Subject:
|
Re: Gear train friction?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:56:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4508 times
|
| |
|
|
Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
news:m3k89e4iva.fsf@crossblock.localdomain...
> "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.
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gear train 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. (...) (26 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.technic)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
