I've updated my original freeware calculator into something pretty
nice, and still free.

My "canned" description:

ME Weights 2.1 is a material weight calculator which combines power
with ease of use. Designed to calculate the volume and weight of any
combination of fifteen basic shapes and a large variety of materials
commonly used in manufacturing and construction.

Shapes include:
hexagonal, octagonal, rectangular, square, and round solid bar
round, square, and rectangular tubing
sphere, hollow sphere, pyramid, cone, cone frustum (truncated cone),
and spherical cap

Square and rectangular solid stock may also have external corner radii
defined. Square and rectangular tubing may have internal and/or
external radii defined. This allows for the calculation of a large
number of "custom" shapes.

The user identifies the material, then selects and dimensions the
shape. There is a substantial built-in material density database, or
a user-defined value may be input. Dimensional data can be input as
any combination of inches, feet, millimeters, and meters. Output can
be in U.S. or metric units.

Input may be numerical or in the form of an expression - 1.500 or 1
1/2 or 1+1/2 or 1+(1/2) or (1+1/2), among others.

The program is a single 200k file which is installed simply by copying
it to a directory of your choice. It does not modify your registry.


Screenshot, showing examples of U.S. and metric output, at:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/s/rsnmar/MEWeights21.gif



Download the program:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/s/rsnmar/MEWeights21.zip


Hope somebody finds it useful.


Mike Rainey

I d/l to 3 1/2" floppy , tried MS Excell to open--got gibererish-- what do
you use
to open it with?? Jerry

Michael Rainey wrote:

I've updated my original freeware calculator into something pretty
nice, and still free.

My "canned" description:

ME Weights 2.1 is a material weight calculator which combines power
with ease of use. Designed to calculate the volume and weight of any
combination of fifteen basic shapes and a large variety of materials
commonly used in manufacturing and construction.

Shapes include:
hexagonal, octagonal, rectangular, square, and round solid bar
round, square, and rectangular tubing
sphere, hollow sphere, pyramid, cone, cone frustum (truncated cone),
and spherical cap

Square and rectangular solid stock may also have external corner radii
defined. Square and rectangular tubing may have internal and/or
external radii defined. This allows for the calculation of a large
number of "custom" shapes.

The user identifies the material, then selects and dimensions the
shape. There is a substantial built-in material density database, or
a user-defined value may be input. Dimensional data can be input as
any combination of inches, feet, millimeters, and meters. Output can
be in U.S. or metric units.

Input may be numerical or in the form of an expression - 1.500 or 1
1/2 or 1+1/2 or 1+(1/2) or (1+1/2), among others.

The program is a single 200k file which is installed simply by copying
it to a directory of your choice. It does not modify your registry.

Screenshot, showing examples of U.S. and metric output, at:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/s/rsnmar/MEWeights21.gif

Download the program:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/s/rsnmar/MEWeights21.zip

Hope somebody finds it useful.

Mike Rainey

(Michael Rainey) wrote in message . com...

I've updated my original freeware calculator into something pretty
nice, and still free.

Download the program:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/s/rsnmar/MEWeights21.zip


Before I get all excited, is this a Win32 application ?
The screenshot doesn't look like you used MFC or any other
Microcrap-only tools ... If you don't intend to someday
turn it into a commercial program, source would allow Linux
and other Unix users to compile for their own platform ...
Or if you did it in Java - yeah, ugh, but then it would
be cross-platform ...

Dear Mike,
I think I figgered it out--takes a zipper--last time I d/l'd a zip prog.
it was so complicated I coudn't figger it out, I didn't re-install it
after my last re-boot.
Seems like anything from MS wants to take over your computer anyhow.
( Sneaky B@33@*%$-) They want to make my Nutscrape unusable)--
Could you possibly send it plain text--(not zipped)--------
May A Thousand Pterodactyls lay golden eggs in your back yard!---Jerry

Michael Rainey wrote:

I've updated my original freeware calculator into something pretty
nice, and still free.

My "canned" description:

ME Weights 2.1 is a material weight calculator which combines power
with ease of use. Designed to calculate the volume and weight of any
combination of fifteen basic shapes and a large variety of materials
commonly used in manufacturing and construction.

Shapes include:
hexagonal, octagonal, rectangular, square, and round solid bar
round, square, and rectangular tubing
sphere, hollow sphere, pyramid, cone, cone frustum (truncated cone),
and spherical cap

Square and rectangular solid stock may also have external corner radii
defined. Square and rectangular tubing may have internal and/or
external radii defined. This allows for the calculation of a large
number of "custom" shapes.

The user identifies the material, then selects and dimensions the
shape. There is a substantial built-in material density database, or
a user-defined value may be input. Dimensional data can be input as
any combination of inches, feet, millimeters, and meters. Output can
be in U.S. or metric units.

Input may be numerical or in the form of an expression - 1.500 or 1
1/2 or 1+1/2 or 1+(1/2) or (1+1/2), among others.

The program is a single 200k file which is installed simply by copying
it to a directory of your choice. It does not modify your registry.

Screenshot, showing examples of U.S. and metric output, at:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/s/rsnmar/MEWeights21.gif

Download the program:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/s/rsnmar/MEWeights21.zip

Hope somebody finds it useful.

Mike Rainey

sniffer wrote:

According to that program, steel weighs 3 times more than aluminium. My

That's about right.

question is, how much stronger will steel tubing be than aluminium, if the
steel tubing is 1/3 of the wall thickness of aluminium tubing?

Strength depends on the alloys being considered. There are aluminum
alloys up to about 75Ksi tensile and steels up to about 250Ksi but
whether they are practical in a given situation ...

However if you can come up with a strong enough design, the deflection
would be about the same. Steel has 3 times the weight and 3 times the
elastic modulus.

Ted

Yeah, Mike, Works great ('cept for working backwards---I had an 8" S.S.
Sphere, put in O.D & Wt.--I.D wouldn't come up.--so I guessed I.D, *
approached till it = the wt.)---still a lot faster than working the
entire formula.--Thanks-Jerry

Michael Rainey wrote:

It's a Windows application programmed with IBasic. If you have a
problem unzipping it, email me and I'll send you the program - it's
still only around 212k with the documentation.

Mike

Jerry Wass wrote:

Yeah, Mike, Works great ('cept for working backwards---I had an 8" S.S.
Sphere, put in O.D & Wt.--I.D wouldn't come up.--so I guessed I.D, *
approached till it = the wt.)---still a lot faster than working the
entire formula.--Thanks-Jerry

Huh? Volume of a sphere is (4/3) pi r^3.
Hollow sphere is (4/3) pi (R^3 - r^3).

How can it be faster?

Ted

In article ,
Excitable Boy wrote:
(Michael Rainey) wrote in message . com...

I've updated my original freeware calculator into something pretty
nice, and still free.

Download the program:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/s/rsnmar/MEWeights21.zip


Before I get all excited, is this a Win32 application ?

It appears to be. It downloads as a ".zip", and "unzip -l" (on
unix) shows that it contains a ".exe" file which could be either Windows
or MS-DOS. Size of the executable is 206k, which suggests that it is
tailored for Windows. I'm not going to bother unzipping it and looking
with strings to see what usage messages it may have (like I do with new
virii. Something that claims to be a sound file, but contains strings
like "This program cannot be run in DOS mode!" is a pretty good clue
that it truly is a virus. (Unlikely in this case, of course.)

The screenshot doesn't look like you used MFC or any other
Microcrap-only tools ... If you don't intend to someday
turn it into a commercial program, source would allow Linux
and other Unix users to compile for their own platform ...
Or if you did it in Java - yeah, ugh, but then it would
be cross-platform ...

Yes -- source would be a nice thing -- then I could have a crack
at making it run on my unix boxen.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article ,
Michael Rainey wrote:
Jerry Wass wrote in message ...
Yeah, Mike, Works great ('cept for working backwards---I had an 8" S.S.
Sphere, put in O.D & Wt.--I.D wouldn't come up.--so I guessed I.D, *
approached till it = the wt.)---still a lot faster than working the
entire formula.--Thanks-Jerry

[ ... ]

I'm not following you. A sphere has no I.D. A hollow sphere has an
I.D.. The only variable for a sphere is the outside diameter. A
hollow sphere has an outside diameter, plus an inside diameter which,
obviously, must be smaller than the outside diameter. That's the way
the program works.

Am I missing something in your comment?

I think that what he wanted to do is enter the OD and the
desired weight, and have it come up with an ID for his hollow sphere to
get the right weight.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

(DoN. Nichols) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Michael Rainey wrote:
Jerry Wass wrote in message ...
Yeah, Mike, Works great ('cept for working backwards---I had an 8" S.S.
Sphere, put in O.D & Wt.--I.D wouldn't come up.--so I guessed I.D, *
approached till it = the wt.)---still a lot faster than working the
entire formula.--Thanks-Jerry

[ ... ]

I'm not following you. A sphere has no I.D. A hollow sphere has an
I.D.. The only variable for a sphere is the outside diameter. A
hollow sphere has an outside diameter, plus an inside diameter which,
obviously, must be smaller than the outside diameter. That's the way
the program works.

Am I missing something in your comment?

I think that what he wanted to do is enter the OD and the
desired weight, and have it come up with an ID for his hollow sphere to
get the right weight.

Enjoy,
DoN.

If that's the case, would it be a capability that a lot of folks would benefit from?


Mike

On 5 Jul 2003 06:35:15 -0700, (Michael Rainey) wrote:
I've updated my original freeware calculator into something pretty
nice, and still free.

Nicely done, Mike. The abilities to work in mixed units and fractions is
very welcome.

Gary

On 7 Jul 2003 02:35:54 -0700, (Michael Rainey) wrote:
(DoN. Nichols) wrote in message ...
I think that what he wanted to do is enter the OD and the
desired weight, and have it come up with an ID for his hollow sphere to
get the right weight.

If that's the case, would it be a capability that a lot of folks would benefit from?

Seems likely it would be useful to casters. Might be useful to others
too, if they were trying to build something that would float.

I like your program as is, but it could be somewhat more generally
useful if you allowed any fields to be inputs and any fields to be
outputs, depending on where the user plugged in numbers. In other
words, if it could solve for any missing numbers once enough
numbers had been input to give a unique solution.

That's a pretty ambitious requirement, though. Some of the
equation engines (Mathcad, TKsolver, etc) can do it, but it
isn't a simple programming task since the engine has to be
able to determine when it has enough information to arrive
at a unique solution for a given shape.

Gary

DoN. Nichols wrote:

It appears to be. It downloads as a ".zip", and "unzip -l" (on
unix) shows that it contains a ".exe" file which could be either Windows
or MS-DOS.

..exe's are also used/run in OS/2. Of course the OS calls are different.

virii. Something that claims to be a sound file, but contains strings
like "This program cannot be run in DOS mode!" is a pretty good clue
that it truly is a virus. (Unlikely in this case, of course.)

Things like GLURP.JPG.EXE are used to spoof windows users since the
default browser setup only shows the first extension. Why am I not
surprised?

Of course, DoN knows this but others might not.

Ted

Michael Rainey wrote:

I think that what he wanted to do is enter the OD and the
desired weight, and have it come up with an ID for his hollow sphere to
get the right weight.

If that's the case, would it be a capability that a lot of folks would benefit from?

Probably. Seems doing a bit of elementary math is something many
(most?) are allergic to.

Ted

writes:

Things like GLURP.JPG.EXE are used to spoof windows users since the
default browser setup only shows the first extension. Why am I not
surprised?

Worse, even when you tell Explorer NOT to hide file extensions, it
still hides some of them. For example, a .lnk file is used as a sort
of symbolic link (alias) to a program, and Explorer won't show the .lnk
suffix.

Dave

Gary Coffman wrote in message . ..
On 7 Jul 2003 02:35:54 -0700, (Michael Rainey) wrote:
(DoN. Nichols) wrote in message ...
I think that what he wanted to do is enter the OD and the
desired weight, and have it come up with an ID for his hollow sphere to
get the right weight.

If that's the case, would it be a capability that a lot of folks would benefit from?

Seems likely it would be useful to casters. Might be useful to others
too, if they were trying to build something that would float.

I like your program as is, but it could be somewhat more generally
useful if you allowed any fields to be inputs and any fields to be
outputs, depending on where the user plugged in numbers. In other
words, if it could solve for any missing numbers once enough
numbers had been input to give a unique solution.

That's a pretty ambitious requirement, though. Some of the
equation engines (Mathcad, TKsolver, etc) can do it, but it
isn't a simple programming task since the engine has to be
able to determine when it has enough information to arrive
at a unique solution for a given shape.

Gary

I thought about it some after Jerry's sphere question popped up. Aside
from the unquestioned value of being able to "force" one dimension so
as to arrive at a given weight, would you ever actually reduce the
total number of entries? It seems to me that the last dimension would
always have to await the evaluation of the second to last. And not
having to input the last would be cancelled by having to manually
input the weight.

I'm not a mathematician, just a hobbyist programmer. It would be
great to hear some other thoughts on this.


Mike

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:54:03 +0100, "sniffer" wrote
something
.......and in reply I say!:

Ted. I did not get your message direct, bu7t can read it here. SO.

I am not sure if you were among those that guided me through this
maze, but the Elastic modulus is not the whole story, from my
extensive blundering about on this subject. High tensile steel is
"stronger" than mild steel mainly because it can withstand more
distortion before Elastic Modulus (Young's) is overcome and the metal
reaches its permanent deformation point. Young's then no longer
applies.

My favourite examples are spring steel and mild steel. The spring is
actually no "stiffer" than the mild steel, but continues to resist
permanent deformation for a long time, while also applying Young's
modulus to a greater and greater strain. Both will have a YM around
210 MPa.

So the "tested stress maximum" is often more important than the
Elastic modulus.

How does this apply to aluminium vs say, mild steel? From the Beam.exe
programme it appears about the same using a 100mm tube, with a 6 mm
wall of alum and a 2mm wall of steel. Both reached approixmately the
same proportion of their failure strain under a given load.



"Ted Edwards" wrote in message
...
sniffer wrote:

According to that program, steel weighs 3 times more than aluminium. My

That's about right.

question is, how much stronger will steel tubing be than aluminium, if
the
steel tubing is 1/3 of the wall thickness of aluminium tubing?

Strength depends on the alloys being considered. There are aluminum
alloys up to about 75Ksi tensile and steels up to about 250Ksi but
whether they are practical in a given situation ...

However if you can come up with a strong enough design, the deflection
would be about the same. Steel has 3 times the weight and 3 times the
elastic modulus.

Ted

Thanks Ted.




************************************************** ****************************************
Huh! Old age!. You may hate it, but let me tell you, you can't get by for long without it!

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

"Michael Rainey" wrote in message om...
I'm not a mathematician, just a hobbyist programmer. It would be
great to hear some other thoughts on this.

Actually I would say that or consider you to be an Mathematician Michael.
How many people do you think in the world to the world population can do what
you do. Rocket science, hell its all science. You know sometimes, I think if you
or I didnt know what we know now, wouldnt it be wonderful to be a younger guy
then, doing what you do now G At 37 I can't go back, but he will sure give one
hell of a fight on the way out



Mike

Old Nick wrote:

I am not sure if you were among those that guided me through this
maze, but the Elastic modulus is not the whole story, from my
extensive blundering about on this subject. High tensile steel is
"stronger" than mild steel mainly because it can withstand more
distortion before Elastic Modulus (Young's) is overcome and the metal
reaches its permanent deformation point. Young's then no longer
applies.

Exactly so.

So the "tested stress maximum" is often more important than the
Elastic modulus.

How does this apply to aluminium vs say, mild steel? From the Beam.exe
programme it appears about the same using a 100mm tube, with a 6 mm
wall of alum and a 2mm wall of steel. Both reached approixmately the
same proportion of their failure strain under a given load.

Often there are two criteria for a satisfactory design:
It must be strong enough so that it will not fail.
It must be stiff enough so that it doesn't deflect more than an
acceptable ammount.

For example, most building codes state that floor joists must be strong
enough that the floor can withstand so many lbs/sq. ft. They also state
that the deflection must not exceede 1 unit/so_many_units of length.
Frequently this requires far "stronger" joists than would be necessary
for resistance to failure.

Considering your tube (I recall the raw data for an inch system so I'm
adjusting the diameter and wall):
BeamOut ''(10E6,I_tube 100 6÷25.4)Beam 0 120 (60 1000) {Aluminum}
pos'n pt. shear bend. slope def'l
force stress stress

0 -500 -363.1 0 0.01906 0
60 1000 363.1 -12510 0 0.7626
120 -500 0 0 -0.01906 0
BeamOut ''(30E6,I_tube 100 2÷25.4)Beam 0 120 (60 1000) {steel}
pos'n pt. shear bend. slope def'l
force stress stress

0 -500 -1047 0 0.01689 0
60 1000 1047 -33240 0 0.6754
120 -500 0 0 -0.01689 0

The deflection are close but not identical. This is because the tube
wall is not *VERY* much less than the OD. The thinner the wall, the
closer the deflections would be. The stress is roughly 1/3 in the
aluminum tube. An aluminum alloy with a yield strength of (say) 36Ksi
would be stressed to only 1/3 of its yield. A 36Ksi yield mild steel
(water pipe grade) would be stressed to about 90% of its yield but a
100Ksi steel alloy would be stressed to the same fraction of its yield.

Simply put, you must design for both sufficient strength and sufficient
stiffness.

Hope this helps.

Ted

Gary Coffman wrote in message . ..
On 7 Jul 2003 16:27:25 -0700, (Michael Rainey) wrote:

Gary Coffman wrote in message . ..
On 7 Jul 2003 02:35:54 -0700, (Michael Rainey) wrote:
(DoN. Nichols) wrote in message ...
I think that what he wanted to do is enter the OD and the
desired weight, and have it come up with an ID for his hollow sphere to
get the right weight.

If that's the case, would it be a capability that a lot of folks would benefit from?

Seems likely it would be useful to casters. Might be useful to others
too, if they were trying to build something that would float.

I like your program as is, but it could be somewhat more generally
useful if you allowed any fields to be inputs and any fields to be
outputs, depending on where the user plugged in numbers. In other
words, if it could solve for any missing numbers once enough
numbers had been input to give a unique solution.

That's a pretty ambitious requirement, though. Some of the
equation engines (Mathcad, TKsolver, etc) can do it, but it
isn't a simple programming task since the engine has to be
able to determine when it has enough information to arrive
at a unique solution for a given shape.

Gary

I thought about it some after Jerry's sphere question popped up. Aside
from the unquestioned value of being able to "force" one dimension so
as to arrive at a given weight, would you ever actually reduce the
total number of entries? It seems to me that the last dimension would
always have to await the evaluation of the second to last. And not
having to input the last would be cancelled by having to manually
input the weight.

Because of the special purpose nature of your calculator, you can design
the program logic so that after all parameters but one have been input, it
will solve for the last. More general equation solving engines have a tougher
time, though, because the problems they may be given may have more
degrees of freedom. They are able to state the answer in terms of other
parameters in those cases. That wouldn't be very useful for your calculator,
though, so you needn't worry about programming that sort of universal
equation solving engine.

Gary

Gary,

That's a relief!


Mike

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:15:03 GMT, Ted Edwards wrote
something
.......and in reply I say!:

OK. Fair enough. Without sounding too smart, I think you confirmed
what I was trying to say.

I was concerned that a lot of aluminium is nowhere as ultimately
strong as even water pipe. Alum with the same yield as water pipe
would, I imagine, be quite a strong alloy compared to the local
hardware's stuff. So although the Elastic Mod may be the same for each
alloy (I know steel alters surprisingly little over the range), the
yield strength is way different.

As you say, it depends on whether you need failure strength or some
nominated bend under the allowed load.

Old Nick wrote:

I am not sure if you were among those that guided me through this
maze, but the Elastic modulus is not the whole story, from my
extensive blundering about on this subject. High tensile steel is
"stronger" than mild steel mainly because it can withstand more
distortion before Elastic Modulus (Young's) is overcome and the metal
reaches its permanent deformation point. Young's then no longer
applies.

Exactly so.

************************************************** ****************************************
Huh! Old age!. You may hate it, but let me tell you, you can't get by for long without it!

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/