Re: Bell cap how to

[Magnus]

As I don't want to post in this discusion, I now see a very stupid debate growing. Especially as you're making a fool over yourself and anyone else in the topic.

Jurjen, I understand english isn't your first language. Where in my posts did I ever say that the bell cap DID NOT protect clothing or fabrics? In fact, I advocated that. Do you understand? I am in 100% agreement with that. My issue specifically is that a) it's not a new type of item, it's a washer, a finishing washer, a bell-cap washer...but irregardless it is a washer. b) that there is no way it is some innovative marvel of engineering designed to create less "poundage" (this is Brian's theory). The stresses on a bell cap washer and regular washer will be determined by how much the rivet is peened, not the shape of the washer...I mean come on.

Personally, I couldn't care about their usage with horses...different context.

If you need assistance translating posts Jurjen, feel free to ask. Otherwise you've misread just about everything in this thread beyond your how-to. Who's the fool now?

[jvrjenivs]

You have provided NOTHING in the way of evidence to clearly say that your bell cap washers serve a function beyond what a regular washer does beyond clothing protection. I am still asking for that.

Okay, when you say 'a regular' washer I'm reading that as one cut from sheet using cold chisel. No modern nicely cut and finished one.

And about the nomenclature thing, which I thought was finally solved, it is all about the defintion of a washer. You and Matt are using defintion by function way. It's a washer then, sure. But Brian is using a defintion by form, which tells you it isn't a washer (using UK english defenition, that is, didn't check Marian-Webster, I've to admit). I'm not telling it is a bell-cap. That only the word I knew for them, as I was introduced to them by Brian and Carol.

[jvrjenivs]

Personally, I couldn't care about their usage with horses...different context.

And here I would say what you told me before: NO. As that is the context we knew these items from, in first place. Otherwise You are taking it out of context.

[caiusbeerquitius]

The context needs to be defined. If it is "rivetting" it´s just fine. If it is "rivetting belt plates" it is not. We should build an independent commitee to decide which context is better suited for the discussion. Any volunteers?

[PhilusEstilius]

Christian.

In answer to your point about riveting context it would first of all be a good idea to consider just what Matt has said in his posts regarding the reduction of poundage between a flat washer and a bell-cap.

This is where he insists that these things are in no way an innovative marvel of engineering desingned to create less poundage, and then goes on to say that this is only my theory.

I must however point out that I first came into contact with these bell-caps when in 1987 I was commissioned by the Vindolanda Trust to reproduce what is known as the Vindolanda chamfron ( cavalry equipment ) which of course I relate to in an earlier post. Then after also being commissioned to reproduce the Velsen Dagger I again came into contact with these things that were used on the belt which carried this dagger ( equipment waistbelts )
I became interested in these things 22 years ago as mentioned so I began to produce and use them, it was then that the diacovery was made that the engineering design of these things does indeed reduce the amount of poundage needed to lock a rivet as oppossed to that of a flat washer.
I do think that having proved this fact not just from the experience of the last 22 years of riveting but also from some 20 to 30 years previous to those years thus giving some 50 plus years experience, I do think myself capable of giving the estimate of to only 10% of that used for a flat washer. I do of course admit that this is only an estimate and not a dynamicaly tested amount.
I would therefore consider that what Matt referes to as only a theory of mine has been well and truely tested, infact should he or indeed anyone care to produce and use these things they will discover what both myself and Jurjen have found from them.

[Magnus]

Hey Jurjen,

"Okay, when you say 'a regular' washer I'm reading that as one cut from sheet using cold chisel. No modern nicely cut and finished one."

Yes, that is correct. I usually use tin snips to cut mine...I'm not 100% accurate though lol.

And about the nomenclature thing, which I thought was finally solved, it is all about the defintion of a washer. You and Matt are using defintion by function way. It's a washer then, sure. But Brian is using a defintion by form, which tells you it isn't a washer (using UK english defenition, that is, didn't check Marian-Webster, I've to admit). I'm not telling it is a bell-cap. That only the word I knew for them, as I was introduced to them by Brian and Carol.

Fair enough...but a couple things. First, any incorrect use of nomenclature should be rectified as soon as possible. I believe Brian and Carol have made an error. Second, defining something by form in this particular case is illogical, since the form is far too similar to do so. For example, take flat head and domed rivets. In terms of form, both are very different, yet they are both rivets, both serving the same function. They are still called flathead and domed rivets. The same case should be made for these items...they should be bell cap washers, not just bell caps, as though they are their own seperate entity.


And here I would say what you told me before: NO. As that is the context we knew these items from, in first place. Otherwise You are taking it out of context.

So you think then that the bell cap washers on the horse chamfrons can be used in the same context as those of belt plates? To each his own!

[Magnus]

I must however point out that I first came into contact with these bell-caps when in 1987 I was commissioned by the Vindolanda Trust to reproduce what is known as the Vindolanda chamfron ( cavalry equipment ) which of course I relate to in an earlier post. Then after also being commissioned to reproduce the Velsen Dagger I again came into contact with these things that were used on the belt which carried this dagger ( equipment waistbelts )

So now instead of evidence you are posting your resume. Sorry, but anyone who does this never has a leg to stand on in any debate that I have ever witnessed.

I became interested in these things 22 years ago as mentioned so I began to produce and use them, it was then that the diacovery was made that the engineering design of these things does indeed reduce the amount of poundage needed to lock a rivet as oppossed to that of a flat washer.

How was this measured and tested? What were the exact results of the study (which of course, I am assuming used scientific parameters in which to carry said testing out).

I do think that having proved this fact not just from the experience of the last 22 years of riveting but also from some 20 to 30 years previous to those years thus giving some 50 plus years experience, I do think myself capable of giving the estimate of to only 10% of that used for a flat washer.

But you haven't proved anything! You simply say it is so, and you expect us to take your word based on your resume instead of actual quantitative evidence! This holds no validity in any academic forum.

I do of course admit that this is only an estimate and not a dynamicaly tested amount.

This would be a more accurate statement. Not entirely 100%, but a bit closer than the absolute statements you've been posting previously. Given the degree of human error, I personaly would estimate that your 10% could in fact be closer to 0-3%, thus being a negligable amount.

I would therefore consider that what Matt referes to as only a theory of mine has been well and truely tested, infact should he or indeed anyone care to produce and use these things they will discover what both myself and Jurjen have found from them.

So the line prior to this, you say you've never actually measured the supposed efficiency, then you go on to say that your theory is proven...wow...it either IS something, or it ISN'T. Which is it? Because if you have no actual proof, then no theory can be proven. And I'm not making that up, that's standard in the scientific community. Saying you've used them for "X" number of years is not proof either. In fact, I would say that because of your bias towards them, you are unable to present an un-opinionated view of the items.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Brian.

Sorry for confusing, I actually totally understand what your argument is. I was just trying to be funny.

[PhilusEstilius]

Christian.

There is no confusion at all for like yourself I also have a very good sense of humour, and I have to say that I'm very pleased to learn that you totally understand what this is about.

[Magnus]

lol

[PhilusEstilius]

Matt.

Where you speak so much about being academically correct and the nomenclature of a subject then would it not also on your part be politely correct and in the true academic sense that is, where you would contact the lady Carol-van-Driel Murray to allow her to defend her point of view or do you just throw derogatory remarks around no matter who the person might be.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hmmmm, the term washer...now I disagree with it being used in a mechanical fastening context.
After all, what washing does this item perform?
Does it wash dishes? My clothes? My cars? NO...... So why is it called a washer?

It does prevent a fastener, be it a rivet or bolt etc, from being drawn into the hole of the material it is fastening together.
Especially as this material can wear, deform etc.

But where does the washing come in? No where....so why do we call it a washer I wonder? Possibly because some one, some where coined a term......

Yet, when we go into the department store and ask to see their selection of washers....do they send you to the hardware deptment?
And visa versa....ask for a washer in a hardware store, and they don't ask you if it is the Hotpoint model washer/dryer combo do they?

It is all depending on the context it is used in......

[Magnus]

Matt.

Where you speak so much about being academically correct and the nomenclature of a subject then would it not also on your part be politely correct and in the true academic sense that is, where you would contact the lady Carol-van-Driel Murray to allow her to defend her point of view or do you just throw derogatory remarks around no matter who the person might be.

Ok, since you're unable to address any of the points in my posts we'll play it your way. PM me the "lady's" email addy and I'll ask her.

And can you clarify the derogatory remarks? Or are you attempting to erode my credibility in order to boost your own, since posting your resume didn't work out as you planned? LOL

But let's see..Hmmmm...reading the thread. Page 4, first post I refer to this debate as rediculous...but I didn't insult anyone. My next post said for you to get over it, because you were over-reacting to the debate with Matt Lukes...is that really an insult?

Page 5 second post...I said for you not to be insulted...and then I followed that with nothing insulting. The post immediately after that of mine I said you were "staunchly defending" bell caps. Did that make you mad? A bit farther down I insulted the bell cap by calling them handi-caps. But I'm pretty sure inanimate objects have no feelings. Last post on page five I said you were attempting to manipulate people by saying if they are logical, then they simply must believe in your theory. I then went on to say that was rather sad. Is that what you are talking about? Because I'm still not seeing it...

Page 6...I told you again to get over "it"...refering to the fact that a bell cap is a washer. That hurts your feelings it seems. I then used the word "Nothing" in all caps...more for emphasis...I wasn't yelling.

That's basically it. You seem to have an emotional attachment to bell-cap washers. Most of my "negativity" is aimed at them...but in terms of insulting you? I guess my "sad" comment was about as close as you can get...

...but I think you're just upset because you realise your logic is simply wrong. And let's face it...no-one likes being wrong. The best part of all of this is that I have no emotional investment here. The bottom line to me, is the importance of using the proper terms and why. And above all using the best evidence available. Personal opinion and your resume doesn't count as evidence unfortunately.

[Magnus]

Hmmmm, the term washer...

LOL @ Byron. Yeah...point taken. Makes you wonder about language. 8)

[PhilusEstilius]

Matt.

Where throughout this topic any of your remarks that may have appeared foolish or derogatory is neither here nor there with me, for infact where any may have been directed at me they would be as water that rolls off a ducks back I can assure you.
Then where you would ask me to give you an email or address for Carol-van-Driel Murray to be able to tell her that she made a mistake then I can only suggest you find your own way of achieving that.

Infact while your doing that you might also like to do a bit more research into just who this lady is and her work, you never know you might learn something for she is one of the very well known authorities on Roman leatherwork where also she has written about bell-caps and their usage.
However I don't think that she would want to waste too much time discussing about if or not she made a mistake by useing someones terminology of the bell-cap.