What follows is the first of three articles we will be running on ISO 9000 and what it means for the gear industry. This first article will cover what ISO 9000 is, what some of its benefits - and problems - are, and whether your company should be a candidate for this certification process. In our next issue, we will consider the important question of how, when, and if to hire an ISO 9000 consultant. The final article in this series will discuss ways to save money while streamlining the certification process in your company.
ISO 9000 is the latest hot topic in marketing and manufacturing circles. Everyone seems to be talking about it, but few seem to understand it completely. depending on whom one talks to, it's either the greatest thing to hit industry since the assembly line, another cash cow for slick consultants, a conspiracy on the part of Europeans to dominate global markets, or the next necessary step to compete in the global economy of the twenty-first century. It may be all of the above.
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.
The quality of gearing is a function of many factors ranging from design, manufacturing processes, machine capability, gear steel material, the machine operator, and the quality control methods employed. This article discusses many of the bevel gear manufacturing problems encountered by gear manufacturers and some of the troubleshooting techniques used.
In Part I differences in pitting ratings between AGMA 218, the draft ISO standard 6336, and BS 436:1986 were examined. In this part bending strength ratings are compared. All the standards base the bending strength on the Lewis equation; the ratings differ in the use and number of modification factors. A comprehensive design survey is carried out to examine practical differences between the rating methods presented in the standards, and the results are shown in graphical form.
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.
A study of AGMA 218, the draft ISO standard 6336, and BS 436: 1986 methods for rating gear tooth strength and surface durability for metallic spur and helical gears is presented. A comparison of the standards mainly focuses on fundamental formula and influence factors, such as the load distribution factor, geometry factor, and others. No attempt is made to qualify or judge the standards other than to comment on the facilities or lack of them in each standard reviewed. In Part I a comparison of pitting resistance ratings is made, and in the subsequent issue, Part II will deal with bending stress ratings and comparisons of designs.
Six years ago this month, the very first issue of Gear Technology, the Journal of Gear Manufacturing, went to press. The reason for starting the publication was a straightforward one: to provide a forum for the presentation of the best technical articles on gear-related subjects from around the world. We wanted to give our readers the information they need to solve specific problems, understanding new technologies, and to be informed about the latest applications in gear design and manufacturing. The premise behind Gear Technology was also a straightforward one: the better informed our readers were about the technology, the more competitive they and their companies would be int he world gear market.
Mission: Competing to Win
Like a lot of people, I grew up seeing the world as fairly flat and believing that everything of importance happened in Texas. As I grew older, my outlook grew to include the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The rest of the world did not seem very important, if it existed at all. Unfortunately, I was not alone in this very narrow view. Many other in the gear business shared this perception.