Hi. Been at it again.
Having learned some PHP - the web-scripting langugage.
My beam calculations written in Lisp - done as webpage version. http://weldsmith.co.uk/cgi_my/ebbeam_rhs/230724_ebbeam_rhs.html
"Rectangular Hollow Section beam calculations"
Best wishes,
Rich S

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lypm4hjemg.fsf@void.com...

Hi. Been at it again.
Having learned some PHP - the web-scripting langugage.
My beam calculations written in Lisp - done as webpage version. http://weldsmith.co.uk/cgi_my/ebbeam_rhs/230724_ebbeam_rhs.html
"Rectangular Hollow Section beam calculations"
Best wishes,
Rich S

----------------------

I try to do the math and then check it with on-line calculators. A useful result is the deflection at maximum load or yield point, which can be used
as a gauge by placing something that high on the beam center and observing
its alignment with the two ends when the test or straightening setup is too unstable and risky to approach or put an expensive load cell on. The 3" and
4" channel I found to build my gantry hoist and sawmill tends to twist when near full load.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lypm4hjemg.fsf@void.com...

Hi. Been at it again.
Having learned some PHP - the web-scripting langugage.
My beam calculations written in Lisp - done as webpage version. http://weldsmith.co.uk/cgi_my/ebbeam_rhs/230724_ebbeam_rhs.html
"Rectangular Hollow Section beam calculations"
Best wishes,
Rich S

----------------------

I try to do the math and then check it with on-line calculators. A
useful result is the deflection at maximum load or yield point, which
can be used as a gauge by placing something that high on the beam
center and observing its alignment with the two ends when the test or straightening setup is too unstable and risky to approach or put an
expensive load cell on. The 3" and 4" channel I found to build my
gantry hoist and sawmill tends to twist when near full load.

Check maths - be appreciated.
I was exhausted after a through-the-night and could only say it agrees
with "The Blue Book" where I spot-checked.

(I was learning a lot of programming with PHP (scripting language for
getting the web-server to do calculations and processing for you and
put the answers into the webpage being served-up) being so different
to the Lisp which is all I have used for years)

I had a warm feeling that that deflection at load would be useful to
practical designers.
* I will come back to this *

Usage - strong hint - put in the yield stress as "your stress" and you
will get the deflection at the point where any further and the section
would yield.

I've done this a couple of times in tests and it is so spot-on right -
at least once with Euler-Bernoulli beam (this calculation) and once
with Finite Element modelled "structure" (the FEA is doing essentially
the same mathematics).

I was so tired then I had to leave as-is and walk-away.

I have heard military training, especially for Sergeants and the the
like, deliberately takes you far far far into "impossible" exhaustion
so you learn what thoughts do work in that state (unfortunately I
found out about the "hallucinatory" world for the first time at a
crucial time and messed-up, having no prior experience of it - had I
known to trust my "gut instincts" still working I could have produced
the good outcome).

The one about coupling the stress and deflection.

So if you put in the yield stress and get the max. load
and the deflection for your beam at the point that is reached...

This is what I promised to come back to.

In the function which does that - a bit of algebra, obviously - a lot
of variables cross-cancel if/when you run through it on paper first.
I was most surprised.
That was during that night I couldn't sleep anyway.
You end up with a surprisingly small formula which gets the deflection
at the "aim stress" the "this is the load which would cause it"
output.

Taking three of the big formulae of beams:

M=FL (cantilever beam)
M=FL/4 ("simple" beam - it's spanning between two supports)

the massive one which combines material property and geometric
property...
M=sigma.Z
[noting "Z" = I/half-height for a symmetrical section]

and deflection
d=F_c.L^3/3EI (cantilever beam)
d=F_s.L^3/48EI (simple beam)

the equations have a lot of "substituting into each other".

Hence that which you like - you get the deflection - what you can
readily see and measure - at the point beyond which everything goes
wrong - that has a backstory which was quite delightful.

In the evening leading into the night I was there with a multi-colour
"magic pen" there writing out equations in black, arrowing where they cross-substituted in blue, leaving notes in green and striking though cross-cancelled variables in red.

There is a general function for beam deflection in the code, for
debugging during development, but it isn't used in the "working" code
which gives the outputs from your inputs.

What you "jumped to noticing you can do" - deflection at the point it
all goes wrong - I have tested and seen and you know already that -
what happens is not sudden disaster.

My "moment" is recorded here: http://weldsmith.co.uk/tech/struct/201123_wssb_test/201123_weld_RHS_beam_test.html
I was doing the worst I could to a weld - but got to see the
Euler-Bernoulli beam calculations giving such accurate predictions
that you could actually use them to measure the yield stress of your
steel you have in the shop.
I did the maths in chalk on a bench-top by the way - I had half and
hour with the work held up and had to jump at the opportunity
immediately.
That's where at the instant you hit that value you are interested in,
if you go any further your section which always returned to straight
before now has a bend.

The one where I "Finite Element'ed" is here http://weldsmith.co.uk/tech/struct/201113_u_rhs/201120_U_RHS_make_analyse_test.html
Same.

Both you see - the prediction of deflection at the point of "overload"
is accurately predicted.
What happens after is what you the individual needs to see at least
once.
The structure takes more and more bend under progressively increasing resistance to further bend.
In a world of "Clipboard Clarence" and "Safety Sam the Management Man"
there is an edict and anything beyond what they say is "absolutely
disaster". Well it is if you get "fired" for being held to have
transgressed "Clipboard Clarence's" edict.

Hope this was a nice follow-up chat.

The one about the maths cross-cancelling - as you'll also be
commending to anyone "on the path", you can only see that by having
some sheets of paper, preferably a multicolour pen, and running
through it yourself.

I woke up this morning feeling great having slept like a log from
early, after yesterday was "different" having not slept the night
before.

Best wishes,
Rich Smith

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Deriving the expression for deflection at that already-calculated Force:

Caution here is that on-paper often put "=" when mean "=="
"=" is "assign" or "are equal at this one specific instance" where
"==" means "always equal to".
What is derived has no generality - only useful in this case (?)
A stopped clock is correct twice a day.
What I derive is only right at one of those "coincidence points"...


Taking cantilever beam case.

M=FL
M=sigma.Z
[noting "Z" = I/half-height for a symmetrical section]
d=F_c.L^3/3EI

M=FL -> F=M/L into d=F_c.L^3/3EI
d=(M/L)L^3/3EI=ML^3/3EIL=ML^2/3EI

M=sigma.Z -> M=2.sigma.I/H into ML^2/3EI

(2.sigma.I/H)L^2/3EI=2.sigma.IL^2/3EIH=2.sigma.L^2/3EH

d is abtained for cantilever beam by this algebra in my program
2.sigma.L^2/3EH
Astonishingly simple!

When/if do "simple beam" remember M=FL/4

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 20:25:43 +0100
Richard Smith <null@void.com> wrote:

Hi. Been at it again.
Having learned some PHP - the web-scripting langugage.
My beam calculations written in Lisp - done as webpage version. >http://weldsmith.co.uk/cgi_my/ebbeam_rhs/230724_ebbeam_rhs.html
"Rectangular Hollow Section beam calculations"
Best wishes,
Rich S

Nifty stuff Rich👍

If you haven't found this already... you might like Marv's bunch of
little calculator programs:

https://www.myvirtualnetwork.com/mklotz/

Maybe give you some more ideas and/or another way to double check some
of your calculations.

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Leon Fisk" wrote in message news:u9oh7l$146vc$2@dont-email.me...

Nifty stuff Rich👍

If you haven't found this already... you might like Marv's bunch of
little calculator programs:

https://www.myvirtualnetwork.com/mklotz/

Maybe give you some more ideas and/or another way to double check some
of your calculations.

Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

----------------------

I like spreadsheets for cutting mathematically definable shapes like
spheres. By putting the constants, multipliers and step size into fixed
cells and referencing them in the formulas it can be adjusted for roughing
and finishing cuts with steps as small as your patience allows.

It generates a pair of columns with the part's dimensions for checking, and another pair with the machine settings to produce them, infeed and carriage travel.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Cross-check
http://weldsmith.co.uk/cgi_my/ebbeam_rhs/230724_ebbeam_rhs.html
to http://weldsmith.co.uk/tech/struct/201123_wssb_test/201123_weld_RHS_beam_test.html
[much detail provided of test, and has both Euler-Bernoulli beam and
Finite Element Analysis modelling - which agree and the physical
measurement agrees]

"100x50by7.8, of "S355" (nominal 355MPa)"
"The end supports for the test beam with test weld are set at 600mm
gap between these supports"

So:

RHS Height
100e-3

RHS Width
50e-3

RHS Wall-thickness
7.8e-3

RHS beam length
0.6

RHS material yield stress
355e6

RHS material Young's modulus
210e9

My new online beam calculator for RHS's agrees with
"The Second Moment of Area, "I", of a square-cornered rectangle of the
overall dimensions of the RHS = 2.443e-6 m^4"
"Section Modulus, "Z" = 2I/h = 4.886e-5 m^3"

"The central load causing the selected stress is
115644.490402Newtons"
(/ 115644.490402 9.81 1e3) ;; 11.78842919490316
That predicted is 11.8Tonnes-force
The beam did not return to straightness after 11.6Tonnes of applied
force.
Very very close prediction
[Western European steel "just" makes the yield stress - they have such
accurate control that the manufacturers can and do do that - gives a
lovely steel to work with in the workshop - punches, drills, bends in
3-point rolls, welds, etc. exactly as you'd wish]
The slightly lesser force to bend real<->predicted could be due to the
rounded corners of the real section slightly reducing the Second
Moment of Area.
The predicted elastic bending at 355MPa yield
1.014286e-03 m (Nov 2020 programme)
and
"At that maximum stress, the deflection at the middle of the beam is 0.00101428571429metres (1.01428571429mm)" (online calculator)
agree.

So that carefully checked work of Nov. 2020 with two different
theoretical treatments and physical engineering tests
and
this new online beam calculator
agree.

Both the 2020 mathematical work and the online calculator are based on right-angled-corner sections (slight deviation from actual sections
with rounded corners).

Would be glad of any checks anyone else does.

There is the "Contact Form" on my website if you want to raise a
private query.
Seen from "root" of weldsmith.co.uk - is http://weldsmith.co.uk/contactform/contact.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lypm4f826p.fsf@void.com...

Both the 2020 mathematical work and the online calculator are based on right-angled-corner sections (slight deviation from actual sections
with rounded corners).

---------------

If the corner is truly a quarter circle the area reduction is pi/4 times the wall thickness.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lypm4f826p.fsf@void.com...

Both the 2020 mathematical work and the online calculator are based on right-angled-corner sections (slight deviation from actual sections
with rounded corners).

---------------

If the corner is truly a quarter circle the area reduction is pi/4
times the wall thickness.

Wouldn't it be a bit more complicated than that on how much metal is where?
The "square" corner is the material thickness too.
Then there is a more complicated effect on assigning where the metal
is to what it contributes to the Second Moment of Area?

In the context that
* the radius sections have at the corners / edges is a bit variable
anyway
* the wall thickness variation of the sections would make a bigger
difference than accurately representing a rounded corner compared to a
"square" corner
???

Nett - my impression is leave as right-angled corners so at least the
user knows where they stand. The simplest model.

I am missing here some simple and obvious logic I clearly haven't
grasped?

There's yet another argument to "leave as-is".
You are going to be selecting promising sections from "The Blue Book".
Which has properties which are best known by empirical testing done by
experts. Particularly the "Class" of the beam. Will it bend - but be
heavy. Or be light - but prone to buckling.
Only the designer of this structure in question can know how to
navigate that.
Obviously - "my" "simplistic" beam calculation cannot.
But the low "cost" of running calculations with my "web
server-side scripted" "beam calculator" means you can develop your
ideas - and record a trail by copy-and-pasting the output into a
"project file".

When you've found the apparent candidate - do anew the calculations
using "The Blue Book"'s tabulated
* Second Moment of Area ("I")
* Section Modulus ("Z")
* Moment capacity (in N.m)
* the statement of the section Class ("1" to "4")
* etc.
for the chosen solution and take that as "THE design case".

You get straight into the F=M/L (cantilever) and F=4M/L ("simple
beam") starting from the tabulated values - where the human can
readily see if the arithmetic looks about right
(the early stages with Second Moment of Area take a series of steps
where any one non-obvious error can give wrong output which is
difficult to intuitively spot (reason to write functions to do those calculations - so what you did in the best of times and tested with
mathematic values which give obvious mental-arithmetic-obvious
outputs - and spot-checked "realistic" section values - serves you machine-faultlessly when you are fraught, tired and distracted))

You must have experience of such "navigation" as a skilled
knowlegeable project driver...

Regards,
Rich Smith

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:53:40 +0100
Richard Smith <null@void.com> wrote:

<snip>

You must have experience of such "navigation" as a skilled
knowlegeable project driver...

You ever read?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance

Quite the slog but I don't regret suffering it...

Your kinda discussions always bring it to mind😉

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Leon Fisk <lfiskgr@gmail.invalid> writes:

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:53:40 +0100
Richard Smith <null@void.com> wrote:

<snip>

You must have experience of such "navigation" as a skilled
knowlegeable project driver...

You ever read?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance

Quite the slog but I don't regret suffering it...

Your kinda discussions always bring it to mind.Ÿ.‰

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

Should I take that as a compliment?!?

A long time I read Pursig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".

I used to tweak and repair motorcycles.
Mechanical skill probably featured in my "unusual" Doctoral research
in science. My abilities propelled me into a lot of problems - which
then became my "story" and shaped my personality.

My Doctoral years were an almost hallucinatory experience.
I only got that because I "realised" my mind does interesting things
if I let it. All the interesting, crazy and wild things happened
when I departed on my path of being a dedicated career person.

Once at tea-break (we were in the UK) we looked around at each other
and spontaneously broke out laughing - we were all there palid,
strained, shaking hands, drawing on cigarettes like a vacuum cleaner,
etc, etc, etc.
Such is life's experience.

So - I can assure you I am fine myself with your conjecture.

Best wishes,
Rich Smith

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 18:41:08 +0100
Richard Smith <null@void.com> wrote:

<snip>

So - I can assure you I am fine myself with your conjecture.

Cool! and I'm not surprised :) Would have been helpful had I read it
earlier in life, maybe...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Leon Fisk" wrote in message news:u9rkjh$1i26t$1@dont-email.me...

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:53:40 +0100
Richard Smith <null@void.com> wrote:

<snip>

You must have experience of such "navigation" as a skilled
knowlegeable project driver...

You ever read?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance

Quite the slog but I don't regret suffering it...

Your kinda discussions always bring it to mind😉

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

----------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig
"Pirsig had a mental breakdown and spent time in and out of psychiatric hospitals between 1961 and 1963. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and treated with electroconvulsive therapy on numerous occasions, a treatment he discusses in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyila63bzv.fsf@void.com...

"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lypm4f826p.fsf@void.com...

Both the 2020 mathematical work and the online calculator are based on right-angled-corner sections (slight deviation from actual sections
with rounded corners).

---------------

If the corner is truly a quarter circle the area reduction is pi/4
times the wall thickness.

Wouldn't it be a bit more complicated than that on how much metal is where?
The "square" corner is the material thickness too.
Then there is a more complicated effect on assigning where the metal
is to what it contributes to the Second Moment of Area?

In the context that
* the radius sections have at the corners / edges is a bit variable
anyway
* the wall thickness variation of the sections would make a bigger
difference than accurately representing a rounded corner compared to a
"square" corner
???

Nett - my impression is leave as right-angled corners so at least the
user knows where they stand. The simplest model.

----------------------

The test is how much closer to the book value that simplified correction
brings you. I agree that it may not be worth the added complexity unless the improvement is significant, but I'd rather under than overestimate yield strength. Usually I measure the actual dimensions of what I bought for the
CAD model and it's almost always been near the low end of the tolerance.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hello all

Wrote following as example of a beam calculation in a project.

Following on from creating the "beam calculator" http://weldsmith.co.uk/cgi_my/ebbeam_rhs/230724_ebbeam_rhs.html
"Rectangular Hollow Section beam calculations"
webpage.

I have a feeling beam calculations are often like this.
Finding your way along.
Same as for the other case I made a webpage for http://www.weldsmith.co.uk/tech/struct/210314_ebbeam_drillplat/19_drillplat_calcs.html
"Cantilever drilling platform - analysis using beam calculations"


------------------------------------------------

I didn't give any idea why you might want a beam calculator when
interested in mines...

Take for example Wheal Round
(a hypothetical case).

It's accessed from high ground and water flows from adits draining
mines in the area. So there's a good chance a lot of the workings
remain dry.

Problem - the main shaft is blocked by a boulder 30m down which is
estimated to be 3 Tonnes.

The promise of many levels and interesting finds in Wheal Round has a
project to open the main shaft. Resin-anchor in an eye-bolt and hoist
the boulder out.

The beam would span 5m across the top bank around the shaft.

Wheal Round is in that high place with a small path as only access, so
that beam needs to be very portable.

It's lifting a boulder, there's no-one underneath anything and the
hoist can be worked from a safe distance, so the consequence is just
about zero of the beam totally collapsing by local plastic buckling.

So we can look to even a "Class 4" section (it could locally buckle
and instantly collapse on overload).

Considering all, we'd like a factor of 3 safety on the beam load bear
- mainly for it if boulder jams and the load on the beam with hoisting increases.

So that's 9 Tonnes point capacity at the middle.

Box-section - take as being S355 steel - 355MPa = 355e6Pa yield.

We'll get an estimate were to start looking for candidate sections in
"The Blue Book"


Pardon that I use "Lisp" in-line to calculate things. Using the
"emacs" text-processor, I can "fire-up" its interpreter on Lisp
expressions and it will insert its answer into the file.


M=FL/4 for a "simple beam" (end supported; central load)

M = ...

(/
(*
(* 9 1e3 9.81) ;; 88290.0 ;; N ;; (gravity - 9.81N/kg)
5 ;; m length
)
4e0 ;; ) ;; 110362.5 ;; N.m
1e3) ;; 110.3625 ;; kNm

Going straight to "The Blue Book" for hot-finished Rectangular Hollow
Section
https://www.steelforlifebluebook.co.uk/hfrhs/ec3-ukna/bending-s355/
and looking down the "Mc,y,Rd" column
plausible sections start at around 250x150x5mm - with a weight of
30.4kg/m

For squares - Square Hollow Sections https://www.steelforlifebluebook.co.uk/hfshs/ec3-ukna/bending-s355/
plausible sections start at around 200x200x6.3mm - with a weight of
38kg/m

Going with 250x150x5mm in my beam calculator http://weldsmith.co.uk/cgi_my/ebbeam_rhs/230724_ebbeam_rhs.html

"

Input values you provided

Variable Value (in familiar units)
Height 250e-3 (250mm)
Width / breadth 150e-3 (150mm)
Wall thickness 5e-3 (5mm)
Beam length 5 (m)
Maximum stress 355e6 (N mm^2)
Young's Modulus (E) 210e9 (N mm^2)

Beam intrinsic sectional properties
...
Derived variable Derived value (in familiar units)
Second moment of area: 3.403250e-5 (3403.25cm^4)
Section modulus: 2.722600e-4 (272.26cm^3)
Moment: 96652.3 (N.m)

Beam extrinsic properties
...
"simple beam"

The central load causing the selected stress is
77321.84Newtons

At that maximum stress, the deflection at the middle of the beam is 0.0281746031746metres (28.1746031746mm)

"

My calculation and "The Blue Book" agree - For "I" the Second Moment
of Area is 3.403250e-5m^4 = 3403.25cm^4 (my) to 3360cm^4 (Blue Book).

For what it's worth general geometric page https://www.steelforlifebluebook.co.uk/hfrhs/ec3-ukna/section-properties-dimensions-properties/
has "Z" as 269cm^4 (Blue Book) for "my" 272.26cm^3 - same.

We expect "my" "I" and "Z" to be a bit higher because "my" section is
a rectangular-cornered hypothetical sections, whereas the real section
has rounded corners, putting a bit less metal for from the neutral
plane where it would have counted the most.
But "my" calculation is quick to use to step through the logic
processes of selecting "candidate" beams.

The force at yield the beam calculator gives:
(/ 77321.84 9.81 1e3) ;; 7.881940876656472 ;; Tonnes-force
We might seek a bit higher; were it not for seeing the weight of
plausible sections - see later.


Continuing...

So the excess load carrying capacity is still okay - in the region of
what we wanted.

Using my beam calculator alone now for other sections seen in "The
Blue Book"

If that section fell over on its side, presenting 150x250, it would
still support the boulder, with 5.95 Tonnes capacity. Not as it would
be recommended to allow that to happen, but there wouldn't be the
buckled beam, chain-block and boulder dropping back down the
mineshaft.

300x100x5mm looks plausible too.
300x100x5 if it fell over - and it is tall and narrow - would give
41932.6N -> (/ 41932.6 9.81 1e3) ;; 4.274475025484199 Tonnes
so it would likely be "game over" or best keep well clear and lower
the boulder back from whence it came.
So if contemplated 300x100x5 - which is 30.4kg/m - would have to bring
some strong "keep upright" support with "feet" - likely a steel
fabrication weighing a few kg each end.

These two - 250x150x5mm and 300x100x5mm - are looking-in at about
30.5kg/m, and the beam to span 5m is 6m long.

(* 30.5 6) ;; 183.0 ;; kg

Thinking of the narrow path - if roped the steel beam so it just lofts
off the ground when a transverse pole at each end is lifted by two
people each side - so eight people lifting total, that's
(/ (* 30.5 6) 8) ;; 22.875 ;; kg
per person - doable.
But for a pole long enough to get 4 people on the pole, it would be
too long (wide) to fit between the trees and bushes and through gates
on the narrow path. Mind's-eye sees that as not a great option.

Path is quite straight, so look to a "tail wheel" at the back - some
compliant pneumatic tyre from eg. a trailer rolling along supporting
the back of the beam - and have a forward-sticking-out pole with four
people on it lifting and pulling.

Other lifting strategies examined:

* Longitudinal pole with four people at each end? Well to be roped
with the beam just lofting above the ground, the pole has to be 6m +
about 2 x 2.5m = 11m, which is some pole - has its own weight.

* Pole attached to each end and carry at shoulder-height - NO! Never
where if say someone tripped and everyone fell over there is a
significant risk of someone getting hurt.

"Tail wheel" - could have additional people pulling on ropes for the
steep bits (not pushing from behind - not exposed to being "run-over"
if all goes horribly wrong.

So - is doable.
Go with whichever of those sections
250x150x5mm
300x100x5mm
or even
200x200x6.3mm (38kg/m - more grunting and perspiration)
is found to be available on a blagging / cadging mission...


The reason for the beam calculator is exploring options and scenarios
easily, at negligible effort to the person.
A person can with care get through one beam calculation with its
several steps.
For several beam scenarios a person tends to get overwhelmed and lose
their way.

There has been "freestyle" use of parts of the beam calculations.

There has been use of "The Blue Book".

However, the "beam calculator" made for a good portfolio of
calculations presenting the case for the option suggested.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyjzuewgpb.fsf@void.com...

I didn't give any idea why you might want a beam calculator when
interested in mines...

Take for example Wheal Round
(a hypothetical case).

It's accessed from high ground and water flows from adits draining
mines in the area. So there's a good chance a lot of the workings
remain dry.

Problem - the main shaft is blocked by a boulder 30m down which is
estimated to be 3 Tonnes.

--------------------

That's interesting, and quite similar to my built-up 16' (4.88m) gantry beam which I designed to lift 1.5 tons of log or boulder and move it about 3~4 meters after I've hand-carried all the parts uphill to the site by myself.
No part weighs over 25kg when completely disassembled, that's why I used
four channel sections instead of the obvious single WF beam that I couldn't move or store under cover. It worked fine to load a 2100 Lb log onto my sawmill, though I had to lower the log at the middle to step the central
shear legs over it.

The supports are two tripods of 2" x 10' pipe, plus shear legs at the center splice for loads over a ton. A boat trailer winch u-bolted onto one leg of
each tripod lifts the beam and levels it on sloping ground, i.e most of my property. Then chains suspend the beam and its load.

Raising the boulder isn't enough; you need to move it off the hole. A
modified gantry trolley might work on your rectangular tubing but in my experience doesn't add much resistance to the beam bowing sideways and twisting. https://www.sip-group.eu/product/sip-1-tonne-gantry-crane-beam-trolley/03851

When assembled the ~100kg beam can be moved with two fixed caster wheels
bolted to a short plank under one end, and a trailer coupler on the other, coupled to a trailer dolly, home-made, like this: https://www.discountramps.com/automotive/trailer/accessories/p/TD-600-V2/

I can muscle it uphill with a block and tackle (or my tractor, if it runs)
and let it downhill with abseiling gear. A similar long and narrow trailer
for logs and cut beams is manageable by hand with a 300kg load.

It doesn't corner well, a second coupler and dolly for the tail end might
help if you are actually asked to build your sample problem. In a pinch a
long handled shovel can lever up a pretty hefty load and swivel to move it sideways.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyjzuewgpb.fsf@void.com...
...
Thinking of the narrow path - if roped the steel beam so it just lofts
off the ground when a transverse pole at each end is lifted by two
people each side - so eight people lifting total, that's
(/ (* 30.5 6) 8) ;; 22.875 ;; kg
per person - doable.
But for a pole long enough to get 4 people on the pole, it would be
too long (wide) to fit between the trees and bushes and through gates
on the narrow path. Mind's-eye sees that as not a great option.

Path is quite straight, so look to a "tail wheel" at the back - some
compliant pneumatic tyre from eg. a trailer rolling along supporting
the back of the beam - and have a forward-sticking-out pole with four
people on it lifting and pulling.

-----------------

Trailer tongue jacks are heavy-duty swivel casters with load lifting capability. https://www.kendonusa.com/products/crank-down-trailer-swivel-jack-stand
That one has a short URL, they are much cheaper elsewhere.

A single-wheel one can be upgraded for soft ground with replacement wheels
on either side, on a longer axle. It won't track well and needs a steering + towing handle, one of mine is the handle from a broken snow shovel with a
fork of steel flat stock that connects to the extended axle, another is a
pipe tee with slots milled in the ends for the flat stock. The long pipe
handle screws on to move by hand, unscrews for storage or to tow the shop
crane it's on behind the tractor. The rather high mounting plate isn't a problem if attached to the base of a gantry hoist or mast of a crane but it makes them inconvenient for a low riding lift platform unless you can weld.

I have the shop crane, a trailer and a log splitter that all weigh around
500 Lbs and can be moved by hand on level ground without excessive effort.
As a test I've pulled them uphill without the garden tractor by using a
block and tackle (faster) or a lever chain hoist (safer). A chain fall is
very slow and doesn't work well horizontally. First I tried cheap cable
pullers but was disappointed with how quickly they wore out and failed
despite being greased. The steel is very soft. A vehicle-mounted winch was best, assuming you can drive to the hilltop, but then you could tow with it instead. https://www.amazon.com/2-Ton-Along-Puller-Heavy-Duty-Automotive/dp/B09SPT85DR Upgrading the axles and bearings helps somewhat, if you have a lathe. On
mine the ratchets deformed when manufacturing slop allowed them to misalign.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"David Billington" wrote in message news:uadmpg$38en$1@dont-email.me...

Sounds like a large tyre piano moving dolly would be suitable for the
task. I was impressed by how easily the piano movers removed my mother's
piano with one and how well it coped with multiple 6" - 7" steps.

-------------------
They appear to use hand truck wheels on 5/8" axles. I bought a batch of used solid tire wheels with needle bearings for 3/4" axles that have served well
for loads as large as an 1100 Lb boulder but I haven't found anything
similar for sale new.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/08/2023 23:17, Richard Smith wrote:

Hello all

Wrote following as example of a beam calculation in a project.

Following on from creating the "beam calculator" http://weldsmith.co.uk/cgi_my/ebbeam_rhs/230724_ebbeam_rhs.html
"Rectangular Hollow Section beam calculations"
webpage.

I have a feeling beam calculations are often like this.
Finding your way along.
Same as for the other case I made a webpage for http://www.weldsmith.co.uk/tech/struct/210314_ebbeam_drillplat/19_drillplat_calcs.html
"Cantilever drilling platform - analysis using beam calculations"

------------------------------------------------

I didn't give any idea why you might want a beam calculator when
interested in mines...

Take for example Wheal Round
(a hypothetical case).

It's accessed from high ground and water flows from adits draining
mines in the area. So there's a good chance a lot of the workings
remain dry.

Problem - the main shaft is blocked by a boulder 30m down which is
estimated to be 3 Tonnes.

The promise of many levels and interesting finds in Wheal Round has a
project to open the main shaft. Resin-anchor in an eye-bolt and hoist
the boulder out.

The beam would span 5m across the top bank around the shaft.

Wheal Round is in that high place with a small path as only access, so
that beam needs to be very portable.

It's lifting a boulder, there's no-one underneath anything and the
hoist can be worked from a safe distance, so the consequence is just
about zero of the beam totally collapsing by local plastic buckling.

So we can look to even a "Class 4" section (it could locally buckle
and instantly collapse on overload).

Considering all, we'd like a factor of 3 safety on the beam load bear
- mainly for it if boulder jams and the load on the beam with hoisting increases.

So that's 9 Tonnes point capacity at the middle.

Box-section - take as being S355 steel - 355MPa = 355e6Pa yield.

We'll get an estimate were to start looking for candidate sections in
"The Blue Book"

Pardon that I use "Lisp" in-line to calculate things. Using the
"emacs" text-processor, I can "fire-up" its interpreter on Lisp
expressions and it will insert its answer into the file.

M=FL/4 for a "simple beam" (end supported; central load)

M = ...

(/
(*
(* 9 1e3 9.81) ;; 88290.0 ;; N ;; (gravity - 9.81N/kg)
5 ;; m length
)
4e0 ;; ) ;; 110362.5 ;; N.m
1e3) ;; 110.3625 ;; kNm

Going straight to "The Blue Book" for hot-finished Rectangular Hollow
Section
https://www.steelforlifebluebook.co.uk/hfrhs/ec3-ukna/bending-s355/
and looking down the "Mc,y,Rd" column
plausible sections start at around 250x150x5mm - with a weight of
30.4kg/m

For squares - Square Hollow Sections https://www.steelforlifebluebook.co.uk/hfshs/ec3-ukna/bending-s355/
plausible sections start at around 200x200x6.3mm - with a weight of
38kg/m

Going with 250x150x5mm in my beam calculator http://weldsmith.co.uk/cgi_my/ebbeam_rhs/230724_ebbeam_rhs.html

"

Input values you provided

Variable Value (in familiar units)
Height 250e-3 (250mm)
Width / breadth 150e-3 (150mm)
Wall thickness 5e-3 (5mm)
Beam length 5 (m)
Maximum stress 355e6 (N mm^2)
Young's Modulus (E) 210e9 (N mm^2)

Beam intrinsic sectional properties
...
Derived variable Derived value (in familiar units)
Second moment of area: 3.403250e-5 (3403.25cm^4)
Section modulus: 2.722600e-4 (272.26cm^3)
Moment: 96652.3 (N.m)

Beam extrinsic properties
...
"simple beam"

The central load causing the selected stress is
77321.84Newtons

At that maximum stress, the deflection at the middle of the beam is 0.0281746031746metres (28.1746031746mm)

"

My calculation and "The Blue Book" agree - For "I" the Second Moment
of Area is 3.403250e-5m^4 = 3403.25cm^4 (my) to 3360cm^4 (Blue Book).

For what it's worth general geometric page https://www.steelforlifebluebook.co.uk/hfrhs/ec3-ukna/section-properties-dimensions-properties/
has "Z" as 269cm^4 (Blue Book) for "my" 272.26cm^3 - same.

We expect "my" "I" and "Z" to be a bit higher because "my" section is
a rectangular-cornered hypothetical sections, whereas the real section
has rounded corners, putting a bit less metal for from the neutral
plane where it would have counted the most.
But "my" calculation is quick to use to step through the logic
processes of selecting "candidate" beams.

The force at yield the beam calculator gives:
(/ 77321.84 9.81 1e3) ;; 7.881940876656472 ;; Tonnes-force
We might seek a bit higher; were it not for seeing the weight of
plausible sections - see later.

Continuing...

So the excess load carrying capacity is still okay - in the region of
what we wanted.

Using my beam calculator alone now for other sections seen in "The
Blue Book"

If that section fell over on its side, presenting 150x250, it would
still support the boulder, with 5.95 Tonnes capacity. Not as it would
be recommended to allow that to happen, but there wouldn't be the
buckled beam, chain-block and boulder dropping back down the
mineshaft.

300x100x5mm looks plausible too.
300x100x5 if it fell over - and it is tall and narrow - would give
41932.6N -> (/ 41932.6 9.81 1e3) ;; 4.274475025484199 Tonnes
so it would likely be "game over" or best keep well clear and lower
the boulder back from whence it came.
So if contemplated 300x100x5 - which is 30.4kg/m - would have to bring
some strong "keep upright" support with "feet" - likely a steel
fabrication weighing a few kg each end.

These two - 250x150x5mm and 300x100x5mm - are looking-in at about
30.5kg/m, and the beam to span 5m is 6m long.

(* 30.5 6) ;; 183.0 ;; kg

Thinking of the narrow path - if roped the steel beam so it just lofts
off the ground when a transverse pole at each end is lifted by two
people each side - so eight people lifting total, that's
(/ (* 30.5 6) 8) ;; 22.875 ;; kg
per person - doable.
But for a pole long enough to get 4 people on the pole, it would be
too long (wide) to fit between the trees and bushes and through gates
on the narrow path. Mind's-eye sees that as not a great option.

Path is quite straight, so look to a "tail wheel" at the back - some compliant pneumatic tyre from eg. a trailer rolling along supporting
the back of the beam - and have a forward-sticking-out pole with four
people on it lifting and pulling.

Other lifting strategies examined:

* Longitudinal pole with four people at each end? Well to be roped
with the beam just lofting above the ground, the pole has to be 6m +
about 2 x 2.5m = 11m, which is some pole - has its own weight.

* Pole attached to each end and carry at shoulder-height - NO! Never
where if say someone tripped and everyone fell over there is a
significant risk of someone getting hurt.

"Tail wheel" - could have additional people pulling on ropes for the
steep bits (not pushing from behind - not exposed to being "run-over"
if all goes horribly wrong.

So - is doable.
Go with whichever of those sections
250x150x5mm
300x100x5mm
or even
200x200x6.3mm (38kg/m - more grunting and perspiration)
is found to be available on a blagging / cadging mission...

The reason for the beam calculator is exploring options and scenarios
easily, at negligible effort to the person.
A person can with care get through one beam calculation with its
several steps.
For several beam scenarios a person tends to get overwhelmed and lose
their way.

There has been "freestyle" use of parts of the beam calculations.

There has been use of "The Blue Book".

However, the "beam calculator" made for a good portfolio of
calculations presenting the case for the option suggested.

Sounds like a large tyre piano moving dolly would be suitable for the
task. I was impressed by how easily the piano movers removed my mother's
piano with one and how well it coped with multiple 6" - 7" steps.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyjzuewgpb.fsf@void.com...
...
Thinking of the narrow path - if roped the steel beam so it just lofts
off the ground when a transverse pole at each end is lifted by two
people each side - so eight people lifting total, that's
(/ (* 30.5 6) 8) ;; 22.875 ;; kg
per person - doable.
But for a pole long enough to get 4 people on the pole, it would be
too long (wide) to fit between the trees and bushes and through gates
on the narrow path. Mind's-eye sees that as not a great option.

Path is quite straight, so look to a "tail wheel" at the back - some compliant pneumatic tyre from eg. a trailer rolling along supporting
the back of the beam - and have a forward-sticking-out pole with four
people on it lifting and pulling.

-----------------

Trailer tongue jacks are heavy-duty swivel casters with load lifting capability. https://www.kendonusa.com/products/crank-down-trailer-swivel-jack-stand
That one has a short URL, they are much cheaper elsewhere.

A single-wheel one can be upgraded for soft ground with replacement
wheels on either side, on a longer axle. It won't track well and needs
a steering + towing handle, one of mine is the handle from a broken
snow shovel with a fork of steel flat stock that connects to the
extended axle, another is a pipe tee with slots milled in the ends for
the flat stock. The long pipe handle screws on to move by hand,
unscrews for storage or to tow the shop crane it's on behind the
tractor. The rather high mounting plate isn't a problem if attached to
the base of a gantry hoist or mast of a crane but it makes them
inconvenient for a low riding lift platform unless you can weld.

I have the shop crane, a trailer and a log splitter that all weigh
around 500 Lbs and can be moved by hand on level ground without
excessive effort. As a test I've pulled them uphill without the garden tractor by using a block and tackle (faster) or a lever chain hoist
(safer). A chain fall is very slow and doesn't work well
horizontally. First I tried cheap cable pullers but was disappointed
with how quickly they wore out and failed despite being greased. The
steel is very soft. A vehicle-mounted winch was best, assuming you can
drive to the hilltop, but then you could tow with it instead. https://www.amazon.com/2-Ton-Along-Puller-Heavy-Duty-Automotive/dp/B09SPT85DR Upgrading the axles and bearings helps somewhat, if you have a
lathe. On mine the ratchets deformed when manufacturing slop allowed
them to misalign.

I could learn a lot coming to visit and doing some projects with you!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

...

Raising the boulder isn't enough; you need to move it off the hole. A modified gantry trolley might work on your rectangular tubing but in
my experience doesn't add much resistance to the beam bowing sideways
and twisting.
...

Yes you are right...

"Wheal Round" is imaginary, of course, but yes you would need to move
the boulder sideways away from the shaft.

I kept the "Wheal Round" case as short as possible and about beams.

It proves the minimum strength beam to lift the boulder is the maximum
weight beam you could move.

[you could make a truss structure from much smaller lighter sections
to span the mine-shaft (the dimensions are about what you find in
Cornwall, where the mining areas are littered with such shafts) -
but, again, I didn't want to go away from beams - so ignoring all
this...]

So the safety case is that no-one approaches the lift and its
equipment during the lift. Given this...

I took it that, lifted above the shaft, you could drag a couple of
beams across the shaft with ropes, and onto the beams you land the
boulder.

You've already tied a "tag-line" to the strop suspending the
(chain?)block from the beam...

Load off it, you pull the strop a quarter-metre (10 inches) along the
beam then lift the boulder again, which will drift the boulder
sideways by that quarter-metre. Repeat, repeat, repeat, ... until the
boulder is on the berm. Maybe more steel sections as a slide-way and
use a "Tirfor" to haul the boulder up and over the berm and bring it
down to level ground.

???

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

David Billington <djb@invalid.com> writes:

Sounds like a large tyre piano moving dolly would be suitable for the
task. I was impressed by how easily the piano movers removed my
mother's piano with one and how well it coped with multiple 6" - 7"
steps.

Yes.
When you are lost in the detail of something you can lose your way.
A two-wheeled dolly just aft the centre would do very well.
Then it becomes purely a wheeling exercise.
You'd still want to keep the weight down, but you could go up a bit to
a common stock beam size with a wall thickness which means in overload
it will only plastically bend - never buckle.

I've been busy learning about building regulations, snuck-through the programming / beam-calculator as a "naughty treat" - but been quite
frazzled. And lost in the brain-burn of the details of the project.

Thanks, David, Jim, everyone.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:04:04 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

They appear to use hand truck wheels on 5/8" axles. I bought a batch of used >solid tire wheels with needle bearings for 3/4" axles that have served well >for loads as large as an 1100 Lb boulder but I haven't found anything
similar for sale new.

You can buy "wheel bearings" now for autos and such that include the
hub. As you probably already know... they are throw away pieces
nowadays. Anyway... if I was building a small trailer or similar I'd be
tempted to buy a couple for a small vehicle. Maybe pick something you
already have tires/rims for. Something like this:

https://www.amazon.com/WJB-WA513044-Assembly-Reference-BR930083K/dp/B00B7ROENY/

I've a couple that came off a RAM 3500 front, one was making noises.
For something to be used around your property and not on the road
they'd still work okay...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Leon Fisk <lfiskgr@gmail.invalid> writes:

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:04:04 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

They appear to use hand truck wheels on 5/8" axles. I bought a batch of used >>solid tire wheels with needle bearings for 3/4" axles that have served well >>for loads as large as an 1100 Lb boulder but I haven't found anything >>similar for sale new.

You can buy "wheel bearings" now for autos and such that include the
hub. As you probably already know... they are throw away pieces
nowadays. Anyway... if I was building a small trailer or similar I'd be tempted to buy a couple for a small vehicle. Maybe pick something you
already have tires/rims for. Something like this:

https://www.amazon.com/WJB-WA513044-Assembly-Reference-BR930083K/dp/B00B7ROENY/

I've a couple that came off a RAM 3500 front, one was making noises.
For something to be used around your property and not on the road
they'd still work okay...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

Yes.
We use all sorts of dollys for moving beams around fab.shops and on construction sites. Having a moron moment forgetting all about that.
Been a while out of fab.shops.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Leon Fisk" wrote in message news:uae706$748g$1@dont-email.me...

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:04:04 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

They appear to use hand truck wheels on 5/8" axles. I bought a batch of
used
solid tire wheels with needle bearings for 3/4" axles that have served well >for loads as large as an 1100 Lb boulder but I haven't found anything
similar for sale new.

You can buy "wheel bearings" now for autos and such that include the
hub. As you probably already know... they are throw away pieces
nowadays. Anyway... if I was building a small trailer or similar I'd be
tempted to buy a couple for a small vehicle. Maybe pick something you
already have tires/rims for. Something like this:

https://www.amazon.com/WJB-WA513044-Assembly-Reference-BR930083K/dp/B00B7ROENY/

I've a couple that came off a RAM 3500 front, one was making noises.
For something to be used around your property and not on the road
they'd still work okay...

Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

----------------------
Thanks, that is cheaper than the trailer parts I've seen.

I wish my Honda was made that way, replacing the wheel bearings requires completely disassembling the front suspension to press the hub and then the bearings out of the knuckle. I thought I might have to when I heard grinding noises in the front so I took both sides apart as far as is easy, pulling
the brake rotors, and found the noise was only rust particles being ground
up in the narrow gap between the hub and knuckle. It's silent now to full
lock turning in both directions, nearly free of rust and all sliding
surfaces have been thinly coated with hi temp brake caliper grease.

I mentioned the beam because I had gone through the same process, using the
4" pallet rack shelf channel that I bought for the job when I saw it instead
of the rectangular tubing that the program calculates. With the
hand-carrying limitation and a center support I came up with half the
lifting capacity.

The most difficult purely manual steel erection I've participated in was carrying a 600 Lb beam (20' of 10x30) into a house being renovated and
hoisting it to support the second floor (two above the basement), then
fitting 4" square columns under it. I'm glad I wasn't around for Stonehenge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Leon Fisk" wrote in message news:uaeifi$9pcq$1@dont-email.me...

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 16:15:34 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wish my Honda was made that way, replacing the wheel bearings requires >completely disassembling the front suspension to press the hub and then the >bearings out of the knuckle.

I found this tear down video back when I acquired the 3500 bearing/hubs.
Kinda interesting that it looks like they had a problem with heat
treating and the shape of the hub/bearing surface:

https://youtu.be/21zKFWSrDaY?t=163

It's not a long vid and I have it starting just before the guy shows
the bad area...

Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

----------------------------

I wonder if they have a machine that rough and finish turns it, mills or broaches the sensor ring and grinds the bearing races in one chucking.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 16:15:34 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wish my Honda was made that way, replacing the wheel bearings requires >completely disassembling the front suspension to press the hub and then the >bearings out of the knuckle.

I found this tear down video back when I acquired the 3500 bearing/hubs.
Kinda interesting that it looks like they had a problem with heat
treating and the shape of the hub/bearing surface:

https://youtu.be/21zKFWSrDaY?t=163

It's not a long vid and I have it starting just before the guy shows
the bad area...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:12:15 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder if they have a machine that rough and finish turns it, mills or >broaches the sensor ring and grinds the bearing races in one chucking.

That sounds like something Ed Huntress would've known or who to ask.
Really miss some of the old sources of info😑

I was a bit surprised to see inside one of these "throw away" hubs and
how they were being designed. A neighbor was having trouble with front
wheel bearings on a Lumina. I kinda figured his friend doing the work
was torquing it to an incorrect value. After seeing these 3500 hubs
pulled off a friends truck I looked up the Lumina. Sure enough, it uses
these throw away hubs. Torque setting is already done. Just install it,
hope it works right...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Leon Fisk" wrote in message news:uag753$orpn$1@dont-email.me...

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:12:15 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder if they have a machine that rough and finish turns it, mills or >broaches the sensor ring and grinds the bearing races in one chucking.

That sounds like something Ed Huntress would've known or who to ask.
Really miss some of the old sources of info😑

--------------------

The only auto factory machine I've seen in operation made AC spark plugs,
and the actual pressing operations weren't visible, only the rows of
incomplete plugs running around the walls of the little stand-alone booth in Flint.

I quoted a test station to measure alternator rotor outputs and found out
how they are made; everything pressed sequentially onto the shaft, but I
never saw it done. AFAIK spark plugs are assembled the same way.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:59:54 AM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Leon Fisk" wrote in message news:uag753$orpn$1...@dont-email.me...
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:12:15 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder if they have a machine that rough and finish turns it, mills or >broaches the sensor ring and grinds the bearing races in one chucking.

That sounds like something Ed Huntress would've known or who to ask.
Really miss some of the old sources of info😑
--------------------

The only auto factory machine I've seen in operation made AC spark plugs, and the actual pressing operations weren't visible, only the rows of incomplete plugs running around the walls of the little stand-alone booth in Flint.

I quoted a test station to measure alternator rotor outputs and found out how they are made; everything pressed sequentially onto the shaft, but I never saw it done. AFAIK spark plugs are assembled the same way.

Hi Jim and Leon. I guess my ears were burning. I haven't looked in for a year or two.
'Sorry to disappoint you, Jim, but I don't know the answer. I am really, really long out of metalworking. However, that is a job that certainly *could* be handled by a multi-function machine. The multi-function turning machines we sold at Wasino years
ago could have done it. Although a grinding spindle could have been applied to finish it, my gut feeling is that the grinding would have been done in a secondary operation, on a precision grinding machine. But, maybe not. The limiting factor on that kind
of operation is the ability to get the grinding concentric to a very high degree of accuracy. Secondary spindles on a multi-function machine are pretty marginal in that dept.
I hope everyone is well. I'm sorry to hear about Gunner. I'm well. Hasta luego.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 09:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
Ed Huntress <edhuntress2@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I hope everyone is well.

Good to hear your well and about. Past few years have been pretty
bad for the older generation...

I'm still doing my best to annoy people, seems to be my super power😏

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:8db4ee17-2ec1-4cbb-b907-f2164eedc5c9n@googlegroups.com...

Hi Jim and Leon. I guess my ears were burning. I haven't looked in for a
year or two.

--------------------------------

A former neighbor moved to New Mexico while her daughter remained local.
Some time after the daughter got a bad feeling that something was wrong and called her mother, who answered that all was fine. A moment later she said
OH NO!, there was a fire in the kitchen. She didn't survive.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Leon Fisk" wrote in message news:ubdt5l$2dret$1@dont-email.me...

I'm still doing my best to annoy people, seems to be my super power😏

--------------------

I claim to be a card-carrying stress donor. Is it not better to give than to receive?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)