Subject:
|
Re: Gear train friction?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:13:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2607 times
|
| |
|
|
"Ross Crawford" <rcrawford@csi.com> writes:
> I've also found a not in-significant source of friction is the bushes
> against the beams (or whatever your axle goes through). I've reduced
> this a bit on occasion by not using bushes to hold axles in position,
> but having a brick at each end, that the axle (almost) butts up
> against. It does allow a bit of length-wise motion, but reduces the
> friction.
The length of one axle is normally slightly shorter than a corresponding
beam, ie. an axle #4 is slightly shorter than a 4 stud beam. So this is
probably why you achieve some slack when putting bricks on either side
of the axle to support it.
But wouldn't your solution be analogous to using bushes to support the
axles, but letting there be some slack between the bushes and the
supporting structure? It appears to me that the effect of this would be
the same as the effect of removing the bushes completely.
Fredrik
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gear train friction?
|
| Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m3k89e4iva.fsf@...ldomain... (...) The difference is, when the bush is rubbing against the beam, it's a much greater surface area than when the axle-end rubs the end-stop. ROSCO (23 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gear train friction?
|
| Amnon, I've also found a not in-significant source of friction is the bushes against the beams (or whatever your axle goes through). I've reduced this a bit on occasion by not using bushes to hold axles in position, but having a brick at each end, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.technic)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
