Subject:
|
bushing (bush) question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:10:34 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Elijah Meeker <emeeker@austin.rr!antispam!.com>
|
Viewed:
|
755 times
|
| |
|
|
(I never thought about this until just now, I know these things as
"bushings" and they are listed as "bush", which only now seems
appropriate when they are activly in service, as opposed to sitting in a
bin. If I had an www.oed.com account I would have looked into the
etymology. At any rate, I am going to use "bushing" because the other
looks too odd to my american eyes and threatens to toss the whole post
into a riot of double-entendre.)
So, there are 3 types of 1/2 bushing:
smooth
http://img.lugnet.com/ld/4265c.gif
type 1
http://img.lugnet.com/ld/4265a.gif
type 2
http://img.lugnet.com/ld/4265b.gif
Can anyone tell me why I would want type 1 vs. type 2? Are type 1
functionally different or just the a first try? Also, anyone have an
idea why they dropped all the toothing I see on older pieces?
Thanks,
Elijah
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
| (...) I don't have any hard evidence, but I've always found that the type 2's (later version) grip a little more consistantly. The type 1's in my collection are either *really* tight or just moderately tight. Type 2's seem to be consistantly (...) (23 years ago, 23-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
| (...) They're pretty much the same. But I think Type 1 bushings often have a tighter fit than Type 2 bushings. It really depends on each specific part and its particular tolerances. I have some Type 1's that are extrememly tight fitting, and others (...) (23 years ago, 23-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
13 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
|
|
|
|
