Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:51:57 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m28.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b1) with ESMTP id 3139402 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:38:51 -0500 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r1.2.) id q.134.2d118aff (4410) for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:38:49 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <134.2d118aff.2d9cbe99@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:38:49 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: mixing carbon and e-glass X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1080779929" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 810 -------------------------------1080779929 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/31/2004 4:17:18 PM Central Standard Time, mjrav@comcast.net writes: I'm not sure of your point. In the cases you describe, the graphite is designed to cary the whole load and the glass is only the supporting structure. That's good engineering. The L2 spar and legacy skin are perfect examples. The carbon sections are thick and strong enough to carry the whole load. (Webs of beams, ribs and bulkheads only support the load bearing parts). If you were to make a spar cap by substituting glass for half the graphite, you would have precisely the two rope scenario and 25% less ultimate strength. Mr. Speed Demon Ravinski (emphasis on the Demon), 1. I am frequently referred to as pointless. 2. Point: Only that there is no problem with the bonding of carbon to glass. 3. I do not believe that the carbon is designed to carry the whole load. However, as we approach destructive distortional discombobulation (technical term), the carbon may shatter before the glass. Technical note: See my carbon tennis racquet's disquieting destruction after accidentally contacting the net post! Technical comment: Bummer. 4. Monocoque construction only says that the enclosure participates in the structural strength - It is not the sole athletic supporter. Such construction makes no reference to a thing defined aviationally as "wing". Like, who needs a spar? 5. One may design for terminal collapse at ultimate strength but, as a practical matter, one operates within the 50% of that boundary of ultimate discombobulation - thus taking advantage of the budgeted give to carry the everyday load. Note: I do not like the word "terminal." 5.a. Aluminum bends, composites break! (Uh, I ran out of paper for further illumination.) 6. See 7 7. I cannot understand any "rope" analogy without the mental imagery of hearing a reedy wailing flute influencing the stiffness of a vertical rope emerging from a wicker basket to be later climbed by a wizened turbaned wizard. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Sky2high@aol.com II-P N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR) LML, where ideas collide and you decide! -------------------------------1080779929 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 3/31/2004 4:17:18 PM Central Standard Time,=20 mjrav@comcast.net writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>

I'm not sure of your point.

In the cases you describe, the graphite is designed to cary the whole= =20 load and the glass is only the supporting structure. That's good=20 engineering. The L2 spar and legacy skin are perfect examples. = The=20 carbon sections are thick and strong enough to carry the whole load. = =20 (Webs of beams, ribs and bulkheads only support the load bearing=20 parts).

If you were to make a spar cap by substituting glass for half the=20 graphite, you would have precisely the two rope scenario and 25% less ulti= mate=20 strength.

Mr. Speed Demon Ravinski (emphasis on the Demon),

1. I am frequently referred to as pointless.

2. Point: Only that there is no problem with the bonding of carbon to=20 glass.

3. I do not believe that the carbon is designed to carry the whole= =20 load. However, as we approach destructive distortional discombobulatio= n=20 (technical term), the carbon may shatter before the glass. Technical note: S= ee=20 my carbon tennis racquet's disquieting destruction after accidentally contac= ting=20 the net post! Technical comment: Bummer.

4. Monocoque construction only says that the enclosure participates in=20= the=20 structural strength - It is not the sole athletic supporter. Such=20 construction makes no reference to a thing defined aviationally as "wing". L= ike,=20 who needs a spar?

5. One may design for terminal collapse at ultimate strength but,=20= as a=20 practical matter, one operates within the 50% of that boundary of ultim= ate=20 discombobulation - thus taking advantage of the budgeted give to carry=20= the=20 everyday load. Note: I do not like the word "terminal."

5.a. Aluminum bends, composites break! (Uh, I ran out of paper fo= r=20 further illumination.)

6. See 7

7. I cannot understand any "rope" analogy without the mental imag= ery=20 of hearing a reedy wailing flute influencing the stiffness of a vertical rop= e=20 emerging from a wicker basket to be later climbed by a wizened turbaned= =20 wizard.

Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Sky2high@aol.com
II-P N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL=20 (KARR)

LML, where ideas collide and you=20 decide!

-------------------------------1080779929--