Re: vacuum de-gas thread continued

jim beam said:

jim beam said:

peter cole wrote:

<snip for clarity>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The solution is to use quality spokes like Sapim, who,
according to their website, use vacuum degassed steel. You back up
this claim with a hand drawing of a spoke failing at an inclusion,
which you assert is representative.

it is. /you/ go out and examine spoke failures and post photos that
contradict it if you can. my camera gear doesn't macro as small as my
loupe, hence the diagram.

correction: the diagram is not illustrating failure at an inclusion -
[peter cole misrepresentation - you'd need electron microscopy to
confirm that]. but the diagram /is/ that of observed spoke fatigue.

OK. The drawing says "nucleation" (fancy word for "start of crack"😉. Now
you say inclusions aren't the (likely) source of nucleation? Pardon me
for making that assumption given all your emphasis on vacuum degassing.
What does this diagram represent? Your belief that fatigue cracks
initiate at the surface? That's hardly news to anyone.

Here's a (partial) list of the things you've got wrong:

-spokes do come from the factory with residual stress, including
significant skin stress.
-you must adjust the factory spoke angle or get flex failures/spoke
slackening (which you have reported)
-adjusting the spoke angle will cause large residual skin stresses
-adjusted spokes don't have a significant bending moment, either from
elbow support or lacing
-any defect - inclusion, tool mark, slip band, will cause elevated local
stress
-fatigue cracks almost always initiate at the surface
-stainless steel does have an endurance limit

Buy the book, follow the instructions, and your spoke problems will be
over. Mine are.

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

jim beam said:

peter cole wrote:

<snip for clarity>

Quoted message said:

> The solution is to use quality spokes like Sapim, who,
> according to their website, use vacuum degassed steel. You back up
> this claim with a hand drawing of a spoke failing at an inclusion,
> which you assert is representative.

it is. /you/ go out and examine spoke failures and post photos that
contradict it if you can. my camera gear doesn't macro as small as
my loupe, hence the diagram.

correction: the diagram is not illustrating failure at an inclusion -
[peter cole misrepresentation - you'd need electron microscopy to
confirm that]. but the diagram /is/ that of observed spoke fatigue.

OK. The drawing says "nucleation" (fancy word for "start of crack"😉.

er, "nucleation" is the term people in /my/ field use...

Quoted message said:

Now
you say inclusions aren't the (likely) source of nucleation?

no, i say that it's not observable optically.

Quoted message said:

Pardon me
for making that assumption given all your emphasis on vacuum degassing.

you're a bullshitter.

Quoted message said:

What does this diagram represent? Your belief that fatigue cracks
initiate at the surface? That's hardly news to anyone.

er, well it's apparently news to those that think spoke initiates in
regions of high residual stress - in that case, fatigue would be
initiating near the neutral plane. and it doesn't. bullshitter.

Quoted message said:

Here's a (partial) list of the things you've got wrong:

-spokes do come from the factory with residual stress, including
significant skin stress.

"significant" my ass. and i've said that right from day one. /prove/
it's a factor in this fatigue. observation says not. [i'm sorry, is
that inconvenient?]

Quoted message said:

-you must adjust the factory spoke angle or get flex failures/spoke
slackening (which you have reported)

manufacturers don't think so. and calculating spoke exit angle doesn't
support that either.

Quoted message said:

-adjusting the spoke angle will cause large residual skin stresses

not residual skin stress. don't put those words in my mouth. it can
increase internally though - as i've said before. but we're not worried
about that since fatigue is not observed to be a factor starting there.

Quoted message said:

-adjusted spokes don't have a significant bending moment, either from
elbow support or lacing

not my words. don't [censored].

Quoted message said:

-any defect - inclusion, tool mark, slip band, will cause elevated local
stress

indeed. why do you have a problem with that? it's observed fact.

Quoted message said:

-fatigue cracks almost always initiate at the surface

indeed. why do you have a problem with that? it's observed fact.

Quoted message said:

-stainless steel does have an endurance limit

not at normal temperatures it doesn't. see other post.

Quoted message said:

Buy the book, follow the instructions, and your spoke problems will be
over. Mine are.

the book will indeed allow you to lace a wheel and bed the spokes in.
but the theory is [censored]. and is all the [censored] about anodizing,
"swaging", increasing strength as spoke tension increases, etc., is
ridiculous.

On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

[1]. -you must adjust the factory spoke angle or get flex failures/spoke
slackening (which you have reported)
[2] -adjusting the spoke angle will cause large residual skin stresses
[3] -adjusted spokes don't have a significant bending moment, either from
elbow support or lacing

Something I still want to clear up.

In your view, after [1], does the elbow spring back at all?

If yes, then the stresses in [2] are the applied stresses of holding a
piece of bent wire in the bent position without letting it spring back
(tensile on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

If no, then they are residual stresses (and in this case would be
compressive on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

If yes, I don't object to the term "residual stress" in the sense of the
residual stress of a structure. I know jim beam does. But let's lay that
one to rest for now.

If yes, then how can [3] be true?

Ben C said:

On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

[1]. -you must adjust the factory spoke angle or get flex failures/spoke
slackening (which you have reported)
[2] -adjusting the spoke angle will cause large residual skin stresses
[3] -adjusted spokes don't have a significant bending moment, either from
elbow support or lacing

Something I still want to clear up.

In your view, after [1], does the elbow spring back at all?

If yes, then the stresses in [2] are the applied stresses of holding a
piece of bent wire in the bent position without letting it spring back
(tensile on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

If no, then they are residual stresses (and in this case would be
compressive on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

you have grasped the concept. 10 points.

Quoted message said:

If yes, I don't object to the term "residual stress" in the sense of the
residual stress of a structure. I know jim beam does. But let's lay that
one to rest for now.

If yes, then how can [3] be true?

Ben C said:

On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

[1]. -you must adjust the factory spoke angle or get flex failures/spoke
slackening (which you have reported)
[2] -adjusting the spoke angle will cause large residual skin stresses
[3] -adjusted spokes don't have a significant bending moment, either from
elbow support or lacing

Something I still want to clear up.

In your view, after [1], does the elbow spring back at all?

If yes, then the stresses in [2] are the applied stresses of holding a
piece of bent wire in the bent position without letting it spring back
(tensile on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

If no, then they are residual stresses (and in this case would be
compressive on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

I think you've got it backwards. You should really get the book. I feel
like I'm paraphrasing it in installments.

It's the outbound spokes that usually need correction, the angle needs
to be reduced to get rid of the bow.

This is done after tensioning.

They will spring back. If you don't over-correct, you'll be left with
residual tension on the inside. If you over-correct, you'll be left with
bending and residual tension on the inside. If you under-correct or not
correct at all, you may be left with bending causing net tension on the
outside.

Quoted message said:

If yes, I don't object to the term "residual stress" in the sense of the
residual stress of a structure.

Good to know.

Quoted message said:

If yes, then how can [3] be true?

If you have a perfect spoke line from hub hole to nipple after spring back.

jim beam said:

Peter Cole said:

OK. The drawing says "nucleation" (fancy word for "start of crack"😉.

er, "nucleation" is the term people in /my/ field use...

Put it in your next paper.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now you say inclusions aren't the (likely) source of nucleation?

no, i say that it's not observable optically.

Quoted message said:

Pardon me for making that assumption given all your emphasis on vacuum
degassing.

you're a bullshitter.

Whatever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does this diagram represent? Your belief that fatigue cracks
initiate at the surface? That's hardly news to anyone.

er, well it's apparently news to those that think spoke initiates in
regions of high residual stress -

No, it isn't.

Quoted message said:

in that case, fatigue would be
initiating near the neutral plane. and it doesn't.

You still haven't (in all these tedious posts) explained how you come to
the misconception that high residual stresses don't occur at the surface.

Quoted message said:

bullshitter.

Whatever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's a (partial) list of the things you've got wrong:

-spokes do come from the factory with residual stress, including
significant skin stress.

"significant" my ass. and i've said that right from day one. /prove/
it's a factor in this fatigue. observation says not. [i'm sorry, is
that inconvenient?]

I observed the stress. You're welcome to repeat the experiment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-you must adjust the factory spoke angle or get flex failures/spoke
slackening (which you have reported)

manufacturers don't think so. and calculating spoke exit angle doesn't
support that either.

Yes, but your spoke slacking/breaking does.

Simple geometry shows inbound and outbound spokes can't have the same angle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-adjusting the spoke angle will cause large residual skin stresses

not residual skin stress. don't put those words in my mouth.

I'm not. They're coming from my (virtual) mouth and the mouths of
everyone else but you.

Quoted message said:

it can
increase internally though - as i've said before. but we're not worried
about that since fatigue is not observed to be a factor starting there.

You claim. No proof.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-adjusted spokes don't have a significant bending moment, either from
elbow support or lacing

not my words.

Sure, in the "loose spokes breaking" thread.

Quoted message said:

don't [censored].

Whatever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-any defect - inclusion, tool mark, slip band, will cause elevated
local stress

indeed. why do you have a problem with that? it's observed fact.

I don't. You're the one obsessed with inclusions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-fatigue cracks almost always initiate at the surface

indeed. why do you have a problem with that? it's observed fact.

So drawing a picture adds nothing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-stainless steel does have an endurance limit

not at normal temperatures it doesn't. see other post.

Effectively it does, at least according to Sandvik. Go set them
straight, they make spokes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Buy the book, follow the instructions, and your spoke problems will be
over. Mine are.

the book will indeed allow you to lace a wheel and bed the spokes in.
but the theory is [censored].

Whatever.

Quoted message said:

and is all the [censored] about anodizing,
"swaging", increasing strength as spoke tension increases, etc., is
ridiculous.

Put it in a sig.

Peter Cole said:

Ben C said:

On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

[1]. -you must adjust the factory spoke angle or get flex failures/spoke
slackening (which you have reported)
[2] -adjusting the spoke angle will cause large residual skin stresses
[3] -adjusted spokes don't have a significant bending moment, either from
elbow support or lacing

Something I still want to clear up.

In your view, after [1], does the elbow spring back at all?

If yes, then the stresses in [2] are the applied stresses of holding a
piece of bent wire in the bent position without letting it spring back
(tensile on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

If no, then they are residual stresses (and in this case would be
compressive on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

I think you've got it backwards. You should really get the book. I feel
like I'm paraphrasing it in installments.

It's the outbound spokes that usually need correction, the angle needs
to be reduced to get rid of the bow.

This is done after tensioning.

They will spring back. If you don't over-correct, you'll be left with
residual tension on the inside. If you over-correct, you'll be left with
bending and residual tension on the inside. If you under-correct or not
correct at all, you may be left with bending causing net tension on the
outside.

Quoted message said:

If yes, I don't object to the term "residual stress" in the sense of the
residual stress of a structure.

Good to know.

Quoted message said:

If yes, then how can [3] be true?

If you have a perfect spoke line from hub hole to nipple after spring back.

If there was spring-back, then "if yes" is false. But I think I know
what you mean.

I think I agree: it probably can spring back, although I know Jobst says
it can't. The problem, he says, is that the flange is in the way making
it impossible to overbend. That makes sense, but I kind of think that if
you put the bend in while the spoke is still fairly loose it has quite a
bit of freedom and there could be room for it to spring back somehow.

Ben C? said:

Quoted message said:

[1] -you must adjust the factory spoke angle or get flex
failures/spoke slackening (which you have reported)
[2] -adjusting the spoke angle will cause large residual skin
stresses
[3] -adjusted spokes don't have a significant bending moment,
either from elbow support or lacing

Quoted message said:

Something I still want to clear up.

Quoted message said:

In your view, after [1], does the elbow spring back at all?

Quoted message said:

If yes, then the stresses in [2] are the applied stresses of holding
a piece of bent wire in the bent position without letting it spring
back (tensile on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

Quoted message said:

If no, then they are residual stresses (and in this case would be
compressive on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

Quoted message said:

If yes, I don't object to the term "residual stress" in the sense of
the residual stress of a structure. I know jim beam does. But let's
lay that one to rest for now.

Quoted message said:

If yes, then how can [3] be true?

Two kinds of residual stress (in contrast to load induced stress)
affect spoke life and together with cyclic loading cause failures.
One kind is manufacture induced stress that is both compression and
tension, the other is wheel build stress caused by lacing spokes.

These occur at both ends, the threads having residual stress from cold
forming and subsequently being bent as the spoke bends on exiting the
spoke nipple from non radial spoking and flange width.

They also occur at the elbow from cold forming and are in the free
state, tension on the inside and compression on the outside of the
elbow. The bend outbound spokes receive when laced into a wheel put
the outside of the elbow into tension. Additional stress can occur if
the elbow is unsupported because the flange is too thin or the spoke
is not lying reasonably flush against the outside of the flange.

For these reasons, a wheel build should include improving the spoke
line from hub to spoke nipple and stress relieving by momentary
overload of individual spokes.

As to spring-back, all steel does that when cold formed and not always
so it is measurable.

Jobst Brandt

Peter Cole wrote:
<snip usual [censored]>

ok, let's get to the bottom of this - materials are just a side show.

what do you think i could possibly gain by bullshitting you?

more importantly, what could you possibly lose by learning what you
don't know?

Quoted message said:

Ben C? said:

Quoted message said:

[1] -you must adjust the factory spoke angle or get flex
failures/spoke slackening (which you have reported)
[2] -adjusting the spoke angle will cause large residual skin
stresses
[3] -adjusted spokes don't have a significant bending moment,
either from elbow support or lacing

Quoted message said:

Something I still want to clear up.

Quoted message said:

In your view, after [1], does the elbow spring back at all?

Quoted message said:

If yes, then the stresses in [2] are the applied stresses of holding
a piece of bent wire in the bent position without letting it spring
back (tensile on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

Quoted message said:

If no, then they are residual stresses (and in this case would be
compressive on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

Quoted message said:

If yes, I don't object to the term "residual stress" in the sense of
the residual stress of a structure. I know jim beam does. But let's
lay that one to rest for now.

Quoted message said:

If yes, then how can [3] be true?

Two kinds of residual stress (in contrast to load induced stress)
affect spoke life and together with cyclic loading cause failures.
One kind is manufacture induced stress that is both compression and
tension, the other is wheel build stress caused by lacing spokes.

no, there's only one kind of residual stress.

Quoted message said:

These occur at both ends, the threads having residual stress from cold
forming and subsequently being bent as the spoke bends on exiting the
spoke nipple from non radial spoking and flange width.

there's only one kind of residual stress. timetable [beyond a few
minutes] and location mean nothing.

Quoted message said:

They also occur at the elbow from cold forming and are in the free
state, tension on the inside and compression on the outside of the
elbow. The bend outbound spokes receive when laced into a wheel put
the outside of the elbow into tension. Additional stress can occur if
the elbow is unsupported because the flange is too thin or the spoke
is not lying reasonably flush against the outside of the flange.

For these reasons, a wheel build should include improving the spoke
line from hub to spoke nipple and stress relieving by momentary
overload of individual spokes.

As to spring-back, all steel does that when cold formed and not always
so it is measurable.

ah, the jobstian ethereal allusion to things that don't exist, but which
sound like an excuse to peons that wouldn't understand!!!

bottom line reality - observation contradicts your residual stress
"theory". you need to get over that and reformulate accordingly.
bluster about "different kinds of residual stress" and unobservable
elasticity are so much [censored] from a guy that doesn't know a damned
thing about deformation, fracture mechanics, fatigue, or even dislocations.

go to the library jobst, learn about fatigue. then put in some
microscope time with some fatigued spokes. when you're done, get back
to us and we'll see whether you've made any progress.

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:
<snip usual [censored]>

ok, let's get to the bottom of this - materials are just a side show.

If you say so.

Quoted message said:

what do you think i could possibly gain by bullshitting you?

Who cares?

Quoted message said:

more importantly, what could you possibly lose by learning what you
don't know?

As opposed to learning what I already know? You make no sense.

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:
<snip usual [censored]>

ok, let's get to the bottom of this - materials are just a side show.

If you say so.

Quoted message said:

what do you think i could possibly gain by bullshitting you?

Who cares?

Quoted message said:

more importantly, what could you possibly lose by learning what you
don't know?

As opposed to learning what I already know? You make no sense.

but what you say you know is deficient in certain key areas... you
insist on proving that repeatedly as if you're resisting some demon.
why? what is the loss? what is the gain?

Ben C said:

Peter Cole said:

Ben C said:

On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]
> [1]. -you must adjust the factory spoke angle or get flex failures/spoke
> slackening (which you have reported)
> [2] -adjusting the spoke angle will cause large residual skin stresses
> [3] -adjusted spokes don't have a significant bending moment, either from
> elbow support or lacing
Something I still want to clear up.

In your view, after [1], does the elbow spring back at all?

If yes, then the stresses in [2] are the applied stresses of holding a
piece of bent wire in the bent position without letting it spring back
(tensile on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

If no, then they are residual stresses (and in this case would be
compressive on the exterior, outside of bend, outbound spoke).

I think you've got it backwards. You should really get the book. I feel
like I'm paraphrasing it in installments.

It's the outbound spokes that usually need correction, the angle needs
to be reduced to get rid of the bow.

This is done after tensioning.

They will spring back. If you don't over-correct, you'll be left with
residual tension on the inside. If you over-correct, you'll be left with
bending and residual tension on the inside. If you under-correct or not
correct at all, you may be left with bending causing net tension on the
outside.

Quoted message said:

If yes, I don't object to the term "residual stress" in the sense of the
residual stress of a structure.

Good to know.

Quoted message said:

If yes, then how can [3] be true?

If you have a perfect spoke line from hub hole to nipple after spring back.

If there was spring-back, then "if yes" is false. But I think I know
what you mean.

I think I agree: it probably can spring back, although I know Jobst says
it can't. The problem, he says, is that the flange is in the way making
it impossible to overbend. That makes sense, but I kind of think that if
you put the bend in while the spoke is still fairly loose it has quite a
bit of freedom and there could be room for it to spring back somehow.

if you're bending against a flange, it can never fully conform - you
can't eliminate the elasticity part of the stress/strain graph.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/327752060/

see items 3 & 4.

jim beam said:

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:
<snip usual [censored]>

ok, let's get to the bottom of this - materials are just a side show.

If you say so.

Quoted message said:

what do you think i could possibly gain by bullshitting you?

Who cares?

Quoted message said:

more importantly, what could you possibly lose by learning what you
don't know?

As opposed to learning what I already know? You make no sense.

but what you say you know is deficient in certain key areas...

So you say.

Quoted message said:

you insist on proving that repeatedly as if you're resisting some demon.

Prove what? I'm just citing reputable sources.

Quoted message said:

why? what is the loss? what is the gain?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole said:

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
> <snip usual [censored]>
>
> ok, let's get to the bottom of this - materials are just a side show.

If you say so.

>
> what do you think i could possibly gain by bullshitting you?

Who cares?

>
> more importantly, what could you possibly lose by learning what you
> don't know?

As opposed to learning what I already know? You make no sense.

but what you say you know is deficient in certain key areas...

So you say.

Quoted message said:

you insist on proving that repeatedly as if you're resisting some demon.

Prove what? I'm just citing reputable sources.

citing a manufacturer web site as if to say stainless steel has fatigue
endurance, when it doesn't actually say that, is not "citation of a
reputable source"!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

why? what is the loss? what is the gain?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

dude, if i post a [necessarily truncated] description of something,
which covers say 95% of a topic, you're pretty damned expert at not only
figuring out the 5% not covered, but twisting it into some vast
construction of perverse gainsay. if you genuinely had "no idea", you
wouldn't be able to do that.

jim beam said:

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>> <snip usual [censored]>
>>
>> ok, let's get to the bottom of this - materials are just a side show.
>
> If you say so.
>
>>
>> what do you think i could possibly gain by bullshitting you?
>
> Who cares?
>
>
>>
>> more importantly, what could you possibly lose by learning what you
>> don't know?
>
> As opposed to learning what I already know? You make no sense.

but what you say you know is deficient in certain key areas...

So you say.

Quoted message said:

you insist on proving that repeatedly as if you're resisting some demon.

Prove what? I'm just citing reputable sources.

citing a manufacturer web site as if to say stainless steel has fatigue
endurance, when it doesn't actually say that, is not "citation of a
reputable source"!!!

No, the term is "endurance limit", and they did say that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

why? what is the loss? what is the gain?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

dude, if i post a [necessarily truncated] description of something,
which covers say 95% of a topic, you're pretty damned expert at not only
figuring out the 5% not covered, but twisting it into some vast
construction of perverse gainsay. if you genuinely had "no idea", you
wouldn't be able to do that.

You lost me at "vast construction of perverse gainsay", if not before. I
honestly have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole said:

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> <snip usual [censored]>
>>>
>>> ok, let's get to the bottom of this - materials are just a side show.
>>
>> If you say so.
>>
>>>
>>> what do you think i could possibly gain by bullshitting you?
>>
>> Who cares?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> more importantly, what could you possibly lose by learning what
>>> you don't know?
>>
>> As opposed to learning what I already know? You make no sense.
>
> but what you say you know is deficient in certain key areas...

So you say.

> you insist on proving that repeatedly as if you're resisting some
> demon.

Prove what? I'm just citing reputable sources.

citing a manufacturer web site as if to say stainless steel has
fatigue endurance, when it doesn't actually say that, is not "citation
of a reputable source"!!!

No, the term is "endurance limit", and they did say that.

there's no "knee" in the graph...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> why? what is the loss? what is the gain?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

dude, if i post a [necessarily truncated] description of something,
which covers say 95% of a topic, you're pretty damned expert at not
only figuring out the 5% not covered, but twisting it into some vast
construction of perverse gainsay. if you genuinely had "no idea", you
wouldn't be able to do that.

You lost me at "vast construction of perverse gainsay", if not before. I
honestly have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

how convenient!

jim beam said:

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> <snip usual [censored]>
>>>>
>>>> ok, let's get to the bottom of this - materials are just a side
>>>> show.
>>>
>>> If you say so.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> what do you think i could possibly gain by bullshitting you?
>>>
>>> Who cares?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> more importantly, what could you possibly lose by learning what
>>>> you don't know?
>>>
>>> As opposed to learning what I already know? You make no sense.
>>
>> but what you say you know is deficient in certain key areas...
>
> So you say.
>
>> you insist on proving that repeatedly as if you're resisting some
>> demon.
>
> Prove what? I'm just citing reputable sources.

citing a manufacturer web site as if to say stainless steel has
fatigue endurance, when it doesn't actually say that, is not
"citation of a reputable source"!!!

No, the term is "endurance limit", and they did say that.

there's no "knee" in the graph...

No, of course not, there's no knee on the graph on the Sandvik site. Oh,
but they're liars anyway. You're a riot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> why? what is the loss? what is the gain?
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.

dude, if i post a [necessarily truncated] description of something,
which covers say 95% of a topic, you're pretty damned expert at not
only figuring out the 5% not covered, but twisting it into some vast
construction of perverse gainsay. if you genuinely had "no idea",
you wouldn't be able to do that.

You lost me at "vast construction of perverse gainsay", if not before.
I honestly have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

how convenient!

No, just incoherent.

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole said:

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> <snip usual [censored]>
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, let's get to the bottom of this - materials are just a side
>>>>> show.
>>>>
>>>> If you say so.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> what do you think i could possibly gain by bullshitting you?
>>>>
>>>> Who cares?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> more importantly, what could you possibly lose by learning what
>>>>> you don't know?
>>>>
>>>> As opposed to learning what I already know? You make no sense.
>>>
>>> but what you say you know is deficient in certain key areas...
>>
>> So you say.
>>
>>> you insist on proving that repeatedly as if you're resisting some
>>> demon.
>>
>> Prove what? I'm just citing reputable sources.
>
> citing a manufacturer web site as if to say stainless steel has
> fatigue endurance, when it doesn't actually say that, is not
> "citation of a reputable source"!!!

No, the term is "endurance limit", and they did say that.

there's no "knee" in the graph...

No, of course not, there's no knee on the graph on the Sandvik site. Oh,
but they're liars anyway. You're a riot.

the knee is what evidences a true endurance limit. i'm sorry that
doesn't suit your argument, but it's the truth nevertheless.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> why? what is the loss? what is the gain?
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> dude, if i post a [necessarily truncated] description of something,
> which covers say 95% of a topic, you're pretty damned expert at not
> only figuring out the 5% not covered, but twisting it into some vast
> construction of perverse gainsay. if you genuinely had "no idea",
> you wouldn't be able to do that.

You lost me at "vast construction of perverse gainsay", if not
before. I honestly have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

how convenient!

No, just incoherent.