spoke fatigue troll

A Muzi

-much snip-
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Yes, but gene's distortions are funny, "jim's" are not.

Any guru or oracle worth his salt writes with both strong imagery and
ambiguity.
Like Gene.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Tom Sherman

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing like the mental deformation we see from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so-called "engineers"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, they are not "so-called" if granted a PE by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licensing board.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is your professional registration?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they doggedly try to justify their underinformed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No hint of resentment here, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusing to address the "engineering" then tom?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be too hard for a "professional" to do. unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're a lightweight of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim" refuses to answer the question - does "he" have any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professional registration?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want a sock puppet to answer? are you some kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> retard?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss the engineering, s/n < 1:100 goddamned lightweight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim's" silence is deafening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> goddamned hypocrite!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> goddamned lightweight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note "jim's" continued refusal to answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are you some kind of retard? where will a "sock puppet" get
>>>>>>>>> any kind of accreditation? muppet university?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the person with his hand up the sock puppet's posterior
>>>>>>>> have any type of professional accreditation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the puppeteer needs no accreditation - all they need is the
>>>>>>> sock's consent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So "jim" is still ducking the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, let me translate: "my privacy trumps your irritation".
>>>>>
>>>> I am not irritated at all. I enjoy pointing out the cowardice of
>>>> hiding behind a sock puppet.
>>>
>>> cowardice??? like you'd say that to my face! i simply choose not to
>>> play your game. goddamned lightweight.
>>>
>> How could I say anything to your face when you hide behind a sock puppet?
>
> saying it to a sock puppet sure makes it easier for you tom! trust me
> on that.
>
Big talk for a sock puppet, eh?

>>>>>>>>> and get back to the engineering tom. here, let me replace what
>>>>>>>>> you snipped:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "brinell hardness # = P/pi.D.t
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> where P = indenter load, D = indenter ball diameter and t =
>>>>>>>>> depth of
>>>>>>>>> impression."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so, as an "engineer", where's your argument about load and
>>>>>>>>> indenter depth?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the material previously work hardened or not? One does not
>>>>>>>> run repetitive hardness tests on the same area, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> look up meyer's law. then convince me that you've understood it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> whoa - castings work harden but forgings don't???
>>>>
>>>> Did I write that? No.
>>>
>>> you wrote:
>>> "Meyer hardness would not change with indention depth, since the
>>> material started out being work hardened".
>>>
>>> you clearly don't understand what work hardening is. or meyer
>>> hardness for that matter. work hardening is a continuous function -
>>> it doesn't just reach a certain level, then stop.
>>
>> 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.

> 1. there are no cast hubs.

Citation? Not even the cheap ones?

> 2. BOTH materials work harden.

How much does the spoke work harden during spoke squeezing?

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

> 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.

>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

>>>>> wtf is it with you
>>>>> engineers? don't you guys /ever/ pay attention in class??? that's a
>>>>> classic right up there along with eliminating fatigue from a material
>>>>> with no endurance limit!
>>>>>
>>>> Ibid.
>>>
>>> see above.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> goddamned lightweight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ooooh, the wit of your insult is scathing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "insult" and "scathing"??? it's simple observation of fact!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but i guess truth hurts. goddamned lightweight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove the existence of God then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you want a sock puppet to do that? come on tom, that's too
>>>>> lightweight,
>>>>> even for you.
>>>>
>>>> You are the one who brought God into the discussion, "jim".
>>>>
>>>
>>> so you really /do/ want a sock puppet to theologize for you??? what
>>> a goddamned lightweight!
>>
>> So why did you bring God (not "god") into the discussion, "jim"?
>>
>
> eh?
>
Who mentioned God first (hint, not me)?

> if you spent less time allowing people to have fun needling you with
> sock puppets and theology, maybe you could open one of the old text
> books you bought but never read and figure out how hardness testing
> really works.
>
> or you can be a clueless, easily goaded lightweight forever. much more
> enjoyable for me that way!
>
> [signal/noise tom. you should think about it.]

Hey, I am just working to entertain Andres Muro and annoy "jim beam".

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

Tom Sherman

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> -much snip-

Indeed.

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Yes, but gene's distortions are funny, "jim's" are not.
>
> Any guru or oracle worth his salt writes with both strong imagery and
> ambiguity.
> Like Gene.

gene is a genius!

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

Tom Sherman

"jim beam" wrote:
> [...]
>
> this is not your best work tom. [but what is?]
>
Here is a hint "jim" - if it gets sealed with a stamp I take it
seriously [1]. If I am arguing with a sock puppet on Usenet, I do not.

[1] As I am legally liable.

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

jim beam

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> this is not your best work tom. [but what is?]
>>
> Here is a hint "jim" - if it gets sealed with a stamp I take it
> seriously [1]. If I am arguing with a sock puppet on Usenet, I do not.
>
> [1] As I am legally liable.
>

you're legally liable for junkmail??? [oh dear, i'm getting sucked into
the lightweight vortex of trivial response-compulsive bullshit......]

you're a clueless lightweight idiot tom.

Tom Sherman

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> this is not your best work tom. [but what is?]
>>>
>> Here is a hint "jim" - if it gets sealed with a stamp I take it
>> seriously [1]. If I am arguing with a sock puppet on Usenet, I do not.
>>
>> [1] As I am legally liable.
>>
>
> you're legally liable for junkmail??? [oh dear, i'm getting sucked into
> the lightweight vortex of trivial response-compulsive bullshit......]
>
W H O O S H !

I believe this answers Frank Krygowski's question in the negative - "jim
beam" does NOT have a stamp to seal deliverables.

Here is a hint for "jim":
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=professional+stamps&btnG=Google+Search>.

By the way, I have never seen junk mail sealed with a stamp, or even
postage paid with a stamp. "jim" must be clueless if he has not noticed
that junk mail is sent without postage stamps, and is only metered when
sent in relatively small batches.

> you're a clueless lightweight idiot tom.

So "jim", do you have any professional registrations?

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

Tim McNamara

In article <g03kd2$16k$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

> "jim beam" wrote:
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> this is not your best work tom. [but what is?]
> >>>
> >> Here is a hint "jim" - if it gets sealed with a stamp I take it
> >> seriously [1]. If I am arguing with a sock puppet on Usenet, I do
> >> not.
> >>
> >> [1] As I am legally liable.
> >>
> >
> > you're legally liable for junkmail??? [oh dear, i'm getting sucked
> > into the lightweight vortex of trivial response-compulsive
> > bullshit......]
> >
> W H O O S H !
>
> I believe this answers Frank Krygowski's question in the negative -
> "jim beam" does NOT have a stamp to seal deliverables.
>
> Here is a hint for "jim":
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ps&btnG=Google+
> Search>.
>
> By the way, I have never seen junk mail sealed with a stamp, or even
> postage paid with a stamp. "jim" must be clueless if he has not
> noticed that junk mail is sent without postage stamps, and is only
> metered when sent in relatively small batches.
>
> > you're a clueless lightweight idiot tom.
>
> So "jim", do you have any professional registrations?

Probably not. He clearly could not pass the tests for licensure.