for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandonedurcm

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...
On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote:

"there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"
That's a true statement, is it?

Absolute fact. It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is
permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid
and should not be treated as such.

And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian
Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish.

On 18 Nov, 14:25, "Clive George" wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message

...
On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote:

"there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"
That's a true statement, is it?

Absolute fact. * It is preferable that *a sixth of the rim is
permitted to deform towards the hub under load. *The rim is not rigid
and should not be treated as such.

And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian
Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish.

Be specific, I dont follow your meaning, it is an ambiguous question..

What is 'that'?

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...
On 18 Nov, 14:25, "Clive George" wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message

...
On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote:

"there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"
That's a true statement, is it?

Absolute fact. It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is
permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid
and should not be treated as such.

And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian
Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish.

Be specific, I dont follow your meaning, it is an ambiguous question..

What is 'that'?

It's what your statement refers to.

"It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the
hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such."

I included it in the quoted text so it would be obvious that it was that I
was referring to.

Now, having cleared up that bizarre confusion, how about answering my
question?

On 18 Nov, 16:28, "Clive George" wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message

...
On 18 Nov, 14:25, "Clive George" wrote:



"thirty-six" wrote in message

...
On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote:

"there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"
That's a true statement, is it?

Absolute fact. It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is
permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid
and should not be treated as such.

And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian
Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish.

Be specific, I dont follow your meaning, it is an ambiguous question..

What is 'that'?

It's what your statement refers to.

"It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the
hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such."

I included it in the quoted text so it would be obvious that it was that I
was referring to.

Now, having cleared up that bizarre confusion, how about answering my
question?

Which is what precisely? Use a single sentence, do not refer to
earlier posts. I'm tring to avoid a tangled web which you seem to
delight in constructing. It would be easier to ask the question
simply rather than play this charade.

Clive George wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message
...
On 18 Nov, 14:25, "Clive George" wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message
...
On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote:

"there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"
That's a true statement, is it?
Absolute fact. It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is
permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid
and should not be treated as such.
And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian
Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish.
Be specific, I dont follow your meaning, it is an ambiguous question..

What is 'that'?

It's what your statement refers to.

"It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the
hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such."

I included it in the quoted text so it would be obvious that it was that I
was referring to.

Now, having cleared up that bizarre confusion, how about answering my
question?


Can't we save time and just cut to the bit where 33.3 leaves in a huff
and doesn't bother posting for a few weeks/months, until he thinks of a
new nym and comes out with new ********? At least that way the time when
he's not spewing bull**** comes around quicker!

thirty-six wrote:
On 18 Nov, 16:28, "Clive George" wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message

...
On 18 Nov, 14:25, "Clive George" wrote:



"thirty-six" wrote in message
...
On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote:
"there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"
That's a true statement, is it?
Absolute fact. It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is
permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid
and should not be treated as such.
And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian
Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish.
Be specific, I dont follow your meaning, it is an ambiguous question..
What is 'that'?
It's what your statement refers to.

"It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the
hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such."

I included it in the quoted text so it would be obvious that it was that I
was referring to.

Now, having cleared up that bizarre confusion, how about answering my
question?

Which is what precisely? Use a single sentence, do not refer to
earlier posts. I'm tring to avoid a tangled web which you seem to
delight in constructing.


As usual you are trying to avoid answering questions .
It would be easier to ask the question
simply rather than play this charade.

It would be easier if you admitted that that you talk ******** all the
time whether it's magic pixie dust on your wheels that make them go
faster , or descending at 60 mph regularly, or your dogmatic ideas of
clothing, nonstop, blinkered, slitted perspective , ********!

Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:44:22 +0000, Naqerj wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 (PST), thirty-six wrote:
There is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight, they do not
and can not contribute to the support of the wheel for their force is
in the same direction as the load upon the wheel and therefore
contributing to its load rather than working in opposition to the
load.
At which point I hope it is obvious to all that 36 is either trolling,
or (more likely, I think) actually does not understand that which he
professes to be expert in.
Not from the bit you've quoted, that seems more-or-less right *taken in
isolation*.

"there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"
That's a true statement, is it?

Now, now.

I said that "the bit you've quoted" (ie: the whole paragraph) was
"more-or-less right". So, no more running round with the goalposts, please.


--
Andrew

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 (PST), thirty-six wrote:

There is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight, they do not
and can not contribute to the support of the wheel for their force is
in the same direction as the load upon the wheel and therefore
contributing to its load rather than working in opposition to the
load.

At which point I hope it is obvious to all that 36 is either
trolling, or (more likely, I think) actually does not understand
that which he professes to be expert in.

Not from the bit you've quoted, that seems more-or-less right *taken in
isolation*.

"there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"
That's a true statement, is it?

I said that "the bit you've quoted" (ie: the whole paragraph) was
"more-or-less right". So, no more running round with the goalposts, please.

That was the key observation of the paragraph I quoted - the rest was
his explanation of why he believes that statement. The first,
fundamental, primary, key major point of what he said is "there is no
reason for the lower spokes to stay tight". That is his assertion,
the rest was justification.

You said that what he said is "more or less right".

Do you still claim that what he said is more or less right? You look
like you're now trying to build to a claim that the principal
assertion is wrong but the reasoning / justification is right. I
don't think that's a coherent view to hold (the opposite may be - you
can get a right answer with wrong reasoning, but you can't get the
wrong answer with correct reasoning).

Do you think it is true that "there is no reason for the lowest spokes
to stay tight"?

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

On 19 Nov, 10:01, Ian Smith wrote:

Do you think it is true that "there is no reason for the lowest spokes
to stay tight"?

What reason could there be?

Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 (PST), thirty-six wrote:
There is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight, they do not
and can not contribute to the support of the wheel for their force is
in the same direction as the load upon the wheel and therefore
contributing to its load rather than working in opposition to the
load.
At which point I hope it is obvious to all that 36 is either
trolling, or (more likely, I think) actually does not understand
that which he professes to be expert in.
Not from the bit you've quoted, that seems more-or-less right *taken in
isolation*.
"there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"
That's a true statement, is it?
I said that "the bit you've quoted" (ie: the whole paragraph) was
"more-or-less right". So, no more running round with the goalposts, please.

That was the key observation of the paragraph I quoted - the rest was
his explanation of why he believes that statement. The first,
fundamental, primary, key major point of what he said is "there is no
reason for the lower spokes to stay tight". That is his assertion,
the rest was justification.

You said that what he said is "more or less right".

Do you still claim that what he said is more or less right? You look
like you're now trying to build to a claim that the principal
assertion is wrong but the reasoning / justification is right. I
don't think that's a coherent view to hold (the opposite may be - you
can get a right answer with wrong reasoning, but you can't get the
wrong answer with correct reasoning).

Do you think it is true that "there is no reason for the lowest spokes
to stay tight"?


Nice try, but it won't work. Just because you've rambled on for three
paragraphs before asking the same question again, doesn't stop it being
the same question. Funnily enough, my answer remains the same too.

Clearly, you just enjoy picking an argument just for the sake of it, but
you'll have to do it with somebody else. I was merely making the point
that, in order to convince the rest of us that 36 had no understanding
of the subject, you quoted a part of his argument that actually does
show some understanding. You can try as much you like to push the
argument in a completely different direction, but I won't be following
you there.

--
Andrew