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.

One of our readers in England has asked for our help in locating published technical data and information on the design, manufacture, and inspection of camshaft gears. Although millions of these gears have been made and are in constant use, we are not aware of any formal material having been published. We would be pleased to hear from anyone who had knowledge of such information.

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.

Popular wisdom has it that manufacturing in the United States is no longer a viable entity. We are told that quality is poor, skilled labor is difficult to obtain, if not impossible, demand is low, and the government is helping to discourage business. So what should we do, give up?

When I was new to gear engineering, I found the array of gear literature scare, and the information scattered and conflicting. After investigating the materials available, I set the goal of creating an annotated listing of the references. There are many valuable resources, but for this article I have selected ten of the best. These references, in my opinion, are the most useful, and cover the scope while minimizing redundancy.

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.