's trivially clear
that a spoke that needs tightening /still/ doesn't evidence plastic
deformation of a spoke - not when a soft aluminum hub hole can
deform at
lower stress.

The context is above. It's speculation that ductile spokes can
stretch (plastically) in use.

er, that was /your/ contention, not mine.

No, it was the contention of Michael Press (as evidenced by the quote).

wriggle and squirm.




It's wrong. You're just raising straw men. Have fun.

don't put bull**** false words in my mouth than criticize them peter.
because that makes you a prick.

You put the "false words" in my mouth. I never said spokes stretched
elastically in use, MP did. I disagreed.

ok, let's get this crystal clear: do spokes stretch elastically in use
or do they not? be unequivocal.



Why are you the only poster on this group who finds the need to be so
abusive? It serves no purpose. It only makes you sound like a nut.

wriggle and squirm.

Peter Cole wrote:
jim beam wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
jim beam wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
jim beam wrote:

sandvik are faced with the problem of selling materials to
"engineers" who demand something they can't have. and if
engineers can't be bothered to understand the science, what next?
present information in a way that kinda sorta fudges it for their
dumb asses so they can misinterpret what they want. because
that's reality.

fact: there is no dislocation locking mechanism. there is no
endurance limit. end of story.

OK Sandvik is lying, too.

no they're not - they're simply trying to publish data engineers can
use!


Right. Keep drinking your own Kool-Aid.

Every time you are presented with proof your claims are wrong you
accuse others of lying. Here you state that Sandvik must lie because
all engineers are stupid. Do you gave any idea how crazy that sounds?


do you know how crazy bull**** in the face of contradictory fact sounds?

Where's the "contradictory fact", near as I can tell it's only in your
mind -- which doesn't make it a fact.

from a guy that's been bull****ting about elasticity and plasticity
and getting it wrong, your bull**** about endurance limits in a
material that doesn't have one, and for which mechanism you had no
idea, sounds pretty ****ing weak.

Oh, back to that. That's a misquote, which I proved by citing the
archives.

eh? you compared plastic elongation with elastic elongation as if they
are the same thing. they're not. do you still not understand that?


I don't have to go back over that again, do I? Not that it
would do any good... you'll just keep repeating it. Arguing with you is
pointless (and abusive), you just make stuff up.

wriggle and squirm.

Peter Cole wrote:
jim beam wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
jim beam wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
jim beam wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
jim beam wrote:

citing a manufacturer web site as if to say stainless steel has
fatigue endurance, when it doesn't actually say that, is not
"citation of a reputable source"!!!

No, the term is "endurance limit", and they did say that.

there's no "knee" in the graph...

No, of course not, there's no knee on the graph on the Sandvik
site. Oh, but they're liars anyway. You're a riot.

the knee is what evidences a true endurance limit. i'm sorry that
doesn't suit your argument, but it's the truth nevertheless.

Of course a knee shows endurance limit, there is a knee in the graph
on the Sandvik (makers of spoke wire) site, plus a description of the
knee in the accompanying text. Stop twisting, calling everyone
"liars" and "stupid" and admit you are wrong.

for stainless, the graph is simply bent. unless you're looking at
something i haven't seen and you're [conveniently] not citing. what,
peter cole bull****? never!

As I said (immediately above), the graph and description of the graph is
on the Sandvik site.

it's bent - that's not a "knee".


Your rebuttal is that they are liars.

no, my rebuttal was that they're simplifying to terminology "engineers"
understand. [and evidently failing in this case.]


This is your
standard reply when sources disagree with your beliefs.

why do you always twist and misinterpret? i've explained the graphical
difference between a true endurance limit and the commonly cited
"fatigue limit". i've even explained the mechanism as to why these two
different phenomena are observed. but here you are reverting to
deliberate misconstruction. what is your problem? what do you have to
lose by learning?

In article
,
Peter Cole wrote:

jim beam wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
jim beam wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
A more ductile
metal spoke will yield more extension before fracture.
A compromised spoke will elongate. If the rider notices
the wheel is untrue or that the spoke is loose he will
tighten the spoke. Thus the spoke comes to notice. If
it needs tightening more than once, which is more
likely with a more ductile spoke metal, the rider is
alerted.

OK, why would elastic elongation require the spoke to be "retightened"?

What does elastic have to do with ductility (above)?

You still can't read.

and i can read you then trying to say that stress
increase always causes plastic deformation - it doesn't. and even if we
try making sense of the example you keep changing, it's trivially clear
that a spoke that needs tightening /still/ doesn't evidence plastic
deformation of a spoke - not when a soft aluminum hub hole can deform at
lower stress.

The context is above. It's speculation that ductile spokes can stretch
(plastically) in use.

er, that was /your/ contention, not mine.

No, it was the contention of Michael Press (as evidenced by the quote).


It's wrong. You're just raising straw men. Have fun.

don't put bull**** false words in my mouth than criticize them peter.
because that makes you a prick.

You put the "false words" in my mouth. I never said spokes stretched
elastically in use, MP did. I disagreed.

I was not clear about stretching. I was speaking to Ben C's
"Does the extra ductility have any advantage _per se_ for spokes?"
I know perfectly well that spokes to not stretch in use,
_except_ when damaged from impact, corrosion, or fatigue cracking.

Why are you the only poster on this group who finds the need to be so
abusive? It serves no purpose. It only makes you sound like a nut.

--
Michael Press