Making spokes..

On 3 Jan 2005 11:25:13 -0800, "joff" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Wow lots of info here, thanks! I want to make the spokes myself simply
because I enjoy making things, now I could go to DT et al, and get them
to make me some long spokes to fit my wheel. But I then feel slightly
guilty putting my name to the finished machine.. This may sound odd but
I want to make the whole bike.
It was a tap that I wanted as well to make nipples, Hanro tools in
India were making me some taps, took my money and then.....
I cant seem to find anyone anywhere to supply these?
Joff

Dear Joff,

While I recall seeing spoke threading machines, I can't say
that I remember any nipple threading tools. It may be that
the spoke threads are so standard that no one bothers to
make a machine to create nipples to fit them, since nipples
are so cheap.

Maybe someone else will come up with a handy nipple
threader, but even then you'd have to find either blank
nipples or else an even more tools to form them--you'd need
to make a flared head, flats for turning, and a hole for the
spoke before you could get around to threading it.

Maybe some rivets with extremely thick ankles would serve as
blanks?

Carl Fogel

jim beam said:

Peter Cole said:

"jim beam" wrote"

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole wrote:

> "jim beam" wrote:
>
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>

"As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be: world without
end. Amen." - Psalm 100

--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island

Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in news:33u7mgF438bl9U1
@individual.net:

Quoted message 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:
>>>>
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>

"As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be: world

without

Quoted message said:

end. Amen." - Psalm 100

That should be "word without end"

"[R]epeatedly fail to answer direct questions." Where have I heard that
before? Oh yes, I've repeatedly asked you to explain what your
qualifications are to make the obversations you do and to throw around
the technojive you use. Well? What are your qualifications?

begin quoting Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:

"As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be: world without
end. Amen." - Psalm 100

I'm not sorry to see someone call "jim beam"/"tux lover" on his nonsense -
like these mystical parts of the spoke manufacturing process that no-one
has ever observed.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

begin quoting Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:

"As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be: world without
end. Amen." - Psalm 100

I'm not sorry to see someone call "jim beam"/"tux lover" on his nonsense -
like these mystical parts of the spoke manufacturing process that no-one
has ever observed.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

Gary Young said:

"[R]epeatedly fail to answer direct questions." Where have I heard
that before? Oh yes, I've repeatedly asked you to explain what your
qualifications are to make the obversations you do and to throw
around the technojive you use. Well? What are your qualifications?

I see that you don't shy away from embarrassing admissions in
revealing that you cannot accept information on it merit but rather
defer to who said it. Asking not "what are you saying?" but rather
"who are you?" is a poor way to go through life. That is the basis of
most religions. The Pope in Rome is infallible, he said so himself.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Gary Young said:

"[R]epeatedly fail to answer direct questions." Where have I heard
that before? Oh yes, I've repeatedly asked you to explain what your
qualifications are to make the obversations you do and to throw
around the technojive you use. Well? What are your qualifications?

I see that you don't shy away from embarrassing admissions in
revealing that you cannot accept information on it merit but rather
defer to who said it. Asking not "what are you saying?" but rather
"who are you?" is a poor way to go through life. That is the basis

of

Quoted message said:

most religions. The Pope in Rome is infallible, he said so himself.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

I don't see anything to be embarrassed about. Given the facile way "jim
beam" throws around technical jargon, it would take an education for
which I don't have the time to try to disentangle what he writes here.
On the few occasions when I've taken the trouble to look at what he
says in detail, I've found it to be unreliable. Asking for his
qualifications is, in a sense, an opportunity for him to rehabilitate
himself, to give me a reason not to dismiss him out of hand.

I've made it sound as if a call for credentials is merely a layman's
crutch, but actually I don't think things would be all that different
if I were a scientist. If scientists don't rely on credentials and
credibility, how do you explain the importance they place on
peer-reviewed journals, to give just one example? As a collective
enterprise, science subjects everything (including the Pope's supposed
infallibility) to the acid test, but the individual scientist
necessarily relies on credibility judgments. If a biologist needs to
draw on chemistry or physics for his work, do you really think he works
out the details for himself? Or does he look up what he needs in a
reference that has indicia of reliability (which publisher, credentials
of authors, reputation among practitioners, etc.)? Science wouldn't get
very far without that sort of division of labor, a division that relies
on trust.

Finally, let me say that I don't make a habit of calling people on the
carpet (I wouldn't have the credentials to get away with it anyway).
But "jim beam" presents himself as an expert and often expects people
to rely on his observations. Frankly I think he may be deliberately
trying to sow misunderstanding (what else explains his perplexing
inability to see basic points?) Therefore I make an exception for him.

Gary Young said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"[R]epeatedly fail to answer direct questions." Where have I
heard that before? Oh yes, I've repeatedly asked you to explain
what your qualifications are to make the obversations you do and
to throw around the technojive you use. Well? What are your
qualifications?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see that you don't shy away from embarrassing admissions in
revealing that you cannot accept information on it merit but rather
defer to who said it. Asking not "what are you saying?" but rather
"who are you?" is a poor way to go through life. That is the basis
of most religions. The Pope in Rome is infallible, he said so
himself.

Quoted message said:

I don't see anything to be embarrassed about. Given the facile way
"jim beam" throws around technical jargon, it would take an
education for which I don't have the time to try to disentangle what
he writes here. On the few occasions when I've taken the trouble to
look at what he says in detail, I've found it to be unreliable.
Asking for his qualifications is, in a sense, an opportunity for him
to rehabilitate himself, to give me a reason not to dismiss him out
of hand.

Well? That's about it and it doesn't make a hill of beans what sort
of real or imagined credentials contributors give here on wreck.bike.
We don't need no steenkin lauds, whether that be Cat. 1 bike racer or
metallurgist. "If you can't explain it in plain English, you don't
understand it yourself." as Richard Feynman said. That sums it up
adequately for me. It's a good test for any writer or speechifier.

Quoted message said:

...

Quoted message said:

Finally, let me say that I don't make a habit of calling people on
the carpet (I wouldn't have the credentials to get away with it
anyway). But "jim beam" presents himself as an expert and often
expects people to rely on his observations. Frankly I think he may
be deliberately trying to sow misunderstanding (what else explains
his perplexing inability to see basic points?) Therefore, I make an
exception for him.

As I said, it would change nothing regardless of what credentials were
claimed.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

joff said:

Wow lots of info here, thanks! I want to make the spokes myself
simply because I enjoy making things, now I could go to DT et al,
and get them to make me some long spokes to fit my wheel. But
I then feel slightly guilty putting my name to the finished machine..
This may sound odd but I want to make the whole bike.

For your consideration:

Have you considered a different style of spoke? With your thread roller,
you could thread both ends of a length of suitable wire and bond a nipple
to one end to act as a head, eliminating the elbow and the forging process.
You would need to design a straight-pull hub, of course.

James Thomson

"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

David, there are very few contributors to this group whose messages I would
consider worth even a small increase in effort to read, especially when
that increase in effort is brought about by their own bloody-mindedness.

I understand your point. I even have some sympathy for it. But its only
result will be that your messages go unread.

James Thomson

James Thomson said:

"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

David, there are very few contributors to this group whose messages I
would consider worth even a small increase in effort to read,
especially when that increase in effort is brought about by their own
bloody-mindedness.

I understand your point. I even have some sympathy for it. But its
only result will be that your messages go unread.

What messages? You mean those blank things???

Tom Sherman 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:
>>>>
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>

"As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be: world without
end. Amen." - Psalm 100

amen indeed. but here's the dilemma - do you keep quiet & allow b.s. to
propagate in the vacuum, or do you stand on principle? you evidently
don't like being lectured with imaginary garbage presuming to pollute
your home turf & neither do i.

"jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>

"As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be: world without
end. Amen." - Psalm 100

amen indeed. but here's the dilemma - do you keep quiet & allow b.s. to
propagate in the vacuum, or do you stand on principle? you evidently
don't like being lectured with imaginary garbage presuming to pollute
your home turf & neither do i.

There is no need to use such rude language. I don't know what "principles"
you stand on, but they don't seem civil. I also don't understand what makes
spoke fabrication your "home turf". You appear to be claiming a proprietary
position. Does this mean you're a member of the industry?

You seem to disagree with Jobst on 2 points:
1) Improving the spoke line (at flange & nipple) is unnecessary and
detrimental.
2) Stress relieving is unnecessary because residual spoke stresses aren't
significant.

We've argued only the second point, neither of us could prove the other
wrong.

In your last response you said:

"fact: fatigue fracture surfaces evidence that residual stress is not the
sole cause of initiation. you only need a simple magnifier to see that."

"all subsequent presumption is ridiculous."

Just to clarify (again), no one has ever stated (to the best of my
knowledge) that residual stress is the *sole* cause of spoke failure, only
that it is *one* cause.

Your reference to the use of a magnifier to diagnose spoke failures is
intriguing, care to expand?

Peter Cole said:

"jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman said:

jim beam wrote:

>Peter Cole wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>"jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>>

"As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be: world without
end. Amen." - Psalm 100

amen indeed. but here's the dilemma - do you keep quiet & allow b.s. to
propagate in the vacuum, or do you stand on principle? you evidently
don't like being lectured with imaginary garbage presuming to pollute
your home turf & neither do i.

There is no need to use such rude language. I don't know what "principles"
you stand on, but they don't seem civil.

pot, kettle, black.

Quoted message said:

I also don't understand what makes
spoke fabrication your "home turf". You appear to be claiming a proprietary
position. Does this mean you're a member of the industry?

metallurgy/materials is my home turf. i don't presume to lecture anyone
outside of that. and don't try putting words in my mouth about claims &
assumptions. you're the guy doing the guess work with this stuff!

Quoted message said:

You seem to disagree with Jobst on 2 points:
1) Improving the spoke line (at flange & nipple) is unnecessary and
detrimental.
2) Stress relieving is unnecessary because residual spoke stresses aren't
significant.

We've argued only the second point, neither of us could prove the other
wrong.

eh? you espouse wild unproven assumptions, yet despite physical
evidence to the contrary, you're somehow claiming that it's merely
"unproven"??? that's ridiculous.

Quoted message said:

In your last response you said:

"fact: fatigue fracture surfaces evidence that residual stress is not the
sole cause of initiation. you only need a simple magnifier to see that."

"all subsequent presumption is ridiculous."

Just to clarify (again), no one has ever stated (to the best of my
knowledge) that residual stress is the *sole* cause of spoke failure, only
that it is *one* cause.

Your reference to the use of a magnifier to diagnose spoke failures is
intriguing, care to expand?

fatigue is commonly evidenced by "beach marks" which originate from the
crack nucleation point. a magnifier [10X loupe for example] allows
examination of the fracture surface for broken spokes. beach marks can
be clearly seen - originating some from the inside & some from the
outside of spoke elbows. don't take my word for it - check it
independently.

"jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

You seem to disagree with Jobst on 2 points:
1) Improving the spoke line (at flange & nipple) is unnecessary and
detrimental.
2) Stress relieving is unnecessary because residual spoke stresses

aren't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

significant.

We've argued only the second point, neither of us could prove the other
wrong.

eh? you espouse wild unproven assumptions, yet despite physical
evidence to the contrary, you're somehow claiming that it's merely
"unproven"??? that's ridiculous.

I don't think there is physical evidence to support the assertion that
there are no residual stresses in spokes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In your last response you said:

"fact: fatigue fracture surfaces evidence that residual stress is not

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sole cause of initiation. you only need a simple magnifier to see

that."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"all subsequent presumption is ridiculous."

Just to clarify (again), no one has ever stated (to the best of my
knowledge) that residual stress is the *sole* cause of spoke failure,

only

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that it is *one* cause.

Your reference to the use of a magnifier to diagnose spoke failures is
intriguing, care to expand?

fatigue is commonly evidenced by "beach marks" which originate from the
crack nucleation point. a magnifier [10X loupe for example] allows
examination of the fracture surface for broken spokes. beach marks can
be clearly seen - originating some from the inside & some from the
outside of spoke elbows. don't take my word for it - check it
independently.

I only have 3 broken spokes available, and a 5x loupe (but my eyes are very
good). I can't see any beach marks. Perhaps someone with a larger
collection can comment.

I'm guessing your "proof" is that cracks initiating from the outside of the
elbow bend preclude the possibility of those cracks being caused by
residual stress. Somehow I don't think the internal stress picture is that
simple. The coil spring example in the pdf I linked showed a rather complex
residual pattern, for example.

This might be an interesting thread to pursue, but its tone is unpleasant.
I think perhaps I'd rather sit out any following rounds. My sole reason for
resuming was to take issue with being described with words like "b.s.",
"garbage" and "pollution". Perhaps I should have left it at that.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 07:13:34 -0800, jim beam
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your reference to the use of a magnifier to diagnose spoke failures is
intriguing, care to expand?

fatigue is commonly evidenced by "beach marks" which originate from the
crack nucleation point. a magnifier [10X loupe for example] allows
examination of the fracture surface for broken spokes. beach marks can
be clearly seen - originating some from the inside & some from the
outside of spoke elbows. don't take my word for it - check it
independently.

Dear Jim and Peter,

If anyone has pictures with enough magnification to show
such details of broken spokes, I'd be happy to host them.
Just email them to me at [email hidden]

I'll look to see if I have any examples, but the $15 Walmart
USB camera used at Fogel Labs has about the same close-up
resolution as the site's standard eyeball.

Carl Fogel

Bill Sornson said:

James Thomson said:

"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

David, there are very few contributors to this group whose messages I
would consider worth even a small increase in effort to read,
especially when that increase in effort is brought about by their own
bloody-mindedness.

I understand your point. I even have some sympathy for it. But its
only result will be that your messages go unread.

What messages? You mean those blank things???

What blank things? -- oh, you're using a buggy newsreader, which will
never be fixed because a certain arrogant company knows that its users
won't care enough to change or complain.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser.
-- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"

Then I'm at a loss to explain why you so often take anonymous posters
to task. I agree with your position on that because I think it reflects
a realistic assessment that productive discussions are extremely
difficult unless the participants show themselves to be reasonably
trustworthy. But if the text on the screen is all that matters to you,
why do you object to anonymous posters?

Quoted message said:

Then I'm at a loss to explain why you so often take anonymous posters
to task. I agree with your position on that because I think it reflects
a realistic assessment that productive discussions are extremely
difficult unless the participants show themselves to be reasonably
trustworthy. But if the text on the screen is all that matters to you,
why do you object to anonymous posters?

Dear Gary,

What really--really!--annoys me is that you thought of this
point, and I didn't.

Of course, it's just as valid, no matter who thought of it
first.

Jealously,

Carl Fogel