Tom Sherman wrote:
<snip drivel>
>>> 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.
lightweight. trying to talk your way out of a mistake by compounding
it, as you just have, is utterly stupid.
>
>> 1. there are no cast hubs.
>
> Citation? Not even the cheap ones?
i already told you. but you want to prove me wrong, so go get yourself
some hubs, a metallurgical microscope, and do some metallography. post
the pics for us all to see! it'll cost you about $15 for the cheapest
hub, the most likely candidate.
>
>> 2. BOTH materials work harden.
>
> How much does the spoke work harden during spoke squeezing?
why not use your, er, "ability" to calculate meyer hardness to find out?
>
>> 3. they work harden continuously!
>>
> Did I write that they did not?
unfortunately, you did, yes. "meyer hardness would not change with
indention depth" are your exact words.
>
>> 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.
so you didn't say "meyer hardness would not change with indention depth"
then? what exactly /did/ you say????
>
>>>> 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.
so you didn't say:
"meyer hardness would not change with indention depth" then?
so you didn't say:
"[meyer] hardness does not typically change with indentation depth for a
work hardened material"???
with those statements, what you /really/ said was:
"i am a clueless bull****ing idiot that can't open a book and if i did
open a book, i didn't understand what i read", that's what you /really/
said.
>
>>>>> 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.
<snip remaining drivel>
how much surface preparation is necessary for a rockwell hardness test
then tom? have you read that bit yet?
|
