I have a general question on flow through an orifice for varying temperatures/viscosities. For a given pressure drop and orifice size, intuitively I would expect a colder, more viscous oil to have less flow through the orifice than oil at temp. However from looking at the...
Not sure if it's causing your leaking issue but 98% nominal gland fill is an issue. Typically you'd shoot for around 75% gland fill nominally, taking into account manufacturing tolerances so that you do not ever exceed 90%.
What are you using to apply the sealing force? And how much force are you applying? What fluid are you sealing? Does the o-ring appear damaged after the test? What are the gland dimensions? I 'd make sure you're not exceeding 90% gland fill. O-ring manufacturers generally do not provide a...
If you're using Solidworks, you can model the involute curve with a parametric equation driven curve. x=BR*(cos(t)+t(sin(t)) y=BR*(sin(t)-tcos(t)), then mirror that around a line to .5 of your circular space width to get your spline tooth.
Ok I take it back, that's probably a standard spline. Those measurements seem consistent with a 24DP 45 degree PA. Have you been able to calculate circular tooth thickness from those measurements? I'd look at getting ANSI B92.1 to confirm. With calculated tooth thickness and the standard you...
Thanks for the responses, this has helped me understand better. My thinking now is that there may be issues with making a shaft with too little torsional stiffness (energy release, critical speed, increased side load) but in some instances it may be desirable to increase the impact resistance...
Right, this is more or less what I was going back and forth with. Because yes, the material itself is not actually any tougher, but if you look at each shaft at rupture, I believe the one with the reduced diameter will have more strain energy. Would that not make that shaft tougher in...
handleman -- OK so you would say that the area under the torque-twist curve would relate to actual toughness, and specifically in this case the smaller diameter results in more allowable deformation, allowing for more energy to be absorbed before fracture?
I guess I was trying to find a way to...
I have what may be a simple question, I don’t know if I’m just overthinking this. I am looking through the test data of Torque twist curves on a couple shafts. Yield and rupture torque seem more straightforward. However I would like to compare toughness between various shafts. I understand...
Measurement between or over pins is just two pins. Again I think you would benefit from reading up more on involute spline terminology. There is a lot of information readily available on the internet without needing to buy a standard.
Automotive is one of those industries where non-standard...
I think you may need to take some measurements between pins. Using several size pins could also help determine if it is an involute or not. Although if it's GM there's a decent chance it's not a standard spline. I would recommend reading up on involute splines so you know what you're looking...
I guess I may not be fully visualizing how hobs generate the involute form. I don't understand how gears are specified in the normal plane, to use the corresponding hobs, but then those hobs create a true involute form that is not in the normal plane.
Hello,
Hoping someone could help clear up some confusion for me, or point me in the right direction. I'd been under the impression that for a helical gear, the true involute profile would be located in the transverse plane. However when specifying helical gears, pitch and tooth thickness are...
Yes I agree about the range or min vs max. I was mainly just asking whether the value(s) precedes the scale or vice versa in terms of formatting. It looks like according to that quote from ASTM E18-15 the value generally goes first, but I'm not sure it's something I'd actually mark up on a red...
Which is how I'd thought about it and has led me spec hardness such as "50 HRC" . However I've noticed that about 80-90% of the drawings I see that spec hardness the hardness scale first. I do not know if I'm missing something on this.
On prints I have seen hardness called out as value then scale, and as scale, then value. E.g 50 HRC, vs HRC 50. Is there one that is technically correct or is it generally up to the drafters/engineers discretion? Thanks in advance.
The thickness I put will be after finish grinding. For the stock removal after shot peening, on the AMS2430 standard it seems to promote lapping, honing and polishing over grinding. Is this because grinding can create residual tensile stresses where the other processes do not? Due to our shop...
It will be chrome plated, thickness will be .0006-.001. I have been referencing AMS2460A. Yes i am sure the tolerance is +/-.0001", I'm aware that is very very tight. Part is about 3/4" in diameter. I could make slightly harder, but going off the standard I need to keep parts under 34HRC to...
It is essentially a shaft surface with some notches and cutouts. The tolerance is after plating, so before plating the part could have looser tolerance than +/-.0001" but would still need to be held tightly. I also would not want a rough surface finish before plating. That is why the part is...
Sorry for my ignorance on this, what does MF stand for? The parts would be medium carbon steel like AISI 1045, at about 20-25 hrc.
Thank you very much, this gives me a lot more to look into.
