View Single Post
Old 03-30-18, 10:25 AM
Calamari Marionette Ph.D
SquidPuppet's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Coeur d' Alene
Posts: 7,883

Bikes: 3 Chinese Gas Pipe Nerdcycles and 2 Chicago Electroforged Boat Anchors

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by AnkleWork View Post
NASA would be one source I've read, among many others all of which indicate that ball retainers serve substantially greater purposes than convenience. What was Jobst's source (apart from his own rather expansive sense of authority)?

" . . . bearing torque is increased due to ball to ball friction." Loose ball friction is higher than in caged bearings due to skin friction between the balls. Skin friction is proportional to the square of the surface speed. Ball-to-ball surface speed is double ball-to-cage surface speed and thus skin friction is four times as high.
Could you provide a few links to these sources? I'd like to read more about full complement bearings.
SquidPuppet is offline