What is the relationship between angular backlash and mean or normal backlash, the axial movement of wheel gear, and mean or normal backlash for bevel and hypoid gears?

What is the relationship between angular backlash or mean normal backlash change and the axial movement of the ring gear in bevel and hypoid gears?

The backlash discussion posted previously was inspired by the comments posted on a hobby website I frequent. The commentator was of the opinion tha...

Not to worry — no politics here. The “backlash” I want to talk about is the “lost motion” in gear systems. It sometimes seems to rile people up alm...

In terms of the tooth thickness, should we use the formulation with respect to normal or transverse coordinate system? When normalizing this thickness in order to normalize the backlash (backlash parameter), we should divide by the circular pitch. Thus, when normalizing, should this circular pitch be defined in the normal or traverse coordinate system, depending on which formulation has been used? Is the backlash parameter always defined with respect to the tangential plane or normal plane for helical gears?

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

A best practice in gear design is to limit the amount of backlash to a minimum value needed to accommodate manufacturing tolerances, misalignments, and deflections, in order to prevent the non-driving side of the teeth to make contact and rattle. Industry standards, such as ANSI/AGMA 2002 and DIN3967, provide reference values of minimum backlash to be used in the gear design. However, increased customers' expectations in vehicle noise eduction have pushed backlash and allowable manufacturing tolerances to even lower limits. This is especially true in the truck market, where engines are quieter because they run at lower speeds to improve fuel economy, but they quite often run at high torsional vibration levels. Furthermore, gear and shaft arrangements in truck transmissions have become more complex due to increased number of speeds and to improve efficiency. Determining the minimum amount of backlash is quite a challenge. This paper presents an investigation of minimum backlash values of helical gear teeth applied to a light-duty pickup truck transmission. An analytical model was developed to calculate backlash limits of each gear pair when not transmitting load, and thus susceptible to generate rattle noise, through different transmission power paths. A statistical approach (Monte Carlo) was used since a significant number of factors affect backlash, such as tooth thickness variation; center distance variation; lead; runout and pitch variations; bearing clearances; spline clearances; and shaft deflections and misalignments. Analytical results identified the critical gear pair, and power path, which was confirmed experimentally on a transmission. The approach presented in this paper can be useful to design gear pairs with a minimum amount of backlash, to prevent double flank contact and to help reduce rattle noise to lowest levels.

Recently, an attorney told me that his eleven-year-old daughter had “discovered” gears in a science class and was excitedly learning all she could ...

I would appreciate if you could assist with a gear failure (occurring) after just seven weeks in service, post installation. This driving gear wheel has been installed in a medium-speed engine with backlash present at four different positions; with additional backlash checked on the mating surfaces. All backlash was found within (OEM)-recommended values. Please note included photos - it seems that the crack has started at the root fillet. Any comments would be appreciated.