Jump to content

Talk:Involute gear

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drewm1980 (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 15 November 2010 (Involute gear teeth cannot be accurately described as "rolling"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please explain what the title of the article has to do with the article itself. RickK 02:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As a gear maker myself I agree the title need changing "Involute Gear" and the article could do with fleshing out a bit e.g. a french mathematician invented the curve in the 14-1700 ? but its application to gearing was not understood until the 18xx also there are other gear forms. Therefore keep and rename Archivist 23:54, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

The title seems to be refering to a particular gear in an anamorphic movie camera lens but the article is about the involute gear type. Archivist 00:07, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

From VFD:

  • Anamorphic gear is sort of confusing, and not real written. Plus, the contents are describing "involute profiles"; what does that have to do with "Anamorphic gears"? -- Khym Chanur 07:52, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is missing a connection between the two, but I'd wait and see if someone can finish the article to a useful point - Marshman
    • Keep and rename. As a gear maker myself I agree the title is wrong for the text it needs changing to "Involute Gear" and the article could do with fleshing out a bit e.g. a french mathematician invented the curve in the 14-1700 ? but its application to gearing was not understood until the 18xx also there are other gear forms etc. The title seems to be refering to a particular gear in an anamorphic movie camera lens but the article is not. Archivist 00:18, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)
    • This article is fine for an encyclopedia. And with all the complaints of 'geek priorities', I'm sure there's someone here who knows enough about them to complete this article. Wiwaxia 02:04, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The figure is misleading in that the base radius does not necessarily correspond with the minor diameter of the teeth. With large number of teeth it is less, and with small number of teeth it could become more, and that is why a "correction" is needed. 203.51.92.229 (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "sliding" to describe the contact between the teeth is incorrect. In a properly meshed pair of involute gears, the contact is actually a rolling action with no sliding involved. This is one of the reasons why the involute form for the gear teeth is so successful: there is little friction between the teeth and thus very little wear. I will attempt to change the text to reflect this. EPA3 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involute gears have sliding contact except the point of contact on the line between the gear centers. The advantage to the involute is the 'gear ratio' remains constant through the entire contact without regard to center distance, unlike cycloidal gears which have less sliding, but are sensitive to center distance. Physical evidence for this has been in the form of gears with tooth faces damaged everywhere except for the above mentioned contact point, and the remainder of the material sheared away from that contact point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.73.74.5 (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above unsigned poster is correct. Involute teeth do NOT achieve rolling contact throughout their mesh. This is demonstrable with a trivial vector analysis of the velocities at the contact point (see discussions of non-circular gears for related math). The fact that there is sliding involved is even apparent just from looking at the animation in the article.