In the design process of transmissions, one major criterion is the
resulting noise emission of the powertrain due to gear excitation.
Within the past years, much investigation has shown that the
noise emission can be attributed to quasi-static transmission error.
Therefore, the transmission error can be used for a tooth contact
analysis in the design process, as well as a characteristic value for
quality assurance by experimental inspections.
This paper outlines the comparison of
efficiencies for worm gearboxes with
a center distance ranging from 28 -
150 mm that have single reduction from
5 to 100:1. Efficiencies are calculated using several standards (AGMA, ISO, DIN, BS) or by methods defined in other bibliographic references. It also deals with the measurement of torque and temperature on a test rig — required for the calibration of an analytical model
to predict worm gearbox efficiency
and temperature. And finally, there are examples of experimental activity (wear and friction measurements on a blockon- ring tribometer and the measurements of dynamic viscosity) regarding the effort of improving the efficiency for worm gear drivers by adding nanoparticles of fullerene shape to standard PEG lubricant
THE FINAL CHAPTER
This is the last in the series of chapters excerpted from Dr. Hermann J. Stadtfeld's Gleason Bevel Gear Technology - a book written for specialists in planning, engineering, gear design and manufacturing. The work also addresses the technical
information needs of researchers, scientists and students who deal with the theory and practice of bevel gears and other angular gear systems. While all of the above groups are of course of invaluable importance to the gear industry, it is surely the students who hold the key to its future. And with that knowledge it is reassuring to hear from Dr. Stadtfeld of
the enthusiastic response he has received from younger readers
of these chapter installments.
The cutting process consists of either
a roll only (only generating motion), a plunge only or a combination of plunging and rolling. The material removal and flank forming due to a pure generating motion is demonstrated in the simplified sketch in Figure 1 in four steps. In the start roll position (step 1), the cutter
profile has not yet contacted the work. A rotation of the work around its axis (indicated by the rotation arrow) is coupled with a rotation of the cutter around the axis of the generating gear (indicated by
the vertical arrow) and initiates a generating motion between the not-yet-existing tooth slot of the work and the cutter head (which symbolizes one tooth of the generating gear).
Could you explain to me the difference between spiral bevel gear process face hobbing-lapping, face milling-grinding and Klingelnberg HPG? Which one is better for noise, load capacity and quality?