[email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:00 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 3:33 pm, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> article on aluminum, alloys heat treatmentshttp://www.bikepro.com/products/metals/alum.html
>>> Golly, don't let jim beam see that!
>>> It contains this paragraph:
>>> "The ingots can be remelted to make cast aluminum products, using
>>> various methods of casting including (in the bike industry), die
>>> casting where molten aluminum is injected under high pressure into the
>>> cavity of a metal die. Aluminum alloys have a reasonably low melting
>>> point which makes a dense, fine-grain surface structure with excellent
>>> wear and fatigue properties when die cast. Also permanent mold casting
>>> may be used, which uses a metal mold repeatedly for producing many
>>> castings of the same form. These casting techniques are the way many
>>> crank arms, pedal bodies, hub shells, seatpost head pieces, stems, and
>>> some headset parts are commercially made in volume."
>>> When I said similar things, he switched to full, furious insult
>>> mode.
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> so that's why you made your mistake? does this paragraph contain the
>> word "thixoforming" or "melt casting"? no? so how could it be that
>> manufacturers actually use those process and not simple "die casting"
>> then? [rhetorical]
>>
>> bottom line, that article is hugely simplified. just because
>> thixoforming and extrusion are not named doesn't mean they don't exist
>> or are not used.
>
> That wasn't what you were claiming at the time, jim. Your argument
> was that bike parts are not cast.
and they're still not cast!!! they're thixoformed.
just because you find something over-simplified to triviality, doesn't
give you, the "engineering professor", a reason to continue propagating
the information omission. especially not in view of a substantial
intervening period in which you should have read a few books and
resolved your lack of information.
> When I produced enough citations
> proving that many are cast, you switched to posting one word insults.
but they weren't cast, they were thixoformed!
>
> But we're talking about rims and extrusions now.
>
based on the above, will you propose isotropic extrusions like peter cole?
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:03:17 -0700, jim beam <[email protected]>
wrote:
>open pros are double eyelet. jobst just likes to use "socket" because
>he thinks it makes him look more "knowledgeable" so he can sell books.
>if the rest of us say "double eyelet" like the manufacturers do, then i
>think we'll be just fine. it's like jobst insists on calling all butted
>spokes "swaged", even though he's wrong because some are instead drawn
>and others ground.
Ground? Really? Besides the materials strength issue, wouldn't that be
*way* too expensive a technique?
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:03:17 -0700, jim beam <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> open pros are double eyelet. jobst just likes to use "socket" because
>> he thinks it makes him look more "knowledgeable" so he can sell books.
>> if the rest of us say "double eyelet" like the manufacturers do, then i
>> think we'll be just fine. it's like jobst insists on calling all butted
>> spokes "swaged", even though he's wrong because some are instead drawn
>> and others ground.
>
> Ground? Really? Besides the materials strength issue, wouldn't that be
> *way* too expensive a technique?
>
> Jasper
expense depends on how long it takes and the precision achieved i guess.
it's not a strength issue because the butted section is not subject to
bending fatigue and is only loaded to ~1/3 yield.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 7, 4:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> ...Big Snip...
>>
>> ********.
>>
>> You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as
>> claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been
>> clearer:
>>
>> "You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park
>> Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values."
>>
>> You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be
>> ashamed.
>>
>> Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses.
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
> Fogel,
>
> Are you being completely accurate here?
>
> I believe you have mischaracterized the situation, representing it as
> if beam was a first time poster whose veracity I maligned.
>
> In actual fact beam has flat out admitted in earlier threads that he
> "bullshits". I noted this well at the time. And as any unbiased reader
> of RBT should have noticed, he has been shown by many to be a
> practiced, relentless, and unrepentant prevaricator. As such he has
> displayed an unmatched talent for disrupting and subverting
> discussions, driving off potentially valuable contributors in the
> process. Look no further than this thread, now more than 300 posts
> long, that he waylaid with his antics back at about post number four
> and led into divisiveness.
>
> In light of the above and in response to his abusive challenge of
> "deny this, *****" to a veteran and valuable contributer of this
> group, I asked him to deny that he hadn't "jimmied" the tensiometer in
> the picture he proffered. I called him a pathetic little fraud.
>
> Remember, beam already admits that he "bullshits". I wanted him to
> admit that he wasn't doing so now. I wanted him to admit that he
> hadn't cooked the picture and by so challenging him, I wanted to raise
> the possibility that he actually had done so and I also wanted to
> underscoring his penchant for fraud.
>
> Curiously you jumped in between as an apologist for beam. The
> challenge was directed to him but yet you acted as his surrogate. If I
> had know that you would do so, I would have been, as stated earlier,
> clearer and more expansive in my challenge.
>
> Concerning the emailing of duplicates and excuses, here again I do not
> believe you are being completely accurate, I apologize for any
> duplicate of a post I might have emailed you in error by
> unintentionally hitting the "Reply to Author" button as opposed to the
> closely adjacent "Reply" button. I did intentionally email once
> explaining how you might remove the seven duplicate posts that now
> appear in this thread because this seemed to distress you and I felt
> partly responsible. I explained how this might have occurred, but this
> was not an excuse.
>
> With regard to the question of character and credibility, I am happy
> to let the reader judge for himself.
On Oct 16, 10:57 pm, "Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 4:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> ...Big Snip...
>
> >> ********.
>
> >> You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as
> >> claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been
> >> clearer:
>
> >> "You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park
> >> Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values."
>
> >> You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be
> >> ashamed.
>
> >> Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses.
>
> >> Carl Fogel
>
> > Fogel,
>
> > Are you being completely accurate here?
>
> > I believe you have mischaracterized the situation, representing it as
> > if beam was a first time poster whose veracity I maligned.
>
> > In actual fact beam has flat out admitted in earlier threads that he
> > "bullshits". I noted this well at the time. And as any unbiased reader
> > of RBT should have noticed, he has been shown by many to be a
> > practiced, relentless, and unrepentant prevaricator. As such he has
> > displayed an unmatched talent for disrupting and subverting
> > discussions, driving off potentially valuable contributors in the
> > process. Look no further than this thread, now more than 300 posts
> > long, that he waylaid with his antics back at about post number four
> > and led into divisiveness.
>
> > In light of the above and in response to his abusive challenge of
> > "deny this, *****" to a veteran and valuable contributer of this
> > group, I asked him to deny that he hadn't "jimmied" the tensiometer in
> > the picture he proffered. I called him a pathetic little fraud.
>
> > Remember, beam already admits that he "bullshits". I wanted him to
> > admit that he wasn't doing so now. I wanted him to admit that he
> > hadn't cooked the picture and by so challenging him, I wanted to raise
> > the possibility that he actually had done so and I also wanted to
> > underscoring his penchant for fraud.
>
> > Curiously you jumped in between as an apologist for beam. The
> > challenge was directed to him but yet you acted as his surrogate. If I
> > had know that you would do so, I would have been, as stated earlier,
> > clearer and more expansive in my challenge.
>
> > Concerning the emailing of duplicates and excuses, here again I do not
> > believe you are being completely accurate, I apologize for any
> > duplicate of a post I might have emailed you in error by
> > unintentionally hitting the "Reply to Author" button as opposed to the
> > closely adjacent "Reply" button. I did intentionally email once
> > explaining how you might remove the seven duplicate posts that now
> > appear in this thread because this seemed to distress you and I felt
> > partly responsible. I explained how this might have occurred, but this
> > was not an excuse.
>
> > With regard to the question of character and credibility, I am happy
> > to let the reader judge for himself.
>
> Beamboy used tape on his Park.
