for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandonedurcm

Urcm abandoned due to unecessary delaying and rejection of posts plus
the removal of a thread with reference to an Ian Jackson posting.

On 9 Nov, 16:03, "Clive George" wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message

...

Can you explain this a bit further?

Spokes acting purely in tension at all times versus bending as the
load is varied.

vs

Rim assisting in suspension due to less spoke tension.

Are you saying your spokes bend as the load is varied?

My spokes act purely in tension.


Or are you saying the higher tension of a brandt-style wheel means the
spokes don't act purely in tension at all times? Coz that seems really quite
odd.

YES, that is the nub of it. He pays no attention to the interlace
crossing in its effects upon the rigidity of the wheel in either a
radial or lateral sense(wrt rim). Isn't it odd? He missed it.
Material changes of spokes mean it is important to address the
crossing point when not using soft spokes or the wheel will be overtly
stiff radially for acceptable lateral stability.


You can guess my opinion of Ian Jackson

On 9 Nov, 16:32, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
Physical explanation for benefits.
Longer tyre patch (see next item)

I don't get this.

What kind of distortion of the rim would have to take place to make a
significantly different tyre patch, and would the continuous distortion
of the rim as it rotates not eventually damage it?

That was my suspicion and I still have some lightweight rims I have
not built up because I suspect they will be wasted for general use.
Their mileage may be limited by the continual distortion. From what I
have seen, the securing pins for the for the joining sleeve will work
loose. Modern rims seem to use a cement in addition to the sleeve
rather than pinning the sleeve. This looks to me like an attempt to
address the problem of wear affecting a sleeved joint. With a typical
medium or heavy rim it does not seem to affect it.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:

YES, that is the nub of it. He pays no attention to the interlace
crossing in its effects upon the rigidity of the wheel in either a
radial or lateral sense(wrt rim). Isn't it odd? He missed it.

In my copy, he discusses the effect of increasing the potential for
transfer of forces at crossings (on page 131, for example, there's a
description of a tied-and-soldered test).

You're a tied-and-soldered nut, aren't you?

If the spokes aren't tied and soldered, by what mechanism do you
propose force is transferred at the crossing?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 9 Nov, 18:43, Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:

*YES, *that is the nub of it. *He pays no attention to the interlace
*crossing in its effects upon the rigidity of the wheel in either a
*radial or lateral sense(wrt rim). *Isn't it odd? * He missed it.

In my copy, he discusses the effect of increasing the potential for
transfer of forces at crossings (on page 131, for example, there's a
description of a tied-and-soldered test). *

You're a tied-and-soldered nut, aren't you?

If the spokes aren't tied and soldered, by what mechanism do you
propose force is transferred at the crossing?

regards, * Ian SMith
--
* |\ /| * * *no .sig
* |o o|
* |/ \|

Real good fun watching you lycra loonies squabble, keep it up. I'm
sure there are many more laughs to be had yet.

On 9 Nov, 18:43, Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:

*YES, *that is the nub of it. *He pays no attention to the interlace
*crossing in its effects upon the rigidity of the wheel in either a
*radial or lateral sense(wrt rim). *Isn't it odd? * He missed it.

In my copy, he discusses the effect of increasing the potential for
transfer of forces at crossings (on page 131, for example, there's a
description of a tied-and-soldered test). *

You're a tied-and-soldered nut, aren't you?

If the spokes aren't tied and soldered, by what mechanism do you
propose force is transferred at the crossing?


That's not my argument. It is a relatively minor point to what I'm
discussing.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:
On 9 Nov, 18:43, Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:

*YES, *that is the nub of it. *He pays no attention to the interlace
*crossing in its effects upon the rigidity of the wheel in either a
*radial or lateral sense(wrt rim). *Isn't it odd? * He missed it.

In my copy, he discusses the effect of increasing the potential for
transfer of forces at crossings (on page 131, for example, there's a
description of a tied-and-soldered test). *

You're a tied-and-soldered nut, aren't you?

If the spokes aren't tied and soldered, by what mechanism do you
propose force is transferred at the crossing?


That's not my argument. It is a relatively minor point to what I'm
discussing.

So, can I check I've understood: you brought up a claim, but it's not
relevant enough to discuss?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 10 Nov, 11:15, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:
*On 9 Nov, 18:43, Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:

*YES, *that is the nub of it. *He pays no attention to the interlace
*crossing in its effects upon the rigidity of the wheel in either a
*radial or lateral sense(wrt rim). *Isn't it odd? * He missed it.

In my copy, he discusses the effect of increasing the potential for
transfer of forces at crossings (on page 131, for example, there's a
description of a tied-and-soldered test). *

You're a tied-and-soldered nut, aren't you?

If the spokes aren't tied and soldered, by what mechanism do you
propose force is transferred at the crossing?

*That's not my argument. *It is a relatively minor point to what I'm
*discussing.

So, can I check I've understood: you brought up a claim, but it's not
relevant enough to discuss?

JB did not record any observations as to the lateral movement and
bending of the spokes as the wheel was loaded and unloaded. If he
had, he would of noted that as the wheel is loaded the bottom spokes
bow. It is this bowing which would cause the fatigue at the spoke
elbow. It is this bowing which compromises a wheels lateral
stability. It is this bowing which I do not allow in the wheels I
build.

There is more than one method to address the problem of bowing spokes
and tying and soldering in a profficient manner will help. The
modification of the interlace is the most effective way to improve a
wheel. As in least expenditure of time, effort and money. It may
take half an hour to modify your first wheel, but will take around 5
or so minutes after you have done a handful. When building the wheel
it takes an additional three minutes.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:
On 10 Nov, 11:15, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:
*On 9 Nov, 18:43, Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:

*YES, *that is the nub of it. *He pays no attention to the interlace
*crossing in its effects upon the rigidity of the wheel in either a
*radial or lateral sense(wrt rim). *Isn't it odd? * He missed it.

In my copy, he discusses the effect of increasing the potential for
transfer of forces at crossings (on page 131, for example, there's a
description of a tied-and-soldered test). *

You're a tied-and-soldered nut, aren't you?

If the spokes aren't tied and soldered, by what mechanism do you
propose force is transferred at the crossing?

*That's not my argument. *It is a relatively minor point to what I'm
*discussing.

So, can I check I've understood: you brought up a claim, but it's not
relevant enough to discuss?

JB did not record any observations as to the lateral movement and
bending of the spokes as the wheel was loaded and unloaded. If he
had, he would of noted that as the wheel is loaded the bottom spokes
bow. It is this bowing which would cause the fatigue at the spoke
elbow. It is this bowing which compromises a wheels lateral
stability. It is this bowing which I do not allow in the wheels I
build.

JB does consider the effect (he discusses it wrt symmetrical or
mirrored so===poking), but apparently considers that it is not
significant.

I don't consider it significant. The bottom spokes remain in
tension, the bow is not significant, the stress range induced by the
lateral displacement effect is significantly lower than the stress
range variation that cause the lateral displacement. You're worrying
over a second-order effect which is completely swamped by the
principal effect. It's not significant.

You'll need to come up with something a bit more convincing than proof
by assertion. It will be easy for you to do - the spokes are nice
simple members, it's really just a geometry problem as to how much
lateral movement occurs given a particular change in tension of one of
the crossing spokes. Of you go - produce some numbers, demonstrate
(quantitatively) that it's a significant effect. I'll be astonished
if you can.

There is more than one method to address the problem of bowing spokes
and tying and soldering in a profficient manner will help.

I thought so. You're a tied-and-soldered nut.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 10 Nov, 21:50, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:
*On 10 Nov, 11:15, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:
*On 9 Nov, 18:43, Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:

*YES, *that is the nub of it. *He pays no attention to the interlace
*crossing in its effects upon the rigidity of the wheel in either a
*radial or lateral sense(wrt rim). *Isn't it odd? * He missed it.

In my copy, he discusses the effect of increasing the potential for
transfer of forces at crossings (on page 131, for example, there's a
description of a tied-and-soldered test). *

You're a tied-and-soldered nut, aren't you?

If the spokes aren't tied and soldered, by what mechanism do you
propose force is transferred at the crossing?

*That's not my argument. *It is a relatively minor point to what I'm
*discussing.

So, can I check I've understood: you brought up a claim, but it's not
relevant enough to discuss?

*JB did not record any observations as to the lateral movement and
*bending of the spokes as the wheel was loaded and unloaded. *If he
*had, he would of noted that as the wheel is loaded the bottom spokes
*bow. *It is this bowing which would cause the fatigue at the spoke
*elbow. *It is this bowing which compromises a wheels lateral
*stability. *It is this bowing which I do not allow in the wheels I
*build.

JB does consider the effect (he discusses it wrt symmetrical or
mirrored so===poking), but apparently considers that it is not
significant.

I don't consider it significant. *The bottom spokes remain in
tension, the bow is not significant, the stress range induced by the
lateral displacement effect is significantly lower than the stress
range variation that cause the lateral displacement. *You're worrying
over a second-order effect which is completely swamped by the
principal effect. *It's not significant. *

You'll need to come up with something a bit more convincing than proof
by assertion.

Stick a straight edge against a spoke from the rim to the interlace
and undo the nipple by four turns and see what happens.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:
On 10 Nov, 21:50, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, thirty-six wrote:

*JB did not record any observations as to the lateral movement and
*bending of the spokes as the wheel was loaded and unloaded. *If he
*had, he would of noted that as the wheel is loaded the bottom spokes
*bow. *It is this bowing which would cause the fatigue at the spoke
*elbow. *It is this bowing which compromises a wheels lateral
*stability. *It is this bowing which I do not allow in the wheels I
*build.

JB does consider the effect (he discusses it wrt symmetrical or
mirrored so===poking), but apparently considers that it is not
significant.

I don't consider it significant. *The bottom spokes remain in
tension, the bow is not significant, the stress range induced by the
lateral displacement effect is significantly lower than the stress
range variation that cause the lateral displacement. *You're worrying
over a second-order effect which is completely swamped by the
principal effect. *It's not significant. *

You'll need to come up with something a bit more convincing than proof
by assertion.

Stick a straight edge against a spoke from the rim to the interlace
and undo the nipple by four turns and see what happens.

That's your proof?

I agree, if the spoke tension changes, there's lateral movement.

As I said - it's a secondary effect. As you undo the nipple, there is
a very small change in stress distribution across the spoke section
attributable to lateral movements. There is a very large change in
spoke tension due to the fact that you've undone the nipple. You are
worrying about the very small effect. It is swamped by the very large
effect.

You are fussing about an irrelevance.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|