Do it yourself alignment

On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 06:29 AM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>> On 07/18/2013 07:24 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>> On 07/18/2013 11:25 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:20:59 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your claim is that the springs aren't heat treated at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ludicrous claim. I was a heat-treater at IH in Chicago for years, and
>>>>>> a heavy press operator, heavy shear operator, and an 8-torch machine
>>>>>> operator. Just about every non-drive train part of those dozers went
>>>>>> through my hands, shovel, or tongs - many, many times.
>>>>>> Except for sheet and plate steel cut and formed to a structural shape,
>>>>>> EVERYTHING got heat-treated. And I'm sure even the sheet and plate
>>>>>> was spec'ed for composition/heat-treating from the mills.
>>>>>> IH was far from a paragon of quality, one reason they went bankrupt.
>>>>>> But even that lousy company knew the basics of heat-treating, and the
>>>>>> necessity of heat-treating.
>>>>>> There's no talking to somebody who has a hard-on against a
>>>>>> manufacturer. It's blind raving, and you're wasting your time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> manufacturers that know what they're doing and have some vague semblance
>>>>> of wanting to deliver something for the money they charge, do indeed
>>>>> heat stress relieve springs, shot peen them, then coat them.
>>>>>
>>>>> frod do not heat treat their springs. as i said, it's because it saves
>>>>> money. and they've spent a lot of money/smarts figuring /how/:
>>>>> <http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> Did you read your cite?
>>>> " Ford Motor Company has
>>>> developed a potentially cost saving cold-coiling process in which
>>>> less time is spent treating spring metal at elevated temperatures."
>>>
>>> dude, READ it. they're heat treated /before/ forming.
>>
>> That's what I told you several posts ago.
>
> ??? was that the post about "air" and "tangling"?

I mentioned that the wire is heat treated prior to coiling as industry
common practice several times. The fact you don't understand how parts
need to be handled in heat treating is your problem, not mine.

>>> that's not
>>> really a heat treatment as far as the manufacture is concerned because
>>> it does NOT address residual stress, and residual stress kills springs.
>>> for a guy that keeps trying to say they know what they're talking
>>> about, you're doing a damned good job proving you don't.

>> residual stress is addressed. Read the entire article. Pay attention to
>> figures 2 and 3.

> please tell me you're joking. please? fig 2 is pre "bulldozing". fig
> 3 is post "bulldozing". that's what the whole paper is about. the
> hints to this should have been in para 1 where it states that frod
> "developed a potentially cost saving cold coiling process". it goes on
> to say, as i have said, that the resulting "residual stress pattern
> within the as-cold-coiled spring is undesirable ... for its effect on
> fatigue". paragraph 2 then says exactly what i told you before about
> the traditional forming route and contrasts it with the frod route.

So it's true that you can't read and comprehend. You have that so
incredibly twisted by your own personal biases that it's really quite
sad. Go read it again and again until you figure it out. Also try to
notice that this is a proposed process that has not been implemented in
production at the time of the article.

Hint: Figure 2 is the bar stock. The wire as recieved. It represents the
cold-coiled spring. Figure 3 is the as-tempered spring. Read the
caption: "The data for the as-bulldozed spring, though not given here,
look essentially the same."

Reading is fundamental.

>>>> In fact that article confirms everything I've stated in this thread
>>>> branch and shows the argument I was holding back to hit you over the
>>>> head with, which is that there is usually more than one way to skin a
>>>> cat.

>>>> Your cite disproves your own claims.

>>> you're so busy falling over yourself trying to say nay that you're not
>>> even reading it.

>> Stop projecting Mr. Beam. If you read it you can't comprehend it.
>> The proposed process in the article produces a spring with all desired
>> characteristics including reduction of residual stress.

> BY ALL COLD FORMING!!! i.e. no heat treatment other then the cheap bulk
> rod feed stock, which doesn't even need to be done at the coiling plant.
> and no shot peening.

No where does the article state that Ford cold coils production springs
without stress relieving. It doesn't state how Ford makes springs at
all. It implies that they do stress relieving and hence are
investigating ways to achieve the same result at lower cost.

> it's just amazing - you accuse me of precisely the reading comprehension
> failure you yourself are demonstrating. but i guess that's on par with
> the guy that asks for drawings of a post-failure event.

Your mental gymnastics are amazing. It's not just a reading
comprehension problem with you, you're altering the text in your mind to
suit your biases.

As to the drawing, you cannot determine a part met specification without
the specification. That's part of your claim, that a failed ford part
meets the print while spring failures from Honda or others are just
mistakes, 'statistical anomalies where the part didn't meet the print.
You need the specifications to show that part of your claim.

On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 06:20 AM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>> On 07/18/2013 07:14 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>> On 07/18/2013 07:44 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>> On 2013-07-18, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 06:49 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip to the point>
>>>>>>>>>> example he
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.scielo.org.ve/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0255-69522008000100006&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt>
>>>>>>>> I've seen that sort of thing countless times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sorry, but apparently that isn't true. because if it were, you'd have
>>>>>>> learned and have been able to use that knowledge when assessing quality
>>>>>>> for yourself. and you'd understand why what you're asking for is
>>>>>>> barking up completely the wrong tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am asking you to support your claims. You've clearly have no idea how
>>>>>> a report on a part's material is supposed to be related back to the
>>>>>> specification of that part. You've made a number of claims and to
>>>>>> verify those claims requires relating the part analysis back to the
>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now show me your similar
>>>>>>>> report on Ford springs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i'm not going to do your homework for you, but i've given you a relevant
>>>>>>> example. with that information, you can now compare and contrast for
>>>>>>> yourself and what i say will become clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the one making the claims, thus it is your job to support them.
>>>>>> The fact you won't tells me just what I suspected there is nothing
>>>>>> behind them but your own irrational biases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ????? i'm not "inventing" any "hypothesis" at all. all the facts are
>>>>> in plain sight. all i'm doing is telling you they exist [since for all
>>>>> your claimed expertise, you're apparently unaware] and how to look for them.
>>>>
>>>> You've presented no facts. You've simply made claims with no supporting
>>>> evidence what so ever presented here. It's as good as your word which
>>>> frankly ain't worth the electrons it took to transmit it.
>>>
>>> i'm glad i didn't spend more time on this - based on what you've just
>>> shown, it would have been pointless.
>>
>> It's pretty clear you don't have a clue. Ford develops a process that
>> requires less time and energy to stress relieve a spring made of
>> pre-heat treated wire and your mind turns this into 'ford doesn't heat
>> treat springs'.
>
> yet again, frod don't heat treat springs AFTER COLD FORMING. that is
> breaking the #1 cardinal rule for spring manufacture because POST
> FORMING HEAT TREATMENT removes residual stress. instead, frod just
> "bulldoze", and don't peen. this gives crappy [but CHEAP!] springs that
> break.

PROVE IT. There is nothing in the article that discusses production
springs. The article you cite discusses a proposal for cost reduction which
results in same stress relieved condition. Here's the relevant paragraph
you can't get straight:

"We have looked at three cold-coiled springs. The first spring
is an as-cold coiled spring. The second one is cold-coiled followed
by a relatively low temper. The third one is identical to the second
one, but in addition to being tempered the spring has been com-
pressed to the point where the length of the spring is equal to the
number of windings times the wire thickness. After this the spring
was allowed to relax. A small part of this torsion strain is in the
plastic region, so this spring is slightly shorter than all the others.
In the automotive industry this process is known as .bulldozing.."

_The third one is identical to the second one, but in addition to being
tempered the spring has been com-pressed_

In addition to being tempered. Got that? IN ADDITION TO.

On 07/19/2013 11:15 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>> On 07/19/2013 06:29 AM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>> On 07/18/2013 07:24 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 11:25 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:20:59 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your claim is that the springs aren't heat treated at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ludicrous claim. I was a heat-treater at IH in Chicago for years, and
>>>>>>> a heavy press operator, heavy shear operator, and an 8-torch machine
>>>>>>> operator. Just about every non-drive train part of those dozers went
>>>>>>> through my hands, shovel, or tongs - many, many times.
>>>>>>> Except for sheet and plate steel cut and formed to a structural shape,
>>>>>>> EVERYTHING got heat-treated. And I'm sure even the sheet and plate
>>>>>>> was spec'ed for composition/heat-treating from the mills.
>>>>>>> IH was far from a paragon of quality, one reason they went bankrupt.
>>>>>>> But even that lousy company knew the basics of heat-treating, and the
>>>>>>> necessity of heat-treating.
>>>>>>> There's no talking to somebody who has a hard-on against a
>>>>>>> manufacturer. It's blind raving, and you're wasting your time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> manufacturers that know what they're doing and have some vague semblance
>>>>>> of wanting to deliver something for the money they charge, do indeed
>>>>>> heat stress relieve springs, shot peen them, then coat them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> frod do not heat treat their springs. as i said, it's because it saves
>>>>>> money. and they've spent a lot of money/smarts figuring /how/:
>>>>>> <http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you read your cite?
>>>>> " Ford Motor Company has
>>>>> developed a potentially cost saving cold-coiling process in which
>>>>> less time is spent treating spring metal at elevated temperatures."
>>>>
>>>> dude, READ it. they're heat treated /before/ forming.
>>>
>>> That's what I told you several posts ago.
>>
>> ??? was that the post about "air" and "tangling"?
>
> I mentioned that the wire is heat treated prior to coiling as industry
> common practice several times. The fact you don't understand how parts
> need to be handled in heat treating is your problem, not mine.
>
>>>> that's not
>>>> really a heat treatment as far as the manufacture is concerned because
>>>> it does NOT address residual stress, and residual stress kills springs.
>>>> for a guy that keeps trying to say they know what they're talking
>>>> about, you're doing a damned good job proving you don't.
>
>>> residual stress is addressed. Read the entire article. Pay attention to
>>> figures 2 and 3.
>
>> please tell me you're joking. please? fig 2 is pre "bulldozing". fig
>> 3 is post "bulldozing". that's what the whole paper is about. the
>> hints to this should have been in para 1 where it states that frod
>> "developed a potentially cost saving cold coiling process". it goes on
>> to say, as i have said, that the resulting "residual stress pattern
>> within the as-cold-coiled spring is undesirable ... for its effect on
>> fatigue". paragraph 2 then says exactly what i told you before about
>> the traditional forming route and contrasts it with the frod route.
>
> So it's true that you can't read and comprehend. You have that so
> incredibly twisted by your own personal biases that it's really quite
> sad. Go read it again and again until you figure it out. Also try to
> notice that this is a proposed process that has not been implemented in
> production at the time of the article.
>
> Hint: Figure 2 is the bar stock. The wire as recieved. It represents the
> cold-coiled spring. Figure 3 is the as-tempered spring. Read the
> caption: "The data for the as-bulldozed spring, though not given here,
> look essentially the same."
>
> Reading is fundamental.
>
>>>>> In fact that article confirms everything I've stated in this thread
>>>>> branch and shows the argument I was holding back to hit you over the
>>>>> head with, which is that there is usually more than one way to skin a
>>>>> cat.
>
>>>>> Your cite disproves your own claims.
>
>>>> you're so busy falling over yourself trying to say nay that you're not
>>>> even reading it.
>
>>> Stop projecting Mr. Beam. If you read it you can't comprehend it.
>>> The proposed process in the article produces a spring with all desired
>>> characteristics including reduction of residual stress.
>
>> BY ALL COLD FORMING!!! i.e. no heat treatment other then the cheap bulk
>> rod feed stock, which doesn't even need to be done at the coiling plant.
>> and no shot peening.
>
> No where does the article state that Ford cold coils production springs
> without stress relieving. It doesn't state how Ford makes springs at
> all. It implies that they do stress relieving and hence are
> investigating ways to achieve the same result at lower cost.
>
>> it's just amazing - you accuse me of precisely the reading comprehension
>> failure you yourself are demonstrating. but i guess that's on par with
>> the guy that asks for drawings of a post-failure event.
>
> Your mental gymnastics are amazing. It's not just a reading
> comprehension problem with you, you're altering the text in your mind to
> suit your biases.
>
> As to the drawing, you cannot determine a part met specification without
> the specification. That's part of your claim, that a failed ford part
> meets the print while spring failures from Honda or others are just
> mistakes, 'statistical anomalies where the part didn't meet the print.
> You need the specifications to show that part of your claim.
>

Give it up, in Jim's mind, to paraphrase Mike Myers, "if it isn't Honda,
it's crap!"

Never mind that Honda have started using MacPherson struts on their
newer models, one of Jim's constant complaints about everyone else.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 07/19/2013 08:27 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>> On 07/19/2013 06:20 AM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>> On 07/18/2013 07:14 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 07:44 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2013-07-18, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 06:49 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip to the point>
>>>>>>>>>>> example he
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.scielo.org.ve/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0255-69522008000100006&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt>
>>>>>>>>> I've seen that sort of thing countless times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sorry, but apparently that isn't true. because if it were, you'd have
>>>>>>>> learned and have been able to use that knowledge when assessing quality
>>>>>>>> for yourself. and you'd understand why what you're asking for is
>>>>>>>> barking up completely the wrong tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am asking you to support your claims. You've clearly have no idea how
>>>>>>> a report on a part's material is supposed to be related back to the
>>>>>>> specification of that part. You've made a number of claims and to
>>>>>>> verify those claims requires relating the part analysis back to the
>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now show me your similar
>>>>>>>>> report on Ford springs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i'm not going to do your homework for you, but i've given you a relevant
>>>>>>>> example. with that information, you can now compare and contrast for
>>>>>>>> yourself and what i say will become clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are the one making the claims, thus it is your job to support them.
>>>>>>> The fact you won't tells me just what I suspected there is nothing
>>>>>>> behind them but your own irrational biases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ????? i'm not "inventing" any "hypothesis" at all. all the facts are
>>>>>> in plain sight. all i'm doing is telling you they exist [since for all
>>>>>> your claimed expertise, you're apparently unaware] and how to look for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've presented no facts. You've simply made claims with no supporting
>>>>> evidence what so ever presented here. It's as good as your word which
>>>>> frankly ain't worth the electrons it took to transmit it.
>>>>
>>>> i'm glad i didn't spend more time on this - based on what you've just
>>>> shown, it would have been pointless.
>>>
>>> It's pretty clear you don't have a clue. Ford develops a process that
>>> requires less time and energy to stress relieve a spring made of
>>> pre-heat treated wire and your mind turns this into 'ford doesn't heat
>>> treat springs'.
>>
>> yet again, frod don't heat treat springs AFTER COLD FORMING. that is
>> breaking the #1 cardinal rule for spring manufacture because POST
>> FORMING HEAT TREATMENT removes residual stress. instead, frod just
>> "bulldoze", and don't peen. this gives crappy [but CHEAP!] springs that
>> break.
>
> PROVE IT. There is nothing in the article that discusses production
> springs. The article you cite discusses a proposal for cost reduction which
> results in same stress relieved condition. Here's the relevant paragraph
> you can't get straight:

but they /are/ production springs!!! they have been for decades. the
only thing novel about that paper is the use of neutron diffraction
which allows actual in-situ measurement of residual stress levels as
opposed to empirical extrapolation and modeling.

[the use of taxpayer dollars to do frod's research for them is another
debate.]


>
> "We have looked at three cold-coiled springs. The first spring
> is an as-cold coiled spring. The second one is cold-coiled followed
> by a relatively low temper. The third one is identical to the second
> one, but in addition to being tempered the spring has been com-
> pressed to the point where the length of the spring is equal to the
> number of windings times the wire thickness. After this the spring
> was allowed to relax. A small part of this torsion strain is in the
> plastic region, so this spring is slightly shorter than all the others.
> In the automotive industry this process is known as .bulldozing.."
>
> _The third one is identical to the second one, but in addition to being
> tempered the spring has been com-pressed_
>
> In addition to being tempered. Got that? IN ADDITION TO.

it's "tempered", PRE DEFORMATION!!! got that?

seriously, if you don't understand that fundamental distinction, you're
just howling at the moon.


--
fact check required

On 07/19/2013 08:15 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>> On 07/19/2013 06:29 AM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>> On 07/18/2013 07:24 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 11:25 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:20:59 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your claim is that the springs aren't heat treated at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ludicrous claim. I was a heat-treater at IH in Chicago for years, and
>>>>>>> a heavy press operator, heavy shear operator, and an 8-torch machine
>>>>>>> operator. Just about every non-drive train part of those dozers went
>>>>>>> through my hands, shovel, or tongs - many, many times.
>>>>>>> Except for sheet and plate steel cut and formed to a structural shape,
>>>>>>> EVERYTHING got heat-treated. And I'm sure even the sheet and plate
>>>>>>> was spec'ed for composition/heat-treating from the mills.
>>>>>>> IH was far from a paragon of quality, one reason they went bankrupt.
>>>>>>> But even that lousy company knew the basics of heat-treating, and the
>>>>>>> necessity of heat-treating.
>>>>>>> There's no talking to somebody who has a hard-on against a
>>>>>>> manufacturer. It's blind raving, and you're wasting your time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> manufacturers that know what they're doing and have some vague semblance
>>>>>> of wanting to deliver something for the money they charge, do indeed
>>>>>> heat stress relieve springs, shot peen them, then coat them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> frod do not heat treat their springs. as i said, it's because it saves
>>>>>> money. and they've spent a lot of money/smarts figuring /how/:
>>>>>> <http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you read your cite?
>>>>> " Ford Motor Company has
>>>>> developed a potentially cost saving cold-coiling process in which
>>>>> less time is spent treating spring metal at elevated temperatures."
>>>>
>>>> dude, READ it. they're heat treated /before/ forming.
>>>
>>> That's what I told you several posts ago.
>>
>> ??? was that the post about "air" and "tangling"?
>
> I mentioned that the wire is heat treated prior to coiling as industry
> common practice several times. The fact you don't understand how parts
> need to be handled in heat treating is your problem, not mine.

i understand, but you don't. cold forming introduces residual stress.
"heat treatment" prior to cold forming does not remove residual stress.
it is completely irrelevant to what you're trying to say and your
continuing to not understand that completely negates any argument you
think you have.


>
>>>> that's not
>>>> really a heat treatment as far as the manufacture is concerned because
>>>> it does NOT address residual stress, and residual stress kills springs.
>>>> for a guy that keeps trying to say they know what they're talking
>>>> about, you're doing a damned good job proving you don't.
>
>>> residual stress is addressed. Read the entire article. Pay attention to
>>> figures 2 and 3.
>
>> please tell me you're joking. please? fig 2 is pre "bulldozing". fig
>> 3 is post "bulldozing". that's what the whole paper is about. the
>> hints to this should have been in para 1 where it states that frod
>> "developed a potentially cost saving cold coiling process". it goes on
>> to say, as i have said, that the resulting "residual stress pattern
>> within the as-cold-coiled spring is undesirable ... for its effect on
>> fatigue". paragraph 2 then says exactly what i told you before about
>> the traditional forming route and contrasts it with the frod route.
>
> So it's true that you can't read and comprehend. You have that so
> incredibly twisted by your own personal biases that it's really quite
> sad. Go read it again and again until you figure it out. Also try to
> notice that this is a proposed process that has not been implemented in
> production at the time of the article.
>
> Hint: Figure 2 is the bar stock. The wire as recieved. It represents the
> cold-coiled spring.

unbelievable - "cold coiled" is not "bar stock", it's the cold coiled
spring.


> Figure 3 is the as-tempered spring.

!!! no, that "temper" is pre-deformation. #3 gets no stress relief from
tempering, just "bulldozing"!!!


" Read the
> caption: "The data for the as-bulldozed spring, though not given here,
> look essentially the same."
>
> Reading is fundamental.

you got that right. shame you can't do it.


>
>>>>> In fact that article confirms everything I've stated in this thread
>>>>> branch and shows the argument I was holding back to hit you over the
>>>>> head with, which is that there is usually more than one way to skin a
>>>>> cat.
>
>>>>> Your cite disproves your own claims.
>
>>>> you're so busy falling over yourself trying to say nay that you're not
>>>> even reading it.
>
>>> Stop projecting Mr. Beam. If you read it you can't comprehend it.
>>> The proposed process in the article produces a spring with all desired
>>> characteristics including reduction of residual stress.
>
>> BY ALL COLD FORMING!!! i.e. no heat treatment other then the cheap bulk
>> rod feed stock, which doesn't even need to be done at the coiling plant.
>> and no shot peening.
>
> No where does the article state that Ford cold coils production springs
> without stress relieving.

it does "stress relieve", but only by "bulldozing", which is cheap, and
inferior.


> It doesn't state how Ford makes springs at
> all.

???!!! it most specifically does!!!.


> It implies that they do stress relieving and hence are
> investigating ways to achieve the same result at lower cost.

they "stress relieve" by bulldozing. only.


>
>> it's just amazing - you accuse me of precisely the reading comprehension
>> failure you yourself are demonstrating. but i guess that's on par with
>> the guy that asks for drawings of a post-failure event.
>
> Your mental gymnastics are amazing. It's not just a reading
> comprehension problem with you, you're altering the text in your mind to
> suit your biases.

coming from a guy that can't read, that's ridiculous.


>
> As to the drawing, you cannot determine a part met specification without
> the specification.

these parts "meet specification". the spec is "cheap" and /includes/
failure.


> That's part of your claim, that a failed ford part
> meets the print

indeed - the spec is inferior - cheap. failure is not just anticipated
but expected.


> while spring failures from Honda or others are just
> mistakes, 'statistical anomalies where the part didn't meet the print.
> You need the specifications to show that part of your claim.

no, i need to find someone who can teach you to read.


--
fact check required

On 07/19/2013 08:28 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 11:15 AM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>> On 07/19/2013 06:29 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>> On 07/18/2013 07:24 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 11:25 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:20:59 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your claim is that the springs aren't heat treated at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ludicrous claim. I was a heat-treater at IH in Chicago for
>>>>>>>> years, and
>>>>>>>> a heavy press operator, heavy shear operator, and an 8-torch
>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>> operator. Just about every non-drive train part of those dozers
>>>>>>>> went
>>>>>>>> through my hands, shovel, or tongs - many, many times.
>>>>>>>> Except for sheet and plate steel cut and formed to a structural
>>>>>>>> shape,
>>>>>>>> EVERYTHING got heat-treated. And I'm sure even the sheet and plate
>>>>>>>> was spec'ed for composition/heat-treating from the mills.
>>>>>>>> IH was far from a paragon of quality, one reason they went
>>>>>>>> bankrupt.
>>>>>>>> But even that lousy company knew the basics of heat-treating,
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> necessity of heat-treating.
>>>>>>>> There's no talking to somebody who has a hard-on against a
>>>>>>>> manufacturer. It's blind raving, and you're wasting your time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> manufacturers that know what they're doing and have some vague
>>>>>>> semblance
>>>>>>> of wanting to deliver something for the money they charge, do indeed
>>>>>>> heat stress relieve springs, shot peen them, then coat them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> frod do not heat treat their springs. as i said, it's because it
>>>>>>> saves
>>>>>>> money. and they've spent a lot of money/smarts figuring /how/:
>>>>>>> <http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you read your cite?
>>>>>> " Ford Motor Company has
>>>>>> developed a potentially cost saving cold-coiling process in which
>>>>>> less time is spent treating spring metal at elevated temperatures."
>>>>>
>>>>> dude, READ it. they're heat treated /before/ forming.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I told you several posts ago.
>>>
>>> ??? was that the post about "air" and "tangling"?
>>
>> I mentioned that the wire is heat treated prior to coiling as industry
>> common practice several times. The fact you don't understand how parts
>> need to be handled in heat treating is your problem, not mine.
>>
>>>>> that's not
>>>>> really a heat treatment as far as the manufacture is concerned because
>>>>> it does NOT address residual stress, and residual stress kills
>>>>> springs.
>>>>> for a guy that keeps trying to say they know what they're talking
>>>>> about, you're doing a damned good job proving you don't.
>>
>>>> residual stress is addressed. Read the entire article. Pay attention to
>>>> figures 2 and 3.
>>
>>> please tell me you're joking. please? fig 2 is pre "bulldozing". fig
>>> 3 is post "bulldozing". that's what the whole paper is about. the
>>> hints to this should have been in para 1 where it states that frod
>>> "developed a potentially cost saving cold coiling process". it goes on
>>> to say, as i have said, that the resulting "residual stress pattern
>>> within the as-cold-coiled spring is undesirable ... for its effect on
>>> fatigue". paragraph 2 then says exactly what i told you before about
>>> the traditional forming route and contrasts it with the frod route.
>>
>> So it's true that you can't read and comprehend. You have that so
>> incredibly twisted by your own personal biases that it's really quite
>> sad. Go read it again and again until you figure it out. Also try to
>> notice that this is a proposed process that has not been implemented in
>> production at the time of the article.
>>
>> Hint: Figure 2 is the bar stock. The wire as recieved. It represents the
>> cold-coiled spring. Figure 3 is the as-tempered spring. Read the
>> caption: "The data for the as-bulldozed spring, though not given here,
>> look essentially the same."
>>
>> Reading is fundamental.
>>
>>>>>> In fact that article confirms everything I've stated in this thread
>>>>>> branch and shows the argument I was holding back to hit you over the
>>>>>> head with, which is that there is usually more than one way to skin a
>>>>>> cat.
>>
>>>>>> Your cite disproves your own claims.
>>
>>>>> you're so busy falling over yourself trying to say nay that you're not
>>>>> even reading it.
>>
>>>> Stop projecting Mr. Beam. If you read it you can't comprehend it.
>>>> The proposed process in the article produces a spring with all desired
>>>> characteristics including reduction of residual stress.
>>
>>> BY ALL COLD FORMING!!! i.e. no heat treatment other then the cheap bulk
>>> rod feed stock, which doesn't even need to be done at the coiling plant.
>>> and no shot peening.
>>
>> No where does the article state that Ford cold coils production springs
>> without stress relieving. It doesn't state how Ford makes springs at
>> all. It implies that they do stress relieving and hence are
>> investigating ways to achieve the same result at lower cost.
>>
>>> it's just amazing - you accuse me of precisely the reading comprehension
>>> failure you yourself are demonstrating. but i guess that's on par with
>>> the guy that asks for drawings of a post-failure event.
>>
>> Your mental gymnastics are amazing. It's not just a reading
>> comprehension problem with you, you're altering the text in your mind to
>> suit your biases.
>>
>> As to the drawing, you cannot determine a part met specification without
>> the specification. That's part of your claim, that a failed ford part
>> meets the print while spring failures from Honda or others are just
>> mistakes, 'statistical anomalies where the part didn't meet the print.
>> You need the specifications to show that part of your claim.
>>
>
> Give it up, in Jim's mind, to paraphrase Mike Myers, "if it isn't Honda,
> it's crap!"

your reading comprehension failures are well known. shame you can't
contribute anything of value here.


>
> Never mind that Honda have started using MacPherson struts on their
> newer models, one of Jim's constant complaints about everyone else.

i've criticized honda long and hard. [see reading comprehension
failures above.]


--
fact check required

In article >, jim beam >
wrote:

> On 07/19/2013 06:20 AM, Brent wrote:
> > On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
> >> On 07/18/2013 07:14 PM, Brent wrote:
> >>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
> >>>> On 07/18/2013 07:44 AM, Brent wrote:
> >>>>> On 2013-07-18, jim beam > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 07/18/2013 06:49 AM, Brent wrote:
> >>>>>> <snip to the point>
> >>>>>>>>> example he
> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.scielo.org.ve/scielo.php?...t&pid=S0255-69
> >>>>>>>>> 522008000100006&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt>
> >>>>>>> I've seen that sort of thing countless times.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> sorry, but apparently that isn't true. because if it were, you'd have
> >>>>>> learned and have been able to use that knowledge when assessing
> >>>>>> quality
> >>>>>> for yourself. and you'd understand why what you're asking for is
> >>>>>> barking up completely the wrong tree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am asking you to support your claims. You've clearly have no idea how
> >>>>> a report on a part's material is supposed to be related back to the
> >>>>> specification of that part. You've made a number of claims and to
> >>>>> verify those claims requires relating the part analysis back to the
> >>>>> specification.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now show me your similar
> >>>>>>> report on Ford springs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> i'm not going to do your homework for you, but i've given you a
> >>>>>> relevant
> >>>>>> example. with that information, you can now compare and contrast for
> >>>>>> yourself and what i say will become clear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are the one making the claims, thus it is your job to support them.
> >>>>> The fact you won't tells me just what I suspected there is nothing
> >>>>> behind them but your own irrational biases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ????? i'm not "inventing" any "hypothesis" at all. all the facts are
> >>>> in plain sight. all i'm doing is telling you they exist [since for all
> >>>> your claimed expertise, you're apparently unaware] and how to look for
> >>>> them.
> >>>
> >>> You've presented no facts. You've simply made claims with no supporting
> >>> evidence what so ever presented here. It's as good as your word which
> >>> frankly ain't worth the electrons it took to transmit it.
> >>
> >> i'm glad i didn't spend more time on this - based on what you've just
> >> shown, it would have been pointless.
> >
> > It's pretty clear you don't have a clue. Ford develops a process that
> > requires less time and energy to stress relieve a spring made of
> > pre-heat treated wire and your mind turns this into 'ford doesn't heat
> > treat springs'.
>
> yet again, frod don't heat treat springs AFTER COLD FORMING. that is
> breaking the #1 cardinal rule for spring manufacture because POST
> FORMING HEAT TREATMENT removes residual stress. instead, frod just
> "bulldoze", and don't peen. this gives crappy [but CHEAP!] springs that
> break.

What are your qualifications?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

jim beam > wrote in :

> On 07/19/2013 04:27 AM, Tegger wrote:

>>
>> Oh, so Ford heat-treats everything BUT springs? Right.
>
> they don't heat treat everything. your cite was simply a guide for
> control process, /where heat treatment is employed/.



And that was my very point.

Your original, and absolute, comment:
"frod don't heat threat - it saves money".

Why would Ford bother putting out a document that specifies how
heat-treatment must be done if they don't heat-treat?


--
Tegger

On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 08:27 AM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>> On 07/19/2013 06:20 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>> On 07/18/2013 07:14 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 07:44 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2013-07-18, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 06:49 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snip to the point>
>>>>>>>>>>>> example he
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.scielo.org.ve/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0255-69522008000100006&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt>
>>>>>>>>>> I've seen that sort of thing countless times.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sorry, but apparently that isn't true. because if it were, you'd have
>>>>>>>>> learned and have been able to use that knowledge when assessing quality
>>>>>>>>> for yourself. and you'd understand why what you're asking for is
>>>>>>>>> barking up completely the wrong tree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am asking you to support your claims. You've clearly have no idea how
>>>>>>>> a report on a part's material is supposed to be related back to the
>>>>>>>> specification of that part. You've made a number of claims and to
>>>>>>>> verify those claims requires relating the part analysis back to the
>>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now show me your similar
>>>>>>>>>> report on Ford springs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i'm not going to do your homework for you, but i've given you a relevant
>>>>>>>>> example. with that information, you can now compare and contrast for
>>>>>>>>> yourself and what i say will become clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are the one making the claims, thus it is your job to support them.
>>>>>>>> The fact you won't tells me just what I suspected there is nothing
>>>>>>>> behind them but your own irrational biases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ????? i'm not "inventing" any "hypothesis" at all. all the facts are
>>>>>>> in plain sight. all i'm doing is telling you they exist [since for all
>>>>>>> your claimed expertise, you're apparently unaware] and how to look for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've presented no facts. You've simply made claims with no supporting
>>>>>> evidence what so ever presented here. It's as good as your word which
>>>>>> frankly ain't worth the electrons it took to transmit it.
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm glad i didn't spend more time on this - based on what you've just
>>>>> shown, it would have been pointless.
>>>>
>>>> It's pretty clear you don't have a clue. Ford develops a process that
>>>> requires less time and energy to stress relieve a spring made of
>>>> pre-heat treated wire and your mind turns this into 'ford doesn't heat
>>>> treat springs'.
>>>
>>> yet again, frod don't heat treat springs AFTER COLD FORMING. that is
>>> breaking the #1 cardinal rule for spring manufacture because POST
>>> FORMING HEAT TREATMENT removes residual stress. instead, frod just
>>> "bulldoze", and don't peen. this gives crappy [but CHEAP!] springs that
>>> break.
>>
>> PROVE IT. There is nothing in the article that discusses production
>> springs. The article you cite discusses a proposal for cost reduction which
>> results in same stress relieved condition. Here's the relevant paragraph
>> you can't get straight:



> but they /are/ production springs!!! they have been for decades. the
> only thing novel about that paper is the use of neutron diffraction
> which allows actual in-situ measurement of residual stress levels as
> opposed to empirical extrapolation and modeling.
> [the use of taxpayer dollars to do frod's research for them is another
> debate.]


Once again you're applying assumption and bias.
The article is about an alternative method to eliminate residual stress.
It does not discuss what Ford does for production springs. You have
offered zero proof of your claim in that regard. The article states that
springs are commonly manufactured by hot rolling followed by heat
treatment or heat treatment of the stock wire followed by cold forming
followed by tempering to eliminate residual stresses.

>> "We have looked at three cold-coiled springs. The first spring
>> is an as-cold coiled spring. The second one is cold-coiled followed
>> by a relatively low temper. The third one is identical to the second
>> one, but in addition to being tempered the spring has been com-
>> pressed to the point where the length of the spring is equal to the
>> number of windings times the wire thickness. After this the spring
>> was allowed to relax. A small part of this torsion strain is in the
>> plastic region, so this spring is slightly shorter than all the others.
>> In the automotive industry this process is known as .bulldozing.."
>>
>> _The third one is identical to the second one, but in addition to being
>> tempered the spring has been com-pressed_
>>
>> In addition to being tempered. Got that? IN ADDITION TO.

> it's "tempered", PRE DEFORMATION!!! got that?

It's heat treated before coiling. It's tempered afterwards to eliminate
residual stress. If that is obvious from the article's consistent use of
terms, something you have a huge problem with, it should be obvious by
looking at figures 2 and 3 and reading the captions.

> seriously, if you don't understand that fundamental distinction, you're
> just howling at the moon.

You're a real piece of work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempering_%28metallurgy%29

On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 08:15 AM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>> On 07/19/2013 06:29 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>> On 07/18/2013 07:24 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>> On 2013-07-19, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 11:25 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:20:59 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your claim is that the springs aren't heat treated at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ludicrous claim. I was a heat-treater at IH in Chicago for years, and
>>>>>>>> a heavy press operator, heavy shear operator, and an 8-torch machine
>>>>>>>> operator. Just about every non-drive train part of those dozers went
>>>>>>>> through my hands, shovel, or tongs - many, many times.
>>>>>>>> Except for sheet and plate steel cut and formed to a structural shape,
>>>>>>>> EVERYTHING got heat-treated. And I'm sure even the sheet and plate
>>>>>>>> was spec'ed for composition/heat-treating from the mills.
>>>>>>>> IH was far from a paragon of quality, one reason they went bankrupt.
>>>>>>>> But even that lousy company knew the basics of heat-treating, and the
>>>>>>>> necessity of heat-treating.
>>>>>>>> There's no talking to somebody who has a hard-on against a
>>>>>>>> manufacturer. It's blind raving, and you're wasting your time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> manufacturers that know what they're doing and have some vague semblance
>>>>>>> of wanting to deliver something for the money they charge, do indeed
>>>>>>> heat stress relieve springs, shot peen them, then coat them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> frod do not heat treat their springs. as i said, it's because it saves
>>>>>>> money. and they've spent a lot of money/smarts figuring /how/:
>>>>>>> <http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you read your cite?
>>>>>> " Ford Motor Company has
>>>>>> developed a potentially cost saving cold-coiling process in which
>>>>>> less time is spent treating spring metal at elevated temperatures."
>>>>>
>>>>> dude, READ it. they're heat treated /before/ forming.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I told you several posts ago.
>>>
>>> ??? was that the post about "air" and "tangling"?

>> I mentioned that the wire is heat treated prior to coiling as industry
>> common practice several times. The fact you don't understand how parts
>> need to be handled in heat treating is your problem, not mine.
>
> i understand, but you don't. cold forming introduces residual stress.
> "heat treatment" prior to cold forming does not remove residual stress.
> it is completely irrelevant to what you're trying to say and your
> continuing to not understand that completely negates any argument you
> think you have.

It's you who can't read and can't understand and can't even use the
correct terms. Once again you're confused and unable to communicate
properly. You argued Ford doesn't heat treat springs, that is to harden.
Then later on you changed to 'ford doesn't stress relieve' You keep
flipping back and forth, but you're wrong and you're wrong. The material
is heat treated, the spring is formed, and the spring is stress
relieved or the spring is hot coiled and then heat treated. One of those
two. So you're just plain wrong.


>>>>> that's not
>>>>> really a heat treatment as far as the manufacture is concerned because
>>>>> it does NOT address residual stress, and residual stress kills springs.
>>>>> for a guy that keeps trying to say they know what they're talking
>>>>> about, you're doing a damned good job proving you don't.
>>
>>>> residual stress is addressed. Read the entire article. Pay attention to
>>>> figures 2 and 3.
>>
>>> please tell me you're joking. please? fig 2 is pre "bulldozing". fig
>>> 3 is post "bulldozing". that's what the whole paper is about. the
>>> hints to this should have been in para 1 where it states that frod
>>> "developed a potentially cost saving cold coiling process". it goes on
>>> to say, as i have said, that the resulting "residual stress pattern
>>> within the as-cold-coiled spring is undesirable ... for its effect on
>>> fatigue". paragraph 2 then says exactly what i told you before about
>>> the traditional forming route and contrasts it with the frod route.
>>
>> So it's true that you can't read and comprehend. You have that so
>> incredibly twisted by your own personal biases that it's really quite
>> sad. Go read it again and again until you figure it out. Also try to
>> notice that this is a proposed process that has not been implemented in
>> production at the time of the article.
>>
>> Hint: Figure 2 is the bar stock. The wire as recieved. It represents the
>> cold-coiled spring.

> unbelievable - "cold coiled" is not "bar stock", it's the cold coiled
> spring.

Can you not read simple english? Here I'll cut and paste it for you:

"FIGURE 2. Contour map of the residual stress in the direction of the
length of the coiled bar stock, plotted on the bar stock cross-section.
With reference to Fig. 1, this is the tangential direction. This map
represents the as-cold-coiled spring."


>> Figure 3 is the as-tempered spring.

> !!! no, that "temper" is pre-deformation. #3 gets no stress relief from
> tempering, just "bulldozing"!!!

The temper is after. READ THE article:
"Generally, there are two ways to coil a spring: hot coiling
and cold-coiling. Hot coiling implies that the spring is wound from
stock at or above the recrystallization temperature. The strength
and fatigue resistance are controlled afterwards by an appropriate
heat treatment. Cold-coiling means that the helical winding takes
place at a low temperature after the spring has been hardened and
tempered. Cold-coiling allows the high temperature heat treatments
to take place on the bar stock, which is easier to handle than the
coiled end-product. The resulting residual stresses can be essentially
eliminated by a relatively low temperature tempering treatment fol-
lowing the cold coiling."

Tempering happens after forming. Your backyard learnin' plus your biases
plus your arrogance has made you the fool again.

Hardening happens before coiling. Tempering happens after forming. It's
that simple. But because of your backyard learning you are using all
three terms as equals. They are not.

> " Read the
>> caption: "The data for the as-bulldozed spring, though not given here,
>> look essentially the same."
>>
>> Reading is fundamental.
>
> you got that right. shame you can't do it.

Tempering != hardening.

>>>>>> In fact that article confirms everything I've stated in this thread
>>>>>> branch and shows the argument I was holding back to hit you over the
>>>>>> head with, which is that there is usually more than one way to skin a
>>>>>> cat.
>>
>>>>>> Your cite disproves your own claims.
>>
>>>>> you're so busy falling over yourself trying to say nay that you're not
>>>>> even reading it.
>>
>>>> Stop projecting Mr. Beam. If you read it you can't comprehend it.
>>>> The proposed process in the article produces a spring with all desired
>>>> characteristics including reduction of residual stress.
>>
>>> BY ALL COLD FORMING!!! i.e. no heat treatment other then the cheap bulk
>>> rod feed stock, which doesn't even need to be done at the coiling plant.
>>> and no shot peening.
>>
>> No where does the article state that Ford cold coils production springs
>> without stress relieving.

> it does "stress relieve", but only by "bulldozing", which is cheap, and
> inferior.

Article states no such thing.

>> It doesn't state how Ford makes springs at
>> all.
>
> ???!!! it most specifically does!!!.

No it does not. Please learn to read.

>> It implies that they do stress relieving and hence are
>> investigating ways to achieve the same result at lower cost.

> they "stress relieve" by bulldozing. only.

Prove it. Article says no such thing. The article is an evaluation of a
shorter tempering plus bulldozing.

"The third one is identical to the second one, but in addition to being
tempered the spring has been com-pressed"

Wire->Hardening->coiling->tempering->bulldozing is the proposed process.

>>> it's just amazing - you accuse me of precisely the reading comprehension
>>> failure you yourself are demonstrating. but i guess that's on par with
>>> the guy that asks for drawings of a post-failure event.
>>
>> Your mental gymnastics are amazing. It's not just a reading
>> comprehension problem with you, you're altering the text in your mind to
>> suit your biases.
>
> coming from a guy that can't read, that's ridiculous.

Stop projecting.

>> As to the drawing, you cannot determine a part met specification without
>> the specification.

> these parts "meet specification". the spec is "cheap" and /includes/
> failure.

PROVE IT.

>> That's part of your claim, that a failed ford part
>> meets the print

> indeed - the spec is inferior - cheap. failure is not just anticipated
> but expected.

PROVE IT. Support your claims.

>> while spring failures from Honda or others are just
>> mistakes, 'statistical anomalies where the part didn't meet the print.
>> You need the specifications to show that part of your claim.

> no, i need to find someone who can teach you to read.

Tempering != hardening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_treatment

"Heat treatment techniques include annealing, case hardening,
precipitation strengthening, tempering and quenching."

When you can learn to communicate properly let me know.