water in Cane Creek AD-5

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 04 Nov 2007 20:31:29
From: meb
Subject: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a hig
pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock to 16
lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious somethin
was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further uncouple
pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist.

I gave up filling, but is there any chance the water will damage th
AD-5?

Should I try and evacuate the shock?
If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock

--
meb

Date: 13 Nov 2007 21:16:09
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > writes:

> Silly question. However, since the Tacoma Narrows failure, bridges
> have been analyzed for BOTH static and dynamic loading conditions.

They were analyzed for dynamic loads well before that. The dynamic
load of a steam locomotive was a challenging problem for engineers.
The stress in beams would change sign as the train crossed, causing
significant fatigue problems. I believe that early strain gauges were
invented for this purpose (measuring the strain in the bridge supports
during a train crossing).

However, that is a different issue than the aerodynamic loading
that cause the failure of the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

--
Joe Riel

Date: 04 Nov 2007 20:09:38
From: mike.a.schwab@gmail.com
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

On Nov 4, 11:57 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > "jim beam" wrote:
> >> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>> meb wrote:
> >>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a
> >>>>>>> high
> >>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock
> >>>>>>> to 160
> >>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
> >>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
> >>>>>>> uncoupled
> >>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
> >>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
> >>>>>>> AD-5?
>
> >>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
> >>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>
> >>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>
> >>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but with
> >>>>> the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>
> >>>> grow up.
>
> >>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
> >>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>
> >>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
> >>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the cold
> >>>>>> season.
>
> >>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15=D710^9 Pa.
>
> >>>> and compared to air, that is....
>
> >>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
> >>> post values, air is 1.42=D710^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01=D710^=
5 Pa
> >>> (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders of
> >>> magnitude lower than water.
>
> >> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
> >> nothing to see here.
>
> > The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>
> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>
>
>
> >>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not possible
> >>> to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid "spring" in
> >>> the shock will be affected.
>
> >> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>
> > Lots of things can be and are tested.
>
> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
At 6:05 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_Bridge

> > But feel free to live out in the
> > forest if you do not believe so. ;)
>
> more civil engineering wisdom?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 11:31:37
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > writes:

> Joe Riel wrote:
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>>
>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>
>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>
> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
> Narrows Bridge".

TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
my comment applies to.

--
Joe [too subtle?] Riel

Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:37:22
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Joe Riel wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>>
>> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
>> Narrows Bridge".
>
> TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
> when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
> I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
> my comment applies to.
>
I had to apply clarification for some of the regulars who would
otherwise miss the point.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:22:52
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

In article <fgl731$opt$1@registered.motzarella.org >,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:

> Joe Riel wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Joe Riel wrote:
> >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
> >>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
> >>>
> >> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
> >> Narrows Bridge".
> >
> > TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
> > when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
> > I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
> > my comment applies to.
> >
> I had to apply clarification for some of the regulars who would
> otherwise miss the point.

You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.

--
Michael Press

Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:41:48
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <fgl731$opt$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>>>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>>>>
>>>> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
>>>> Narrows Bridge".
>>> TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
>>> when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
>>> I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
>>> my comment applies to.
>>>
>> I had to apply clarification for some of the regulars who would
>> otherwise miss the point.
>
> You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
> Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.

Certain people have made things clear in their posts - unless of course
they are constantly playing the fool.

Note the word "some" is not the same as "all".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:19:34
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

In article <fglecu$kad$5@registered.motzarella.org >,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <fgl731$opt$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Joe Riel wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Joe Riel wrote:
> >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
> >>>>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
> >>>>>
> >>>> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
> >>>> Narrows Bridge".
> >>> TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
> >>> when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
> >>> I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
> >>> my comment applies to.
> >>>
> >> I had to apply clarification for some of the regulars who would
> >> otherwise miss the point.
> >
> > You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
> > Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.
>
> Certain people have made things clear in their posts - unless of course
> they are constantly playing the fool.
>
> Note the word "some" is not the same as "all".

Then you can name names.
Whom exactly are you calling
too dull to catch the joke?

--
Michael Press

Date: 04 Nov 2007 21:04:04
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <fglecu$kad$5@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <fgl731$opt$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>>>>>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
>>>>>> Narrows Bridge".
>>>>> TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
>>>>> when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
>>>>> I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
>>>>> my comment applies to.
>>>>>
>>>> I had to apply clarification for some of the regulars who would
>>>> otherwise miss the point.
>>> You are too presumptuous in this for me to pass in silence.
>>> Bluntly, you do not know enough speak for people here.
>> Certain people have made things clear in their posts - unless of course
>> they are constantly playing the fool.
>>
>> Note the word "some" is not the same as "all".
>
> Then you can name names.
> Whom exactly are you calling
> too dull to catch the joke?
>
I would not want to embarrass anyone by naming names.

Don't get your cycling shorts in a knot, Mr. Press, I was not referring
to you.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:45:05
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Joe Riel wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>>>
>>> butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma
>>> Narrows Bridge".
>>
>> TomTomTom, did you not notice the added middle name in my signature
>> when I responded? That was a joke; a dig at both you and jim. I hope
>> I'm not the only one to see the irony here. Think about what else
>> my comment applies to.
>>
> I had to apply clarification for some of the regulars who would
> otherwise miss the point.
>

"whoosh"!

Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:22:15
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > writes:

> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?

A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.

--
Joe [Smart Ass] Riel

Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:58:55
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Joe Riel wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>
butbutbut, this ignores important dynamic loads. Google "Tacoma Narrows
Bridge".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:34:45
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Joe Riel wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>

lol!

Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:58:39
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Joe Riel wrote:
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>>
>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>
>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>
>
> lol!

So the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge is still standing? Did it fail
from excess static loading?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:45:50
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>>
>>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>>
>>
>> lol!
>
> So the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge is still standing? Did it fail
> from excess static loading?
>

is it still standing because it was designed by a civil engineer?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:39:59
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>>>
>>>> A picture of it standing with a static load should suffice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> lol!
>>
>> So the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge is still standing? Did it fail
>> from excess static loading?
>>
>
> is it still standing because it was designed by a civil engineer?

Would the metallurgist even have a clue on how to go about designing a
bridge? Would they spend twice the funds to destructively test every
bridge built, then rebuild it?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 07:59:42
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

meb wrote:
> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a high
> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock to 160
> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious something
> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further uncoupled
> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist.
>
> I gave up filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
> AD-5?
>
> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>
>

i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble. water is essentially
incompressible and can over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and
burst things as we enter the cold season.

Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:19:22
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> meb wrote:
>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a high
>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock to 160
>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious something
>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further uncoupled
>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist.
>> I gave up filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>> AD-5?
>>
>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>
>>
>
> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.

Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but with the
indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.

> water is essentially
> incompressible and can over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and
> burst things as we enter the cold season.

The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 08:21:20
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> meb wrote:
>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a high
>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock to 160
>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious something
>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further uncoupled
>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up filling,
>>> but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>> AD-5?
>>>
>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>
> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but with the
> indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.

grow up.

>
>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize things.
>> it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the cold season.
>
> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.

and compared to air, that is....

Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:37:09
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> meb wrote:
>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a high
>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock to
>>>> 160
>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>> something
>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further uncoupled
>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up filling,
>>>> but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>> AD-5?
>>>>
>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>
>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but with
>> the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>
> grow up.

Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.

>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize things.
>>> it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>
>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>
> and compared to air, that is....

Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and post
values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa
(constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders of
magnitude lower than water.

Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not possible to
determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid "spring" in the
shock will be affected.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 09:27:11
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a high
>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock
>>>>> to 160
>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>> something
>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up filling,
>>>>> but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>
>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>
>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but with
>>> the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>
>> grow up.
>
> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>
>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize things.
>>>> it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>
>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>
>> and compared to air, that is....
>
> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and post
> values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa
> (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders of
> magnitude lower than water.

only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks - nothing
to see here.

>
> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not possible to
> determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid "spring" in the
> shock will be affected.

civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.

Date: 04 Nov 2007 11:45:09
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a high
>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock
>>>>>> to 160
>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up filling,
>>>>>> but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but with
>>>> the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>
>>> grow up.
>>
>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>
>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the cold
>>>>> season.
>>>>
>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>
>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>
>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and post
>> values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa
>> (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders of
>> magnitude lower than water.
>
> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks - nothing
> to see here.

The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.

>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not possible
>> to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid "spring" in the
>> shock will be affected.
>
> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.

Lots of things can be and are tested. But feel free to live out in the
forest if you do not believe so. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 09:57:00
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a
>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension shock
>>>>>>> to 160
>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but with
>>>>> the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>
>>>> grow up.
>>>
>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>
>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the cold
>>>>>> season.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>
>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>
>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa
>>> (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders of
>>> magnitude lower than water.
>>
>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>> nothing to see here.
>
> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.

er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!

>
>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not possible
>>> to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid "spring" in
>>> the shock will be affected.
>>
>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>
> Lots of things can be and are tested.

when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?

> But feel free to live out in the
> forest if you do not believe so. ;)

more civil engineering wisdom?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:11:45
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have a
>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> grow up.
>>>>
>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>
>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the cold
>>>>>>> season.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>
>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>
>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders
>>>> of magnitude lower than water.
>>>
>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>> nothing to see here.
>>
>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>
> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!

Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some proportion
the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its much greater
bulk modulus?

>>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not possible
>>>> to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid "spring" in
>>>> the shock will be affected.
>>>
>>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>>
>> Lots of things can be and are tested.
>
> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?

Feel free to ford all streams and rivers then. ;)

>> But feel free to live out in the forest if you do not believe so. ;)
>
> more civil engineering wisdom?

If you want to avoid structures that have not been destructively tested,
there is little choice but to live out in the open. I suppose you could
buy a series of small prefabricated sheds and test them to destruction
with wind, snow and earthquake loads. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:39:29
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>
>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders
>>>>> of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>
>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>
>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>
>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>
> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some proportion
> the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its much greater
> bulk modulus?

missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried nitrogen. but since i
don't have any, and i'll take normal air.

btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to piss and
moan? [rhetorical]

>
>>>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not
>>>>> possible to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid
>>>>> "spring" in the shock will be affected.
>>>>
>>>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>>>
>>> Lots of things can be and are tested.
>>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> Feel free to ford all streams and rivers then. ;)
>
>>> But feel free to live out in the forest if you do not believe so. ;)
>>
>> more civil engineering wisdom?
>
> If you want to avoid structures that have not been destructively tested,
> there is little choice but to live out in the open. I suppose you could
> buy a series of small prefabricated sheds and test them to destruction
> with wind, snow and earthquake loads. ;)
>

Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:55:19
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four
>>>>>> orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>
>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>>
>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>>
>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>
>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
>> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some
>> proportion the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its
>> much greater bulk modulus?
>
> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried nitrogen. but since i
> don't have any, and i'll take normal air.

So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so significant as
to make it worth your while to go to the welding supply shop for a tank
of compressed nitrogen? Despite water having a bulk modulus four orders
of magnitude greater than air? So relative proportions do matter?

> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to piss and
> moan? [rhetorical]

Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:47:07
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:38:23
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 06 Nov 2007 20:37:25
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 07 Nov 2007 06:14:55
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:18:59
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 07 Nov 2007 21:57:41
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 07 Nov 2007 20:31:15
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 07 Nov 2007 22:54:39
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

jim beam wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up filling, but is there any chance the water will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself, but with the indefinite reference, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preparing deliverables for clients with this degree of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and burst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up and post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa (constant temperature bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus). This is roughly four orders of magnitude lower
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along
>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air
>>>>>>>>>>>> and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air,
>>>>>>>>>> since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that
>>>>>>>>>> at some proportion the presence of water becomes
>>>>>>>>>> insignificant, despite its much greater bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried nitrogen.
>>>>>>>>> but since i don't have any, and i'll take normal air.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so
>>>>>>>> significant as to make it worth your while to go to the welding
>>>>>>>> supply shop for a tank of compressed nitrogen? Despite water
>>>>>>>> having a bulk modulus four orders of magnitude greater than air?
>>>>>>>> So relative proportions do matter?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced into the
>>>>>> shock may condense into liquid water at some point, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water vapor in
>>>>> air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>
>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be attracted to
>>>> the surface?
>>>
>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube,
>>> lightweight?
>>
>> Fiber optic probe?
>
> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>
> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats an
> afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?

A couple of blocks to the northeast.

>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>
>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>
> that is /so/ dumb...

The pressure is never let out of a shock?

>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to
>>>>>>>>> piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst Brandt on
>>>>>> Usenet for some time.
>>>>>
>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and moan.
>>>>
>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your
>>>> fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>
>>>
>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>
>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>
>
> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know what they're
> doing and who won't put their money where their lazy-ass mouth is.

Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 07 Nov 2007 21:47:54
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave up filling, but is there any chance the water
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself, but with the indefinite reference, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preparing deliverables for clients with this degree of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and burst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look up and post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa (constant temperature bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus). This is roughly four orders of magnitude lower
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air,
>>>>>>>>>>> since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit
>>>>>>>>>>> that at some proportion the presence of water becomes
>>>>>>>>>>> insignificant, despite its much greater bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried nitrogen.
>>>>>>>>>> but since i don't have any, and i'll take normal air.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so
>>>>>>>>> significant as to make it worth your while to go to the welding
>>>>>>>>> supply shop for a tank of compressed nitrogen? Despite water
>>>>>>>>> having a bulk modulus four orders of magnitude greater than
>>>>>>>>> air? So relative proportions do matter?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced into the
>>>>>>> shock may condense into liquid water at some point, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water vapor in
>>>>>> air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be attracted to
>>>>> the surface?
>>>>
>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube,
>>>> lightweight?
>>>
>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>
>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>
>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats an
>> afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>
> A couple of blocks to the northeast.

so go there then!!!

>
>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>
>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>
>> that is /so/ dumb...
>
> The pressure is never let out of a shock?

how would i know??? i never do. do you?

>
>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here to
>>>>>>>>>> piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst Brandt
>>>>>>> on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and moan.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your
>>>>> fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>
>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>
>>
>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know what
>> they're doing and who won't put their money where their lazy-ass mouth
>> is.
>
> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>

not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.

Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:57:36
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

jim beam wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave up filling, but is there any chance the water
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself, but with the indefinite reference, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preparing deliverables for clients with this degree of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and burst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look up and post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa (constant temperature bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus). This is roughly four orders of magnitude lower
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air,
>>>>>>>>>>>> since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit
>>>>>>>>>>>> that at some proportion the presence of water becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>> insignificant, despite its much greater bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried nitrogen.
>>>>>>>>>>> but since i don't have any, and i'll take normal air.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so
>>>>>>>>>> significant as to make it worth your while to go to the
>>>>>>>>>> welding supply shop for a tank of compressed nitrogen? Despite
>>>>>>>>>> water having a bulk modulus four orders of magnitude greater
>>>>>>>>>> than air? So relative proportions do matter?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced into the
>>>>>>>> shock may condense into liquid water at some point, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water vapor
>>>>>>> in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be attracted to
>>>>>> the surface?
>>>>>
>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube,
>>>>> lightweight?
>>>>
>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>
>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>
>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats an
>>> afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>
>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>
> so go there then!!!
>
>
>>
>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>
>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>
>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>
>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>
> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here
>>>>>>>>>>> to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst Brandt
>>>>>>>> on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your
>>>>>> fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>
>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know what
>>> they're doing and who won't put their money where their lazy-ass
>>> mouth is.
>>
>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>
>
> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.

No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 08 Nov 2007 06:05:48
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave up filling, but is there any chance the water
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself, but with the indefinite reference, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preparing deliverables for clients with this degree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look up and post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa (constant temperature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders of magnitude
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lower than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that at some proportion the presence of water becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insignificant, despite its much greater bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried nitrogen.
>>>>>>>>>>>> but since i don't have any, and i'll take normal air.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so
>>>>>>>>>>> significant as to make it worth your while to go to the
>>>>>>>>>>> welding supply shop for a tank of compressed nitrogen?
>>>>>>>>>>> Despite water having a bulk modulus four orders of magnitude
>>>>>>>>>>> greater than air? So relative proportions do matter?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced into
>>>>>>>>> the shock may condense into liquid water at some point, no?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water vapor
>>>>>>>> in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be attracted
>>>>>>> to the surface?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube,
>>>>>> lightweight?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>
>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>
>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats an
>>>> afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>>
>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>
>> so go there then!!!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>
>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>
>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>
>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here
>>>>>>>>>>>> to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst Brandt
>>>>>>>>> on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for your
>>>>>>> fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>>
>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know what
>>>> they're doing and who won't put their money where their lazy-ass
>>>> mouth is.
>>>
>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>
>>
>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>
> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
>

that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding yourself,
maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/ "evidence" of
wheel strength?

ball's in your court. lightweight.

Date: 08 Nov 2007 20:14:04
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave up filling, but is there any chance the water
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself, but with the indefinite reference, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preparing deliverables for clients with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look up and post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa (constant temperature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that at some proportion the presence of water becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insignificant, despite its much greater bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen. but since i don't have any, and i'll take normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so
>>>>>>>>>>>> significant as to make it worth your while to go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> welding supply shop for a tank of compressed nitrogen?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite water having a bulk modulus four orders of magnitude
>>>>>>>>>>>> greater than air? So relative proportions do matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced into
>>>>>>>>>> the shock may condense into liquid water at some point, no?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water vapor
>>>>>>>>> in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be attracted
>>>>>>>> to the surface?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube,
>>>>>>> lightweight?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>>
>>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>>
>>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats an
>>>>> afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>>>
>>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>>
>>> so go there then!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>>
>>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>>
>>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>>
>>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just here
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst
>>>>>>>>>> Brandt on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for
>>>>>>>> your fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know what
>>>>> they're doing and who won't put their money where their lazy-ass
>>>>> mouth is.
>>>>
>>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>>
>>>
>>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>>
>> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
>>
>
> that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding yourself,
> maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/ "evidence" of
> wheel strength?
>
> ball's in your court. lightweight.

Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than yourself, "jim"?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 08 Nov 2007 20:31:05
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave up filling, but is there any chance the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself, but with the indefinite reference, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preparing deliverables for clients with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look up and post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa (constant temperature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that at some proportion the presence of water becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insignificant, despite its much greater bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen. but since i don't have any, and i'll take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant as to make it worth your while to go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> welding supply shop for a tank of compressed nitrogen?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite water having a bulk modulus four orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude greater than air? So relative proportions do matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced into
>>>>>>>>>>> the shock may condense into liquid water at some point, no?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water
>>>>>>>>>> vapor in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be attracted
>>>>>>>>> to the surface?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube,
>>>>>>>> lightweight?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats an
>>>>>> afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>>>
>>>> so go there then!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>>>
>>>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>>>
>>>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst
>>>>>>>>>>> Brandt on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for
>>>>>>>>> your fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know what
>>>>>> they're doing and who won't put their money where their lazy-ass
>>>>>> mouth is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>>>
>>> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
>>>
>>
>> that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding
>> yourself, maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/
>> "evidence" of wheel strength?
>>
>> ball's in your court. lightweight.
>
> Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than yourself, "jim"?
>

eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.

ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test your
own wheel and try to prove me wrong?

Date: 09 Nov 2007 20:39:19
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I gave up filling, but is there any chance the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself, but with the indefinite reference, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preparing deliverables for clients with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to look up and post values, air is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air, since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit that at some proportion the presence of water
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes insignificant, despite its much greater bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen. but since i don't have any, and i'll take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant as to make it worth your while to go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> welding supply shop for a tank of compressed nitrogen?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite water having a bulk modulus four orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude greater than air? So relative proportions do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced into
>>>>>>>>>>>> the shock may condense into liquid water at some point, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water
>>>>>>>>>>> vapor in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be
>>>>>>>>>> attracted to the surface?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube,
>>>>>>>>> lightweight?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats an
>>>>>>> afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>>>>
>>>>> so go there then!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>>>>
>>>>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandt on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for
>>>>>>>>>> your fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know what
>>>>>>> they're doing and who won't put their money where their lazy-ass
>>>>>>> mouth is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding
>>> yourself, maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/
>>> "evidence" of wheel strength?
>>>
>>> ball's in your court. lightweight.
>>
>> Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than yourself,
>> "jim"?
>>
>
> eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.

Yes you do. You complain that Jobst Brandt did not perform a realistic
test because he loaded the wheel with a torque concentric to the axle,
but then you claim your static test of a wheel with missing spokes
proves that those spokes are not needed to make the wheel functional.

> ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test your
> own wheel and try to prove me wrong?

Why should I do your work for you?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 09 Nov 2007 19:43:04
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5 suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I gave up filling, but is there any chance the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself, but with the indefinite reference, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not preparing deliverables for clients with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to look up and post values, air is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roughly four orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air, since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you admit that at some proportion the presence of water
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes insignificant, despite its much greater bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen. but since i don't have any, and i'll take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant as to make it worth your while to go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> welding supply shop for a tank of compressed nitrogen?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite water having a bulk modulus four orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude greater than air? So relative proportions do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the shock may condense into liquid water at some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water
>>>>>>>>>>>> vapor in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be
>>>>>>>>>>> attracted to the surface?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock tube,
>>>>>>>>>> lightweight?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats an
>>>>>>>> afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so go there then!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandt on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for
>>>>>>>>>>> your fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know what
>>>>>>>> they're doing and who won't put their money where their lazy-ass
>>>>>>>> mouth is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding
>>>> yourself, maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/
>>>> "evidence" of wheel strength?
>>>>
>>>> ball's in your court. lightweight.
>>>
>>> Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than yourself,
>>> "jim"?
>>>
>>
>> eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.
>
> Yes you do. You complain that Jobst Brandt did not perform a realistic
> test because he loaded the wheel with a torque concentric to the axle,
> but then you claim your static test of a wheel with missing spokes
> proves that those spokes are not needed to make the wheel functional.

again, you're putting false words in my mouth.

1. the pic is necessarily static because of the tensiometer. [duh]
2. it really doesn't matter /what/ the orientation is to evidence that
this wheel supports load, but the orientation shown is the worst possible.
3. that wheel is clearly not "functional". as i've stated before, you
wouldn't ride that wheel regularly - it's obviously hard to true, the
spokes make a heck of a racket, and things will just get worse as the
spoke nipples unscrew themselves. BUT, it supports weight, and will
ride - should you be so inclined.

and
4. most importantly, it doesn't "collapse" because some spokes are
missing and the others slack!!!

>
>> ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test your
>> own wheel and try to prove me wrong?
>
> Why should I do your work for you?

not my work, lightweight, /your/ work. you specify the tests you want,
you go test them.

Date: 09 Nov 2007 22:17:27
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5 suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I got suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sprayed out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mist. I gave up filling, but is there any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not himself, but with the indefinite reference,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not preparing deliverables for clients with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to look up and post values, air is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roughly four orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air, since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you admit that at some proportion the presence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water becomes insignificant, despite its much greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen. but since i don't have any, and i'll take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant as to make it worth your while to go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> welding supply shop for a tank of compressed nitrogen?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite water having a bulk modulus four orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude greater than air? So relative proportions do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the shock may condense into liquid water at some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vapor in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> attracted to the surface?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock
>>>>>>>>>>> tube, lightweight?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats
>>>>>>>>> an afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so go there then!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandt on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except for
>>>>>>>>>>>> your fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know
>>>>>>>>> what they're doing and who won't put their money where their
>>>>>>>>> lazy-ass mouth is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding
>>>>> yourself, maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/
>>>>> "evidence" of wheel strength?
>>>>>
>>>>> ball's in your court. lightweight.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than yourself,
>>>> "jim"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.
>>
>> Yes you do. You complain that Jobst Brandt did not perform a realistic
>> test because he loaded the wheel with a torque concentric to the axle,
>> but then you claim your static test of a wheel with missing spokes
>> proves that those spokes are not needed to make the wheel functional.
>
> again, you're putting false words in my mouth.

So you admit your missing spokes static test does NOT prove the wheel is
functional?

> 1. the pic is necessarily static because of the tensiometer. [duh]
> 2. it really doesn't matter /what/ the orientation is to evidence that
> this wheel supports load, but the orientation shown is the worst possible.
> 3. that wheel is clearly not "functional". as i've stated before, you
> wouldn't ride that wheel regularly - it's obviously hard to true, the
> spokes make a heck of a racket, and things will just get worse as the
> spoke nipples unscrew themselves. BUT, it supports weight, and will
> ride - should you be so inclined.
>
> and
> 4. most importantly, it doesn't "collapse" because some spokes are
> missing and the others slack!!!

Where is the proof of item 3? Do we take the word of a sock puppet as
gospel?

>>> ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test your
>>> own wheel and try to prove me wrong?
>>
>> Why should I do your work for you?
>
> not my work, lightweight, /your/ work. you specify the tests you want,
> you go test them.

Double standard for Jobst Brandt - he needs to load the wheel according
to actual riding conditions, while "jim beam" does not. Sheeesh!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 09 Nov 2007 20:34:42
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5 suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I got suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sprayed out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mist. I gave up filling, but is there any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not himself, but with the indefinite reference,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not preparing deliverables for clients with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness to look up and post values, air is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5 Pa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roughly four orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proportions of air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air, since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you admit that at some proportion the presence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water becomes insignificant, despite its much greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen. but since i don't have any, and i'll take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so significant as to make it worth your while to go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the welding supply shop for a tank of compressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen? Despite water having a bulk modulus four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orders of magnitude greater than air? So relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proportions do matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the shock may condense into liquid water at some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vapor in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attracted to the surface?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock
>>>>>>>>>>>> tube, lightweight?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats
>>>>>>>>>> an afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so go there then!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandt on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for your fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know
>>>>>>>>>> what they're doing and who won't put their money where their
>>>>>>>>>> lazy-ass mouth is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding
>>>>>> yourself, maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/
>>>>>> "evidence" of wheel strength?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ball's in your court. lightweight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than yourself,
>>>>> "jim"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.
>>>
>>> Yes you do. You complain that Jobst Brandt did not perform a
>>> realistic test because he loaded the wheel with a torque concentric
>>> to the axle, but then you claim your static test of a wheel with
>>> missing spokes proves that those spokes are not needed to make the
>>> wheel functional.
>>
>> again, you're putting false words in my mouth.
>
> So you admit your missing spokes static test does NOT prove the wheel is
> functional?

i said it supports load and will ride. you trying to misconstrue that
as "functional" is bullshit.

>
>> 1. the pic is necessarily static because of the tensiometer. [duh]
>> 2. it really doesn't matter /what/ the orientation is to evidence that
>> this wheel supports load, but the orientation shown is the worst
>> possible.
>> 3. that wheel is clearly not "functional". as i've stated before, you
>> wouldn't ride that wheel regularly - it's obviously hard to true, the
>> spokes make a heck of a racket, and things will just get worse as the
>> spoke nipples unscrew themselves. BUT, it supports weight, and will
>> ride - should you be so inclined.
>>
>> and
>> 4. most importantly, it doesn't "collapse" because some spokes are
>> missing and the others slack!!!
>
> Where is the proof of item 3? Do we take the word of a sock puppet as
> gospel?

this tom, is where your engineering prowess comes into play. you want
to prove me wrong, you go do this to your own wheel.

>
>>>> ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test
>>>> your own wheel and try to prove me wrong?
>>>
>>> Why should I do your work for you?
>>
>> not my work, lightweight, /your/ work. you specify the tests you
>> want, you go test them.
>
> Double standard for Jobst Brandt - he needs to load the wheel according
> to actual riding conditions, while "jim beam" does not. Sheeesh!

get your facts straight. i address "collapse", not long term
serviceability [obviously], and am drawing "collapse" conclusions
accordingly. jobst is addressing combination loading with single load
orientation - and drawing combination loading conclusions. if i were
trying to draw fatigue conclusions from a static load, that would be a
different matter, but i'm not, so don't make false accusations.

Date: 09 Nov 2007 22:39:11
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5 suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before I got suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sprayed out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mist. I gave up filling, but is there any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not himself, but with the indefinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not preparing deliverables for clients with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness to look up and post values, air is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roughly four orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move along folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proportions of air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air, since it contains some water vapor, then? Or do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you admit that at some proportion the presence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water becomes insignificant, despite its much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen. but since i don't have any, and i'll take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so significant as to make it worth your while to go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the welding supply shop for a tank of compressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen? Despite water having a bulk modulus four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orders of magnitude greater than air? So relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proportions do matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the shock may condense into liquid water at some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of water
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vapor in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attracted to the surface?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tube, lightweight?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab beats
>>>>>>>>>>> an afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local library tom?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so go there then!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just here to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking Jobst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandt on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for your fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know
>>>>>>>>>>> what they're doing and who won't put their money where their
>>>>>>>>>>> lazy-ass mouth is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding
>>>>>>> yourself, maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/
>>>>>>> "evidence" of wheel strength?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ball's in your court. lightweight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than
>>>>>> yourself, "jim"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.
>>>>
>>>> Yes you do. You complain that Jobst Brandt did not perform a
>>>> realistic test because he loaded the wheel with a torque concentric
>>>> to the axle, but then you claim your static test of a wheel with
>>>> missing spokes proves that those spokes are not needed to make the
>>>> wheel functional.
>>>
>>> again, you're putting false words in my mouth.
>>
>> So you admit your missing spokes static test does NOT prove the wheel
>> is functional?
>
> i said it supports load and will ride. you trying to misconstrue that
> as "functional" is bullshit.

Hardly the way it was presented? And if so, why does "jim" wait until
now to mention it?

>>> 1. the pic is necessarily static because of the tensiometer. [duh]
>>> 2. it really doesn't matter /what/ the orientation is to evidence
>>> that this wheel supports load, but the orientation shown is the worst
>>> possible.
>>> 3. that wheel is clearly not "functional". as i've stated before,
>>> you wouldn't ride that wheel regularly - it's obviously hard to true,
>>> the spokes make a heck of a racket, and things will just get worse as
>>> the spoke nipples unscrew themselves. BUT, it supports weight, and
>>> will ride - should you be so inclined.
>>>
>>> and
>>> 4. most importantly, it doesn't "collapse" because some spokes are
>>> missing and the others slack!!!
>>
>> Where is the proof of item 3? Do we take the word of a sock puppet as
>> gospel?
>
> this tom, is where your engineering prowess comes into play. you want
> to prove me wrong, you go do this to your own wheel.

Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove a
sock puppet's point?

>>>>> ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test
>>>>> your own wheel and try to prove me wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Why should I do your work for you?
>>>
>>> not my work, lightweight, /your/ work. you specify the tests you
>>> want, you go test them.
>>
>> Double standard for Jobst Brandt - he needs to load the wheel
>> according to actual riding conditions, while "jim beam" does not.
>> Sheeesh!
>
> get your facts straight. i address "collapse", not long term
> serviceability [obviously], and am drawing "collapse" conclusions
> accordingly. jobst is addressing combination loading with single load
> orientation - and drawing combination loading conclusions. if i were
> trying to draw fatigue conclusions from a static load, that would be a
> different matter, but i'm not, so don't make false accusations.

So all you are trying to prove is a wheel with missing spokes will
support static loads? How useful!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 17:14:03
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3@registered.motzarella.org >,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:

> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove a
> sock puppet's point?

Do you mean _disprove_ the point?

--
Michael Press

Date: 11 Nov 2007 01:08:13
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove a
>> sock puppet's point?
>
> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>
Most likely.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 23:32:00
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove
>>> a sock puppet's point?
>>
>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>
> Most likely.
>

so why don't you do it then?

Date: 11 Nov 2007 01:43:28
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove
>>>> a sock puppet's point?
>>>
>>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>>
>> Most likely.
>>
>
> so why don't you do it then?

Still trying to get others to do your work for you, "jim"?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 23:48:32
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to
>>>>> prove a sock puppet's point?
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>>>
>>> Most likely.
>>>
>>
>> so why don't you do it then?
>
> Still trying to get others to do your work for you, "jim"?
>

eh? how could your failure to do your own experiments /possibly/ be
/my/ attempt to outsource /my/ experiments??? either you got
unbelievable chutzpah, or you're unbelievably stupid!

Date: 11 Nov 2007 02:01:28
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to
>>>>>> prove a sock puppet's point?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>>>>
>>>> Most likely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> so why don't you do it then?
>>
>> Still trying to get others to do your work for you, "jim"?
>>
>
> eh? how could your failure to do your own experiments /possibly/ be
> /my/ attempt to outsource /my/ experiments??? either you got
> unbelievable chutzpah, or you're unbelievably stupid!

Why does "jim" promote a pointless experiment - what use is a bicycle
wheel with missing spokes that can only support static loads?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 00:33:21
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to
>>>>>>> prove a sock puppet's point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Most likely.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> so why don't you do it then?
>>>
>>> Still trying to get others to do your work for you, "jim"?
>>>
>>
>> eh? how could your failure to do your own experiments /possibly/ be
>> /my/ attempt to outsource /my/ experiments??? either you got
>> unbelievable chutzpah, or you're unbelievably stupid!
>
> Why does "jim" promote a pointless experiment - what use is a bicycle
> wheel with missing spokes that can only support static loads?
>

why does the man with the hat but no cattle, propose experiments, then
refuse to undertake them? afraid of the result perhaps?

Date: 11 Nov 2007 11:13:43
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to
>>>>>>>> prove a sock puppet's point?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most likely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so why don't you do it then?
>>>>
>>>> Still trying to get others to do your work for you, "jim"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> eh? how could your failure to do your own experiments /possibly/ be
>>> /my/ attempt to outsource /my/ experiments??? either you got
>>> unbelievable chutzpah, or you're unbelievably stupid!
>>
>> Why does "jim" promote a pointless experiment - what use is a bicycle
>> wheel with missing spokes that can only support static loads?
>>
>
> why does the man with the hat but no cattle, propose experiments, then
> refuse to undertake them? afraid of the result perhaps?

Well "jim" (whoever you are), why did you post the results of an
experiment that does not duplicate the loads occurring in real riding,
but then criticize Jobst Brandt for doing the same?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 10:28:29
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to
>>>>>>>>> prove a sock puppet's point?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most likely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so why don't you do it then?
>>>>>
>>>>> Still trying to get others to do your work for you, "jim"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> eh? how could your failure to do your own experiments /possibly/ be
>>>> /my/ attempt to outsource /my/ experiments??? either you got
>>>> unbelievable chutzpah, or you're unbelievably stupid!
>>>
>>> Why does "jim" promote a pointless experiment - what use is a bicycle
>>> wheel with missing spokes that can only support static loads?
>>>
>>
>> why does the man with the hat but no cattle, propose experiments, then
>> refuse to undertake them? afraid of the result perhaps?
>
> Well "jim" (whoever you are), why did you post the results of an
> experiment that does not duplicate the loads occurring in real riding,
> but then criticize Jobst Brandt for doing the same?
>

seems you don't read too well tom. go back to my discussion of
ridability of this wheel. then feel free to dispute my work by doing
your own experiments. if you have the wherewithal. i'm not going to
you your work for you.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 12:31:29
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <fh3cpa$pvc$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to
>>>>>>>>>> prove a sock puppet's point?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you mean _disprove_ the point?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most likely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so why don't you do it then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still trying to get others to do your work for you, "jim"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? how could your failure to do your own experiments /possibly/
>>>>> be /my/ attempt to outsource /my/ experiments??? either you got
>>>>> unbelievable chutzpah, or you're unbelievably stupid!
>>>>
>>>> Why does "jim" promote a pointless experiment - what use is a
>>>> bicycle wheel with missing spokes that can only support static loads?
>>>>
>>>
>>> why does the man with the hat but no cattle, propose experiments,
>>> then refuse to undertake them? afraid of the result perhaps?
>>
>> Well "jim" (whoever you are), why did you post the results of an
>> experiment that does not duplicate the loads occurring in real riding,
>> but then criticize Jobst Brandt for doing the same?
>>
>
> seems you don't read too well tom. go back to my discussion of
> ridability of this wheel.

Where?

> then feel free to dispute my work by doing
> your own experiments. if you have the wherewithal. i'm not going to
> you your work for you.

Where is the "lightweight" comment?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 09 Nov 2007 20:48:29
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rain downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5 suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before I got suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sprayed out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mist. I gave up filling, but is there any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not himself, but with the indefinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are not preparing deliverables for clients
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness to look up and post values, air
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.01×10^5 Pa (constant temperature bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus). This is roughly four orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move along folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proportions of air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambient air, since it contains some water vapor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then? Or do you admit that at some proportion the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presence of water becomes insignificant, despite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its much greater bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen. but since i don't have any, and i'll take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so significant as to make it worth your while to go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the welding supply shop for a tank of compressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen? Despite water having a bulk modulus four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orders of magnitude greater than air? So relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proportions do matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the shock may condense into liquid water at some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attracted to the surface?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tube, lightweight?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab
>>>>>>>>>>>> beats an afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local
>>>>>>>>>>>> library tom?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so go there then!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just here to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jobst Brandt on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for your fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>> what they're doing and who won't put their money where their
>>>>>>>>>>>> lazy-ass mouth is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate
>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding
>>>>>>>> yourself, maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really /is/
>>>>>>>> "evidence" of wheel strength?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ball's in your court. lightweight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than
>>>>>>> yourself, "jim"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes you do. You complain that Jobst Brandt did not perform a
>>>>> realistic test because he loaded the wheel with a torque concentric
>>>>> to the axle, but then you claim your static test of a wheel with
>>>>> missing spokes proves that those spokes are not needed to make the
>>>>> wheel functional.
>>>>
>>>> again, you're putting false words in my mouth.
>>>
>>> So you admit your missing spokes static test does NOT prove the wheel
>>> is functional?
>>
>> i said it supports load and will ride. you trying to misconstrue that
>> as "functional" is bullshit.
>
> Hardly the way it was presented? And if so, why does "jim" wait until
> now to mention it?

because it's fucking obvious, that's why!

>
>>>> 1. the pic is necessarily static because of the tensiometer. [duh]
>>>> 2. it really doesn't matter /what/ the orientation is to evidence
>>>> that this wheel supports load, but the orientation shown is the
>>>> worst possible.
>>>> 3. that wheel is clearly not "functional". as i've stated before,
>>>> you wouldn't ride that wheel regularly - it's obviously hard to
>>>> true, the spokes make a heck of a racket, and things will just get
>>>> worse as the spoke nipples unscrew themselves. BUT, it supports
>>>> weight, and will ride - should you be so inclined.
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>> 4. most importantly, it doesn't "collapse" because some spokes are
>>>> missing and the others slack!!!
>>>
>>> Where is the proof of item 3? Do we take the word of a sock puppet as
>>> gospel?
>>
>> this tom, is where your engineering prowess comes into play. you want
>> to prove me wrong, you go do this to your own wheel.
>
> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove a
> sock puppet's point?

injury? on a bent? what a joke! reality is, i'm right, you know it,
and you're too damned pussy to put your money where your mouth is to try
proving me wrong. but you're just here to piss and moan, so that's ok.

>
>>>>>> ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test
>>>>>> your own wheel and try to prove me wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should I do your work for you?
>>>>
>>>> not my work, lightweight, /your/ work. you specify the tests you
>>>> want, you go test them.
>>>
>>> Double standard for Jobst Brandt - he needs to load the wheel
>>> according to actual riding conditions, while "jim beam" does not.
>>> Sheeesh!
>>
>> get your facts straight. i address "collapse", not long term
>> serviceability [obviously], and am drawing "collapse" conclusions
>> accordingly. jobst is addressing combination loading with single load
>> orientation - and drawing combination loading conclusions. if i were
>> trying to draw fatigue conclusions from a static load, that would be a
>> different matter, but i'm not, so don't make false accusations.
>
> So all you are trying to prove is a wheel with missing spokes will
> support static loads? How useful!

don't follow arguments well, do you. goddamned lightweight.

Date: 09 Nov 2007 22:57:19
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rain downpour. I have a high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my AD-5 suspension shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before I got suspicious something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sprayed out. Further uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mist. I gave up filling, but is there any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not himself, but with the indefinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are not preparing deliverables for clients
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-pressurize things. it can also freeze
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and burst things as we enter the cold season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwillingness to look up and post values, air
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.01×10^5 Pa (constant temperature bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus). This is roughly four orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move along folks - nothing to see here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The significance depends on the relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proportions of air and water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambient air, since it contains some water vapor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then? Or do you admit that at some proportion the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presence of water becomes insignificant, despite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its much greater bulk modulus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed this bit - the "correct" solution is dried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitrogen. but since i don't have any, and i'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take normal air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that a very small amount of water is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not so significant as to make it worth your while to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to the welding supply shop for a tank of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compressed nitrogen? Despite water having a bulk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modulus four orders of magnitude greater than air?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So relative proportions do matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, do you understand what a "phase" is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And some of that water vapor in the air
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced into the shock may condense into liquid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water at some point, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at what point is that then? you know solubility of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor in air increases with pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you done tests to show that the vapor can not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attracted to the surface?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how do you suggest i do that on an opaque aluminum shock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tube, lightweight?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fiber optic probe?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yeah, right. one 300psi fiber optic probe coming right up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to quote uncle al at sci.materials, 6 months in the lab
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beats an afternoon in the library. where /is/ your local
>>>>>>>>>>>>> library tom?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A couple of blocks to the northeast.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so go there then!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you know about solubility vs. pressure, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will the shock always be kept at high pressure?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is /so/ dumb...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The pressure is never let out of a shock?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> how would i know??? i never do. do you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw, have you any advice for the o.p? or are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just here to piss and moan? [rhetorical]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I was requested to do this by Andres Muro. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, you're just here to piss and moan. very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This from someone who has made a habit of stalking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jobst Brandt on Usenet for some time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i seek to correct his mistakes, yes. you just piss and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the interpretation anyone else takes, except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for your fellow Jobst haters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you just piss and moan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And "jim beam" just repeats himself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems i have to with goddamned lightweights that don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what they're doing and who won't put their money where
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their lazy-ass mouth is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why should anyone else do your work for you, Bourbon Man?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> not my work tom, yours since you want to prove me wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No "jim", you are trying to prove a point with inadequate
>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that's it tom, deny reality. the way you succeed in deluding
>>>>>>>>> yourself, maybe you'll next claim that spoke tension really
>>>>>>>>> /is/ "evidence" of wheel strength?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ball's in your court. lightweight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you hold Jobst Brandt to a different standard than
>>>>>>>> yourself, "jim"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eh? i'm don't - so don't make false accusations! lightweight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes you do. You complain that Jobst Brandt did not perform a
>>>>>> realistic test because he loaded the wheel with a torque
>>>>>> concentric to the axle, but then you claim your static test of a
>>>>>> wheel with missing spokes proves that those spokes are not needed
>>>>>> to make the wheel functional.
>>>>>
>>>>> again, you're putting false words in my mouth.
>>>>
>>>> So you admit your missing spokes static test does NOT prove the
>>>> wheel is functional?
>>>
>>> i said it supports load and will ride. you trying to misconstrue
>>> that as "functional" is bullshit.
>>
>> Hardly the way it was presented? And if so, why does "jim" wait until
>> now to mention it?
>
> because it's fucking obvious, that's why!

What does fucking have to do with bicycle wheels? Wait - that answer
belongs on the "sex with a bicycle" thread.

>>>>> 1. the pic is necessarily static because of the tensiometer. [duh]
>>>>> 2. it really doesn't matter /what/ the orientation is to evidence
>>>>> that this wheel supports load, but the orientation shown is the
>>>>> worst possible.
>>>>> 3. that wheel is clearly not "functional". as i've stated before,
>>>>> you wouldn't ride that wheel regularly - it's obviously hard to
>>>>> true, the spokes make a heck of a racket, and things will just get
>>>>> worse as the spoke nipples unscrew themselves. BUT, it supports
>>>>> weight, and will ride - should you be so inclined.
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>> 4. most importantly, it doesn't "collapse" because some spokes are
>>>>> missing and the others slack!!!
>>>>
>>>> Where is the proof of item 3? Do we take the word of a sock puppet
>>>> as gospel?
>>>
>>> this tom, is where your engineering prowess comes into play. you
>>> want to prove me wrong, you go do this to your own wheel.
>>
>> Why would I want to risk injury and destroying my own wheel to prove a
>> sock puppet's point?
>
> injury? on a bent? what a joke! reality is, i'm right, you know it,
> and you're too damned pussy to put your money where your mouth is to try
> proving me wrong. but you're just here to piss and moan, so that's ok.

Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the one
trying to prove something, not me.

>>>>>>> ps. why don't you answer the point? when are you going to test
>>>>>>> your own wheel and try to prove me wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should I do your work for you?
>>>>>
>>>>> not my work, lightweight, /your/ work. you specify the tests you
>>>>> want, you go test them.
>>>>
>>>> Double standard for Jobst Brandt - he needs to load the wheel
>>>> according to actual riding conditions, while "jim beam" does not.
>>>> Sheeesh!
>>>
>>> get your facts straight. i address "collapse", not long term
>>> serviceability [obviously], and am drawing "collapse" conclusions
>>> accordingly. jobst is addressing combination loading with single
>>> load orientation - and drawing combination loading conclusions. if i
>>> were trying to draw fatigue conclusions from a static load, that
>>> would be a different matter, but i'm not, so don't make false
>>> accusations.
>>
>> So all you are trying to prove is a wheel with missing spokes will
>> support static loads? How useful!
>
> don't follow arguments well, do you. goddamned lightweight.

Do not present arguments well, do you?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 18:02:17
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
<snip crap >
>
> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the one
> trying to prove something, not me.

there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have something
to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth is -
like i already have.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 01:07:44
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> <snip crap>
>>
>> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the one
>> trying to prove something, not me.
>
> there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have something
> to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth is -
> like i already have.

You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
load. BFD for the real world.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 19:14:44
From:
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman writes:

> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
> load. BFD for the real world.

I don't see why this experiment wasn't done with only one spoke (or a
pair) between the hub and the top of the rim. Statically this will
show the load hanging from the top and that the omitted spokes have no
purpose. It could also be used to prove benefits of paired spoking.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:58:17
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

> Tom Sherman writes:
>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
>> load. BFD for the real world.

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> I don't see why this experiment wasn't done with only one spoke (or a
> pair) between the hub and the top of the rim. Statically this will
> show the load hanging from the top and that the omitted spokes have no
> purpose. It could also be used to prove benefits of paired spoking.

One spoke, like a Citroen steering wheel - Cool! You could get much more
than just a squirrel in a wheel like that!
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/squirrel.jpg
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 11 Nov 2007 15:16:40
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> Tom Sherman writes:
>>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
>>> load. BFD for the real world.
>
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> I don't see why this experiment wasn't done with only one spoke (or a
>> pair) between the hub and the top of the rim. Statically this will
>> show the load hanging from the top and that the omitted spokes have no
>> purpose. It could also be used to prove benefits of paired spoking.
>
> One spoke, like a Citroen steering wheel - Cool! You could get much more
> than just a squirrel in a wheel like that!
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/squirrel.jpg

Sheldon Brown was first:
<http://sheldonbrown.com/nanodrive/bianchi-quarter.jpg >.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:17:43
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
>> load. BFD for the real world.
>
> I don't see why this experiment wasn't done with only one spoke (or a
> pair) between the hub and the top of the rim. Statically this will
> show the load hanging from the top and that the omitted spokes have no
> purpose. It could also be used to prove benefits of paired spoking.

LOL :)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 10 Nov 2007 23:31:48
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> <snip crap>
>>>
>>> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the one
>>> trying to prove something, not me.
>>
>> there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have something
>> to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth is -
>> like i already have.
>
> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
> load. BFD for the real world.
>

so prove it doesn't work in your little world then! you're the one
bellyaching about it, the little guy that's all hat but no cattle.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 02:02:47
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip crap>
>>>>
>>>> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the
>>>> one trying to prove something, not me.
>>>
>>> there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have something
>>> to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth is -
>>> like i already have.
>>
>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
>> load. BFD for the real world.
>>
>
> so prove it doesn't work in your little world then! you're the one
> bellyaching about it, the little guy that's all hat but no cattle.

Why does "jim" keep on insisting I do his/her/its work for him/her/it?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 00:30:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the
>>>>> one trying to prove something, not me.
>>>>
>>>> there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have
>>>> something
>>>> to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth is -
>>>> like i already have.
>>>
>>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
>>> load. BFD for the real world.
>>>
>>
>> so prove it doesn't work in your little world then! you're the one
>> bellyaching about it, the little guy that's all hat but no cattle.
>
> Why does "jim" keep on insisting I do his/her/its work for him/her/it?
>

your experiment, your work, chutzpah king!

Date: 11 Nov 2007 11:08:31
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the
>>>>>> one trying to prove something, not me.
>>>>>
>>>>> there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have
>>>>> something
>>>>> to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth is -
>>>>> like i already have.
>>>>
>>>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
>>>> load. BFD for the real world.
>>>>
>>>
>>> so prove it doesn't work in your little world then! you're the one
>>> bellyaching about it, the little guy that's all hat but no cattle.
>>
>> Why does "jim" keep on insisting I do his/her/its work for him/her/it?
>>
>
> your experiment, your work, chutzpah king!

But I am not the one who made the claims about the missing spoke wheel,
and then refused to back them up with loading conditions that reflect
actual bicycle use.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 10:25:33
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is the
>>>>>>> one trying to prove something, not me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth is -
>>>>>> like i already have.
>>>>>
>>>>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a STATIC
>>>>> load. BFD for the real world.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> so prove it doesn't work in your little world then! you're the one
>>>> bellyaching about it, the little guy that's all hat but no cattle.
>>>
>>> Why does "jim" keep on insisting I do his/her/its work for him/her/it?
>>>
>>
>> your experiment, your work, chutzpah king!
>
> But I am not the one who made the claims about the missing spoke wheel,
> and then refused to back them up with loading conditions that reflect
> actual bicycle use.
>

eh???

you have a.s.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/

Date: 11 Nov 2007 12:28:22
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is
>>>>>>>> the one trying to prove something, not me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth
>>>>>>> is -
>>>>>>> like i already have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a
>>>>>> STATIC load. BFD for the real world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so prove it doesn't work in your little world then! you're the one
>>>>> bellyaching about it, the little guy that's all hat but no cattle.
>>>>
>>>> Why does "jim" keep on insisting I do his/her/its work for him/her/it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> your experiment, your work, chutzpah king!
>>
>> But I am not the one who made the claims about the missing spoke
>> wheel, and then refused to back them up with loading conditions that
>> reflect actual bicycle use.
>>
>
> eh???
>
> you have a.s.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/

So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 10:42:23
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why should I spend my money to do "jim's" work? "jim beam" is
>>>>>>>>> the one trying to prove something, not me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there's no need to be afraid and evasive if you think you have
>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>> to prove tom. just go ahead and put your money where your mouth
>>>>>>>> is -
>>>>>>>> like i already have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You proved a bicycle wheel with missing spokes can support a
>>>>>>> STATIC load. BFD for the real world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so prove it doesn't work in your little world then! you're the
>>>>>> one bellyaching about it, the little guy that's all hat but no
>>>>>> cattle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does "jim" keep on insisting I do his/her/its work for him/her/it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> your experiment, your work, chutzpah king!
>>>
>>> But I am not the one who made the claims about the missing spoke
>>> wheel, and then refused to back them up with loading conditions that
>>> reflect actual bicycle use.
>>>
>>
>> eh???
>>
>> you have a.s.
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>
> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>

for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the spoke
nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue? paper planes demonstrate
aerodynamic principles, but they are not a means of transportation.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:20:35
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
- delete excess text -
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>
>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>
>
> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the spoke
> nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?

How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an otherwise
identical wheel with a full spoke complement.

> paper planes demonstrate
> aerodynamic principles, but they are not a means of transportation.
>
You could build an airplane using parchment covering, however.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 12:42:01
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> - delete excess text -
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>
>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>
>>
>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the
>> spoke nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
>
> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an otherwise
> identical wheel with a full spoke complement.

you tell me! do the experiment!

>
>> paper planes demonstrate aerodynamic principles, but they are not a
>> means of transportation.
>>
> You could build an airplane using parchment covering, however.
>

Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:51:29
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>> - delete excess text -
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>
>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the
>>> spoke nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
>>
>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an
>> otherwise identical wheel with a full spoke complement.
>
> you tell me! do the experiment!

Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 13:42:08
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>>
>>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the
>>>> spoke nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
>>>
>>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an
>>> otherwise identical wheel with a full spoke complement.
>>
>> you tell me! do the experiment!
>
> Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.
>

er, we've already discussed "functional" - read up thread. /you/ want
to test "reliable", and for that, the ball is in /your/ court. i look
forward to your contribution.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 15:57:16
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

jim beam wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the
>>>>> spoke nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
>>>>
>>>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an
>>>> otherwise identical wheel with a full spoke complement.
>>>
>>> you tell me! do the experiment!
>>
>> Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.
>>
>
> er, we've already discussed "functional" - read up thread. /you/ want
> to test "reliable", and for that, the ball is in /your/ court. i look
> forward to your contribution.

I make no claims of expectation of the wheel being reliable. The static
test is rather pointless as regards real world use, no?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 20:19:25
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for the
>>>>>> spoke nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
>>>>>
>>>>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an
>>>>> otherwise identical wheel with a full spoke complement.
>>>>
>>>> you tell me! do the experiment!
>>>
>>> Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.
>>>
>>
>> er, we've already discussed "functional" - read up thread. /you/ want
>> to test "reliable", and for that, the ball is in /your/ court. i look
>> forward to your contribution.
>
> I make no claims of expectation of the wheel being reliable. The static
> test is rather pointless as regards real world use, no?
>

its point is to demonstrate that the wheel doesn't "collapse" with slack
and/or missing spokes, contrary to jobstian wheel theory. in that
regard, it is utterly /on/ point.

what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about trying to
prove it won't last in service, something that should be obvious to even
civil engineers that aren't typically familiar with "real world" testing.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 23:45:17
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for
>>>>>>> the spoke nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an
>>>>>> otherwise identical wheel with a full spoke complement.
>>>>>
>>>>> you tell me! do the experiment!
>>>>
>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> er, we've already discussed "functional" - read up thread. /you/
>>> want to test "reliable", and for that, the ball is in /your/ court.
>>> i look forward to your contribution.
>>
>> I make no claims of expectation of the wheel being reliable. The
>> static test is rather pointless as regards real world use, no?
>>
>
> its point is to demonstrate that the wheel doesn't "collapse" with slack
> and/or missing spokes, contrary to jobstian wheel theory. in that
> regard, it is utterly /on/ point.

Where is the contradiction to Jobst Brandt's wheel theory? As for
collapsing, "jim's" static test is not as severe for a front wheel as
hitting a pothole during hard braking would be (this may not be obvious
to the materials' scientist).

> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about trying to
> prove it won't last in service, something that should be obvious to even
> civil engineers that aren't typically familiar with "real world" testing.

"jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end products we
design are tested in use, and we are legally responsible to the owner if
they fail to perform as specified (another concept that appears to be
foreign to the materials' scientist).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 11 Nov 2007 21:57:11
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports load, or for
>>>>>>>> the spoke nipples to unscrew and the spokes to fatigue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes compared to an
>>>>>>> otherwise identical wheel with a full spoke complement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you tell me! do the experiment!
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> er, we've already discussed "functional" - read up thread. /you/
>>>> want to test "reliable", and for that, the ball is in /your/ court.
>>>> i look forward to your contribution.
>>>
>>> I make no claims of expectation of the wheel being reliable. The
>>> static test is rather pointless as regards real world use, no?
>>>
>>
>> its point is to demonstrate that the wheel doesn't "collapse" with
>> slack and/or missing spokes, contrary to jobstian wheel theory. in
>> that regard, it is utterly /on/ point.
>
> Where is the contradiction to Jobst Brandt's wheel theory?

jobst tells us that a wheel with slack spokes will, his word,
"collapse". it doesn't.

> As for
> collapsing, "jim's" static test is not as severe for a front wheel as
> hitting a pothole during hard braking would be (this may not be obvious
> to the materials' scientist).

no shit sherlock. but my 205# ass sitting directly above a slack, spoke
deficient wheel defies jobstian "standing" theory.

>
>> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about trying to
>> prove it won't last in service, something that should be obvious to
>> even civil engineers that aren't typically familiar with "real world"
>> testing.
>
> "jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end products we
> design are tested in use, and we are legally responsible to the owner if
> they fail to perform as specified (another concept that appears to be
> foreign to the materials' scientist).

raw nerve about civil engineers not testing their own products? or
you're worried about standing behind the words coming out of your own
big mouth because of legal liability? that's bullshit. you won't act
because you're a lightweight.

Date: 12 Nov 2007 00:06:42
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 13 Nov 2007 05:54:57
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 13 Nov 2007 20:54:25
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 13 Nov 2007 20:17:49
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 13 Nov 2007 22:23:23
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 14 Nov 2007 06:05:19
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 14 Nov 2007 21:08:58
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 14 Nov 2007 19:55:35
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 16 Nov 2007 02:23:11
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 16 Nov 2007 06:10:07
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> load, or for the spoke nipples to unscrew and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spokes to fatigue?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to an otherwise identical wheel with a full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spoke complement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you tell me! do the experiment!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, we've already discussed "functional" - read up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread. /you/ want to test "reliable", and for that, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ball is in /your/ court. i look forward to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I make no claims of expectation of the wheel being
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliable. The static test is rather pointless as regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> real world use, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> its point is to demonstrate that the wheel doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> "collapse" with slack and/or missing spokes, contrary to
>>>>>>>>>>>> jobstian wheel theory. in that regard, it is utterly /on/
>>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where is the contradiction to Jobst Brandt's wheel theory?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> jobst tells us that a wheel with slack spokes will, his word,
>>>>>>>>>> "collapse". it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Under what loading conditions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ask jobst! he's the one making underinformed presumptive blanket
>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for collapsing, "jim's" static test is not as severe for a
>>>>>>>>>>> front wheel as hitting a pothole during hard braking would be
>>>>>>>>>>> (this may not be obvious to the materials' scientist).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no shit sherlock. but my 205# ass sitting directly above a
>>>>>>>>>> slack, spoke deficient wheel defies jobstian "standing" theory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i'm sorry, did the wheel collapse? or is the picture a fraud
>>>>>>>> and it's
>>>>>>>> actually supporting no weight at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But a static test is not representative of riding conditions, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no? so when is the last time you tested a full size bridge to
>>>>>> destruction then?
>>>>>
>>>>> Silly question.
>>>>
>>>> really? one rule for me, another for you - is that the way you want to
>>>> play? and you wonder why you get called out as a lightweight???
>>>
>>> No wonder "jim beam" claims to have left technical fields for more
>>> money. One wonders what he/she is doing now - advertising BS would be
>>> a perfect fit.
>>
>> oh dear - raw nerve? why ever would exposure of hypocrisy provoke
>> such reaction??? [rhetorical]
>
> "jim" is as wildly off the mark here as when he/she/it claimed the
> newton was a unit of torque.

bullshit. why do you have to resort to putting lies in my mouth? is it
because you're a lightweight?

>
>>>>> However, since the Tacoma Narrows failure, bridges have been
>>>>> analyzed for BOTH static and dynamic loading conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As to whether or not the picture is a fraud, that goes to the
>>>>>>> credibility of the poster. How much credibility do sock puppets
>>>>>>> have, anyhow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how much to lightweights have?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, people actually build stuff using my designs, and none of it
>>>>> has failed yet.
>>>>
>>>> so you say...
>>>
>>> What can a sock puppet say it has done?
>>
>> nothing - that's why i post evidence. what have you ever posted apart
>> from pissing and moaning?
>
> Evidence that is meaningless to real world use - "jim" has yet to post
> "evidence" that the wheel with missing spokes is a functional bicycle
> wheel.

er, my model demonstrates the fact that loose/missing spokes do not
cause wheel collapse, i.e., the wheel does not depend on tension for
load bearing, contrary to jobstian theory. /you/ otoh, keep trying to
deviate from the purpose of such a demonstration with a fatigue
reliability red herring. and with the obsessive inability to grasp
detail of an a.s. sufferer.

>
>>>>> Legally, you can not use deliverables from anonymous people for
>>>>> design. I wonder why?
>>>>
>>>> great - /you/ do your wheel testing and post your results then!!!
>>>
>>> Why does "jim" keep trying to get me to do his/her/its work?
>>
>> er, /my/ loading test, /your/ reliability test. stop being such a
>> lightweight.
>
> butbutbut, "jim's" loading test is meaningless, unless one only wants to
> use a bicycle to support static loads (a rather silly use of the device).

so, how many full size bridges have you tested to destruction then tom?
your whole profession would be fucked if you didn't rely on model
demonstration.

>
>>>>>>>>>>>> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating about
>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to prove it won't last in service, something that
>>>>>>>>>>>> should be obvious to even civil engineers that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>> typically familiar with "real world" testing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end
>>>>>>>>>>> products we design are tested in use, and we are legally
>>>>>>>>>>> responsible to the owner if they fail to perform as specified
>>>>>>>>>>> (another concept that appears to be foreign to the materials'
>>>>>>>>>>> scientist).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> raw nerve about civil engineers not testing their own products?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or you're worried about standing behind the words coming out
>>>>>>>>>> of your own big mouth because of legal liability?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that's bullshit. you won't act because you're a lightweight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, why should I spend my own money and risk injury to do
>>>>>>>>> "jim's" work for him/her/them/it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you have a.s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you find that humorous?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no. i think you need help.
>>>>>
>>>>> Says the person with the obsession with Jobst Brandt.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you can't address reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Says Mr. Sock Puppet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you're fixated by trivia and paralyzed by your inability to deal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deal what (missing object)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> see above.
>>>>>
>>>>> See above what?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> there's help available.
>>>
>>> For English writing skills for sock puppets?
>>>
>>
>> eh? you mean english writing skills for people confusing "rational"
>> with "rationale"???
>
> What about people who think that the newton (N) is a unit of TORQUE?

stop putting bullshit in my mouth. i didn't say that - /you/ said i
said it. lightweight.

>
>> i meant help for a.s. sufferers.
>
> What about help for anonymous Usenet cowards?
>

er, refusal to let a credentials pissing contest distract from the facts
is not cowardice. resorting to childish lies of misrepresentation otoh,
that looks pretty damned cowardly to me.

Date: 16 Nov 2007 19:48:18
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> load, or for the spoke nipples to unscrew and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spokes to fatigue?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to an otherwise identical wheel with a full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spoke complement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you tell me! do the experiment!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, we've already discussed "functional" - read up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread. /you/ want to test "reliable", and for that, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ball is in /your/ court. i look forward to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I make no claims of expectation of the wheel being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliable. The static test is rather pointless as regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real world use, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its point is to demonstrate that the wheel doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "collapse" with slack and/or missing spokes, contrary to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobstian wheel theory. in that regard, it is utterly /on/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is the contradiction to Jobst Brandt's wheel theory?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> jobst tells us that a wheel with slack spokes will, his word,
>>>>>>>>>>> "collapse". it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Under what loading conditions?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ask jobst! he's the one making underinformed presumptive blanket
>>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for collapsing, "jim's" static test is not as severe for
>>>>>>>>>>>> a front wheel as hitting a pothole during hard braking would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be (this may not be obvious to the materials' scientist).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no shit sherlock. but my 205# ass sitting directly above a
>>>>>>>>>>> slack, spoke deficient wheel defies jobstian "standing" theory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i'm sorry, did the wheel collapse? or is the picture a fraud
>>>>>>>>> and it's
>>>>>>>>> actually supporting no weight at all?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But a static test is not representative of riding conditions, eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no? so when is the last time you tested a full size bridge to
>>>>>>> destruction then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Silly question.
>>>>>
>>>>> really? one rule for me, another for you - is that the way you
>>>>> want to
>>>>> play? and you wonder why you get called out as a lightweight???
>>>>
>>>> No wonder "jim beam" claims to have left technical fields for more
>>>> money. One wonders what he/she is doing now - advertising BS would
>>>> be a perfect fit.
>>>
>>> oh dear - raw nerve? why ever would exposure of hypocrisy provoke
>>> such reaction??? [rhetorical]
>>
>> "jim" is as wildly off the mark here as when he/she/it claimed the
>> newton was a unit of torque.
>
> bullshit. why do you have to resort to putting lies in my mouth? is it
> because you're a lightweight?

You wrote it, "jim":
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/df61fa7fce144bc4?dmode=source >.

>>>>>> However, since the Tacoma Narrows failure, bridges have been
>>>>>> analyzed for BOTH static and dynamic loading conditions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to whether or not the picture is a fraud, that goes to the
>>>>>>>> credibility of the poster. How much credibility do sock puppets
>>>>>>>> have, anyhow?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how much to lightweights have?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, people actually build stuff using my designs, and none of it
>>>>>> has failed yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> so you say...
>>>>
>>>> What can a sock puppet say it has done?
>>>
>>> nothing - that's why i post evidence. what have you ever posted
>>> apart from pissing and moaning?
>>
>> Evidence that is meaningless to real world use - "jim" has yet to post
>> "evidence" that the wheel with missing spokes is a functional bicycle
>> wheel.
>
> er, my model demonstrates the fact that loose/missing spokes do not
> cause wheel collapse, i.e., the wheel does not depend on tension for
> load bearing, contrary to jobstian theory. /you/ otoh, keep trying to
> deviate from the purpose of such a demonstration with a fatigue
> reliability red herring. and with the obsessive inability to grasp
> detail of an a.s. sufferer.

"jim's" test demonstrates that the wheel does not collapse only under
ONE condition that has NO RELEVANCE TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD OCCUR
WHILE RIDING. Jobst Brandt was obviously referring to collapse that
would occur from actual use. Duh!

"jim" also shows a great ignorance of A.S.

>>>>>> Legally, you can not use deliverables from anonymous people for
>>>>>> design. I wonder why?
>>>>>
>>>>> great - /you/ do your wheel testing and post your results then!!!
>>>>
>>>> Why does "jim" keep trying to get me to do his/her/its work?
>>>
>>> er, /my/ loading test, /your/ reliability test. stop being such a
>>> lightweight.
>>
>> butbutbut, "jim's" loading test is meaningless, unless one only wants
>> to use a bicycle to support static loads (a rather silly use of the
>> device).
>
> so, how many full size bridges have you tested to destruction then tom?
> your whole profession would be fucked if you didn't rely on model
> demonstration.

And "jim's" static test is about as useful as designing a bridge to
support dead loads only, while ignoring live loads.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about trying to prove it won't last in service, something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that should be obvious to even civil engineers that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> typically familiar with "real world" testing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end
>>>>>>>>>>>> products we design are tested in use, and we are legally
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible to the owner if they fail to perform as
>>>>>>>>>>>> specified (another concept that appears to be foreign to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> materials' scientist).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> raw nerve about civil engineers not testing their own products?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> or you're worried about standing behind the words coming out
>>>>>>>>>>> of your own big mouth because of legal liability?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that's bullshit. you won't act because you're a lightweight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, why should I spend my own money and risk injury to do
>>>>>>>>>> "jim's" work for him/her/them/it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you have a.s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you find that humorous?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no. i think you need help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says the person with the obsession with Jobst Brandt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you can't address reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Says Mr. Sock Puppet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you're fixated by trivia and paralyzed by your inability to deal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deal what (missing object)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See above what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> there's help available.
>>>>
>>>> For English writing skills for sock puppets?
>>>>
>>>
>>> eh? you mean english writing skills for people confusing "rational"
>>> with "rationale"???
>>
>> What about people who think that the newton (N) is a unit of TORQUE?
>
> stop putting bullshit in my mouth. i didn't say that - /you/ said i
> said it. lightweight.

See
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/df61fa7fce144bc4?dmode=source >.

>>> i meant help for a.s. sufferers.
>>
>> What about help for anonymous Usenet cowards?
>>
>
> er, refusal to let a credentials pissing contest distract from the facts
> is not cowardice. resorting to childish lies of misrepresentation otoh,
> that looks pretty damned cowardly to me.

No "jim" - tell us why you are afraid to use your real name here? Common
friends with other posters you flame that you would not want to lose?
Not wanting your personal agenda revealed?

For better or worse, people like Jobst Brandt put their reputations on
the line when they post here. Sock puppets risk nothing. Duh!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.

Date: 17 Nov 2007 11:46:13
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So how far can you RIDE using that wheel, eh "jim"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> load, or for the spoke nipples to unscrew and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spokes to fatigue?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How far to failure for the wheel missing spokes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to an otherwise identical wheel with a full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spoke complement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you tell me! do the experiment!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? I am not the one claiming it is a functional wheel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, we've already discussed "functional" - read up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread. /you/ want to test "reliable", and for that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ball is in /your/ court. i look forward to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I make no claims of expectation of the wheel being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliable. The static test is rather pointless as regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real world use, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its point is to demonstrate that the wheel doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "collapse" with slack and/or missing spokes, contrary to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobstian wheel theory. in that regard, it is utterly /on/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is the contradiction to Jobst Brandt's wheel theory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> jobst tells us that a wheel with slack spokes will, his
>>>>>>>>>>>> word, "collapse". it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Under what loading conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ask jobst! he's the one making underinformed presumptive blanket
>>>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for collapsing, "jim's" static test is not as severe for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a front wheel as hitting a pothole during hard braking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be (this may not be obvious to the materials'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientist).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> no shit sherlock. but my 205# ass sitting directly above a
>>>>>>>>>>>> slack, spoke deficient wheel defies jobstian "standing" theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i'm sorry, did the wheel collapse? or is the picture a fraud
>>>>>>>>>> and it's
>>>>>>>>>> actually supporting no weight at all?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But a static test is not representative of riding conditions, eh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no? so when is the last time you tested a full size bridge to
>>>>>>>> destruction then?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Silly question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> really? one rule for me, another for you - is that the way you
>>>>>> want to
>>>>>> play? and you wonder why you get called out as a lightweight???
>>>>>
>>>>> No wonder "jim beam" claims to have left technical fields for more
>>>>> money. One wonders what he/she is doing now - advertising BS would
>>>>> be a perfect fit.
>>>>
>>>> oh dear - raw nerve? why ever would exposure of hypocrisy provoke
>>>> such reaction??? [rhetorical]
>>>
>>> "jim" is as wildly off the mark here as when he/she/it claimed the
>>> newton was a unit of torque.
>>
>> bullshit. why do you have to resort to putting lies in my mouth? is
>> it because you're a lightweight?
>
> You wrote it, "jim":
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/df61fa7fce144bc4?dmode=source>.

which i clarified for you since you're too much of a freakin'
lightweight to follow my "rationale".

"and 300N applied as pure torque loading is unrealistic."

want to bullshit some more?

>
>
>>>>>>> However, since the Tacoma Narrows failure, bridges have been
>>>>>>> analyzed for BOTH static and dynamic loading conditions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As to whether or not the picture is a fraud, that goes to the
>>>>>>>>> credibility of the poster. How much credibility do sock puppets
>>>>>>>>> have, anyhow?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> how much to lightweights have?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, people actually build stuff using my designs, and none of
>>>>>>> it has failed yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so you say...
>>>>>
>>>>> What can a sock puppet say it has done?
>>>>
>>>> nothing - that's why i post evidence. what have you ever posted
>>>> apart from pissing and moaning?
>>>
>>> Evidence that is meaningless to real world use - "jim" has yet to
>>> post "evidence" that the wheel with missing spokes is a functional
>>> bicycle wheel.
>>
>> er, my model demonstrates the fact that loose/missing spokes do not
>> cause wheel collapse, i.e., the wheel does not depend on tension for
>> load bearing, contrary to jobstian theory. /you/ otoh, keep trying to
>> deviate from the purpose of such a demonstration with a fatigue
>> reliability red herring. and with the obsessive inability to grasp
>> detail of an a.s. sufferer.
>
> "jim's" test demonstrates that the wheel does not collapse only under
> ONE condition that has NO RELEVANCE TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD OCCUR
> WHILE RIDING. Jobst Brandt was obviously referring to collapse that
> would occur from actual use. Duh!

what a fascinating self deception. tell me, how many real bridges have
you tested to destruction then tom?

>
> "jim" also shows a great ignorance of A.S.

you don't obviously.

>
>>>>>>> Legally, you can not use deliverables from anonymous people for
>>>>>>> design. I wonder why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> great - /you/ do your wheel testing and post your results then!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does "jim" keep trying to get me to do his/her/its work?
>>>>
>>>> er, /my/ loading test, /your/ reliability test. stop being such a
>>>> lightweight.
>>>
>>> butbutbut, "jim's" loading test is meaningless, unless one only wants
>>> to use a bicycle to support static loads (a rather silly use of the
>>> device).
>>
>> so, how many full size bridges have you tested to destruction then
>> tom? your whole profession would be fucked if you didn't rely on
>> model demonstration.
>
> And "jim's" static test is about as useful as designing a bridge to
> support dead loads only, while ignoring live loads.

so how many bridges have you "live loaded" to destruction then tom?

>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's pointless is your constant lightweight bleating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about trying to prove it won't last in service, something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that should be obvious to even civil engineers that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typically familiar with "real world" testing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim" again shows his ignorance of engineering. The end
>>>>>>>>>>>>> products we design are tested in use, and we are legally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible to the owner if they fail to perform as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified (another concept that appears to be foreign to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the materials' scientist).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> raw nerve about civil engineers not testing their own products?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> or you're worried about standing behind the words coming
>>>>>>>>>>>> out of your own big mouth because of legal liability?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's bullshit. you won't act because you're a lightweight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, why should I spend my own money and risk injury to do
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim's" work for him/her/them/it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you have a.s.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you find that humorous?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no. i think you need help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Says the person with the obsession with Jobst Brandt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you can't address reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Says Mr. Sock Puppet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you're fixated by trivia and paralyzed by your inability to deal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Deal what (missing object)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> see above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See above what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there's help available.
>>>>>
>>>>> For English writing skills for sock puppets?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> eh? you mean english writing skills for people confusing "rational"
>>>> with "rationale"???
>>>
>>> What about people who think that the newton (N) is a unit of TORQUE?
>>
>> stop putting bullshit in my mouth. i didn't say that - /you/ said i
>> said it. lightweight.
>
> See
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/df61fa7fce144bc4?dmode=source>.

see above. bullshitter.

>
>
>>>> i meant help for a.s. sufferers.
>>>
>>> What about help for anonymous Usenet cowards?
>>>
>>
>> er, refusal to let a credentials pissing contest distract from the
>> facts is not cowardice. resorting to childish lies of
>> misrepresentation otoh, that looks pretty damned cowardly to me.
>
> No "jim" - tell us why you are afraid to use your real name here? Common
> friends with other posters you flame that you would not want to lose?
> Not wanting your personal agenda revealed?
>
> For better or worse, people like Jobst Brandt put their reputations on
> the line when they post here. Sock puppets risk nothing. Duh!

what? and foolishly get into a credentials pissing match where the great
and mighty jobst brandt can play his stanford card? the stanford card
that invariably bamboozles the ignorati and that has shamelessly been
used to intimidate those who actually dare to point out that he doesn't
know what he's talking about? i'm not that freakin' stupid. of course,
if you were smart, you'd have figured that out, but instead you want to
revel in your ability to swallow red herrings. what a lightweight!

as for "reputations", tell you what, you try putting yours on the
line with some factual contributions for a change. all you've done in
all these years is piss and moan. i have a /great/ idea for you to make
a contribution - how about you do some wheel reliability testing?
you're not too cowardly to do that are you?

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 10 Nov 2007 10:08:33
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 10 Nov 2007 10:39:28
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>
> at this point you two should just get married.
> then add one more for 'huit clois'.

I have never posted more than 250 times in one thread in an argument
with one person. This is not even coming close to that. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 09 Nov 2007 11:38:51
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

jim beam wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:

Could you 2 guys just get a room? Nobody else much cares at this point
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 09 Nov 2007 20:36:25
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>
> Could you 2 guys just get a room? Nobody else much cares at this point

Andres Muro has claim in the past to enjoy others arguing with "jim beam".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 08 Nov 2007 08:29:40
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

jim beam wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:

> ball's in your court. lightweight.

Psst... fellas. TRIM YOUR GODDAMNED CRAP!

Gee, thanks.

Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:37:05
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>
>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four orders
>>>>> of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>
>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>
>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>
>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>
> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some proportion
> the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its much greater
> bulk modulus?
>
>>>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not
>>>>> possible to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid
>>>>> "spring" in the shock will be affected.
>>>>
>>>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't test.
>>>
>>> Lots of things can be and are tested.
>>
>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>
> Feel free to ford all streams and rivers then. ;)

so, when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?

>
>>> But feel free to live out in the forest if you do not believe so. ;)
>>
>> more civil engineering wisdom?
>
> If you want to avoid structures that have not been destructively tested,
> there is little choice but to live out in the open. I suppose you could
> buy a series of small prefabricated sheds and test them to destruction
> with wind, snow and earthquake loads. ;)
>

feel free to test a nice convenient little wheel tom. then we'll know
you're serious, not just bleating to relieve your own boredom.

Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:51:32
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> meb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Left a floor pump outside in the recent rain downpour. I have
>>>>>>>>>> a high
>>>>>>>>>> pressure floor pump that I often pump up my AD-5 suspension
>>>>>>>>>> shock to 160
>>>>>>>>>> lbs. I got 1-2 pumps of the handle in before I got suspicious
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> was amis. When I uncoupled, water mist sprayed out. Further
>>>>>>>>>> uncoupled
>>>>>>>>>> pumpings resulted in a steady stream plus mist. I gave up
>>>>>>>>>> filling, but is there any chance the water will damage the
>>>>>>>>>> AD-5?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Should I try and evacuate the shock?
>>>>>>>>>> If so, should I do so with the valve down to drain the shock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i'd strip, dry, re-lube and reassemble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully "jim" is referring to the shock and not himself, but
>>>>>>>> with the indefinite reference, that determination is not possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> grow up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop using indefinite references. Good thing you are not preparing
>>>>>> deliverables for clients with this degree of sloppiness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> water is essentially incompressible and can over-pressurize
>>>>>>>>> things. it can also freeze and burst things as we enter the
>>>>>>>>> cold season.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bulk modulus of water is 2.15×10^9 Pa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and compared to air, that is....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since "jim" in the past has shown an unwillingness to look up and
>>>>>> post values, air is 1.42×10^5(adiabatic bulk modulus) or 1.01×10^5
>>>>>> Pa (constant temperature bulk modulus). This is roughly four
>>>>>> orders of magnitude lower than water.
>>>>>
>>>>> only 4 orders. that's not significant then! move along folks -
>>>>> nothing to see here.
>>>>
>>>> The significance depends on the relative proportions of air and water.
>>>
>>> er, no, the significance depends on 4 orders of magnitude!
>>
>> Do you recommend against filling shocks with ambient air, since it
>> contains some water vapor, then? Or do you admit that at some
>> proportion the presence of water becomes insignificant, despite its
>> much greater bulk modulus?
>>
>>>>>> Of course, without knowing the quantity of water, it is not
>>>>>> possible to determine to what extend the stiffness of the fluid
>>>>>> "spring" in the shock will be affected.
>>>>>
>>>>> civil engineering 101 - dress presumption as fact since you can't
>>>>> test.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of things can be and are tested.
>>>
>>> when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?
>>
>> Feel free to ford all streams and rivers then. ;)
>
> so, when is the last time you saw a bridge destruction tested?

Come up with a few hundred millions dollars, and we can have that
arranged. In the meanwhile, buy extra grease - submerging your bearing
while fording is hard on them.

>>>> But feel free to live out in the forest if you do not believe so. ;)
>>>
>>> more civil engineering wisdom?
>>
>> If you want to avoid structures that have not been destructively
>> tested, there is little choice but to live out in the open. I suppose
>> you could buy a series of small prefabricated sheds and test them to
>> destruction with wind, snow and earthquake loads. ;)
>>
>
> feel free to test a nice convenient little wheel tom. then we'll know
> you're serious, not just bleating to relieve your own boredom.

Why should I do YOUR work for you, "jim"?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:49:26
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:36:25
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 06 Nov 2007 20:39:45
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 07 Nov 2007 06:11:43
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:17:31
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
<snip crap >

>
> "jim" has provided us with a result that does not reflect actual riding
> conditions, and wants us to accept an extrapolation to those conditions
> with no analysis to show that this should be so.
>

what? like the "analysis" that says that wheels "collapse" as soon as a
spoke goes slack?

you're clutching at straws, lightweight. put you money where your big
bored mouth is. slack spoke a wheel and prove it won't ride. prove me
wrong. pussy.

Date: 07 Nov 2007 21:55:03
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> <snip crap>
>
>>
>> "jim" has provided us with a result that does not reflect actual
>> riding conditions, and wants us to accept an extrapolation to those
>> conditions with no analysis to show that this should be so.
>>
>
> what? like the "analysis" that says that wheels "collapse" as soon as a
> spoke goes slack?
>
> you're clutching at straws, lightweight. put you money where your big
> bored mouth is. slack spoke a wheel and prove it won't ride. prove me
> wrong. pussy.

Ooooooooooh, insults!

"jim beam" criticizes Jobst Brandt for testing a wheel in a manner that
does not reflect the actual loads occurring during riding. Then "jim
beam" turns around and performs a test on a wheel that does not reflect
the actual loads occurring during riding, but claims that it is a valid
test. Bloody great mistake or hypocrisy?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 07 Nov 2007 20:27:43
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> <snip crap>
>>
>>>
>>> "jim" has provided us with a result that does not reflect actual
>>> riding conditions, and wants us to accept an extrapolation to those
>>> conditions with no analysis to show that this should be so.
>>>
>>
>> what? like the "analysis" that says that wheels "collapse" as soon as
>> a spoke goes slack?
>>
>> you're clutching at straws, lightweight. put you money where your big
>> bored mouth is. slack spoke a wheel and prove it won't ride. prove
>> me wrong. pussy.
>
> Ooooooooooh, insults!
>
> "jim beam" criticizes Jobst Brandt for testing a wheel in a manner that
> does not reflect the actual loads occurring during riding. Then "jim
> beam" turns around and performs a test on a wheel that does not reflect
> the actual loads occurring during riding, but claims that it is a valid
> test. Bloody great mistake or hypocrisy?
>

eh? i give you a photo of static because that way, the tensiometer does
not fall off. and it's guaranteed to show the missing spokes at the
bottom where they are not supporting the wheel. but the wheel continues
to rotate and support load. as you'd know IF YOU DID THE FREAKIN'
EXPERIMENT FOR YOUR LAZY-ASS SELF. goddamned lightweight.

Date: 07 Nov 2007 22:52:33
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip crap>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "jim" has provided us with a result that does not reflect actual
>>>> riding conditions, and wants us to accept an extrapolation to those
>>>> conditions with no analysis to show that this should be so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what? like the "analysis" that says that wheels "collapse" as soon
>>> as a spoke goes slack?
>>>
>>> you're clutching at straws, lightweight. put you money where your
>>> big bored mouth is. slack spoke a wheel and prove it won't ride.
>>> prove me wrong. pussy.
>>
>> Ooooooooooh, insults!
>>
>> "jim beam" criticizes Jobst Brandt for testing a wheel in a manner
>> that does not reflect the actual loads occurring during riding. Then
>> "jim beam" turns around and performs a test on a wheel that does not
>> reflect the actual loads occurring during riding, but claims that it
>> is a valid test. Bloody great mistake or hypocrisy?
>>
>
> eh? i give you a photo of static because that way, the tensiometer does
> not fall off. and it's guaranteed to show the missing spokes at the
> bottom where they are not supporting the wheel. but the wheel continues
> to rotate and support load. as you'd know IF YOU DID THE FREAKIN'
> EXPERIMENT FOR YOUR LAZY-ASS SELF. goddamned lightweight.

Ooooooh, more insults, but no answer. Why do apply a different criteria
to your tests than to Jobst Brandt's?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

Date: 07 Nov 2007 21:45:56
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim" has provided us with a result that does not reflect actual
>>>>> riding conditions, and wants us to accept an extrapolation to those
>>>>> conditions with no analysis to show that this should be so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what? like the "analysis" that says that wheels "collapse" as soon
>>>> as a spoke goes slack?
>>>>
>>>> you're clutching at straws, lightweight. put you money where your
>>>> big bored mouth is. slack spoke a wheel and prove it won't ride.
>>>> prove me wrong. pussy.
>>>
>>> Ooooooooooh, insults!
>>>
>>> "jim beam" criticizes Jobst Brandt for testing a wheel in a manner
>>> that does not reflect the actual loads occurring during riding. Then
>>> "jim beam" turns around and performs a test on a wheel that does not
>>> reflect the actual loads occurring during riding, but claims that it
>>> is a valid test. Bloody great mistake or hypocrisy?
>>>
>>
>> eh? i give you a photo of static because that way, the tensiometer
>> does not fall off. and it's guaranteed to show the missing spokes at
>> the bottom where they are not supporting the wheel. but the wheel
>> continues to rotate and support load. as you'd know IF YOU DID THE
>> FREAKIN' EXPERIMENT FOR YOUR LAZY-ASS SELF. goddamned lightweight.
>
> Ooooooh, more insults, but no answer. Why do apply a different criteria
> to your tests than to Jobst Brandt's?
>

er, what's confusing you about me say that jobst's test is not
representative? or are you just pissing and moaning?

Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:56:41
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: water in Cane Creek AD-5

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jim" has provided us with a result that does not reflect actual
>>>>>> riding conditions, and wants us to accept an extrapolation to
>>>>>> those conditions with no analysis to show that this should be so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> what? like the "analysis" that says that wheels "collapse" as soon
>>>>> as a spoke goes slack?
>>>>>
>>>>> you're clutching at straws, lightweight. put you money where your
>>>>> big bored mouth is. slack spoke a wheel and prove it won't ride.
>>>>> prove me wrong. pussy.
>>>>
>>>> Ooooooooooh, insults!
>>>>
>>>> "jim beam" criticizes Jobst Brandt for testing a wheel in a manner
>>>> that does not reflect the actual loads occurring during riding. Then
>>>> "jim beam" turns around and performs a test on a wheel that does not
>>>> reflect the actual loads occurring during riding, but claims that it
>>>> is a valid test. Bloody great mistake or hypocrisy?
>>>>
>>>
>>> eh? i give you a photo of static because that way, the tensiometer
>>> does not fall off. and it's guaranteed to show the missing spokes at
>>> the bottom where they are not supporting the wheel. but the wheel
>>> continues to rotate and support load. as you'd know IF YOU DID THE
>>> FREAKIN' EXPERIMENT FOR YOUR LAZY-ASS SELF. goddamned lightweight.
>>
>> Ooooooh, more insults, but no answer. Why do apply a different
>> criteria to your tests than to Jobst Brandt's?
>>
>
> er, what's confusing you about me say that jobst's test is not
> representative? or are you just pissing and moaning?

This is less comprehensible than gene daniels' deliberate mangling of
the English language (and gene is much more entertaining).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.