How can I blacken stainless steel spokes?

jim beam wrote:
wrote:
On May 16, 9:38�am, jim beam wrote:
wrote:

Anyway, spokes are weakly magnetic at best.
not so. �you should try a larger sample. �include butted spokes in your
testing.

I have. 12 wheels wasn't large enough?

but how many different brands of spoke? and what was their butting
method? drawn or hammered will have the martensitic transition. ground
spokes won't have that.


All of
the stainless spokes were much less magnetic
than the galvanized spokes.

and they're a lot less martensitic too!


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.

dt make 1.8/1.7?


I didn't
record all of the spoke diameters since the result
that stainless spokes are at best weakly
ferromagnetic was clear.

not if they were fully austenitic, they wouldn't be at all. my original
point was, before it got lost in all the bull**** was

[oops.]

that, in answer to chalo's suggestio falsi about annealing, is that you
can soften martensite at much lower temperatures than annealing.




It will be clear to any
rbt reader who tries for themselves, too.

Ben


if they're honest. clearly not the case with some.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:17:17 -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, it failed from "bending fatigue" (quote from the page) because it was
improperly fastened - nothing to do with cut threads.

eh? dude, you're not only ignorant, you're also delusional.


Are you saying that the web page did not say what I quoted?

Are you saying that the web page did not state that the bolt was improperly
fastened?

Are you saying the bolt had cut threads?

On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:12:36 -0700, jim beam wrote:


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.

dude, how ****ing dishonest can you be? you've been given the
martensitic technical cite. and you've got corroboration from others.
yet you just can't man up to the facts. just **** off and hang out with
the other circus clowns and ignorants.

Um, would those be the people who have tested something close to a thousand
spokes and not found what you claim they should?

_ wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:17:17 -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, it failed from "bending fatigue" (quote from the page) because it was
improperly fastened - nothing to do with cut threads.
eh? dude, you're not only ignorant, you're also delusional.


Are you saying that the web page did not say what I quoted?

what part of "fatigue" is confusing you?



Are you saying that the web page did not state that the bolt was improperly
fastened?

what part of "fatigue" is confusing you?



Are you saying the bolt had cut threads?

no, i'm saying cut threads make the problem even worse. see above.

what next jtaylor? don't you have some magnetic spokes to lie about?

_ wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:12:36 -0700, jim beam wrote:


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.
dude, how ****ing dishonest can you be? you've been given the
martensitic technical cite. and you've got corroboration from others.
yet you just can't man up to the facts. just **** off and hang out with
the other circus clowns and ignorants.

Um, would those be the people who have tested something close to a thousand
spokes and not found what you claim they should?

a thousand???!!! keep going dude! just add a couple more zeroes while
you're in fantasy land!

On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:07:34 -0700, jim beam wrote:

wrote:
On May 16, 9:38�am, jim beam wrote:
wrote:

Anyway, spokes are weakly magnetic at best.
not so. �you should try a larger sample. �include butted spokes in your
testing.

I have. 12 wheels wasn't large enough?

but how many different brands of spoke? and what was their butting
method? drawn or hammered will have the martensitic transition. ground
spokes won't have that.

Drawing is not just used to form the butts - it is the usual method of
forming wire of all kinds; in sucessive stages from bar to wire as thin as
that iuse in cycle spokes. If drawing (a form of cold-working) has an
effect of the magnetic properties of stainless steel, it should make little
difference whether the cold-working stops with a straight-guage-spoke or
continues to a butted one.

And has been pointed out to you, those spokes you claim to be ground are no
longer (nor have been form some years); and the brands measured by the
posters on this newsgroup include a great many spokes not of that brand at
all.

I think this is yet another of the classic "jim beam" attempts to avoid
being yet again embarrassed, consisting of the following stages:

"(2) Assert statement is correct when contrary facts are pointed out.
(3) Impugn the intelligence of those people who point out facts contrary
to his assertions.
(4) Start warping claims to look less wrong as evidence mounts against."

Of course, if "jim beam" doesn't want people to point out that what he
posts is wrong, the solution is simple.

Stop posting stuff that's wrong.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:14:51 -0700, jim beam wrote:

_ wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:11:18 -0700, jim beam wrote:


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 ****ing 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?

how does one small thing outside someone's otherwise extensive
experience compare to some jackass that lies about using a magnet?
[rhetorical]

"jim", calm down - it's not that you were wrong, it's that you denied and
denied and denied that you were wrong; insulted people who pointed out that
you were wrong, started warping your claims, asserted 'special' experience
that meant that despite the stream of contrary facts posted you *were*
*not* *wrong*, you just *weren't*, and the people saying you were were
nothing but "idiots" and "retards" - you see?

As for "some jackass that lies about using a magnet" - just which one of
the three different posters that tested your claim and found it to be
untrue do you mean?

On May 16, 2:12 pm, jim beam wrote:
_ wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:38:30 -0700, jim beam wrote:

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.

dude, how ****ing dishonest can you be?

*Never* underestimate the dishonesty of the creature posting as
"jtaylor"!


you've been given the
martensitic technical cite. and you've got corroboration from others.
yet you just can't man up to the facts. just **** off and hang out with
the other circus clowns and ignorants.

In article ,
_ wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:14:51 -0700, jim beam wrote:

_ wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:11:18 -0700, jim beam wrote:


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 ****ing 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?

how does one small thing outside someone's otherwise extensive
experience compare to some jackass that lies about using a magnet?
[rhetorical]

"jim", calm down - it's not that you were wrong, it's that you denied
and denied and denied that you were wrong; insulted people who
pointed out that you were wrong, started warping your claims,
asserted 'special' experience that meant that despite the stream of
contrary facts posted you *were* *not* *wrong*, you just *weren't*,
and the people saying you were were nothing but "idiots" and
"retards" - you see?

In other words, he again followed his typical behavioral pattern as
previously described.

As for "some jackass that lies about using a magnet" - just which one
of the three different posters that tested your claim and found it to
be untrue do you mean?

LOL. "One small thing" like thousands of two stroke engines with
camshafts in all sorts of different applications. Even Toyota is
developing a two stroke DOHC engine. As far as I can tell, "jim beam's"
extensive experience with two strokes appears to be working in a
lawnmower repair shop.

On May 16, 2:45*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,





*_ wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:14:51 -0700, jim beam wrote:

_ wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:11:18 -0700, jim beam wrote:

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 ****ing 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?

how does one small thing outside someone's otherwise extensive
experience compare to some jackass that lies about using a magnet?
[rhetorical]

"jim", calm down - it's not that you were wrong, it's that you denied
and denied and denied that you were wrong; insulted people who
pointed out that you were wrong, started warping your claims,
asserted 'special' experience that meant that despite the stream of
contrary facts posted you *were* *not* *wrong*, you just *weren't*,
and the people saying you were were nothing but "idiots" and
"retards" - you see?

In other words, he again followed his typical behavioral pattern as
previously described.

As for "some jackass that lies about using a magnet" - just which one
of the three different posters that tested your claim and found it to
be untrue do you mean?

LOL. *"One small thing" like thousands of two stroke engines with
camshafts in all sorts of different applications. *Even Toyota is
developing a two stroke DOHC engine. *As far as I can tell, "jim beam's"
extensive experience with two strokes appears to be working in a
lawnmower repair shop.- Hide quoted text -

Hey, don't put down lawn mower repair guys. I remember standing
around with a bunch of high priced engineers in a case I was defending
for an outboard engine manufacturer. Everyone was scratching their
heads about why the engine malfunctioned. The guy who figured it out
first was some outboard mechanic employed at a local boat dealership.
-- Jay Beattie.