/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7258373
You can't get an exact 1/7 ratio if none of the gears have a multiple of 7 teeth.

>>7258373
hint : use epicyclic gearings or whatever their name is in english

>>7258373
Why does mechanical engineers always have rolling bearings on their desk? For what the fuck do you need this shit?

>>7258403
to make an axis rotate without friction or backlash.
both wear the parts very quickly.

>>7258407
lol that doesn't answer why they need them on their desks, he knows what fucking bearings are you dumbass

>>7258449
You never know when you're gonna need friction reduction for your shaft, anon.

>>7258449
>For what the fuck do you need this shit?
sorry this was pretty unclear.

you use them when prototyping. The prototype isn't gonna build itself.

>>7258456
kek/10

>>7258456

>is engineer
>goes home to his wife
>she had a bad day & her pussy is dry but she puts up with his shit

hold on honey let me get some ball bearings

>>7258403
>mechanical engineers always have..
they don't, but it's a symbol of ingenuity

>>7258566

>>7258568

>>7258571

>>7258578

>>7258585

>>7258588
Mechanical engineers love these fucking rolling bearings.

>>7258571
why the fuck would you measure your own bearing if you're the one who bought it

>>7258600
roller bearings > ball bearings

>>7258403
More like trolling bearings!

>>7258608
To check if it's within the specified tolerances, duh.

>>7258617
DO you have any idea how hard it is to manufacture a perfectly smooth and round spherical component within a precise tolerance?

Ball Bearings are god tier. Those barrel-shaped monstrosities need not apply

>>7258664

>>7258672
>>7258664
>>7258617
they're not even used for the same things, jesus.

>>7258672
Source?

>>7258653
That's pretty sweet looking and all but it wouldn't stand up to any significant load

>>7258710
no idea, just some cool gif I saved

>>7258712
It's a computer animation for demonstration of the principle, I don't think the actual part would look like that.

>>7258712
CV joints are used to drive the front wheels of most FWD and AWD cars on the road. I'd say that's a "significant load," if ever there was one.

>>7258608
Do you remember every little detail of every little thing you've ever bought?

>>7258737
Nice post, but it has very little to do with the image I was referring to, (not a great example of a "CV joint" used in offroad vehicles)

>>7258760
>It's a computer animation for demonstration of the principle, I don't think the actual part would look like that.

>>7258760
Pretty similar IMO.

Pic not related

>>7258811
And that's why you don't design transmission components

The mechanics are similar but the structural differences are significant and that's why I took issue with your original post

>>7258835
I thought that would be pretty obvious. Let me just note that I'm also aware that it's not a good idea to make cardan couplings out of transparent perspex
>>7258727

>>7258862
Einstein was wrong about a number of things, including that bicycle statement - they "stand up" because of rotational inertia

And i don't like being cantankerous but when someone calls me out on something I gots to put a brother straight

>>7258866
>they "stand up" because of rotational inertia
No they don't.

>>7258866
Noone was calling you out, you're absolutely right that that thing wouldn't hold.

Pic related still the best bendy shaft IMO.

>>7258868
Yes they do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqHXFKJddfM

Stay in school, kiddies

>>7258880
That's not a bike, it's a wheel.

>>7258866
it took more than 50 years to answer that question acutally.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/why_does_moving_bicycle_stay-78139
and it's not rotational inertia !

>>7258890
/sci/ is not for you, friend

But you may enjoy one of our other great boards, including /pol/, /v/, or /b/ ;)

>>7258891
Orly? That very article you just posted disagrees:

>The consensus has been that a bicycle's stability is related to two factors: First, the rotating wheels of the bicycle provide stability through gyroscopic effects

>>7258891
The point is that if the bike tips over to the right, this makes the front wheel point to the right as well, so that the wheel automatically steers itself to below (and beyond) the center of mass.

>with small and counter-rotating wheels, which means there is no gyroscopic effect to speak of
I'm sure this is true but it does sound very counter-intuitive to me.

>>7258898
A bike with teeny tiny wheel will stay upright just fine.

>>7258895
Unlike you, I've already provided the right answer.

>>7258895
I do enjoy /b/ at times.

>>7258923
That doesn't look very efficient to me

The gold panels seem to spring open under the incident (red) gas, but surely that would cause a backdraft when they are forced closed near the blue exhaust valve?

>>7258927
Don't call me Shirley

>>7258927
yea it's a concept of some steam engine that was never seriously used. A prototype was built and it was very noisy.
It's pretty funny to see what people came up with right at the advent of steam power.

>>7258927
I think the panels would rather open by centrifugal force though.

Here is sauce btw, lots of cool stuff
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/museum.htm
pic related is tower engine