Spokes Rubbing

[Yellow Saddle]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that my "suggestion is a bit of both". My suggestion is that it's neither (hanging or standing), not a bit of both. Spookily your quote I've used includes the word "neither".
@Yellow Saddle agreed (his emboldening): "You are absolutely right in your description. You'll notice that I always use "stand" within quotations since there is no single word I can think of to to replace " So the hubs neither hangs nor stands but utilises the whole wheel structure and wouldn't work without all the elements of that structure."
I am not inviting you to "budge by pandering to semantics". You have used a normal word (stand) and misapplied it, because you think that "people find the concept [of other spokes' tension varying as well] difficult to digest as it is."
YS: "we can safely say that the hub does not hang on them? Agreed?" Yes, as I said "a loaded hub does not "hang" on the top spokes".
YS: "If the tension in the bottom spokes reduce, we can safely start to think that the word stand is not all that alien." You can "start to think" this if you like.
But in English "stand" (in the physics context) implies that the subject (in this case the hub) is being supported (ie experiencing a positive force) by the item being 'stood' on (in this case the bottom spoke). In a wheel under load this is NOT the case: the bottom spoke remains in (albeit reduced) tension and still 'pulls' (downwards) on the hub. So using the word "stand" in this context is "alien" (ie 'wrong') and your use of it like this is not "safe" ie it is liable to sew confusion (as we've seen above and in other threads).

I didn't mean to imply that you proposed semantics as a solution. I attempted to communicate that I will continue to use the word "stand" because it is still the best way to describe something that is not the opposite - hang. I have qualified the word and I use it within quotations to alert that it has special meaning. I'll grant that the word is not safe. But this is not an easy concept for most people to grasp and there is no alternative single word or short phrase.

I stand by "stand".

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I've just skimmed through this enormous and dense thread. I'm sure I've read about exotic wheels with cables for spokes (just googled and they do exist - I'm not sure why though). Does their existence make a jot of difference either way?

Not that I'm terribly bothered. As long as my wheels work, I'm happy to assume it's due to invisible pixies.

It is a good question. No, it makes no difference. They still work on the same principle. The hub "stands" on the bottom spokes. It manages to do that seemingly impossible trick without folding the floppy Kevlar string spokes, because the spokes have a magic property inside the wheel (but not outside the wheel) that prevents them from buckling under compression. That magic property is tension and the quantities matter. They have more tension than the compressive force from the hub's load pushing on it.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I'm sat at work which is unsurprisingly bereft of books covering wheel-truing. I'll probably keep daring to post stuff from memory without citations, but at least I label it as such, especially when I'm unsure if I've remembered it rightly! At least I attempt to offer advice.

I would suggest that almost-right advice is poorer advice than no advice. If you don't know, don't attempt.

 

[Nigelnightmare]

OP I'm glad you got it sorted.
To All who posted, the main point is "it's been sorted by wading through the given advice".
That and common sense.

An enjoyable read.