Who wants or needs technical details about gearing? Who cares about it? Three out of every four people who are reading this magazine make up at least 75% of those who have an interest in the subject. The members of AGMA, EUROTRANS, JGMA and JSIM have an interest. All the people attending the Gear Expo in Detroit have an interest. Clearly, however, the people with the most pressing interest in our industry are our customers, the end users of gear products. The unfortunate reality, though, is that in many cases, these customers don't even know that's what they want.

I would like to comment on David Arnesen's article, "Dry Hobbing Saves Automaker Money, Improves Gear Quality," in the Nov/Dec, 1996 issue.

I noted with interest the beginning of Gear Technology's three-part series on ISO 9000 certification. I also recently attended Brown & Sharpe's/Leitz gear metrology seminar. Both events caused me to smile and reflect.

Investigation of Gear Rattle Phenomena The article by Messrs. Rust, Brandl and Thien was very interesting in its description of the problem and of some of the interactions which occur.

From time to time, the editors of "Shop Floor" receive correspondence from readers relating to particular articles they have written for past issues. As one of the purposes of this column is to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, we reproduce here two of these letters and their replies. The subject of the first is the functional measurement of gears. (See Gear Technology, Sept/Oct, 1991, p. 17) Robert E. Smith writes the reply.

Dear Editor: In Mr. Yefim Kotlyar's article "Reverse Engineering" in the July/August issue, I found an error in the formula used to calculate the ACL = Actual lead from the ASL = Assumed lead.

Dear Editor: Re: Your editorial and "Viewpoint" by Joe Arvin. Both you and Mr. Arvin make some valid points. Your editorial appears to be a response to Mr. Arvin's "Viewpoint." This is a response to both

This past fall, I had the opportunity to travel to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore to witness first-hand the status of the power transmission and machine tool industries in these areas. Points of interest included equipment, material handling, computerization, wage and tax structures, inventory controls, and workforce attitude.

Five years of effort by AGMA came to fruition in January with the publishing of a report from the Department of Commerce. This "National Security Assessment of the U.S. Gear Industry" indicates that if serious measures are not taken, the gear industry's future is in jeopardy. It also sets the tone for confronting major challenges now looming large in our industry.

The authors of last issue's article comparing AGMA, ISO and BS methods for Pitting Resistance Ratings are commended. Trying to compare various methods of rating gears is like hitting a moving target in a thick forest. The use of different symbols, presentations, terminology, and definitions in these standards makes it very difficult. But the greatest problem lies with the authors' use of older versions of these documents. ISO drafts and AGMA standards have evolved at the same time their work was accomplished and edited.