text:
Talk:Bicycle wheel

To do

 * Strength to weight ratio
 * construction
 * rim
 * hub

Extlink: http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/wheel1.html

--Christopherlin 21:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of disc wheels? Rather major piece missing from the article. Mathmo 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By all means, please add a mention. -AndrewDressel 14:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tufo Tubular
Does the Tufo 'tubular' cited as an example of a tubular without an inner tube truly constitute a tubular tire? If a tubular tire is defined as 'any tire that is designed to work on a tubular rim' It would not work. If tubular tire is defined as 'any tire that is stitched closed to form a torus' then this tire almost works. The reference refers to it as a 'tubeless road' and 'tubular clincher' tire. I am interested by the tire but inclined not to cite it as a reference that a tubular tire doesn't contain an inner tube. For the moment the article claims that a tubular 'almost always has an inner tube'. This seems like a fair compromise until we resolve this. Ender8282 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Do not confuse Tufo's 'tubular clincher' tires, designed for clincher rims, with their pure 'tubular' tires, designed for tubular rims. Perhaps the current definition is not worded in the best way possible. It seems that the salient aspect of 'tubular' is that the tire cross section is in the form of a tube, and then the Tufo tubulars definitely fit. This VeloNews article and this Road Cycling article have no trouble calling Tufos tubulars. The slangy 'sew-ups' would be no weirder than 'clipless pedals' or 'threadless stems'. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * The Road Cycling article still talks about a tubular-clincher. The VeloNews article is most definately NOT talking about a tubular-clincher hybrid.  This most certainly proves the point that 'not all tubulars have a seperate innertube'.  I might prefer that the VeloNews article were used instead of the current bike-eu article only because it is refering to what I understand a tubular tire to be.  However the Bike-eu and the Road Cycling articles provide a picture that explins what is going on far better than VeloNews does. Ender8282 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The construction of a tubular tire is not the point of this article. Since this article references the tubular tyres article we don't need to go into construction details here. I have changed the aricle to discuss the interface between tire and rim contrasting it with a traditional clincher. I am not totally happy with the summary but maybe someone else can clean it up a little. Lets leave the tubeless tubular for the tubular tire page. Ender8282 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wooden rims
Caption to Image:Bamboobike.jpg claims that the rims are wooden... I doubt this and there is no mention of it in the image summary. They look like rusted steel to me. Have messaged the image uploaded but consider this a request for any other input. bad ·monkey  {{sub| talk to the {: }}  ::  05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the wooden bit is actualy the tyre. If there were no metal rim as well, then how would the metal spokes be fixed to the rim securely enough perform well?Gregorydavid 13:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact it is highly likely that the rims are made from wood. Wood was the most popular material for rims around that time and metal rims only became popular (on safeties) with the rise of rim brakes (which this bicycle does not have).  The tires are certainly not wood, they are pneumatic rubber types, the valves are visible coming out of the rims. Will.law 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wood definitely have been used for making rims. LDHan 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that wood has been used for rims is not in question; merely what this picture is of. If you look around where the rim meets the tyre (which is most certainly not wood!), you can see shine and reflections which give it the appearance of metal to me. bad ·monkey  {{sub| talk to the {: }}  ::  03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that clear from the photo, but it could be tarnished metal. LDHan 09:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As the image uploader I cannot solve the problem definately because the pic was taken a few years ago, very far from where I live and with a poor camera resolution. The only thing I can tell is that if there had been sthg unusual about the wheels, i would probably have noticed that and included it in the image summary. So it seems the wheels were made as they mostly are today - steel and rubber. other clues are what seem to be reflections on the rims and possible technological problems with joining wood with obviously metal spokes. Personally, I would opt for removing the example from the article until some Wikipedian from Holešovice in Prague goes for a nice walk to the nearby Technological Museum and finds out the Truth ;-) Mohylek 13:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the image again for another look - [[Image:Bamboobike.jpg|thumb|Bicycle with rims made of wood (1896)]] Gregorydavid 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong wheel, no wood on these rims. Gregorydavid 13:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaction to inertia
"concerns about rotational inertia of bicycle wheels are vastly overstated--the inertia of all bicycle wheels is negligible compared to the mass of the rider." Can you back this up with any data or references. Have you ridden wheels with low and high moments? There _is_ a noticeable difference when accelerating and climbing.

Ender8282 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * See the article at http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9662.0.html
 * I am not sure that I believe everything that it says but I do agree with some of it.
 * Ender8282 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The bit about rotational inertia being insignificant compared with the riders mass should be removed. Higher rotational inertia of wheels definitely can be easily felt by a rider and makes a significant difference in races such as critirums where you might accelerate from 30 kph to well over 50 kph more than 200 times (four corners X 50 laps) in little more than two hours. It can make more difference to the final outcome in a given race than the difference in the mass of two representative riders providing that for comparsion the two riders are nearly equal in ability and fitness (as they might well be in any given sanctioned race with very competitive racers), but one is a heavier rider. This is because in such a race a lot of the time you must stay very close to the rider in front of you and if the rider in front of you is the rider of nearly equal ability (but different weight) but now he can accelerate out of the corners using less energy than he did before when compared to you (when you were very nearly equal) due to lighter wheels and rims than you, you will have less effort left compared to him for that final long extremely hard effort when right at the very last the rotational inertia of the wheels can once again make a very important difference, even if it is only a fraction of an inch. The trade off here occurs when the heavier rider begins to experience 'squirrly' behavior or outright failure with rims that are too light and flex in hard cornering or sprints. I think the point for removing the claim that less rotational inertia is not really signifigant or is overstated when compared to the riders mass is a bit harder to prove for the case when climbing, but it looks like the 'number crunchers' have done so. 32.162.209.15 (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rims with no holes for spokes?
At time of writing, the article says:

 * The number of spoke holes on the rim normally matches the number of spoke holes in the hub. Some unusual rim designs have no holes for spokes, for example Campagnolo road rims and the Velocity Zvino MTB rims.

Huh - Campagnolo rims (presumably, the rims used on Campy's own wheels) don't have spoke holes? Both my sets do! Which wheels don't use holes for spokes? If it is just a few designs, we should probably say "...for example some Campagnolo road rims...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikianJim (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

 * Anyone? WikianJim 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Here's some info on the Zvino [] & [].  I think saying that they don't have holes is misleading though.  The rim still has holes, just in a separate section of the rim.  AFAIK, campagnolo rims all have spoke/nipple holes. Just not in the 2nd layer of aluminum so you don't have to use rim tape. Will.law 14:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Right, I get this now! On a double wall rim they have holes for the nipples to poke through, but not on the bit that touches the innertube/tubular. WikianJim 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There are more companies than just velocity and campy that make whls without holes in the outer wall. Mavic (CrossMax, XM819 rims, Kyrsium & R-SYS) Shimano (DA road tubeless whls) Falcrum (I am not sure but since they are asian made campagnolo whls I suspect) It is a little hard deciding what brands/models to list and which not to list. I suspect that Mavic was first to market but I am not sure. Do we want to try to make a list of all of them or should we choose one or two as references? Is it possible to have a NPOV if we list some but not others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender8282 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Clincher is not quite the right term
Clincher is a specific type of tire-rim design that is obsolete. What is usually referred to today as a "clincher" is in fact a wire-on or wire-type design. Clinchers have a bead that grips a hooked edge on the rim when the tire is under pressure. Wire-type simply rely on wire tension to offset the pressure and the tire is held on the rim by being slightly smaller than the rim.

Reference: Sharp, Archibald, "Bicycles & Tricycles, An Elementary Treatise on Their Design and Construction", Longmans, Green, 1896 pp495-497 (Reprinted MIT Press, 1979).

Michael Daly 06:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Sheldon Brown seems to agree, although he may be using the same original source: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_cl.html.
 * Probably due to a shortage of sources on such topics :). Bicycling magazine made a big deal about this about 30 years ago, but the naming conventions don't seem to have been affected. Michael Daly 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ISO 8090 (“Cycles – Glossary of terms”) lists the following types of rims along with drawings: There is no mention of “clincher”. Markus Kuhn (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * straight-sided rim
 * hook bead rim
 * sprint rim; adhesive bond rim
 * Westwood rim
 * double chamber crochet rim
 * single chamber crochet rim

 * The article discusses different methods of measuring beaded-edge and wired-edge tires, but does not define the distinction between a bead and a wire or say which is more common in which contexts. Seems to me, in an encyclopedia intended for ordinary people to read, the latter points are more important.  Jim.henderson (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section and definition
Sorry again about the revert, but the recent change had a lot of points to discuss -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It lost two alternate name "sew-up" and "single" that I think are very useful in an encyclopedia article.
 * 2) It added "hooks" to the definition of the alternate tire type commonly, and apparently erroniously, refered as clincher. See the discussion section just above this one to see that "hooks" do not define clincher.
 * 3) It tosses out a reference without replacing it as discussed above.

Sorry, I didn't read the comments first. Okay, I get part of it. Let me try to restore what you had. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for cleaning it up. I knew what I was trying to say but it didn't come out very well.  Ender8282 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

rolling resistance
I lifted this paragraph from the article as it's just a bunch of unsourced claims. I suppose it should either be sourced and replaced, or left out.

Rolling resistance also is reduced with increasing tire pressure, although the practical benefits become small at pressures significantly above 120 psi for the average bicycle rider. Thinner bicycle tires are lighter and have less wind resistance than wider tires, however, wider tires offer better traction, comfort, and stability.

26-inch wheels: Is this germane? NPOV?
Can someone tell me if (and why) the mention of UST here? It seems irrelevant because UST rims are still made around the same 26" standard as non-UST rims, and this section of the article is talking about the size of the rim, right? HuntClubJoe (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This section is mostly wrong and so are parts of other sections. "26-inch" wheels aren't rigidly 26 inches in diameter. Wheels are best specified by rim bead seat diameter; tires used with the same rim may vary. "26 x 1 3/4" size is nom osly used with very narrow tires. there is a good desciprtion of these issues at sheldonbrown.com/650b.html Jsallen1 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC).

 * I believe a discussion of 26 x 1.25, 26 x 1½, etc. should be included because for the average reader the 'wheel' includes the tyres. People should understand that the size 26in is only nominal, and the sizes of the various non-standard tires should be explained in terms of the UST/ISO/ETRTO standard. Hedley 06:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

giving it the greatest strength to weight ratio of any man-made structure?
Read this:

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/eqovp/til_that_the_tensioned_spoke_bicycle_wheel_has/c1a64yp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.11.138 (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how do you measure the size?
I don't understand how to measure the the diameter of the tire or rim, from the way it is described in the article. Both says smth with "where the tire sits", but exactly where is that? The tire and rim has an overlap if measured from the center of the circle and out. It needs a more precise/explicit explanation, or perhaps a diagram.

84.238.47.3 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The ISO standard measurement of tire and rim sizes (622 mm, 559 mm etc.) is the smallest diameter of the tyre, which matches the diameter of the bead seat of the rim. The bead seat is the little shelf inside either side of the rim. Some rims, however, do not have bead seats, relying instead on hooked edges to prevent the bead wires from pulling out over the edges of the rim. Some have both. Tyre width and depth may differ and still fit the same rim, so we get tyre specifications such as 25-622 and 38-622. All of the traditional tyre sizing systems were based on the outside diameter of the tyre, and so they collapsed into confusion as tyre widths began to change. Maybe I'll go edit now but I can't deal with the entire article at this time -- it is rife with confusion. Jsallen1 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Description of "Dish"
Hi!

I read the section on "dish" and I'd like to note for the prominent editors for this article that it needs a rewrite.

I found it odd to begin with that Sheldon Brown is referenced - but the section is a rewrite of it and took the reference which is correct and got it wrong or confused in the section when rewritten.

 * You are welcome to cite other sources. Sheldon Brown's site is handy because it is available to everyone, and it is likely to be reliable because he consults with other established authorities in the field such as Jobst Brandt and John Forester. -AndrewDressel (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

While for purposes of general casual and informal chats laymen might use "dish" as a description of the differing appearance of the two sides of a geared or disc wheel, for technical purposes that description is not correct.

 * If you have another reliable source, please cite it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To "dish" and "dishing" refers to the act of centering the rim between the outside of the axle lock nuts or end-caps. Either the wheel is dished or it isn't dished. There is no such thing as more dished or less dished. Regardless of extent - a wheel that is not dished is simply off dish. That is exactly what a dishing tool tests for.

 * In Sheldon's article on wheelbuilding, he uses expressions such as
 * If the wheel is highly dished,
 * The high amount of dishing called for to make room for more and more sprockets has caused an increase in spoke breakage on the left side of rear wheels,
 * A highly-dished rear wheel starts with very light tension on the left side spokes,
 * With half-radial spoking, the amount of dish is very slightly less to begin with, and
 * Optimizing the tension despite the different dishing
 * so it seems that the cited source with the kind assistance of John Allen, Daniel Boals, Jobst Brandt, and John Forester does describe a wheel as having more or less dish and being more or less dished. -AndrewDressel (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The terms "asymmetrical" and "offset" are the best terms to use to explain the difference in appearance of the two sides of a wheels where geared and disc wheels are concerned. The existing write-up does tackle that aspect.

 * Sheldon quotes John Allen, who states:
 * I recommend thicker spokes for the right side of a dished rear wheel (a wheel used with a cassette) than the left side, because the left-side spokes are under lower tension.
 * which suggests that dish describes a wheel that is asymmetrical, not merely a wheel on which the rim is centered. -AndrewDressel (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In short, all I'm recommending is a rewrite that simplifies the write-up by approaching the description more concretely or by getting straight to the point.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real mrrabbit (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 * If you go back to the Sheldon Brown reference - while it talks about the casual appearance of "dish" that is common in casual and informal chats, i.e., the appearance of a "dish" as in a piece of kitchen hardware, it concludes with the technical description of "dish".

 * Quote: "By extension, the term "dish" is used as a general synonym for accurate centering, even in the case of symmetrical wheels."

 * As I noted earlier - the proper use of the term on a technical basis is in relation to "centering". All bicycle wheels - whether symmetrical or asymmetrical when properly built are dished.  I.e., centered between the axle lock nuts - a dishing tool tests for exactly that - centering.

 * In other words, when the original write-up on "Dish" for this article was done, the author failed to note the distinction made by Sheldon Brown between "appearance" of a dish or bowl for disc and rear geared wheels and the "technical" meaning of dish in relation to the centering of bicycle wheels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real mrrabbit (talk • contribs) 04:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I did go back to read his short glossary entry, and I can find no support for your assertion that the proper use of the term on a technical basis is in relation to "centering". Instead the quotation you provide suggests that use of the term dish to describe accurate centering of a symmetrical wheel is merely an extension. Did you read his wheel building article? It clearly shows his use dish in a relative sense. Perhaps you have another source. -AndrewDressel (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Source: http://sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html#tensioning  (As you suggested...)

 * Paragraph #8. Clearly and concisely describes the action necessary using the dishing tool as the testing device to center the rim between the lock nuts of the hub axle.  Note that there is no distinction made between symmetrical or asymmetrical wheels, nor is the focus on making "dish" as a "bowl" appearance the focus.  All wheels go through this procedure when properly built and all are centered in order to be considered "dished" in the technical sense.  Note also that there are no terms "less" or "more" dished.  Either there is "improvement" needed or the wheel is dished.

 * Yes, I see that, but it does not support your point, especially in light of the quotations I provided above from the very same article. All I can see is that these five authorities, Sheldon Brown, John Allen, Daniel Boals, Jobst Brandt, and John Forester use dish in both, closely related senses: centering the rim, and asymmetrical spoke tension and angle. -AndrewDressel (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * My guess is that you are not a prolific wheelbuilder like myself - approaching 3000 wheels since 1984 if not already past that - and perhaps that may be what is impeding your interpretation of the glossary entry as well as the wheel building article. Picking up an actual dishing tool - or flipping a wheel in a stand to accomplish the same would help drive the point home very quickly because those actions will immediately highlight the "centering" action that is the focus of "dishing" a wheel.--The real mrrabbit (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * While I appreciate your wheel building experience and your passion to improve this article, you must understand that neither trumps the absolute requirement on Wikipedia to support claims with reliable sources. Your assertion that there is no such thing as more dished or less dished is directly and repeatedly refuted by sources so notable that they have their own articles here. On the other hand, I have seen many times that technical terms can be very poorly defined and very reliable sources can be found to support conflicting definitions. If you were to find and provide such a source, I would fully support adding that detail to the article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Sir! Are you really that dense?  Seriously!  I am using YOUR OWN sources to point out TO YOU that you are not reading them correctly.  "Dish" is used as a NOUN to describe the "appearance" of dish in a wheel as a reference to the shape of a bowl.  "Dish" is used as a VERB in reference to the technical wheel building action of "centering" the rim between the ends of the hub axle lock nuts.

 * Here it is again: Source: http://sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html#tensioning

 * Go all the way down to the last bullet item under "Improvised Tools" and note the use of flipping the wheel in the stays to check for centering of the rim between the axle lock nuts IN ORDER TO DISH THE WHEEL!!!--The real mrrabbit (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * First, I advise you to avoid making personal attacks. They will quickly get you banned from Wikipedia.
 * Second, while I do see Sheldon using the terms in the way that you describe, I do not see him doing so exclusively. Examples are numerous in the very article you keep citing, but here are some that I have not already quoted above:
 * Front wheels are symmetrically dished, and I recommend thicker spokes for the right side of a dished rear wheel. If he thought dished means symmetrical, or if all wheels are dished because dished means "made symmetrical", why would he use these redundant descriptions.
 * Half-radial rear wheels can be substantially more durable than conventional ones, if the wheel is highly dished; a highly-dished rear wheel starts with very light tension on the left side spokes; and the high amount of dishing called for to make room for more and more sprockets has caused an increase in spoke breakage on the left side of rear wheels. If dish simply means symmetrical, what could he possibly mean by highly dished and high amount of dishing?
 * With half-radial spoking, the amount of dish is very slightly less to begin with. If dish simply means symmetrical, does he mean that half-radial spoking requires or causes very slightly asymmetrical wheels?
 * Their wheels were highly dished inward. If dish simply means symmetrical, this statement makes no sense at all.
 * Here's one from his article on single-speeds
 * The rear wheel itself is a lot stronger than one made with off-center (dished) spoking to make room for a whole bunch of sprockets on one side. Here he very clearly uses dished to indicate that the rim is not centered between the hub flanges in contrast to the alternative: centered spoking (undished).
 * In the face of these quotations, I cannot see how you can insist that Sheldon Brown uses dished exclusively to mean centered or symmetrical. The last quotation specifically contradicts your original assertion that While for purposes of general casual and informal chats laymen might use "dish" as a description of the differing appearance of the two sides of a geared or disc wheel, for technical purposes that description is not correct. Numerous quotations specifically contradict your original assertion that There is no such thing as more dished or less dished. As much as I enjoy clarifying confusing terminology, unless another source can be found that does not contradiction your claims so frequently, I'm afraid this matter is closed. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * This is exactly what I mean. YOU are purposely misrepresenting what I point out to you.  I have never used the word "dish" "exclusively" as having ONE meaning.  I have pointed out repeatedly that is has TWO meanings in reference to bicycle wheels - one as used as a "NOUN" to describe the "appearance" of dish and the other as used as a "VERB" for the technical aspect of "centering" the rim between the axle lock nuts - USING THIS VERY ARTICLE's OWN REFERENCE to Sheldon Brown!!!

 * Yes, you do mention two meanings, and then you point out that one is only valid for purposes of general casual and informal chats laymen might use but for technical purposes that description is not correct. Then, you continue with either the wheel is dished or it isn't dished. There is no such thing as more dished or less dished. Your point that one definition is a noun and the other is a verb seems obvious and only mildly interesting. I have responded by showing that the cited sources do not describe one definition as more or less technical or accurate than the other. Instead, they readily use the term both ways. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * This is a conversation that covers the two meanings of dish as applied to a wheel. Note the noted author on bicycle wheels Jobst Brandt is in the discussion.  He gives the "appearance" definition.  Sheldon Brown does the same in reply to someone else, but also the already noted glossary link is included in the discussion that covers both definitions.  Pay particular attention to the 4 paragraph posting by "John" who covers exactly what I've been pointing out all along - BOTH definitions - and what they cover in detail.  Finally the last post by "Nate" nails what is likely to be the exact reason why you like many people are confused - which simply is that perhaps "dish" was never a good word to use to begin with.

 * Source: http://www.cyclingcrowd.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/technical/12117/Clarification-Needed-Definition-of-Dish

 * This source only confirms my point. Jobst Brandt spells out exactly the definition that you claim is not correct but makes no such distinction:
 * I think there is still a bit of unclarity about what constitutes dish or no-dish. Today, due to narrowly spaced and off center hub flanges, along with offset rims, a more precise definition is in order.  Dish is the difference in lateral angle of the left and right spokes of a wheel as they enter the rim expressed in distance of offset.  That is, if the conical dish of the left spokes has a different depth than the right, the difference is the amount of dish (disparity) of the wheel.
 * The only confusion I have on this topic is why you insist that one definition is correct and the other is not. I have not yet seen a single reference that confirms your point, let alone read a cogent argument that supports it.

 * If after reading that you still don't get it, then the following as queried above and the fourth noted synonym is not a personal attack, it applies:

 * Definition of "Dense": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dense

 * --The real mrrabbit (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * What I get is that you are trying to make the case that one definition of dish if technically correct and the other is not. However, I have not yet seen any support for that. Shouting and name calling suggest passion, but they do not persuade. You also point out that one is used as a noun and the other is used as a verb, but that seems like a minor point. Finally, you contend that the article, as currently written, does a poor job of making the distinction. That may be true, and I am ready to change it point out better the two definitions in use, but I don't expect to indicate that one is in any way superior to the other. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I have never said "one is superior to the other". Learn to read and represent others correctly.  I HAVE pointed out as you correctly noted that casual discussions of dish - more so by those who do not actually build wheels - will apply the "appearance" definition to the "technical" side as well.  That is not correct - as has already been explained and sourced.

 * My original opening note to the request for the edit was exactly as follows as copied and pasted from above:

 * Quote: "While for purposes of general casual and informal chats laymen might use "dish" as a description of the differing appearance of the two sides of a geared or disc wheel, for technical purposes that description is not correct."

 * Just you so know, I made the request to others as I have yet to do an actual Wiki edit and do not want to make a mistake that results in the removal of the excellent diagram that you have in this section of the article. It demonstrates both definitions that are in play to perfection - including the initial assessment at a glance that people will make of the rim not being centered in an asymmetrical wheel - until that is - they stop and take a closer look using the correct "axle-ends" versus "rim-position" comparison.  The dotted center line drives that point home.
 * --The real mrrabbit (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * What an unusual way to ask for help. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Single/Double/Triple wall
This article could really do with explaining the difference between single/double/triple wall rims (with pics). Something like this 188.223.5.83 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement ?
"a long axle, typically 20 mm (110 mm width), 9 mm (100.33 mm width) in diameter for durability, onto which the fork/frame clamps (found on most mountain bike forks)."

seems to make no sense.Eregli bob (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

. Definitely needs some cleanup though. For starters they're far from being found on most mountain bike forks. -Dhodges (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is such a thing as a thru axle

tags
The article is composed almost entirely of original research, self published sources and composed like an essay. Of all the sources, it is highly dependent on singular source of personal website of Sheldon Brown which is cited numerous times within the article. The references don't meet the standard WP:V, where not cited, it appears that it was written off of personal knowledge of editors, which again is not allowed per aforementioned policy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above entry is supposed to explain the addition of tags, and  in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_wheel&diff=prev&oldid=526828497 and  in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_wheel&diff=prev&oldid=526829030. The only specific criticism offered was that Sheldon Brown was a "singular source". Brown is still heavily referenced, but the majority of references points elsewhere. Also, Brown is in my view a valid secondary source. Brown didn't invent bicycle wheels or published research papers about them, he just writes about them, and references other, more primary sources. The  and  have since been removed, so those are resolved.
 * was replaced by . The article does not strike me as being an essay, more like a systematic collection of information. It might even benefit from cleanup (which WP article would not?), but not because it is an essay, so I'm going to remove that tag.
 * What remains is (OR). In a nutshell, OR is content that is not easily verifiable by potential references. Since no specific content was named as being OR, I'm going to remove that tag, too. We need to be specific with such tags. Saying "There's OR here!" does not cut it. A tagger can't expect from the other authors to figure out what they meant. Also, "it appears that it was written off of personal knowledge of editors" is no problem. Of course we may write from our personal knowledge, *provided* that what we write is referenceable, even if not actually referenced.
 * ✅--RainerBlome (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

650B / 27.5
Can we please keep this as 650B (which is what the standard is defined as), rather than inventing 27.5 Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Given the number of readily available sources that refer to it at 27.5", I'd say the cat is long out of the bag, and we're not inventing anything. I find it more useful to see the main standards by which something is known explicitly listed. We should not suppress 27.5" any more than we should suppress ISO 584. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Totally agree with Andy Dingley, we will not get fooled, but it is still 10 to 1, 10 being current misconceptions a 1 being the facts! — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 * What misconceptions do you mean, and what do you mean by "which some as a marketing term also refer to as a 650B, which it is not"? Are you claiming that wheels sold under the designation "27.5" are not 650B? Sheldon Brown sure seemed to think they were when he wrote:
 * marketeers have recently tried to popularize a fourth designation for the 584 mm tire size! They are trying to get people to call it "27 five." I strongly urge readers to resist this foolish jargon, and to use either the traditional "650B" designation, or, better yet, the internationally-standardized "584 mm" designation.
 * I interpret Sheldon's comments as meaning that all three designations are synonymous. What is the misconception? -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

 * As the intro to Mountain bike wheels states, Mountain bike wheels are described by the approximate outer diameter of the wheel plus a wide, ~2 inch tire. (which by the way it's expressed wrongly)

 * The "new" 27.5" size is just that, a 27.5" outside diameter wheel that mounts 2+ inch volume tires on 584 mm rims. 27.5" are used mainly for Mountain bikes.

 * The "traditional" 650B, (which is enjoying a revival) is a 26" outside diameter wheel that mounts ~1½  inch volume tires on  584 mm rims.  650 is just the metric equivalent of 26 inches.  650Bs are used mainy for Randonneur Bicycles, aka French tandems and touring bicycles.

 * So, to keep it neutral and for international appeal I would retitle section as  27.5 inch / ISO 584mm  and yes;  29 inch / ISO 622mm

 * Lets keep the hoopla on bay, we all know there's confusion in tire sizing, but why complicate it more.
 * Good reads @ ; Confrérie des 650  and  650B LIVES! by Sheldon Brown
 * Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Good reads indeed. The second one includes Sheldon Brown, himself, saying
 * ISO 584-mm wheel size, known in the French sizing system as “650B.”
 * Therefore, I believe it is best to include all three designations in the section, as it currently appears. -AndrewDressel (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * May be it shoud be mentioned that a 27 inch bicycle wheel has a diameter of 630 mm, which is not only a lot (46 mm, nearly two inches) more than a 27.5 inch wheel but also 8 mm more than a 28 inch wheel...Soylentyellow (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Outside diameter of "29er" tires
This article disagrees with another in Wikipedia. From this article:
 * The average 29-inch mountain bike tire has an outside diameter of about 28.5" (724 mm).

From 29er (bicycle)
 * ... the average 29" mountain bike tire is (in ISO notation) 59-622 - corresponding to an outside diameter of about 29.15 inches (740 mm).

Neither has a reference.

User5910 (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nipples and Hubs
I'm convinced prior art for nipples in the hub (and not in the rim) goes to Ringlé, 1991, but cannot find any reference for it online. They've been later bought by Sun, who've been the first to actually integrate the nipples (1994? 1995?) and not Industry Nine (2018) who are credited currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:A006:6453:4C6E:AFFF:FE0C:8218 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Bicycle wheel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080717060635/http://www.hadland.me.uk:80/rims.html to http://www.hadland.me.uk/rims.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116231017/http://www.bikemag.com/features/onlineexclusive/040306_vernon/ to http://www.bikemag.com/features/onlineexclusive/040306_vernon/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728131910/http://www.mavic.com/en/tracomp/ to http://www.mavic.com/en/tracomp/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507042441/http://www.dtswiss.com:80/getdoc/71f384b2-a638-401e-bd66-accbc9c64124/TechnicalDatasheet.aspx to http://www.dtswiss.com/getdoc/71f384b2-a638-401e-bd66-accbc9c64124/TechnicalDatasheet.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19981212022510/http://www.acsbmx.com:80/ to http://www.acsbmx.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509125215/http://www.bicycling.com:80/mountainbikecom/bikes-gear/reviewed-275-mountain-bikes-all-trails? to http://www.bicycling.com/mountainbikecom/bikes-gear/reviewed-275-mountain-bikes-all-trails
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324124843/http://www.vredesteinusa.com:80/index.html?lang=en-us&target=d16.html to http://www.vredesteinusa.com/index.html?lang=en-us&target=d16.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Stiffness
There are more than three directions for quantifiable stiffness in a bike wheel. Two of the more important others would be against nutation, and also resistance to taco failures. The wheel is a composite of the rim and spokes acting together. Tacos are a failure of this, and highlight the fact that the rim alone is weak, not inherently stiff. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 * It is great to hear from you, Mr. Dingley!

 * Yes, of course there are more than 3 quantifiable stiffness, and the article does not contradict this. It does assert, based on the available sources, specifically Gavin and Damon, that there are 3 primary stiffness. You are welcome to add additional information. Note that my edit summary for this new material is "start section on stiffness." -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 * The most comprehensive article I've found on buckling, by Ford, et al., discusses several possible buckling modes but asserts that failure occurs with mode n = 2, 'known as a “taco” or “potato chip” due to its saddle-like shape.' He even calculates the first few mode stiffnesses. I can't find anything about stiffness against nutation, however. Perhaps that is Ford's mode n = 1 or 0. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Finally, Ford asserts that 'since the rim and spoke stiffnesses act like springs in parallel, they can both be increased to roughly equal effect,' and 'modern double-walled rims are advantageous in this respect because of their closed cross-section, while classic single-walled rims are much more flexible in torsion than in bending.' Thus, I think it would be incorrect to claim that 'the rim alone is weak, not inherently stiff,' since it appears that rim stiffness plays an important role in total resistance to buckling. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 * All or some of this would make a nice addition to the article, but I didn't take the time to sort it all out. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Nutation is practically impossible for bicycle wheels, as the rim collapses first, but if the rim is assumed to be rigid then it's easier to model. I also have some discussion of it in 1900-ish mining textbooks (for headgear).
 * Jobst Brandt would be the person to ask for rim stability, but sadly we're a bit late for that. I presume you have his book? Rim stiffness is important, but then none of them (except mainly downhill deep-V rims) are stiff enough to stand up on their own. Certainly not for pure radial buckling. AIUI (from Usenet discussions with Jobst) the importance of torsional stiffness is not that the rim twists, but that this twist then allows a sideways perturbation of the rim and thus leads to a taco (if the thrust line of the "arch" of the rim moves outside the triangle of the spokes). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Other types
Disc wheel, Deep Section wheel (like Starley 80mm) v shallow shaped rim, three/four/five spoke bike wheels, fat-tire wheels (for fatbikes), loop wheel, collapsible wheel,  marc kerger's foldable wheel, Morph Wheel (it's actually for wheelchair but system could be used for bikes). Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Rim diameter should not change with tire pressure
@McKnight, I undid the first of your two recent edits, because I highly doubt its content. Whatever the mechanic quoted in the reference witnessed, the explanation must be wrong. Rim diameter does not decrease with tire pressure, at least not noticeably. If rim diameter changed, rim circumference would also need to change. This in turn would require that the rim material would noticeably compress, which it does not. Solid materials, in particular metals, usually do not noticeably compress with pressure. Aluminium has a Young's_modulus of 70GPa. Let's try a naive approach and assume that the pressure is along the length of the rim. (I know it does not, the tire pressure is radial, but my gut feeling is that the end result remains about the same.) To get the length contraction, we divide the tire pressure (about 10bar=1MPa), by Young's Modulus and arrive at 1MPa/70GPa = 1/70000. For every meter of rim circumference, the tire compresses it by 14µm (0.014mm). Not noticeable, I'd say. --RainerBlome (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bicycle wheel


text: Template:Infobox IPA

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Template:Infobox IPA


text:
Category:Roads in the Regional Municipality of Durham

List of streets in the Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario.


text:
Chi-square

The term chi-square, chi-squared, or \chi^2 has various uses in statistics:

 * chi-square distribution, a continuous probability distribution
 * chi-square test, name given to some tests using chi-square distribution
 * chi-square target models, a mathematical model used in radar cross-section

title: Chi-square


text:
Solyanka

Solyanka (соля́нка, initially селя́нка; ) is a thick and sour soup of Russian origin. It is a common dish in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states, and other post-Soviet states and other parts of the former Eastern Bloc. It was one of the most reliably available dishes in the former East Germany (Soljanka).

Name
The original name "selyanka" can be translated to "settler's soup" in English. There are many theories about the origin of the name, but a common one is that the soup was often eaten after the wedding before the newlyweds "settled down" and started their new life together. Other translations of "selyanka" include "food of the villager" or "villager’s stew". Later the name transformed to "solyanka" using the word "sol" (salt) as a reference to the soup's saltiness.

Due to its astringent sour taste that is believed to relieve a hangover solyanka has also earned the nickname "hangover soup".

Variations
There are three basic types of solyanka, with the main ingredient being either meat, fish, or mushrooms. Meat solyanka is the most popular. All three types of solyanka contain pickled mushrooms or cucumbers, cabbage, smetana and dill.

 * For meat solyanka, ingredients like beef, veal, ham, sausages, liver, chicken breast together with pickled mushrooms or cucumbers, onions, potatoes, tomato paste, pitted olives, allspice, cardamom, bay leaf, parsley, and fresh dill are all cut fine and mixed in a pot of broth.
 * Fish solyanka is prepared similarly, but salt-cured and smoked fish, such as salmon or trout, is used instead of meat.
 * For mushroom solyanka, cut cabbage is heated in butter together with vinegar, tomatoes, cucumber pickles, and a little brine. Separately, mushrooms and onions are heated, and grated lemon zest is added. Cabbage and mushrooms are added in layers, breadcrumbs and butter are added, and the soup is briefly baked.

Distribution
Solyanka is also popular in the former East Germany (the current German states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia, along with the eastern half of Berlin), where it is commonly found in restaurants and available in canned form in grocery stores. (The German transliteration is Soljanka.) This practice stems from the era when the Soviet Army was stationed in the GDR, and Soljanka was found on the menu at many East German restaurants. The former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was raised in East Germany, is fond of solyanka.

title: Solyanka


text:
User:Hackloon

Hello all,

I'm a post-graduate historian at Oxford University, primarily interested in English and European history of the early-mid 16th century. However, I'm also working on some more general religious history, as well as having an undergraduate degree in Latin, Greek, and philosophy. I'm rather tempted to have a good rummage through the 16th century English bishops on here, and at the same time slightly daunted by the task!

You can see my blog (which has various items relating to academic issues) at http://daniel.ars-rete.com/blog

Tasks
First priority is to go through "my" king, Edward VI - slowly working on the version here: User:Hackloon/edward.

16th Century Archbishops
The following sees have red links to their 16th century occupants...

 * Armagh
 * Archbishop of York

16th Century Bishops
The following sees have red links to their 16th century occupants...

 * Bishop of Bath and Wells
 * Bishop of Bristol
 * Bishop of Carlisle
 * Bishop of Chester
 * Bishop of Chichester
 * Bishop of Durham
 * Bishop of Ely
 * Bishop of Exeter
 * Bishop of Gloucester
 * Bishop of Hereford
 * Bishop of Lichfield
 * Bishop of Lincoln
 * Bishop of London
 * Bishop of Norwich
 * Bishop of Oxford
 * Bishop of Peterborough
 * Bishop of Rochester
 * Bishop of Salisbury
 * Bishop of Sodor and Man
 * Bishop of Winchester
 * Bishop of Worcester

Other 16th Century Gaps

 * Master of the Rolls

Oxford

 * Alan Budd
 * Corpus Christi College, Oxford
 * Junior Common Room
 * Diarmaid MacCulloch
 * OSPL
 * Oxford University Student Union
 * Oxford Union

Renaissance/Reformation/Early Modern

 * Thirty-Nine Articles
 * Charles Blount, 5th Baron Mountjoy
 * Anne Boleyn
 * John Cheke
 * Lorenzo Cardinal Campeggio
 * Catholic Reformation
 * William Cole
 * John Colet
 * Thomas Cranmer
 * Book of Common Prayer
 * Defence of the Seven Sacraments
 * John Doget
 * Edward VI of England
 * Erasmus
 * Erasmus' Correspondents
 * John Fisher
 * Richard Fox
 * Stephen Gardiner
 * Lady Jane Grey
 * William Grocyn
 * Henry VIII of England
 * Ulrich von Hutten
 * Thomas Linacre
 * Martin Luther
 * Philipp Melanchthon
 * Bernardino Ochino
 * Catherine Parr
 * Reginald Cardinal Pole
 * John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln
 * John Ponet
 * Renaissance humanism
 * Stranger churches
 * Thomas Thirlby
 * Juan Luís Vives
 * Robert Whittington

Religious Bits & Bobs

 * Arcic
 * Bogomils
 * Hypostatic union
 * Hypostatically
 * List of cardinals
 * Psilanthropism
 * Salvation in Catholicism
 * Rowan Williams
 * Bishop of Winchester

Other

 * Babai the Great
 * John Barker
 * Callimachus
 * Cuthbert Collingwood, 1st Baron Collingwood
 * Congress of Vienna
 * Crest
 * Henry Deane
 * Eclogues
 * Publius Annius Florus
 * David Heathcoat-Amory
 * Imogen Holst
 * Loeb Classical Library
 * Bernard Lonergan
 * Neoteric
 * Propertius
 * Reynard
 * Royal Grammar School, Newcastle
 * Jack Russell (cricketer)
 * Stephen Spender
 * David Starkey
 * Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh
 * I Tatti Renaissance Library
 * University of Newcastle upon Tyne
 * Charles Webster
 * William of Alnwick
 * William of Ware
 * Henry Yevele

title: User:Hackloon


text:
Danny Goffey

Daniel Robert Goffey (born 7 February 1974) is an English musician and singer-songwriter. He is best known as the drummer and backing vocalist for Supergrass. He briefly toured with Babyshambles in 2010, following their drummer's departure.

1990–1993: The Jennifers
Goffey was born on 7 February 1974 in Eton, Berkshire, and started his music career as a child when he formed his first band, The Jubbly Spufflewubs, which consisted of his brother on guitar and friend David Mackay. He had no drums so had to accompany the others by hitting chopsticks on lunch boxes. At age 10 he received a high hat and snare from his parents, prompting him to start his other band, The Fallopian Tubes. They made songs such as "My Wife Shut My Gonads in the Door", Goffey saying: "That one was about sexual frustration I seem to recall. So were all the others [songs]...". At Wheatley Park School, east of Oxford, he became drummer for the four-piece The Jennifers, which featured a 16-year-old Gaz Coombes on vocals. The Jennifers began building a reputation in the Oxford indie music scene and released one single in 1992 on Nude Records before they disbanded.

Allegedly, before the split, Goffey and Coombes had agreed to continue to work together in the future.

1993–2010: Supergrass
In 1993, Coombes introduced Goffey to his co-worker Mick Quinn, who at the time was working at a local Harvester; "I imposed on Mick's life. I imposed on him greatly," said Goffey. "He had a house, and I used to take people back and sleep with them on his sofa. That's how he built his foundation in this band. That's how I met him. I shagged too often on his sofa. But when we played together... we've still never been able to describe it in interviews. When we're in that room, we're all really similar. We know. We all have the same ideas. We're really quick. It just... happens."

The three of them soon started playing together and shortly after Theodore Supergrass, later just Supergrass, were formed. The band enjoyed a good start to their musical career with the release of their debut album I Should Coco (1995) which reached number one in the UK Albums Chart. This good start continued with the release of the single "Alright", which peaked at number two in the UK Singles Chart. Several albums later and Supergrass were still together, recording their next album, tentatively titled Release the Drones, slated for release in May 2010. It remained unreleased and unfinished as, on 12 April 2010, the band announced that it was splitting up due to musical and creative differences. The group disbanded after four farewell gigs, the final one at La Cigale, Paris on 11 June 2010.

Danny's brother, Nic Goffey, who was also a part of The Jennifers, has directed most of Supergrass' music videos, along with his friend Dom. They work under the name Dom and Nic. They have joked on the Supergrass Is 10 DVD about nearly killing the band on several occasions while filming music videos.

Other projects
Goffey embarked on a solo project in 2006 using the pseudonym "Van Goffey", a name based on the artist Vincent van Gogh. He released tracks via MySpace in August 2006, the first three being "Crack House Blues", "I Feel so Gaye" and "Natalie Loves the F". He was also a drummer for the collective of musicians called Twisted X who released a charity football song called "Born in England" which charted at number 8 in the UK Singles Charts in 2004.

In 2004, he joined other musicians including Paul McCartney to record a Christmas charity single called "Do They Know It's Christmas?" which reached number one in the UK Singles Chart.

Goffey appeared with Supergrass on a 'Top Gear of the Pops' special programme for Comic Relief 2007. The band played "Richard III" with Ade Edmondson on second guitar.

In 2007 and 2008, while Supergrass bandmate Mick Quinn was suffering from broken heel and vertebrae, Danny and Gaz Coombes went on a short tour of the country playing at small venues as the Diamond Hoo Ha Men. The tour was captured on film for a Rockumentary called Glange Fever, released in 2008.

Goffey and Gaz Coombes joined other musicians including Paul Weller to record a charity single called "Consequences" for the charity Crisis. The idea for the song came from Danny and his girlfriend, Pearl Lowe, who is an ambassador for the Crisis charity. Their idea was to record a song in the same way that a person would play the game Consequences. A live event took place at the Roundhouse in London on 2 March 2008.

On 7 March 2008, Goffey accompanied politician Boris Johnson in a bid to try to save the post office near where he had grown up in Forest Hill, at Stanton St. John, Oxfordshire. Goffey commented; "I used to buy sweets and cigarettes there and I want my family to be able to continue that tradition."

On 19 March 2008, the Diamond Hoo Ha Men played a gig on London's South Bank (having to change from the originally planned River Thames due to crowd control problems) to raise money for Crisis, offering a free ticket to their London Astoria show to whoever donated the most money. They were watched by around 75 spectators, having previously announced the busking session on radio station Xfm London. This was filmed for the BBC 2 programme, The Culture Show.

Goffey appeared as a contestant in the sixth series of Celebrity Masterchef on BBC One, in which he reached the semi-finals.

As "Vangoffey", he released solo albums Take Your Jacket Off & Get into It in 2015 and Schtick 2018.

Personal life
Goffey is the son of Chris Goffey, motoring journalist and ex-presenter of Top Gear, and his mother is an ex-Labour Party councillor. His brother is Nic Goffey, of the directing partnership Dom and Nic.

Goffey lived in Berkshire up until the age of 13, at which point his family relocated to the Oxfordshire village of Forest Hill, approximately 4.5 miles east of Oxford. He began to attend nearby Wheatley Park School, where he met Gaz Coombes, two years his junior, on the playing fields of Wheatley School and asked him to form a band with him (The Jennifers). In 1993 (after The Jennifers had separated), he and Coombes began to share a house on Cowley Road in east Oxford, and Goffey later managed to complete his A-levels at Henley College in Henley-upon-Thames. Goffey also worked as a catering assistant in a school at this time.

During the recording of In It for the Money, Goffey moved out of his and Coombes's house to live in London with his partner, and singer in the band Powder, Pearl Lowe. This introduced Goffey to Lowe's social circle of celebrities such as Liam Gallagher and Kate Moss, and led to a surge of appearances of him in the tabloids. During this time, tensions within Supergrass began to increase, with Goffey often stalling recording of the album in Sawmills Studio, Cornwall by returning to London to record with his second band, Lodger, of which Lowe was also a member. The lyrics for "Going Out" were also causing arguments, as Goffey presumed that Coombes had written them about the column inches he and Lowe had been achieving.

After being together for over thirteen years, Goffey and Lowe married on 4 December 2008, in a small chapel at Babington House, near their home in Frome, Somerset, where they live with their two sons, Alfie Lennon and Frankie, and daughter, Betty. They spent their honeymoon on the island of Tobago. Lowe was expecting another baby, due in autumn 2010, however it was announced by Goffey in May 2010 that Lowe had suffered a miscarriage.

Studio Albums

 * Vangoffey
 * Take Your Jacket Off & Get into It (2015) (Distiller Records)
 * Danny Goffey
 * Schtick (2018) (Distiller Records)
 * Bryan Moone's Discopunk (2022) (Distiller Records)

title: Danny Goffey


text:
Bomberman 64: The Second Attack!

Bomberman 64: The Second Attack! is a 1999 action video game, the sequel to 1997's Bomberman 64.

Gameplay
In many aspects, the game plays identically to Bomberman 64, with features such as the ability to make bombs bigger. As opposed to the circular explosions of the first Nintendo 64 title, the explosions in The Second Attack are the traditional cross "+" shape.

Second Attack brought many new features to the game, such as:
 * The ability to use the different element crystals with bombs to create certain elemental explosions
 * A space shop to buy more heart containers, multiplayer stages on which to fight, and the move list of the next elemental astral knight to be fought
 * Hidden armor pieces that will allow Bomberman to kick bombs without needing the bomb kick item, the ability to throw and pump bombs without the throw item, and the ability to use remote bombs without need of the remote bomb item
 * Raise Pommy, a fighting partner, by giving him different types of foods. Pommy can also be played by a second human player with a second controller.

Story
Bomberman finds a mysterious egg while celebrating his victory over Altair and Sirius on a hot spring planet and decides to take it with him while exploring space in his ship. One day, however, Bomberman's ship gets sucked into a black hole, and he wakes up to find himself in a jail. While in jail, the egg suddenly begins to hatch. The creature inside turns out to be a charabom named Pommy. With the help of Pommy, Bomberman is able to escape.

Bomberman learns there are some elemental crystals being collected by the evil Rukifellth, and the Astral Knights, that hold the current crystals. Regulus, whom Bomberman has fought before, is one of these Knights. They are missing the fire crystal which Bomberman has. It is up to Bomberman and Pommy to stop the new evil and retrieve the crystals. Along the way, he meets Lilith, a girl apparently working toward the same goal he is. He subsequently encounters her several more times throughout the game.

Once Bomberman defeats most of the knights, the way opens to Warship Noah, the cause of the black hole and the headquarters of the BHB army. Inside, he faces his toughest challenges, including fighting Lilith, now possessed by the goddess Mihaele (a female derivation of the archangel Michael), Rukifellth, whom it is revealed has been possessed by the demon Sthertoth, and finally Sthertoth himself. If Bomberman goes to the final confrontation without defeating all bosses first, Sthertoth will be impossible to defeat, resulting in a bad ending. Otherwise, the true final boss of the game will reveal itself and challenge Bomberman to decide the fate of the universe, resulting in the good ending.

In the good ending, Mihaele reunites with Sthertoth (against his will) to become the Angel of Light and Shadow, intending to destroy and recreate the world, but the Angel is defeated by Bomberman, chooses to believe that he can defend the universe, and disappears to lie dormant, releasing Lilith and Rukifellth and reviving the Elemental Knights.

This game gives an origin to Bomberman's universe. The universe was created by an angel, but the angel split into a light and a dark entity, the dark side tried to take over all creation, but the light side made the seven elemental stones and warriors who could control them to fight off the dark side. The light side won and the dark entity was sealed in an additional stone. The events in the game are set in motion when someone (Rukifellth) finds the stone and upon touching it is possessed by the dark entity, who then brainwashes the warriors created by the light entity to do his bidding (only Regulus resists) and sends them to find all seven elemental stones, so that he can regain his true form from the stone his body is sealed in. Bomberman was in possession of the Fire Stone, the last one they were missing.

Reception
The game received mixed reviews, with GameSpot stating that "Although Bomberman 64: The Second Attack! is not at all revolutionary, it is not especially well executed in any particular area, and it suffers noticeably in the graphics and sound departments, but it still has its moments" and IGN saying: "The game's look aspires to equal the quality first-generation titles like Super Mario 64 and Glover, but falls noticeably short" and "Cheesy music and sound effects never sounded so... average."

The game also brought praise, mostly on the single-player gameplay. GameSpot praised the single player mode, but considered the puzzles too short, saying "Overall, the single-player mode is right about average. Although the new bomb types add variety, most of the puzzles don't require much thought". IGN criticized the game length, but praised the game-play, as they say "The hidden stuff to be found and unlocked is way cool, but the length and difficulty of the one player mode is suspect." Allgame praised both the Pommy sidekick and the single-player mode, "his title does offer a fully developed single-player mode as well, in which the hero must travel to different areas, defeating enemy bosses and gaining new powers. Bomberman 64: The Second Attack! also introduces a cute little sidekick for the hero, who is occasionally helpful and who may "evolve" and grow in power if given the proper attention."

title: Bomberman 64: The Second Attack!


text:
Talk:AUT

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but why does this redirect to Austria?

Due to AUT standing for the Association of University Teachers in the UK, I'd suggest this page redirect to that or become a disambiguous.--Myfanwy 21:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, the only reason i've been able to uncover is that 'AUT' is the 3 letter country code for Austria. Given that out of 15 random codes searched on here, only GBR and USA came up with a country (and GBR was a disambiguous) and that I consider this a extreme unlikely search term, I'm redirecting to Association of University Teachers. If you consider there is still a need to AUT to go to Austria, please feel free to put a forenote on Association of University Teachers. --Myfanwy 23:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The question is less about the likeliness of search terms, but rather if articles (unsuspectingly) link here, or might link here some day. If you look at "What links here", you'll see a number of Austria-related links, well, the code is an ISO standard. I'd say this TLA should be disambiguated properly instead of redirecting. If you really think that your meaning of the acronym is much more important than any other, you may want to move the disambiguation to "AUT (disambiguation)", redirect to your meaning and include a link to the disambiguation on top of the article. Though in my opinion that doesn't really look good. More importantly, people who unsuspectingly follow a link that relates to a different meaning will have a longer way to get there. --Nikai 14:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:AUT


text:
Talk:Glutamic acid

Untitled
If high levels of glutamic acid are unhealthy, what would be considered a high level?

"Glutamic acid" and "glutamate" are often used interchangeably but, technically, glutamate is the anionic form of glutamic acid. This article doesn't recognize that. RJII 17:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to above: whether it exists in the anionic or neutral form is going to be entirely dependent upon the pH - review the Henderson-Hasselbach equation. Cajolingwilhelm 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In absence of water it will exist exclusively in the neutral form; and conversion into the glutamate form will always require a chemical reaction, so glutamic acid is the "main" form. Just like HCl is technically called hydrogen chloride and not hydrochloric acid because it won't be the latter unless water or other chemicals are there for it to react with. Glutamic acid is the correct term, but the use of glutamate is indeed extremely common even when it is wrong (and even when people are aware of that fact). It is probably because it is a much more convenient term. Sakkura 03:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to above: you are right in that glutamate and glutamic acid are different species, but glutamate is the form taken in most proteins. It will differ with the local chemical environment of the amino acid withing the protein, with the pH at which the organism is living and the ionic strength of the solution. However, in the presence of water, at pH7 (ie in living cells), the amino acid will always predominate in the deprotonated form. Hence, glutamate is the usual physiological form 12:06, 14 August 2007 (GMT)

Conversion in the Brain
In the "Pharmacology" section, the following statement is very confusing: "For being so important in the brain functions it is therefore of no surprise that free Glu cannot cross BBB in appreciable quantities; instead it is converted into Glu."

Glu is converted into Glu? I assume that something else was intended.. could somebody clarify? -- Foogod

Glutamine can changed by the enzyme glutamase in glutamatic acid and vice verse. It can also metabolize in y-butter.acid. All this are impotant neurotransmitters in the brain.--Fackel 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone mislabeled glutamine as glu? Glu = glutamic acid, gln = glutamine. This mistake is rather common.

Issue with Glutamate Structure
Who the hell put up that 3d stereo stick diagram of glutamate? It's completely off. It looks like there's freaking 2 carbons between C1 and C-alpha!!!

 * I put it there. It's correct.  What structure do you think it has?  --Ben 13:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC).
 * There are 2 carbons between C5 and C-alpha, as it should be. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not a chemist but the displayed 3D structure also looks very wrong to me. On the left side you see a hydrogen atom attached to the oxygen, on the right side it is missing. Furthermore there seem to be 3 hydrogen atoms attached to the nitrogen atom. I don't see this in the structure formula. I also don't think that this makes sense from a chemical point of view. GreSebMic (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The 2D structure is a canonical representation of an amino acid. All the functional groups are represented as neutral.  But since amino acids have both an acid and a base in the same molecule, in actuality the acid will be deprotonated (a negatively charged anion) to some extent and the amino group will be protonated (a positively charged cation) to some extent.  This situation is called a zwitterion. The degree to which the functional groups are ionized can depend on many factors such as pH, temperature, etc.  And in the case of glutamic acid, the situation is further complicated having two acidic functional groups.  This is why, for clarity, amino acids are generally depicted with neutral functional groups like the 2D structure currently used in the article.   The 3D structure, however, is one of the possible zwitterionic forms.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I see. Thank you for the clarification. GreSebMic (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

CTC or CAC DELETION
'''What would happen if the the codon were to be deleted all together? What effect would this have on a persons blood cells? could they still carry oxygen? What shape would the cells be?

I need answers, thanks in advance,

Adam'''

They'd be dead. TimVickers 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely true, it all depends on what that codon is used for and what gene it is deleted from. Some deletions may cause fatality, infact most do. But there are some that may just cause a mutation in the protein which they code for. The protein would obviously have a different 3D shape than what it should, and most likely be digested by proteases. How ever, if the protein is still able to function in some way it will survive. Again it depends on what the codon is for and what gene is involved.MRCstudent 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs Reference
This article could use at least one reference stating that glutamate does not cross the blood-brain barrier-- if that is in fact the case. That section in general could be more literate; I'd change it myself, but I'd like to know that what I'm proofreading is true first. Well-worded bad info is less likely to attract editorial attention, after all... Kajerm

It is an error, if you beleave that you get a good drive by g. Also the concentration can get enhanced very small. It is the industry for pharmacy, who will tell us such stories. --Fackel 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

seeming contradiction with MSG article
this article states: "Glutamate easily passes the blood brain barrier:" while the MSG article states "glutamate has a low penetration level in the central nervous system". After reading the linked articles, it seems that it does indeed easily pass through the BBB, but the amount that passes through is regulated. It might be worth noting lest any confusion arise. (hope im not shitting on too many SOPs here. Im new wikipedia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.191.183 (talk • contribs).

 * Don't worry, you did everything right except sign your post with ~ . I myself have no idea how easily glutamate penetrates the BBB, but I'll put up the proper templates and I'm sure someone will clarify it. —Keenan Pepper 00:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not a scientist, nor am I a researcher, but I can read technical papers. After that I checked the entries. After that I checked the edits on those sections. It is plainly rubbish. The person that made the edits did so with the intent of removing any and all anti-MSG references. The intent was to obfuscate.

 * Here is the log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=222.229.46.29

 * Someone should get a moderator to wipe all entries from this IP.

 * Note: I believe this article has no owner or responsible party. Therefore it will be subject to additional rigging. I would take responsibility, but I have taken on Salmon and that is a huge subject.

 * meatclerk 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * User:nomentanus2 Perhaps we could start by setting aside the character assassination. Wholly spurious. Next, if you reviewed the review article cited in the MSG section as you state you have - and not just the abstract - then why didn't you include whatever empirical evidence (study) the reviewer cites so that the discussion could be empirical and concrete, an not limited to invective?

 * The situation is that, in apparent contradiction, we have what may be the assumptions of a Reviewer's published article contradicting a specific empirical lab study, also peer reviewed. Until the contradicting *study* that might be pointed to by the reviewer, if any at all, emerges: we have to go with the empirical study we have in front of us, stating a high-affinity transport. Fact beats authority until the next fact emerges. I'm not saying you're wrong, just what the direct evidence now available to those at Wikipedia is.

 * Think about what you've done, and asked, here. You want me banned, for citing the results of an experimental study, but you don't cite any empirical source (the review you like may so cite, or may not, who's to say, but you don't.) Is that your view of science generally? Ban immediately if you don't like the results of an experiment? I don't have an interest or opinion re MSG other than avoiding it in food when I take any notice. So if I have any bias at all, it would be the reverse of that cited, which seems to imply I must be some sort of MSG industry hack to dare cite a study with such a conclusion. Yikes. I'm sorry you dislike the conclusion the researchers came to. As it happens, I'd be happy if that study had found something else, too. The difference is, I respect the evidence until new evidence emerges. Now let's return to an adult discussion, please. If you want to ensure that nobody cites actual references, banning those who do, and dare to quote from them, would certainly be the way to do that.

 * You might want to take a look at "Little Bubble Worlds" at everything2.com (And, Lord preserve us, don't assume I'm a hack for them, now.)

 * Assert, Should you be speaking to me, your conclusions about my reasoning of a "MSG industry hack to dare" is correct. However, your conclusion that I am not prepared to look at countervailing evidence is incorrect. I am more than happy to conclude that properly conducted scientific evidence may infact prove to the contrary. Given that, I am equally disposed to investigate claims on both sides of ANY issue. Even so, it is quite apparent from viewing the logs, AS I SUGGEST ALL DO, that the "hack to dare" is just that.

 * Thank you for your suggestion on "Little Bubble Worlds". I will view it at my leisure. Further, in the future, should you make suggestions as such, a URL might be appropriate.

 * Best Regards --meatclerk 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Glutamate only crosses the blood-brain barrier when aided by glutamate transporters. In their absence glutamate begins to build up in the synapse, eventually having an excitotoxic effect. I'll look through some of my articles & post sources later today. 153.90.238.96 16:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"There are three glutamate transporters, which belong to the superfamily of transporters that mediate the uptake of GABA, glycine, choline and the biogenic amines. Two of the glutamate transporters appear to be of glial origin, while the third is found in neurons." -- The Biological Basis of Neuropharmacology, 7th ed. (1996) Cooper JR, Bloom FE, Roth RH (*), p 176.

With that in mind: 'Glutamate only crosses the blood-brain barrier when aided by glutamate transporters,' is correct. But the following 'In their absence glutamate begins to build up in the synapse, eventually having an excitotoxic effect' is correct by itself, but contradictory with the previous statement due to proximity. In their absence there is little or no transport across the BBB and so no synaptic build up. If there is enough to support BBB transport, there is enough to handle neuronal (re)uptake and glial uptake. I recommend the second quoted sentence to be amended to 'In their absence, any glutamate already in the intercellular space may build up. An excessive build up can have an excitotoxic effect.'

As far as BBB transmission, "The transport of circulating glutamate to the brain plays only a very minor role in regulating the levels of brain glutamate. In fact, the influx of glutamate from the blood across the [BBB] is much lower than the efflux of glutamate from the brain." (* ibid, p 171). The lack of that efflux (due to low levels of transporters) is at least one of the neurotoxic mechanisms, as "...glutamate plays an important function in the detoxicification of ammonia in the brain..." (* ibid, p 171).

--Drmcclainphd 06:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)drmcclainphd (at gmail), an actual neuroscientist

 * From above: "Glutamate easily passes the blood brain barrier:" while the MSG article states "glutamate has a low penetration level in the central nervous system".
 * This is entirely too vaguely worded to assume that the articles contradict one another. Glutamate MUST be able to cross the BBB for it to be of any use as a neurotransmitter, and for it be of any use as a proteogenic amino acid (in the brain). However, the relative amounts that are absorbed into the GI tract (i.e. cirulatory system) and then passed across the blood-brain-barrier will almost certainly vary, depending on what the body needs. MSG may have a "low penetration level" in the sense that the human body will not absorb large amounts, if such amounts are ingested, but it is unclear whether the author is talking about GI absorbtion or BBB absorbtion. In fact, the statement "glutamate has a low penetration level in the central nervous system" is completely vacuous. Penetration "in" the CNS? Perhaps "into" is what the author meant. Once glutamate is being used by neurons, it most likely will easily pass into and out of different cells, so this couldn't be what the author means.
 * The fact is: the body uses what nutrients it needs and disposes of the rest; absorbtion by the GI system is not the same as "absorbtion by the CNS" (which is actually a silly concept, since the CNS doesn't "absorb compounds", per se. all nutrients to be used are moved around by the circulatory system, which serves all bodily systems.). This whole issue of absorbtion is largely a moot point since the authors of the supposedly contradicting articles are duking it out here on this discussion page, insulting each other, accusing each other of various biases... all without really clarifying the information in question. No reason to be fighting over science articles, people. Just cite a study, and if there is no study to cite, don't just make stuff up. If you want to fight over articles, I would suggest editing articles about religion or politics. P.S., MSG is just glutamic acid with a sodium in place of a hydrogen, so it's reasonable to assume that both compounds will act in a similar manner once ingested (think about the pH of stomach... plenty of extra H+ and Cl- ions, so there will most likely be NaCl and glutamic acid, as well as MSG, all in dynamic equilibrium in the stomach, when MSG is consumed. Also, MSG would probably be formed in the stomach, in small amounts, after consumption of salty meat. So all you people who think its either good or bad... stop pushing your views please, and try to look at facts instead.) Fuzzform 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the "low penetration" quote mentioned in the original question in the MSG article anymore, and an (admittedly, fairly quick) scan of both articles doesn't look like there's any significant contradiction on this subject, as far as I can see. Perhaps the contradiction tag should be removed? -- Foogod 18:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology
the article notes: "In particular Glutamate Restriction Diets are now claiming success anecdotally, by limiting or eliminating intake of wheat, peanut, soy and bean. No similar diets for Schizophrenia are known." I'm going to lower-case schizophrenia, but my question is, if this sentence is to remain, should there be reference to Abram Hoffer and Humphrey Osmund's research in niacinamide (B3) therapies?? Their chemistry is sound but many people have attacked their double-blind studies. My first thought is not to mention these dudes as this article has very little to do with schizophrenia and perhaps the last sentence should be taken out entirely (it's certainly not true, if the B3 diet does in fact help some kinds of schizophrenics). Before I do anything, I'd like to see thoughts, comments. Gaviidae 11:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My thoughs are that schizophrenia seems to be off topic. Certainly, glutamate has something going on with the brain. I have anecdotal information also, but the wiki is not for that. It should be solid and concrete. There is a policy on avoiding "creeping words". This article, if not listed as such, should be. It has problems. The topic of B3 should also be avoided. Anti-MSG point to a B-6 deficency as a probable cause for MSG intolerance.

In any case, if something is mention, it should have a direct relationship. Unless, of course, it can be shown why an indirect relationship clearly needs to be mentioned.

--meatclerk 04:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely dump the schizophrenia and diet text. In the brain, glutamate is released at 9/10 fast synapses between cells (as assessed by anatomy). So it gets mentioned in the context of all brain diseases. But as far as I'm concerned, these ideas are not important or verifiable in this context.Aplested 00:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As I seem to have recovered, albeit slowly, from the disease in question, I feel torn not to add something about using brewer's yeast as a source of glutamic acid, which has been indispensable.Educationandbuilding 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Of interest might be a recently controlled-release drug treatment for schizophrenia, tentatively called LY2140023, which acts as a glutamate receptor agonist. More information at. Batula 05:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Neurotransmitter
I made a number of changes to this section, added a reference for caged analog. I reduced the section about the nanosensor. This is a neat idea, but the sensor doesn't work for the purpose it was quoted. It is probably too slow for anything with a synapse. It didn't make sense for this to be such a big section. I tried to cut out repetition and move the section closer to the consensus views, and away from guesses. I'm not sure about the epilepsy section, it is plausible but is not referenced properly. This is more of a technique for getting an animal model of epilepsy in my view, which is much more complicated than simple lots of glu. That's more like a stroke. It could be interesting to add some brief history about how glutamate came to be accepted as a neurotransmitter after a 30 year struggle - that is, the development of antagonists. Aplested 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on invertebrates, particularly nematodes and arthropods, where glutamate is an inhibitory neurotransmitter, acting on glu-gated chloride channels. This receptor has important pharmacological implications, being the target for avermectins, important antiparasitic agents in veterinary and human medicine.

NMDA receptors and magnesium
Is it not the case that NDMA receptors require activation of the post-synaptic neuron (that is, the neuron to which they are affixed on the dendrite) in order to expel a magnesium ion and allow functionality of glutamate as an NDMA receptor agonist? If so, that should be noted and sourced in this article. RadicalHarmony (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between l-glutamate and glutamine?
This is an important question that nobody seems to be answering, or able to answer. Many people think it's the same thing, including companies of protein powders that think the names "L-Glutamine" and "Glutamic Acid" are interchangeable. We need this correctly addressed once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.81.22 (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely different substances, compare the glutamic acid (= glutamate as a salt) structure to glutamine. One has a carboxy group COOH where the other has an amide group CONH2. Cacycle (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

please add carbon alpha beta gamma so i can see which carbon is gamma
please add this to the picture. Thanks!! 76.174.42.22 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nutrients
Can someone please check the external link from the sentence "Some protein-rich plant foods also serve as sources."? I'm not sure, but I don't see anything on the reference site talking about plant foods, and instead seems to be indirectly selling "nutrition supplements".

--Hellsop (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

History
Under "History" the article says "This compound was discovered in 1908 by the professor Kikunae Ikeda" but:

peptideguide.com says "Glutamic acid is a non-essential amino acid, was first isolated from wheat gluten in 1866 by the German chemist Karl Ritthausen. The chemical structure of the amino acid was identified in 1890." at http://www.peptideguide.com/amino-acids/glutamic-acid.html

medterms.com states it was isolated from wheat gluten in 1866: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=22824

As does this article published in 1948: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/08/pills-that-increase-your-intelligence/

While the current "History" section is interesting, it would seem that it's a particular chapter in the history of glutamic acid regarding taste, seaweed and oriental food. But it currently reads as if glutamic's history starts at 1908.

ChuckEsterbrook (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job finding this error. I think you should feel free to correct it.   delldot   ∇.  23:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a wiki, after all... Be bold!. Cacycle (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Free Glutamic Acid
The term "Free Glutamic Acid" is used only once in the entire article and it is used "in passing". The average reader could not infer the meaning of the qualifier "Free" in this context. Could someone with knowledge on the subject (not me) explain the meaning of "Free Glutamic Acid" vs "Glutamic Acid"? Thanks. Travis28 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I am a biochemist. I have never come across the term "Free Glutamic Acid". Glutamate is transported freely in the blood stream. I have found the word "free" in the article. I will delete the word "free" to avoid any confusion.Carstensen (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I just came to think that whoever added the word "free" maybe did so to distinguish glutamate found in a protein from the free amino acid. I don't know. Either way I have deleted the word "free" to avoid any confusion.Carstensen (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I added it back before reading this section, but I think it is necessary. Maybe "free" is the wrong word, but it is important to distinguish the unbound amino acid from the glutamatic acid that is found in every sort of protein.  I have added a sentence to try to clarify the meaning here.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I think your addition is better than my deletion. It is now obvious what is meant by free glutamic acid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carstensen (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Food sources
Suggestion: add information on food sources

Deficiency
Suggestion: add information on deficiency reasons and symptoms.

Molecular Formula
What's the molecular formula? Eg: Phenylalanine has a chemical formula of C9H11NO2 but a molecular forumla of C6H5CH2CHCOOH ~ender 2014-10-05 3:13:AM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.87.212 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * for the condensed formula see here Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OP posted this on several amino acid pages; please see discussion here: Talk:Tryptophan Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Spinning off glutamate (neurotransmitter)
I'd like to note that today I created glutamate (neurotransmitter), initializing it by copying and pasting the contents of the "Neurotransmitter" section of this article. I have added a "main" link; over the coming days I plan to simplify the contents of that section to avoid duplication. I think perhaps it would also be good to add some dab info at the top of this article, but I won't do that immediately. Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Supplement Peer Review
The reference for glutamate not readily passing the blood brain barrier was tagged as possibly being an unreliable source because supplements to The Journal of Nutrition might not be peer reviewed, but as can be seen here, they are: " After submission to the editorial office, the Journal editor will appoint a Supplement Editor and all supplement manuscripts will undergo peer review." I've added another reference to a supplement of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which is also peer reviewed: "The second step involves anonymous peer review of the individual articles." and ...will be reviewed according to the same scientific standards used to evaluate original research articles." --tronvillain (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

L-glutamate vs D-glutamate vs MSG
I have moved this talk topic to the Monosodium glutamate talk page, since it seems more appropriate there. --(talk) 21:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

footnote 31
The first link doesn't lead to the article - proper link is https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/130/4/1016S/4686663?searchresult=1

Optical isomers
The article says "Glutamic acid can exist in three optical isomers, including the dextrorotatory L-form, d(−), and l(+)".

Surely that should be two optical isomers, namely the dextrorotatory L-form or L(+) form and the levorotatory D-form or D(−) ? The quoted source for the claim that there are three is Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, which doesn't sound like the best source of chemistry information to me.

--HairyDan (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

^ I just noticed the same thing and have 100% the same response. I came strait to the talk page and found someone had already noticed the same problem so I would like to double down on their response. There is only one stereocenter so there can only be two possible optical isomers. Whoever initially wrote this section might have been confused by the separate notations for the same stereoisomeric designation: "dextrorotary" = "+" and "levorotary" = "−" so the author's listing of L(+) as an optical state is innately contradictory. It is equivalent to saying "there are three directions you car can turn in: a left turn, a right turn, and a leftright turn."162.220.42.222 (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Glutamic acid


text:
Squier Jagmaster

The Squier Jagmaster is an electric guitar marketed by the Fender Musical Instruments Corporation under their Squier budget brand. It is based on the design of the classic Fender Jazzmaster and Fender Jaguar, but with several significant differences reflecting the tastes of modern guitarists, including much simplified electronics, humbucking pickups, a standard Stratocaster-style tremolo bridge, and, on Vista Series versions, a short-scale, 24-inch neck (22 frets).

History
The first Jagmasters appeared in 1996, were marketed under the Vista Series, and made in Japan. The Jagmaster in its original form was made for a period of only two years: 1996 through 1998. The first Japanese Jagmasters had a neck in which the truss rod is adjusted at the bottom of the neck, while the later Japanese models have a 1970s-style 'bullet' truss rod, which is adjusted at the headstock. The original Japanese Jagmasters featured a maple neck, rosewood fretboard, and basswood body. The list price was $699.99. However, when the Japanese market crashed, Fender closed the Japanese production plants in which the Jagmaster was produced.

The Jagmaster was reintroduced in 2000, this time made in China. It featured Duncan-designed pickups and a 25.5-inch scale length with 21 frets. In 2005, the 2000 Jagmaster was discontinued and replaced with the (also Chinese-made) Squier Jagmaster II, which features different visual aesthetics as well as the original 24-inch scale length neck (22 frets). In 2007 this had become a 21-fret 24-inch scale length neck. The 2005 Jagmaster II has only two color options: black and sunburst. The third finish option, "Silver Sparkle" of the 2000 reissues, is no longer available.

In 2012, the Jagmaster model was discontinued. It was replaced by a dual-humbucker Jaguar model, which featured all of the same simplifications as the Jagmaster; it was part of Squier's Vintage Modified series. The short-scale Jaguar model was later joined by a 25.5"-scale length Squier Affinity Series Jazzmaster model with dual humbuckers and a hardtail bridge and, in 2018, the Fender Player Series Jaguar, which combined most of the features of the Jagmaster with a traditional Jaguar vibrato bridge.

title: Squier Jagmaster


text:
Wikipedia:Wikifun/Round 8/Answers/Question 6

The lion is made of LEGO - I happened to be browsing that article the other day. Thryduulf 21:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bronze? [] Dmn / Դմն 23:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are the bronze lions of Trafalgar Square in London. I checked in the "Trfalgar Square" article. Mgm|(talk) 09:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Legoland Windor. Legoland was made between 1963 and 2004 and so the bricks are made from acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (from Lego) Papable Prostate 10:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Jani Beg

Jani Beg (, Turki/Kypchak: ; died 1357), also known as Janibek Khan, was Khan of the Golden Horde from 1342 until his death in 1357. He succeeded his father Öz Beg Khan.

Reign
With the support of his mother Taydula Khatun, Jani Beg made himself khan after eliminating his older brother and rival Tini Beg at Saray-Jük in 1342; he had already killed another ambitious brother, Khiḍr Beg. He is known to have actively interfered in the affairs of the Russian principalities and of Lithuania. The grand princes of Moscow, Simeon and Ivan II, were under constant political and military pressure from Jani Beg.

Jani Beg commanded a massive Crimean Tatar force that attacked the Crimean port city of Kaffa, then a Genoese colony, in 1343. The siege was lifted by an Italian relief force in February. In 1345, Jani Beg again besieged Kaffa; however, his assault was again unsuccessful due to an outbreak of plague among his troops. Jani Beg's army catapulted infected corpses into Kaffa in an attempt to use the plague to weaken the defenders. Infected Genoese sailors subsequently sailed from Kaffa to Genoa, Messina, and Constantinople, introducing the Black Death into Europe. The story involving the catapult has been disputed. It is originally based on Gabriel de Mussis of Piacenza in Italy, who wrote about the plague in 1348. It is more likely that rats carrying plague infested fleas went from camp to city and thereby infected the Genoese.

In 1356, Jani Beg conquered the city of Tabriz, installing his own governor. He also asserted Jochid dominance over the Chagatai Khanate, attempting to unite the three khanates of the Mongol Empire. After accepting surrender from Shaikh Uvais, Jani Beg boasted that three ulus (districts/nations) of the Mongol Empire were under his control. Soon after this, he faced an uprising in Tabriz resulting in the rise to power of the Jalayirid dynasty, an offshoot of Ilkhanate, and ultimately in the death of the Khan.

The Chudov Monastery in Moscow, founded at about the time of Jani Beg's fall by Metropolitan Aleksii and Sergii of Radonezh, was built on land that according to legend was granted to Aleksii by the Khan as thanks for the miraculous curing of his mother Taydula by the former.

The reign of Jani Beg was marked by the first signs of the feudal strife which would eventually contribute to the demise of the Golden Horde. Jani Beg's assassination in 1357 opened a quarter-century of political turmoil within the Golden Horde. Twenty-five khans succeeded each other between 1357 and 1378.

Catalan Atlas (1375)
Jani Beg appears in the 1375 Catalan Atlas: the Mongol polity of the Golden Horde is accurately depicted north of the Caspian Sea. Jani Beg has been identified in this representation, being mentioned as "Jambech senyor de Sarra", and the flag of the Golden Horde also appears. The caption to the right of his depiction reads:

"Here resides the emperor of this northern region whose empire starts in the province of Bulgaria and ends at the city of Organcio. The sovereign is named Jambech, Lord of the Sarra."

The symbolism of the Golden Horde flag depicted by the Catalan Atlas is fairly similar to the type of tamgha symbols (such as ) actually found on the coinage of the Golden Horde. Such symbols were used until the time of Jani Beg, but essentially disappear thereafter.

Family
Jani Beg had a number of sons, only one of whom, Berdi Beg, reigned after him but who proceeded to eliminate his brothers. Two or three more khans appear to have claimed to be Jani Beg's sons and are sometimes treated as such by modern scholars.

 * Berdi Beg (r. 1357–1359)
 * (pretended?) Qulpa (r. 1359–1360)
 * (pretended?) Nawruz Beg (r. 1360)
 * (pretended?) Kildi Beg (r. 1361–1362)
 * a daughter, Shakar Beg, married Aq Sufi Qongirat, the prince of the Sufi dynasty of Khwarezm. Their daughter Khanzada Begum later married into the Timurid dynasty.

Genealogy

 * Genghis Khan
 * Jochi
 * Batu Khan
 * Toqoqan
 * Mengu-Timur
 * Toghrilcha
 * Uzbeg Khan
 * Jani Beg

Popular culture
The 2012 Russian film The Horde is set during the reign of Jani Beg and is a highly fictionalised narrative of how Aleksii healed Taidula from blindness.

title: Jani Beg


text:
Lord Lieutenant of Huntingdon and Peterborough

This is a list of those people who served as Lord Lieutenant of Huntingdon and Peterborough in England during that county's short existence from 1965. The office was preceded by that of the Lord Lieutenant of Huntingdonshire, also taking part of the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant of Northamptonshire, which continues to exist. In 1974, it was absorbed by the lieutenancy of Cambridgeshire.

Lord Lieutenants of Huntingdon and Peterborough

 * Ailwyn Fellowes, 3rd Baron de Ramsey 1965 – 30 July 1968
 * Dennis Herbert, 2nd Baron Hemingford 30 July 1968 – 31 March 1974