Strain gauges could be used to experimentally monitor spoke extension and relaxation under load.
Jobst Brandt shows some interesting FEA spoke loading results in his book The Bicycle Wheel where he develops the concept that sufficiently tensioned spokes support the applied load by compressing to a less tensioned state. It is a great read with respect to wheel building, and is an excellent means to visualize spoke loading. However I believe he only analyzes the static case with no moments applied but I may be wrong.
Yeah, I suppose there actually are some strain gauges that could attach to the spokes. The laser extensiometer idea I just had because all you have to attach to the spoke is a pair of reflector stickers, like in a tensile test of a specimen on a universal testing machine.
This makes me think of how you could possibly measure tension or strain in a dynamic test. All I can think of now is using a flexible sticker, on which are printed, extremely finely, some thinly spaced lines, like the graduations on a rule. This could be applied to every spoke (that has the same angle to the hub). Then, a laser diffraction pattern could be projected onto the stickers on the spokes as the wheel rotates, and a high speed camera could record the wheel during the test. If the spokes tension or de-tension, the pattern on the sticker would stretch, but the laser diffraction pattern wouldn't, and it would create the effect of a vernier scale, possibly allowing accurate reading of the strain during a dynamic test.
You might also just be able to mount a strain gauge to the spoke and mount a little wireless transmitter to the hub shell. In thinking about it, that actually seems a lot easier.
I definitely want to read that book. I haven't gotten my hands on it yet. I'm also just learning about this stuff at uni. A year ago I didn't really know the difference between stress and strain because I hadn't taken a course on it yet.
But still, I would hope that any engineer would have taken first year physics. Like, I knew the rocket scientist thing was phoney; people are just being rude about it because its definitely a weird thing to assert oneself as whilst asking a question that is a little bit silly, even if the curiosity behind it is not silly (it is in fact, very interesting and an important part of our bikes).
re: "As for whether I'm "really a rocket scientist," I'll leave that up to everyone else to decide, because I don't really care."
To me and probably others it sounds fishy because you literally asked a 1st year physics question and allude to the fact that the spokes have directionality by indicating "the spokes are transferring torques in directions they are not designed to".
As you likely know, spokes are essentially 1-dimensional elements which do not support bending and only transfer forces axially. One convenient artifact of the typical spoke arrangement at proper tension is that the standing load is mostly supported by spokes near the ground, but torque is transferred by the remaining spokes which are not compressed by load. Even though the load is not distributed evenly about the wheel and hub, the torque nearly is. Since the torques can greatly surpass the standing load, this distribution allows flange volume to be relatively small.
Kind regards.
I dunno if I would really call spokes one dimensional due to their elbow (straight pull spokes however, sure, 1D, unless you're engineering the shape of their ends). The elbow is where most failures happen, so it is reasonable to say that you need more than one dimension to analyse them properly. I mean, it's for that reason that we have so many straight pull designs now...the elbow is a major weak point for the spoke.
Also, why do you say that the standing load is supported by the spokes near the ground? I haven't seen evidence for or against that, but it's just not what I would expect to be the case. Why would moments be transferred between spokes so easily, but not radial loads? I could totally be wrong here, I have no idea. Would be cool to find out.
