Is it hard to get full blown schematics ?
#26
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,092 Times
in
2,325 Posts
But you can marvel at their engineering!
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
421 Posts
With that said, the humility of science has led to the development of theories that are robust enough that you can really hang your hat on them for all intents and purposes.
So far the search for "hard" matter that isn't in the periodic table has uncovered all kinds of interesting stuff, but has only reinforced the theory that matter is mostly composed of those elements. I'm talking about things like muons, neutrinos, neutron stars, and so forth.
Likes For Gresp15C:
#28
Disco Infiltrator
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,775
Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Tilt, Samba tandem
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3126 Post(s)
Liked 2,102 Times
in
1,366 Posts
If you are working at a company that designs bikes, yes you can get access to real CAD parts. Probably they don’t show the internal workings or tell you anything about the metallurgy or layup etc. In other words entirely sufficient to check fit and make renderings. But they’re not just on the Internet waiting for anybody. They also share compatibility info and call it “standards” though they don’t seem to be handled through a joint organization like ASME. What in my business we call an interface control drawing. If you have a caliper and some CAD skill you can make a reasonable facsimile.
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Genesis 49:16-17
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
421 Posts
In terms of CAD models, there's a growing open-source CAD community, revolving around free software and shared designs. I only looked into this briefly, and don't remember any of the sites, but I did notice that a lot of the designs seemed to be bike related, including fancy stuff like custom chainwheels, but also useful stuff like a bracket that goes from A to B for holding some nonstandard thing on a bike. I'm into open source, but primarily from the electronics and computer related side of it.
#30
n00b
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,397
Bikes: Surly Karate Monkey, Twin Six Standard Rando
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 428 Post(s)
Liked 466 Times
in
273 Posts
justinschulz9 I know you got a lot of snarky answers because your question was not specific enough, but I'm really curious about what you really are looking for. can you provide more specifics?
Likes For mack_turtle:
#31
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,663 Times
in
2,497 Posts
Likes For unterhausen:
#33
Senior Member
Thread Starter
justinschulz9 I know you got a lot of snarky answers because your question was not specific enough, but I'm really curious about what you really are looking for. can you provide more specifics?
is it really true that some parts are obsolete and will never be made again?
#34
Senior Member
Thread Starter
#35
Disco Infiltrator
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,775
Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Tilt, Samba tandem
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3126 Post(s)
Liked 2,102 Times
in
1,366 Posts
Or Nobendium.
I've got this one on my cubicle wall. Personal favorite is upsidaisium, with corbomite a close second. Flubber does not qualify, it's not an element.
The Periodic Table Of Imaginary Elements ? Russell Walks Illustration
I've got this one on my cubicle wall. Personal favorite is upsidaisium, with corbomite a close second. Flubber does not qualify, it's not an element.
The Periodic Table Of Imaginary Elements ? Russell Walks Illustration
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Genesis 49:16-17
Last edited by Darth Lefty; 03-20-21 at 09:32 PM.
Likes For Darth Lefty:
#36
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,535
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10898 Post(s)
Liked 7,386 Times
in
4,145 Posts
You want designs for all these?
Likes For mstateglfr:
#37
Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Arizona
Posts: 46
Bikes: Trek 460, Trek 1420, Schwin High Sierra
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
11 Posts
Your best bet is to watch Youtube videos of people taking apart and overhauling various parts of bicycles. Or look for sites like Sheldon Brown's.
"Is it really true there are parts that are no longer made?" Of course. Many.
"Is it really true there are parts that are no longer made?" Of course. Many.
#39
SE Wis
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,516
Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400, 2013 Novara Randonee, 1990 Trek 970
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2731 Post(s)
Liked 3,358 Times
in
2,034 Posts
Cup & cone, sealed cartridge, external bearing, PF, PF30, Octalink, Ashtabula, Thun Thompson, and any number of new and old variants.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bott...w=1366&bih=617
#40
Junior Member
Again, yes we can. “Matter” is the material substance of the observable universe. Another way of describing it is that it is a substance which has mass and volume. Everywhere you look, there is matter and all of it is composed of the elements of the periodic table. If you know of some material that isn’t on the periodic table, please present evidence of it and how it fits in the current table. There may be some elements off the end of that table but they are going to be rare enough to ignore. They are likely too unstable to exist outside of a very brief period of time.
Even subatomic particles are part of the periodic table since protons, neutrons, and electrons are taken into account. Protons are the atomic number, neutrons (along with protons) are responsible for the atomic weight, and electrons (equals to protons) are responsible for the atom’s interaction with other atoms.
But, outside of a few ephemeral heavy elements, all matter in the Universe is contained within that table. All kinds of combinations of those elements can result in some very strange bits of matter but that doesn’t invalidate the elements in the periodic table. The weird bits are still made of the known bits.
Even subatomic particles are part of the periodic table since protons, neutrons, and electrons are taken into account. Protons are the atomic number, neutrons (along with protons) are responsible for the atomic weight, and electrons (equals to protons) are responsible for the atom’s interaction with other atoms.
But, outside of a few ephemeral heavy elements, all matter in the Universe is contained within that table. All kinds of combinations of those elements can result in some very strange bits of matter but that doesn’t invalidate the elements in the periodic table. The weird bits are still made of the known bits.
The table contains all common elements we are currently aware of, but it's arrogant to think we've discovered them all. Even at that it doesn't contain all elements so the initial comment is incorrect.
We know a lot more now than we did 250 years ago, when the table contained no elements as it didn't exist. Imagine what will be known in the next 250 years.
Imagine the new elements that will be discovered in conditions we don't yet know exists. Imagine some of those super unstable elements with tiny half lives may become useful in tech we have not even imagined yet.
Tldr:the original statement that thr periodic table Contains all elements in the universe is incorrect.
#41
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ffld Cnty Connecticut
Posts: 21,845
Bikes: Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1173 Post(s)
Liked 922 Times
in
609 Posts
Dark matter may not be on that schematic, and that's a significant component of the universe. Periodic table elements are only about 5% of the universe. The other 95% is a mystery....Dark matter (27%) & dark energy (68%).
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter
__________________
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.
FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.
FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
Last edited by Homebrew01; 03-22-21 at 08:22 PM.
#43
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,092 Times
in
2,325 Posts
Dark matter may not be on that schematic, and that's a significant component of the universe. Periodic table elements are only about 5% of the universe. The other 95% is a mystery....Dark matter (27%) & dark energy (68%).
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter
And I don’t know that I would put all my stock in dark matter and dark energy yet. It’s all completely theoretical (and not a small bit speculative). We haven’t found any yet. It’s more a bookkeeping technique than anything real at this time.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
#44
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,092 Times
in
2,325 Posts
4 new elements were added to the periodic table in 2016, only 4 years ago. Prior to that, would you have thought the table contained all elements in the universe?
The table contains all common elements we are currently aware of, but it's arrogant to think we've discovered them all. Even at that it doesn't contain all elements so the initial comment is incorrect.
We know a lot more now than we did 250 years ago, when the table contained no elements as it didn't exist. Imagine what will be known in the next 250 years.
Imagine the new elements that will be discovered in conditions we don't yet know exists. Imagine some of those super unstable elements with tiny half lives may become useful in tech we have not even imagined yet.
Tldr:the original statement that thr periodic table Contains all elements in the universe is incorrect.
The table contains all common elements we are currently aware of, but it's arrogant to think we've discovered them all. Even at that it doesn't contain all elements so the initial comment is incorrect.
We know a lot more now than we did 250 years ago, when the table contained no elements as it didn't exist. Imagine what will be known in the next 250 years.
Imagine the new elements that will be discovered in conditions we don't yet know exists. Imagine some of those super unstable elements with tiny half lives may become useful in tech we have not even imagined yet.
Tldr:the original statement that thr periodic table Contains all elements in the universe is incorrect.
And those 4 elements added 4 years ago were decades in the making. They didn’t just “find” 4 new elements in 2016. Experiments demonstrated that the elements existed but none of the experiments nor the elements that were made were simple nor easy to perform nor interpret. And while there many be examples of these elements (as well as others) in the universe, the conditions under which they exist are going to be very different from what we experience.
Nor, for various reasons, are superheavy elements going to account for the gravitational problem for which dark matter is postulated. You might find these kinds of elements in very dense stars with huge gravitational wells but those kinds of stars aren’t prevalent enough to fit the dark matter model. We don’t see the kinds of gravitational lensing to account for a whole bunch of super heavy stars.
Tldr: the original statement is absolutely correct.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Last edited by cyccommute; 03-22-21 at 10:19 PM.
#45
Clark W. Griswold
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ,location, location
Posts: 13,274
Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot Ti W/Ultegra Di2, Salsa Timberjack Ti, Cinelli Mash Work RandoCross Fun Time Machine, 1x9 XT Parts Hybrid, Co-Motion Cascadia, Specialized Langster, Phil Wood Apple VeloXS Frame (w/DA 7400), R+M Supercharger2 Rohloff, Habanero Ti 26
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4251 Post(s)
Liked 3,864 Times
in
2,578 Posts
#46
Junior Member
You already backtracked and said some elements with a very short half life are not here.
We also discussed how 4 elements were added as recently as 2016 so to think thats it, all matter, there are no more elements to discover is foolish.
Finally, its a periodic table of the elements, it doesn't describe all matter.
It doesnt describe the most of the various elementary particles besides protons, neutrons & electrons. This is all based on an antiquated model of how we once thought matter was represented.
There are a whole range of subatomic particles not represented here at all.
A lot of holes have been found in this model, so although it works at a coarse level, we know it to be incorrect, similar to Newtonian physics vs Relativity.
#47
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,092 Times
in
2,325 Posts
Yes. Every bit of matter in the Universe is contained on that schematic. The Periodic Table isn’t a static tool. You could, theoretically, map out every element out to an infinity of protons and probably predict each one’s properties. Just because an element haven’t been observed yet doesn’t mean it won’t fit on that template. The Periodic Table has predictive properties and is not a set in stone.
The short half life elements (just about everything above atomic number 92) haven’t been found yet. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have a place on that table nor that they will violate the rules of that table.
I never said that there aren’t more elements for discover. I’ve specifically said that any more elements to be discovered will fit within the Periodic Table. There will not be any elements that can be shoe horned into the table between the elements that we already know. Pick any two elements and you will never find an element that will fit between them. You won’t find an element that fits between aluminum (13 protons) and silicon (14 protons) or between silver (79) and mercury (80). There are no 13.5 or 79.5 proton elements
All those subatomic particles are derivatives of protons, electrons, and neutrons. The plethora of subatomic particles below the level of those three basic subatomic particles don’t exist outside of those particles. Point to a single “hole” in the periodic table. The whole of quantum theory fits in Periodic Table. The electronic configuration of the elements fits in the Periodic Table. You can build the electronic configuration of each element from the previous elements based only on their position in the periodic table. The 4 new elements that you keep thinking makes your point fit in that same table in exactly the position we would predict they would fall.
Finally, Newtonian physics isn’t “incorrect”...go have someone throw a baseball at your head and report back to us if it is a particle or wave...nor is Relatively “correct”. One is built on the other and the former can be used to describe the later. In fact, the former was used to discover and describe the later.
You already backtracked and said some elements with a very short half life are not here.
We also discussed how 4 elements were added as recently as 2016 so to think thats it, all matter, there are no more elements to discover is foolish.
Finally, its a periodic table of the elements, it doesn't describe all matter.
It doesnt describe the most of the various elementary particles besides protons, neutrons & electrons. This is all based on an antiquated model of how we once thought matter was represented.
There are a whole range of subatomic particles not represented here at all.
A lot of holes have been found in this model, so although it works at a coarse level, we know it to be incorrect, similar to Newtonian physics vs Relativity.
It doesnt describe the most of the various elementary particles besides protons, neutrons & electrons. This is all based on an antiquated model of how we once thought matter was represented.
There are a whole range of subatomic particles not represented here at all.
A lot of holes have been found in this model, so although it works at a coarse level, we know it to be incorrect, similar to Newtonian physics vs Relativity.
Finally, Newtonian physics isn’t “incorrect”...go have someone throw a baseball at your head and report back to us if it is a particle or wave...nor is Relatively “correct”. One is built on the other and the former can be used to describe the later. In fact, the former was used to discover and describe the later.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
#48
Junior Member
Finally, Newtonian physics isn’t “incorrect”...go have someone throw a baseball at your head and report back to us if it is a particle or wave...nor is Relatively “correct”. One is built on the other and the former can be used to describe the later. In fact, the former was used to discover and describe the later.
Newtonian physics is still useful, as long as what one is trying to achieve does not require higher precision, but its based on a model that is inherently incorrect.
To take your baseball scenario, the accuracy required is coarse enough that Newtonian physics can be used to do the maths, but if you want to get the accuracy higher, Newtonian physics breaks down.
Im not going to try to convince you otherwise on the periodic table. you said what you said, its there to be read. Ignore it or pretend it meant something else if you must.
#49
Full Member
Bike frames are made of
Aluminum, Titanium, Iron, Carbon (fibre), Magnesium, wood, or bamboo.
Maybe this helps
Wood and bamboo aren't on this schematic. The metals are also alloys. The carbon frames use numerous other ingredients to hold it together. But this is a starting point of basic ingredients.
Aluminum, Titanium, Iron, Carbon (fibre), Magnesium, wood, or bamboo.
Maybe this helps
Wood and bamboo aren't on this schematic. The metals are also alloys. The carbon frames use numerous other ingredients to hold it together. But this is a starting point of basic ingredients.
#50
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,092 Times
in
2,325 Posts
Newtonian physics is incorrect, its not how the universe works. Its good, in so far as it provides formulas that can explain forces acting on matter. Its not correct though, as was proven when relativity was used to calculate with much higher precision the positions of stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse.
Further, if Newtonian physics is wrong, why is it taught in every introductory physics course taught. I took physics in high school in the early 70s and in college in the late 70s. That that’s roughly 60 years after the discovery of relativity when I took physics and we are now 100+ years afterward. Why would we continue to teach an incorrect system?
Newtonian physics is still useful, as long as what one is trying to achieve does not require higher precision, but its based on a model that is inherently incorrect.
The model isn’t “inherently incorrect” either because it can be used to make fairly good predictions. Trajectories, impact forces, frictional forces, etc that all come from Newtonian physics are close enough for most applications. If Newtonian physics were “wrong”, it wouldn’t be used.
To take your baseball scenario, the accuracy required is coarse enough that Newtonian physics can be used to do the maths, but if you want to get the accuracy higher, Newtonian physics breaks down.
Im not going to try to convince you otherwise on the periodic table. you said what you said, its there to be read. Ignore it or pretend it meant something else if you must.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Last edited by cyccommute; 03-23-21 at 02:57 PM.