Floor Pumps

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:32:48 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 6:47:56 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Were you born a nasty bully, Franki-boy, or did you go to night school to learn how to be a bully?

Scharfie is relating someone else's commercial case but you demand that he proves an entirely different scientific case. That is a classic case of setting up a straw man, otherwise known as finding a stick, any stick, to beat a dog you hate. It is also a classic method of the slimier kind of net-bully.

Andre Jute
Do your duty for society today, stomp an uncivil thug

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:35:59 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2017 4:53 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/17/2017 7:27 AM, cyclintom wrote:

John, the Air Force uses nitrogen because it doesn't oxidize and rot
expensive tires that normally last many years. Unlike bike tires that
have a HUGE external surface area vs lifespan.

Costco includes nitrogen inflation at no extra cost. When I asked about
why they were adding this expense to every tire they install the answer
was that it has reduced tire failures by a significant percentage, more
than offsetting the cost of the nitrogen. While the tire manufacturer
bears the cost of replacement tires in the event of failure, Costco has
to eat the installation costs.

And I'm sure you have documentation that proves this, right? :-)

This is a tech group. Please describe the failure mechanisms, and how
100% nitrogen (vs. a mere 78% nitrogen) prevents this failure mechanism.
Some of us really are curious.

Is it the 21% oxygen that's evil, or is it the remaining 1% mix?

--
- Frank Krygowski

That's true Andre but hearsay is not significant evidence.

Sure, but Scharfie -- or anyone else -- doesn't owe that asshole Frank Krygowski proof on demand. One of Krygowski's favorite bullying tactics is to demand scientific proof when someone says, for interest or just to join the conversation, that the sun is shining outside.

In fact, in general, virtually every time we cite known authorities like Jobst and Sheldon, it's hearsay, and usually not of citable evidence (such as Krygowski demands) but of compelling logic.

Andre Jute
Liberty is indivisible. Therefore the indispensable element of liberty, freedom of speech, is unqualifiable. It means that idiots have the right to be wrong.

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 2:53:21 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:32:48 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 6:47:56 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Were you born a nasty bully, Franki-boy, or did you go to night school to learn how to be a bully?

Scharfie is relating someone else's commercial case but you demand that he proves an entirely different scientific case. That is a classic case of setting up a straw man, otherwise known as finding a stick, any stick, to beat a dog you hate. It is also a classic method of the slimier kind of net-bully.

Andre Jute
Do your duty for society today, stomp an uncivil thug

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:35:59 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2017 4:53 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/17/2017 7:27 AM, cyclintom wrote:

John, the Air Force uses nitrogen because it doesn't oxidize and rot
expensive tires that normally last many years. Unlike bike tires that
have a HUGE external surface area vs lifespan.

Costco includes nitrogen inflation at no extra cost. When I asked about
why they were adding this expense to every tire they install the answer
was that it has reduced tire failures by a significant percentage, more
than offsetting the cost of the nitrogen. While the tire manufacturer
bears the cost of replacement tires in the event of failure, Costco has
to eat the installation costs.

And I'm sure you have documentation that proves this, right? :-)

This is a tech group. Please describe the failure mechanisms, and how
100% nitrogen (vs. a mere 78% nitrogen) prevents this failure mechanism.
Some of us really are curious.

Is it the 21% oxygen that's evil, or is it the remaining 1% mix?

--
- Frank Krygowski

That's true Andre but hearsay is not significant evidence.

Sure, but Scharfie -- or anyone else -- doesn't owe that asshole Frank Krygowski proof on demand. One of Krygowski's favorite bullying tactics is to demand scientific proof when someone says, for interest or just to join the conversation, that the sun is shining outside.

In fact, in general, virtually every time we cite known authorities like Jobst and Sheldon, it's hearsay, and usually not of citable evidence (such as Krygowski demands) but of compelling logic.

Andre Jute
Liberty is indivisible. Therefore the indispensable element of liberty, freedom of speech, is unqualifiable. It means that idiots have the right to be wrong.

Andre - if someone is going to make such an outrageous statement such as filling a tire with pure nitrogen makes some sort of improvement he had damn well be willing to back that up with something other than hearsay.

I addressed Ralph's reference which wasn't about tires at all but an almost microscopic layer of vulcanized rubber on a silk cloth. I have no trouble whatsoever believing the findings of that paper. But it hasn't any connection to the world of tires.

Frank made the right call. Normal atmospheric air is already 78% nitrogen and the difference in the diameter of the 2N and 2O molecules is only 5%. CO2 is slightly smaller. But NONE of this even gets close to the pore size in tires.

"Consumer Reports conducted a study comparing nitrogen versus air loss in tires to determine if this benefit of nitrogen was worth the extra cost. They used 31 pairs of various tire models, filled one tire of each pair to 30 psi with air and the other to the same pressure with nitrogen, then left them outside for a year. At the end of the year, they found that all tires lost pressure. The average pressure loss with air was 3.5 psi; with nitrogen the average loss was 2.2 psi – a difference of only 1.3 psi over a year."

Now bicycle tires used in racing at such high pressures will lose air much faster since they have a larger pressure/capacity than car tires. But these sorts of ratios will remain the same as air vs. nitrogen.

I think that you find Frank irritating and discount his quite correct demand for ANY sort of proof for rediculous statements. Were someone to make some rediculous statement about your bikes or riding style and he made the same demand for proof would you be equally disturbed?

John B. Alocomb wrote:
:On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 13:53:20 -0700, sms
:wrote:

:On 6/17/2017 7:27 AM, wrote:
:
: John, the Air Force uses nitrogen because it doesn't oxidize and rot expensive tires that normally last many years. Unlike bike tires that have a HUGE external surface area vs life span.

:Actually "fighter" aircraft go through tires very quickly primordially
:due to their high touchdown speeds and the rather savage braking
:forces that they use. The F-4, for example, got their multi disk
:brakes so hot that the plates warped on normal landings.

:Of course the F-4 has been phased out but I don't believe that more
:modern aircraft have gotten any lighter or slower.

:Big airplanes tires that used regular old air (in my day) lasted much
:longer then little airplane tires.

Airplane tires are filled with nitrogen primarily as a fire protection
measure.

--
sig 4

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 7:59:11 AM UTC-7, David Scheidt wrote:
John B. Alocomb wrote:
:On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 13:53:20 -0700, sms
:wrote:

:On 6/17/2017 7:27 AM, wrote:
:
: John, the Air Force uses nitrogen because it doesn't oxidize and rot expensive tires that normally last many years. Unlike bike tires that have a HUGE external surface area vs life span.

:Actually "fighter" aircraft go through tires very quickly primordially
:due to their high touchdown speeds and the rather savage braking
:forces that they use. The F-4, for example, got their multi disk
:brakes so hot that the plates warped on normal landings.

:Of course the F-4 has been phased out but I don't believe that more
:modern aircraft have gotten any lighter or slower.

:Big airplanes tires that used regular old air (in my day) lasted much
:longer then little airplane tires.

Airplane tires are filled with nitrogen primarily as a fire protection
measure.

Everybody seems to have a different opinion of why they do it.

Can we just agree that it is done on Aircraft tires? It's just a bit rediculous to inflate with special gases that will not change the rate at which a bicycle tire deflates.

On 6/17/17 11:13 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:36:03 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
Snipped
That's true. Too bad they don't make little cartridges of Nitrogen
instead! But seriously, does anyone really use C02 anymore? It was a fad
for a while but it seems to have gone away as people realized how dumb
it was.

I prefer to fill my bicycle tires with helium since it makes the wheel assembly much lighter.

Why don't you seal up your frame tubes and fill those with helium as
well? But it may reduce traction as the whole assembly floats slightly
above the road surface.

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 3:44:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 2:53:21 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:32:48 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 6:47:56 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Were you born a nasty bully, Franki-boy, or did you go to night school to learn how to be a bully?

Scharfie is relating someone else's commercial case but you demand that he proves an entirely different scientific case. That is a classic case of setting up a straw man, otherwise known as finding a stick, any stick, to beat a dog you hate. It is also a classic method of the slimier kind of net-bully.

Andre Jute
Do your duty for society today, stomp an uncivil thug

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:35:59 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2017 4:53 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/17/2017 7:27 AM, cyclintom wrote:

John, the Air Force uses nitrogen because it doesn't oxidize and rot
expensive tires that normally last many years. Unlike bike tires that
have a HUGE external surface area vs lifespan.

Costco includes nitrogen inflation at no extra cost. When I asked about
why they were adding this expense to every tire they install the answer
was that it has reduced tire failures by a significant percentage, more
than offsetting the cost of the nitrogen. While the tire manufacturer
bears the cost of replacement tires in the event of failure, Costco has
to eat the installation costs.

And I'm sure you have documentation that proves this, right? :-)

This is a tech group. Please describe the failure mechanisms, and how
100% nitrogen (vs. a mere 78% nitrogen) prevents this failure mechanism.
Some of us really are curious.

Is it the 21% oxygen that's evil, or is it the remaining 1% mix?

--
- Frank Krygowski

That's true Andre but hearsay is not significant evidence.

Sure, but Scharfie -- or anyone else -- doesn't owe that asshole Frank Krygowski proof on demand. One of Krygowski's favorite bullying tactics is to demand scientific proof when someone says, for interest or just to join the conversation, that the sun is shining outside.

In fact, in general, virtually every time we cite known authorities like Jobst and Sheldon, it's hearsay, and usually not of citable evidence (such as Krygowski demands) but of compelling logic.

Andre Jute
Liberty is indivisible. Therefore the indispensable element of liberty, freedom of speech, is unqualifiable. It means that idiots have the right to be wrong.

Were someone to make some rediculous statement about your bikes or riding style and he made the same demand for proof would you be equally disturbed?

Of course I would be. My objection is to the Krygowski's manner. (Besides, if I want proof, I find it or request it myself; I don't need a failed "spokesman for bicycles" like Krygowsky's help.) I don't bother to read Krygowsky's posts beyond the first line, and then only in threads I post to, and not always then either. He's dull, boring, unimaginative, and pig-ignorant, which you'll discover the first time he opens his mouth about statistics.

Andre Jute
The patience of Job

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 6:04:24 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 3:44:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 2:53:21 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:32:48 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 6:47:56 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Were you born a nasty bully, Franki-boy, or did you go to night school to learn how to be a bully?

Scharfie is relating someone else's commercial case but you demand that he proves an entirely different scientific case. That is a classic case of setting up a straw man, otherwise known as finding a stick, any stick, to beat a dog you hate. It is also a classic method of the slimier kind of net-bully.

Andre Jute
Do your duty for society today, stomp an uncivil thug

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:35:59 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2017 4:53 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/17/2017 7:27 AM, cyclintom wrote:

John, the Air Force uses nitrogen because it doesn't oxidize and rot
expensive tires that normally last many years. Unlike bike tires that
have a HUGE external surface area vs lifespan.

Costco includes nitrogen inflation at no extra cost. When I asked about
why they were adding this expense to every tire they install the answer
was that it has reduced tire failures by a significant percentage, more
than offsetting the cost of the nitrogen. While the tire manufacturer
bears the cost of replacement tires in the event of failure, Costco has
to eat the installation costs.

And I'm sure you have documentation that proves this, right? :-)

This is a tech group. Please describe the failure mechanisms, and how
100% nitrogen (vs. a mere 78% nitrogen) prevents this failure mechanism.
Some of us really are curious.

Is it the 21% oxygen that's evil, or is it the remaining 1% mix?

--
- Frank Krygowski

That's true Andre but hearsay is not significant evidence.

Sure, but Scharfie -- or anyone else -- doesn't owe that asshole Frank Krygowski proof on demand. One of Krygowski's favorite bullying tactics is to demand scientific proof when someone says, for interest or just to join the conversation, that the sun is shining outside.

In fact, in general, virtually every time we cite known authorities like Jobst and Sheldon, it's hearsay, and usually not of citable evidence (such as Krygowski demands) but of compelling logic.

Andre Jute
Liberty is indivisible. Therefore the indispensable element of liberty, freedom of speech, is unqualifiable. It means that idiots have the right to be wrong.

Were someone to make some rediculous statement about your bikes or riding style and he made the same demand for proof would you be equally disturbed?

Of course I would be. My objection is to the Krygowski's manner. (Besides, if I want proof, I find it or request it myself; I don't need a failed "spokesman for bicycles" like Krygowsky's help.) I don't bother to read Krygowsky's posts beyond the first line, and then only in threads I post to, and not always then either. He's dull, boring, unimaginative, and pig-ignorant, which you'll discover the first time he opens his mouth about statistics.

There are engineering considerations in which proof is absolutely necessary.. That specific case in point. sms should have thought of that for awhile before posting something so ludicrous.

However by this time you should be aware the the millennial generation are so stupid that if you were to say, "I prefer the color blue" they would say "prove it."

Who do you think are the people that believe in global warming? That's nothing more than a scam by politicians to gain more power and some tiny number of "scientists" without conscience to get research grants.

https://www.infowars.com/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/

I was personally at a talk given by Dr. Ehrlich and he knew exactly what he was saying.