jim beam writes:

wrote:

snip

Spoke-squeezing is an intriguingly mysterious subject to
research. I remain agnostic, wavering one way and the other, but
haven't seen any experimental data or analyses involving bicycle
spokes. If you have the 3rd edition, perhaps you could peek at the
Wiedemer stuff and give me your thoughts on it?

you may also want to consider this question:

q: elevator safety certification requires loading the cab to double
it's "safe working load". this is to test the wire ropes that
suspend it. the reason is that fracture mechanics predict that this
process will typically reveal by failure any latent flaws. but, if
we extend spoke squeezing theory, wouldn't this overload procedure
also prevent fatigue of elevator cables?

a: no. elevator cables still fatigue and need regular testing,
inspection & replacement.

Of course they fatique. They are constantly being wound around a drum
and unwound with a large weight dangling on the end. This doesn't
happen with spokes. Spokes are one fairly thick wire under a fairly
small load, elevator cables are thin-stranded cables with internal
friction, corrosion challenges, etc.

Additionally, a spoke supports a load much differently than an
elevator cable, as has been discussed and verified- independently of
Brandt, BTW- by finite element analysis.

I see you're keeping the fine art of red herrings alive.

the bottom line is that there is no quantification or testing of
this spoke squeeze theory. squeezing "as hard as you can" is no
more scientific than building with spoke tension "as high as the rim
can bear". i would suggest to you that the reason academics "change
the subject and get back to "serious" work" is because this theory
is mere speculation - it's author has shown no basis in statistical
fact, and most definitely not by metallurgical analysis.

And it's easy to take cheap shots when he's out of town and not able,
therefore, to respond. I don't quite know why it sticks in your craw
so much to admit even the possibility that Jobst is right, and it's an
interesting psychological problem especially when combined with your
anonymity behind a boozy screen name. But if you're going to
seriously critique his work and not just take potshots, come up with a
quantified and testable alternative analysis. Prove him wrong. Put
up or shut up. Frankly, jim beam old buddy old pal, I don't think you
have the stuff.