tom sherman drivel continued - was spoke fatigue troll

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
<snip drivel>

>>> Did I ever write that work hardening was not a continuous function?
>>> No. "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
>>
>> you wrote:
>>
>> "In the case of a forged hub, the Meyer hardness would not change
>> with indention depth, since the material started out being work
>> hardened. For a cast hub flange, the Meyer hardness would
>> continually increase as the test load was increased due to the cold
>> working of the material."
>>
>> so you specifically state that the forged hub will not experience
>> additional work hardening, in contrast to the cast hub which will.
>>
> No, I did NOT say that the forged hub would not experience more work
> hardening, simply that Meyer hardness would not vary significantly with
> test load. Duh.

lightweight. trying to talk your way out of a mistake by compounding
it, as you just have, is utterly stupid.


>
>> 1. there are no cast hubs.
>
> Citation? Not even the cheap ones?

i already told you. but you want to prove me wrong, so go get yourself
some hubs, a metallurgical microscope, and do some metallography. post
the pics for us all to see! it'll cost you about $15 for the cheapest
hub, the most likely candidate.


>
>> 2. BOTH materials work harden.
>
> How much does the spoke work harden during spoke squeezing?

why not use your, er, "ability" to calculate meyer hardness to find out?


>
>> 3. they work harden continuously!
>>
> Did I write that they did not?

unfortunately, you did, yes. "meyer hardness would not change with
indention depth" are your exact words.


>
>> you clearly don't understand deformation. or if that's not what you
>> meant to say, then re-state it, don't accuse me of "misrepresenting"
>> your words which quite plainly show your misunderstanding.
>>
> I did not say anything. If "jim" stops misrepresenting what I wrote, I
> will stop saying that "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.

so you didn't say "meyer hardness would not change with indention depth"
then? what exactly /did/ you say????



>
>>>> meyer hardness is for the projected area of the impression, not
>>>> just the indenter impression.
>>>>
>>> No kidding. But Meyer (not "meyer") hardness does not typically
>>> change with indentation depth for a work hardened material, but does
>>> change with indentation depth for an annealed or normalized material.
>>
>> clueless idiot!!! work hardening is a continuous function!
>>
> I was referring to Meyer hardness measurement, not whether or not work
> hardening is a continuous function.

so you didn't say:

"meyer hardness would not change with indention depth" then?

so you didn't say:

"[meyer] hardness does not typically change with indentation depth for a
work hardened material"???

with those statements, what you /really/ said was:

"i am a clueless bull****ting idiot that can't open a book and if i did
open a book, i didn't understand what i read", that's what you /really/
said.



>
>>>>> I wrote that the Meyer hardness would not change, not that the
>>>>> material could not be further work hardened. The two are not the
>>>>> same. Learn to read.
>>>>
>>>> oh, the hypocrisy. you goddamned lightweight.
>>>>
>>> "jim" has a non-standard definition of hypocrisy it seems.
>>
>> lightweight idiot that doesn't understand basic testing procedure!
>>
> And "jim" does not comprehend written English.
<snip remaining drivel>


how much surface preparation is necessary for a rockwell hardness test
then tom? have you read that bit yet?

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> <snip drivel>
>
> >>> Did I ever write that work hardening was not a continuous function?
> >>> No. "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
> >>
> >> you wrote:
> >>
> >> "In the case of a forged hub, the Meyer hardness would not change
> >> with indention depth, since the material started out being work
> >> hardened. For a cast hub flange, the Meyer hardness would
> >> continually increase as the test load was increased due to the cold
> >> working of the material."
> >>
> >> so you specifically state that the forged hub will not experience
> >> additional work hardening, in contrast to the cast hub which will.
> >>
> > No, I did NOT say that the forged hub would not experience more work
> > hardening, simply that Meyer hardness would not vary significantly with
> > test load. Duh.
>
> lightweight. trying to talk your way out of a mistake by compounding
> it, as you just have, is utterly stupid.
>
Not reading what people actually write is stupid.

> >
> >> 1. there are no cast hubs.
> >
> > Citation? Not even the cheap ones?
>
> i already told you. but you want to prove me wrong, so go get yourself
> some hubs, a metallurgical microscope, and do some metallography. post
> the pics for us all to see! it'll cost you about $15 for the cheapest
> hub, the most likely candidate.
>
No "jim", you posted the contention, so prove yourself right.

How 'bout these cast bicycle parts, including hubs:
<http://www.sovikengg.com/cycleparts.htm>?

> >
> >> 2. BOTH materials work harden.
> >
> > How much does the spoke work harden during spoke squeezing?
>
> why not use your, er, "ability" to calculate meyer hardness to find out?
>
A spoke is too small to test for hardness by Meyer or Brinell methods,
no? Microhardness tests (Knoop or Vickers) are required. Vickers would
likely be the best choice for a small, round section such as a spoke.

> >> 3. they work harden continuously!
> >>
> > Did I write that they did not?
>
> unfortunately, you did, yes. "meyer hardness would not change with
> indention depth" are your exact words.
>
Yes, indeed. The indentation depth changes with load (duh), but as the
Meyer hardness calculation includes the load this is taken into account.

> >> you clearly don't understand deformation. or if that's not what you
> >> meant to say, then re-state it, don't accuse me of "misrepresenting"
> >> your words which quite plainly show your misunderstanding.
> >>
> > I did not say anything. If "jim" stops misrepresenting what I wrote, I
> > will stop saying that "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
>
> so you didn't say "meyer hardness would not change with indention depth"
> then? what exactly /did/ you say????
>
Meyer hardness generally changes with indentation depth for a material
that is NOT work hardened, but does not change significantly with
indentation depth for a work hardened material. I though "jim" would
realize this.

> >>>> meyer hardness is for the projected area of the impression, not
> >>>> just the indenter impression.
> >>>>
> >>> No kidding. But Meyer (not "meyer") hardness does not typically
> >>> change with indentation depth for a work hardened material, but does
> >>> change with indentation depth for an annealed or normalized material.
> >>
> >> clueless idiot!!! work hardening is a continuous function!
> >>
> > I was referring to Meyer hardness measurement, not whether or not work
> > hardening is a continuous function.
>
> so you didn't say:
>
> "meyer hardness would not change with indention depth" then?
>
> so you didn't say:
>
> "[meyer] hardness does not typically change with indentation depth for a
> work hardened material"???
>
> with those statements, what you /really/ said was:
>
> "i am a clueless bull****ting idiot that can't open a book and if i did
> open a book, i didn't understand what i read", that's what you /really/
> said.
>
"jim" is funny when he gets mad. ;)

> >>>>> I wrote that the Meyer hardness would not change, not that the
> >>>>> material could not be further work hardened. The two are not the
> >>>>> same. Learn to read.
> >>>>
> >>>> oh, the hypocrisy. you goddamned lightweight.
> >>>>
> >>> "jim" has a non-standard definition of hypocrisy it seems.
> >>
> >> lightweight idiot that doesn't understand basic testing procedure!
> >>
> > And "jim" does not comprehend written English.
> <snip remaining drivel>
>
>
> how much surface preparation is necessary for a rockwell hardness test
> then tom? have you read that bit yet?
>
Not enough information given to answer the question.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> <snip drivel>
>>
>> >>> Did I ever write that work hardening was not a continuous function?
>> >>> No. "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
>> >>
>> >> you wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "In the case of a forged hub, the Meyer hardness would not change
>> >> with indention depth, since the material started out being work
>> >> hardened. For a cast hub flange, the Meyer hardness would
>> >> continually increase as the test load was increased due to the cold
>> >> working of the material."
>> >>
>> >> so you specifically state that the forged hub will not experience
>> >> additional work hardening, in contrast to the cast hub which will.
>> >>
>> > No, I did NOT say that the forged hub would not experience more work
>> > hardening, simply that Meyer hardness would not vary significantly
>> with
>> > test load. Duh.
>>
>> lightweight. trying to talk your way out of a mistake by compounding
>> it, as you just have, is utterly stupid.
>>
> Not reading what people actually write is stupid.

ah, i get it - you don't like being called on having written
ignorance-exposing bull****, so therefore you didn't write it!! seems
pretty ****ing stupid to me when all you have to do is rectify your
mistake, but hey, i guess you lightweights have problems in that department.


>
>> >
>> >> 1. there are no cast hubs.
>> >
>> > Citation? Not even the cheap ones?
>>
>> i already told you. but you want to prove me wrong, so go get
>> yourself some hubs, a metallurgical microscope, and do some
>> metallography. post the pics for us all to see! it'll cost you about
>> $15 for the cheapest hub, the most likely candidate.
>>
> No "jim", you posted the contention, so prove yourself right.
>
> How 'bout these cast bicycle parts, including hubs:
> <http://www.sovikengg.com/cycleparts.htm>?

"technically", yes, cast hubs are possible, but you can cast almost
anything [those brake calipers are particularly un-fine]. but that
doesn't mean it ever gets used real world. how many handlebars are cast
for instance? how many frames? they're both "possible". you buy and
test the cheapest hub you can buy here stateside. show me it's cast.


>
>> >
>> >> 2. BOTH materials work harden.
>> >
>> > How much does the spoke work harden during spoke squeezing?
>>
>> why not use your, er, "ability" to calculate meyer hardness to find out?
>>
> A spoke is too small to test for hardness by Meyer or Brinell methods,
> no? Microhardness tests (Knoop or Vickers) are required. Vickers would
> likely be the best choice for a small, round section such as a spoke.

tom, seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about, why do you
keep exposing your ignorance to ridicule??? you don't/can't hardness
test a curved surface with knoop or vickers. you /can/ test it with
rockwell, provided you apply the correction factors.

besides, remember i asked you about surface preparation? if you'd
bothered to read up on it as i suggested, you wouldn't be so confused.


>
>> >> 3. they work harden continuously!
>> >>
>> > Did I write that they did not?
>>
>> unfortunately, you did, yes. "meyer hardness would not change with
>> indention depth" are your exact words.
>>
> Yes, indeed. The indentation depth changes with load (duh), but as the
> Meyer hardness calculation includes the load this is taken into account.

as a function of cold work as it increases!!!


>
>> >> you clearly don't understand deformation. or if that's not what you
>> >> meant to say, then re-state it, don't accuse me of "misrepresenting"
>> >> your words which quite plainly show your misunderstanding.
>> >>
>> > I did not say anything. If "jim" stops misrepresenting what I wrote, I
>> > will stop saying that "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
>>
>> so you didn't say "meyer hardness would not change with indention
>> depth" then? what exactly /did/ you say????
>>
> Meyer hardness generally changes with indentation depth for a material
> that is NOT work hardened, but does not change significantly with
> indentation depth for a work hardened material. I though "jim" would
> realize this.

what i don't understand is how you can /not/ understand the basic
principles!

>
>> >>>> meyer hardness is for the projected area of the impression, not
>> >>>> just the indenter impression.
>> >>>>
>> >>> No kidding. But Meyer (not "meyer") hardness does not typically
>> >>> change with indentation depth for a work hardened material, but does
>> >>> change with indentation depth for an annealed or normalized
>> material.
>> >>
>> >> clueless idiot!!! work hardening is a continuous function!
>> >>
>> > I was referring to Meyer hardness measurement, not whether or not work
>> > hardening is a continuous function.
>>
>> so you didn't say:
>>
>> "meyer hardness would not change with indention depth" then?
>>
>> so you didn't say:
>>
>> "[meyer] hardness does not typically change with indentation depth for
>> a work hardened material"???
>>
>> with those statements, what you /really/ said was:
>>
>> "i am a clueless bull****ting idiot that can't open a book and if i
>> did open a book, i didn't understand what i read", that's what you
>> /really/ said.
>>
> "jim" is funny when he gets mad. ;)

no, i get frustrated with clueless lightweights that don't have the
sense to shut up when they're out of their depth, or the balls to 'fess
up when they get it wrong! you're neither smart enough nor man enough
to do either!


>
>> >>>>> I wrote that the Meyer hardness would not change, not that the
>> >>>>> material could not be further work hardened. The two are not the
>> >>>>> same. Learn to read.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> oh, the hypocrisy. you goddamned lightweight.
>> >>>>
>> >>> "jim" has a non-standard definition of hypocrisy it seems.
>> >>
>> >> lightweight idiot that doesn't understand basic testing procedure!
>> >>
>> > And "jim" does not comprehend written English.
>> <snip remaining drivel>
>>
>>
>> how much surface preparation is necessary for a rockwell hardness test
>> then tom? have you read that bit yet?
>>
> Not enough information given to answer the question.


eh???? wow, that's incredible given that the testing industry is very
clear about this. clearly you're somewhat unfamiliar. and yet you dare
to bull**** about meyer hardness!!!

tom, you're an audaciously underinformed lightweight bull****ting /way/
out of your depth. try smoking less and reading more.

here you go.
http://www.msel.nist.gov/practiceguides/SP960_5.pdf

[try not to pay too much attention to annex a - it'll only get you
confused given your work hardening misconceptions.]

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip drivel>
>>>
>>> >>> Did I ever write that work hardening was not a continuous function?
>>> >>> No. "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
>>> >>
>>> >> you wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> "In the case of a forged hub, the Meyer hardness would not change
>>> >> with indention depth, since the material started out being work
>>> >> hardened. For a cast hub flange, the Meyer hardness would
>>> >> continually increase as the test load was increased due to the cold
>>> >> working of the material."
>>> >>
>>> >> so you specifically state that the forged hub will not experience
>>> >> additional work hardening, in contrast to the cast hub which will.
>>> >>
>>> > No, I did NOT say that the forged hub would not experience more work
>>> > hardening, simply that Meyer hardness would not vary significantly
>>> with
>>> > test load. Duh.
>>>
>>> lightweight. trying to talk your way out of a mistake by compounding
>>> it, as you just have, is utterly stupid.
>>>
>> Not reading what people actually write is stupid.
>
> ah, i get it - you don't like being called on having written
> ignorance-exposing bull****, so therefore you didn't write it!! seems
> pretty ****ing stupid to me when all you have to do is rectify your
> mistake, but hey, i guess you lightweights have problems in that
> department.
>
No "jim", you still have not read and understood what I actually wrote.

>>> >> 1. there are no cast hubs.
>>> >
>>> > Citation? Not even the cheap ones?
>>>
>>> i already told you. but you want to prove me wrong, so go get
>>> yourself some hubs, a metallurgical microscope, and do some
>>> metallography. post the pics for us all to see! it'll cost you
>>> about $15 for the cheapest hub, the most likely candidate.
>>>
>> No "jim", you posted the contention, so prove yourself right.
>>
>> How 'bout these cast bicycle parts, including hubs:
>> <http://www.sovikengg.com/cycleparts.htm>?
>
> "technically", yes, cast hubs are possible, but you can cast almost
> anything [those brake calipers are particularly un-fine]. but that
> doesn't mean it ever gets used real world. how many handlebars are cast
> for instance? how many frames? they're both "possible". you buy and
> test the cheapest hub you can buy here stateside. show me it's cast.
>
So "jim" admits his error in his absolute statement of there being no
cast hubs. We are making progress.

>>> >> 2. BOTH materials work harden.
>>> >
>>> > How much does the spoke work harden during spoke squeezing?
>>>
>>> why not use your, er, "ability" to calculate meyer hardness to find out?
>>>
>> A spoke is too small to test for hardness by Meyer or Brinell methods,
>> no? Microhardness tests (Knoop or Vickers) are required. Vickers would
>> likely be the best choice for a small, round section such as a spoke.
>
> tom, seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about, why do you
> keep exposing your ignorance to ridicule??? you don't/can't hardness
> test a curved surface with knoop or vickers. you /can/ test it with
> rockwell, provided you apply the correction factors.
>
Then why do I find references to corrections to Vickers hardness for
curved surfaces?

> besides, remember i asked you about surface preparation? if you'd
> bothered to read up on it as i suggested, you wouldn't be so confused.
>
>
>>
>>> >> 3. they work harden continuously!
>>> >>
>>> > Did I write that they did not?
>>>
>>> unfortunately, you did, yes. "meyer hardness would not change with
>>> indention depth" are your exact words.
>>>
>> Yes, indeed. The indentation depth changes with load (duh), but as the
>> Meyer hardness calculation includes the load this is taken into account.
>
> as a function of cold work as it increases!!!
>
But does cold work increase infinitely with deformation - wow, we can
make metals as strong as we want! ;)

>>> >> you clearly don't understand deformation. or if that's not what you
>>> >> meant to say, then re-state it, don't accuse me of "misrepresenting"
>>> >> your words which quite plainly show your misunderstanding.
>>> >>
>>> > I did not say anything. If "jim" stops misrepresenting what I
>>> wrote, I
>>> > will stop saying that "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
>>>
>>> so you didn't say "meyer hardness would not change with indention
>>> depth" then? what exactly /did/ you say????
>>>
>> Meyer hardness generally changes with indentation depth for a material
>> that is NOT work hardened, but does not change significantly with
>> indentation depth for a work hardened material. I though "jim" would
>> realize this.
>
> what i don't understand is how you can /not/ understand the basic
> principles!
>
Reading comprehension difficulties for "jim"?

>>> >>>> meyer hardness is for the projected area of the impression, not
>>> >>>> just the indenter impression.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> No kidding. But Meyer (not "meyer") hardness does not typically
>>> >>> change with indentation depth for a work hardened material, but
>>> does
>>> >>> change with indentation depth for an annealed or normalized
>>> material.
>>> >>
>>> >> clueless idiot!!! work hardening is a continuous function!
>>> >>
>>> > I was referring to Meyer hardness measurement, not whether or not
>>> work
>>> > hardening is a continuous function.
>>>
>>> so you didn't say:
>>>
>>> "meyer hardness would not change with indention depth" then?
>>>
>>> so you didn't say:
>>>
>>> "[meyer] hardness does not typically change with indentation depth
>>> for a work hardened material"???
>>>
>>> with those statements, what you /really/ said was:
>>>
>>> "i am a clueless bull****ting idiot that can't open a book and if i
>>> did open a book, i didn't understand what i read", that's what you
>>> /really/ said.
>>>
>> "jim" is funny when he gets mad. ;)
>
> no, i get frustrated with clueless lightweights that don't have the
> sense to shut up when they're out of their depth, or the balls to 'fess
> up when they get it wrong! you're neither smart enough nor man enough
> to do either!
>
I enjoy it greatly when "jim" lets loose with the insults.

>>> >>>>> I wrote that the Meyer hardness would not change, not that the
>>> >>>>> material could not be further work hardened. The two are not the
>>> >>>>> same. Learn to read.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> oh, the hypocrisy. you goddamned lightweight.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> "jim" has a non-standard definition of hypocrisy it seems.
>>> >>
>>> >> lightweight idiot that doesn't understand basic testing procedure!
>>> >>
>>> > And "jim" does not comprehend written English.
>>> <snip remaining drivel>
>>>
>>>
>>> how much surface preparation is necessary for a rockwell hardness
>>> test then tom? have you read that bit yet?
>>>
>> Not enough information given to answer the question.
>
>
> eh???? wow, that's incredible given that the testing industry is very
> clear about this. clearly you're somewhat unfamiliar. and yet you dare
> to bull**** about meyer hardness!!!
>
Poor "jim" can not see that he posted an incomplete question.

> tom, you're an audaciously underinformed lightweight bull****ting /way/
> out of your depth. try smoking less and reading more.
>
> here you go.
> http://www.msel.nist.gov/practiceguides/SP960_5.pdf
>
> [try not to pay too much attention to annex a - it'll only get you
> confused given your work hardening misconceptions.]

It must be the use capital letters that makes things so confusing, eh?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
Tom Sherman > wrote:

> "jim beam" wrote:
>
> > no, i get frustrated with clueless lightweights that don't have the
> > sense to shut up when they're out of their depth, or the balls to
> > 'fess up when they get it wrong! you're neither smart enough nor
> > man enough to do either!
> >
> I enjoy it greatly when "jim" lets loose with the insults.

He really should read up on neurotic projection.

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

On May 10, 10:12 pm, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> >> "jim beam" wrote: 1. there are no cast hubs.
>
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> How 'bout these cast bicycle parts, including hubs:
> >> <http://www.sovikengg.com/cycleparts.htm>?
>
> > "jim beam" wrote:
> > "technically", yes, cast hubs are possible, but you can cast almost
> > anything [those brake calipers are particularly un-fine]. but that
> > doesn't mean it ever gets used real world. how many handlebars are cast
> > for instance? how many frames? they're both "possible". you buy and
> > test the cheapest hub you can buy here stateside. show me it's cast.
>
then Tom Sherman wrote:
> So "jim" admits his error in his absolute statement of there being no
> cast hubs. We are making progress.

:-)

jim beam makes progress very, very slowly. When you prove him wrong on
cast hubs, he tries to change the argument to cast handlebars - or
perhaps to the hubs he wants you to buy. Or to the components on your
own personal bikes.

And when he fails in all those arguments, he degenerates into
obscenities.

Makes you wonder what his childhood was like, doesn't it?

- Frank Krygowski

[Clive George]

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...

> "technically", yes, cast hubs are possible, but you can cast almost
> anything [those brake calipers are particularly un-fine]. but that
> doesn't mean it ever gets used real world. how many handlebars are cast
> for instance? how many frames?

I've ridden a cast framed bike. Very stiff it was too.

clive

[Tim McNamara]

In article
>,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:

> jim beam makes progress very, very slowly. When you prove him wrong on
> cast hubs, he tries to change the argument to cast handlebars - or
> perhaps to the hubs he wants you to buy. Or to the components on your
> own personal bikes.
>
> And when he fails in all those arguments, he degenerates into
> obscenities.
>
> Makes you wonder what his childhood was like, doesn't it?

"Was" like?

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> <snip drivel>
>>>>
>>>> >>> Did I ever write that work hardening was not a continuous
>>>> function?
>>>> >>> No. "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> you wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "In the case of a forged hub, the Meyer hardness would not change
>>>> >> with indention depth, since the material started out being work
>>>> >> hardened. For a cast hub flange, the Meyer hardness would
>>>> >> continually increase as the test load was increased due to the cold
>>>> >> working of the material."
>>>> >>
>>>> >> so you specifically state that the forged hub will not experience
>>>> >> additional work hardening, in contrast to the cast hub which will.
>>>> >>
>>>> > No, I did NOT say that the forged hub would not experience more work
>>>> > hardening, simply that Meyer hardness would not vary
>>>> significantly with
>>>> > test load. Duh.
>>>>
>>>> lightweight. trying to talk your way out of a mistake by
>>>> compounding it, as you just have, is utterly stupid.
>>>>
>>> Not reading what people actually write is stupid.
>>
>> ah, i get it - you don't like being called on having written
>> ignorance-exposing bull****, so therefore you didn't write it!! seems
>> pretty ****ing stupid to me when all you have to do is rectify your
>> mistake, but hey, i guess you lightweights have problems in that
>> department.
>>
> No "jim", you still have not read and understood what I actually wrote.

wriggle. squirm. avoid.


>
>>>> >> 1. there are no cast hubs.
>>>> >
>>>> > Citation? Not even the cheap ones?
>>>>
>>>> i already told you. but you want to prove me wrong, so go get
>>>> yourself some hubs, a metallurgical microscope, and do some
>>>> metallography. post the pics for us all to see! it'll cost you
>>>> about $15 for the cheapest hub, the most likely candidate.
>>>>
>>> No "jim", you posted the contention, so prove yourself right.
>>>
>>> How 'bout these cast bicycle parts, including hubs:
>>> <http://www.sovikengg.com/cycleparts.htm>?
>>
>> "technically", yes, cast hubs are possible, but you can cast almost
>> anything [those brake calipers are particularly un-fine]. but that
>> doesn't mean it ever gets used real world. how many handlebars are
>> cast for instance? how many frames? they're both "possible". you
>> buy and test the cheapest hub you can buy here stateside. show me
>> it's cast.
>>
> So "jim" admits his error in his absolute statement of there being no
> cast hubs. We are making progress.

wriggle. squirm. avoid.


>
>>>> >> 2. BOTH materials work harden.
>>>> >
>>>> > How much does the spoke work harden during spoke squeezing?
>>>>
>>>> why not use your, er, "ability" to calculate meyer hardness to find
>>>> out?
>>>>
>>> A spoke is too small to test for hardness by Meyer or Brinell
>>> methods, no? Microhardness tests (Knoop or Vickers) are required.
>>> Vickers would likely be the best choice for a small, round section
>>> such as a spoke.
>>
>> tom, seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about, why do
>> you keep exposing your ignorance to ridicule??? you don't/can't
>> hardness test a curved surface with knoop or vickers. you /can/ test
>> it with rockwell, provided you apply the correction factors.
>>
> Then why do I find references to corrections to Vickers hardness for
> curved surfaces?

cites?

wriggle. squirm. avoid.




>
>> besides, remember i asked you about surface preparation? if you'd
>> bothered to read up on it as i suggested, you wouldn't be so confused.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> >> 3. they work harden continuously!
>>>> >>
>>>> > Did I write that they did not?
>>>>
>>>> unfortunately, you did, yes. "meyer hardness would not change with
>>>> indention depth" are your exact words.
>>>>
>>> Yes, indeed. The indentation depth changes with load (duh), but as
>>> the Meyer hardness calculation includes the load this is taken into
>>> account.
>>
>> as a function of cold work as it increases!!!
>>
> But does cold work increase infinitely with deformation - wow, we can
> make metals as strong as we want! ;)

oh dear.

wriggle. squirm. avoid.




>
>>>> >> you clearly don't understand deformation. or if that's not what
>>>> you
>>>> >> meant to say, then re-state it, don't accuse me of
>>>> "misrepresenting"
>>>> >> your words which quite plainly show your misunderstanding.
>>>> >>
>>>> > I did not say anything. If "jim" stops misrepresenting what I
>>>> wrote, I
>>>> > will stop saying that "jim" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
>>>>
>>>> so you didn't say "meyer hardness would not change with indention
>>>> depth" then? what exactly /did/ you say????
>>>>
>>> Meyer hardness generally changes with indentation depth for a
>>> material that is NOT work hardened, but does not change significantly
>>> with indentation depth for a work hardened material. I though "jim"
>>> would realize this.
>>
>> what i don't understand is how you can /not/ understand the basic
>> principles!
>>
> Reading comprehension difficulties for "jim"?

wriggle. squirm. avoid.



>
>>>> >>>> meyer hardness is for the projected area of the impression, not
>>>> >>>> just the indenter impression.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> No kidding. But Meyer (not "meyer") hardness does not typically
>>>> >>> change with indentation depth for a work hardened material, but
>>>> does
>>>> >>> change with indentation depth for an annealed or normalized
>>>> material.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> clueless idiot!!! work hardening is a continuous function!
>>>> >>
>>>> > I was referring to Meyer hardness measurement, not whether or not
>>>> work
>>>> > hardening is a continuous function.
>>>>
>>>> so you didn't say:
>>>>
>>>> "meyer hardness would not change with indention depth" then?
>>>>
>>>> so you didn't say:
>>>>
>>>> "[meyer] hardness does not typically change with indentation depth
>>>> for a work hardened material"???
>>>>
>>>> with those statements, what you /really/ said was:
>>>>
>>>> "i am a clueless bull****ting idiot that can't open a book and if i
>>>> did open a book, i didn't understand what i read", that's what you
>>>> /really/ said.
>>>>
>>> "jim" is funny when he gets mad. ;)
>>
>> no, i get frustrated with clueless lightweights that don't have the
>> sense to shut up when they're out of their depth, or the balls to
>> 'fess up when they get it wrong! you're neither smart enough nor man
>> enough to do either!
>>
> I enjoy it greatly when "jim" lets loose with the insults.

wriggle. squirm. avoid.



>
>>>> >>>>> I wrote that the Meyer hardness would not change, not that the
>>>> >>>>> material could not be further work hardened. The two are not the
>>>> >>>>> same. Learn to read.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> oh, the hypocrisy. you goddamned lightweight.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> "jim" has a non-standard definition of hypocrisy it seems.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> lightweight idiot that doesn't understand basic testing procedure!
>>>> >>
>>>> > And "jim" does not comprehend written English.
>>>> <snip remaining drivel>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> how much surface preparation is necessary for a rockwell hardness
>>>> test then tom? have you read that bit yet?
>>>>
>>> Not enough information given to answer the question.
>>
>>
>> eh???? wow, that's incredible given that the testing industry is very
>> clear about this. clearly you're somewhat unfamiliar. and yet you
>> dare to bull**** about meyer hardness!!!
>>
> Poor "jim" can not see that he posted an incomplete question.

wriggle. squirm. avoid.



>
>> tom, you're an audaciously underinformed lightweight bull****ting
>> /way/ out of your depth. try smoking less and reading more.
>>
>> here you go.
>> http://www.msel.nist.gov/practiceguides/SP960_5.pdf
>>
>> [try not to pay too much attention to annex a - it'll only get you
>> confused given your work hardening misconceptions.]
>
> It must be the use capital letters that makes things so confusing, eh?
>

wriggle. squirm. avoid.

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
>> jim beam makes progress very, very slowly. When you prove him wrong on
>> cast hubs, he tries to change the argument to cast handlebars - or
>> perhaps to the hubs he wants you to buy. Or to the components on your
>> own personal bikes.
>>
>> And when he fails in all those arguments, he degenerates into
>> obscenities.
>>
>> Makes you wonder what his childhood was like, doesn't it?
>
> "Was" like?

oh look, the idiots and retards are competing to see who's the
dumberest. who's winning? i can't tell.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:46:56 +0100, "Clive George"
> wrote:

>"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
>
>> "technically", yes, cast hubs are possible, but you can cast almost
>> anything [those brake calipers are particularly un-fine]. but that
>> doesn't mean it ever gets used real world. how many handlebars are cast
>> for instance? how many frames?
>
>I've ridden a cast framed bike. Very stiff it was too.
>
>clive

Dear Clive,

"Introduced about 1893 by the St. Louis Refigerator and Wooden Gutter
Co., St Louis, MO, the Lu-Mi-Num bicycle frame was cast hollow in one
piece (Fig. 7-43). Containing a small percentage of alloy, this
bicycle evidenced a very early use of aluminum. The front fork was
cast solid and all was polished, but not to a mirror finish."

Figure 7-43:
http://i28.tinypic.com/ouxzzo.jpg

"Rights to the manufacture of the Lu-Mi-Num were purchased by M. M.
Cyc1es, Sans Soudures en Lu-Mi-Num who manufactured it in Paris. It
was sold in England by the Lu-Mi-Num Mfg. Co., Ltd. of London."

"Lu-Mi-Num's 1895 ladies' and gents' models weighed 25 lbs. and sold
for $125. At the 1895 Chicago Bicycle Show, a Lu-Mi-Num exhibit
provided for testing the strength of the aluminum handlebar. Two heavy
men were permitted to suspend their weight from either side to show
that it would not bend or break. Samples of the aluminum used in
making the bicyc1e were twisted and bent into every conceivable shape
without fracturing. A gauge demonstrated the perfect alignment of the
Lu-Mi-Num frame, which was c1aimed to be stronger than any steel
frame."

"A chain case, integrally cast with the frame, gave extra strength to
the 1896 model (Fig. 7-44). Today Lu-Mi-Num bicyc1es must be ridden
with care to guard against fracturing due to the age and embrittlement
of the aluminum."

Figure 7-44:
http://i26.tinypic.com/f2u4n7.jpg

--"Collecting & Restoring Antique Bicycles," G. Donald Adams, p. 222-4

Here's a medal commemorating the Luminum cast bicycle:
http://tinyurl.com/6yglcg

The back of the medal modestly reads:

1894

No more steel to rust
No more tubing to bend
No more heavy machines
No more light ones breaking down
No more brazed joints to give out

No more enamel to scratch
No more nickel to tarnish
Many advantages
No disadvantages

If titanium or carbon fiber frames had been available back in 1894,
their drawbacks would doubtless have fit onto the Lu-Mi-Num medal.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel