anvil shaft size

[TheRodDoc]

999 99999 99999 999 99

[ralph]

Hi Richard,
The answer for my 3/4" upper is that that is what my Caster wheel came with.
The answer for my 1/2" lowers was that .... um ah .... thats what everyone else was using.

[FriarTuck]

Hi Richard, I agree, I'm not sure why any lower anvil would use a 3/4" axle. Both my 2x3's and 3x3's use 1/2", and my 3.5x3.5's use 5/8" and that is overkill. The 1/2" seems to be OK, but certainly 3/8" or even 1/4" is structurally just as functional especially in CR1018. Maybe the availability of particular bearings has something to do with the choice of larger ID's. Who knows???

Tuck

[norm]

classic monkey see monkey do engineering




mine are 3/4 in the middle
and step down to 1/2 on each end

that way the axle is captured
and cant fall on the floor

[Joe Andrews]

Hi Guys,

Monkey see Monkey do....Hm...
I can tell you that 3/4 Axles kill the amount of radius' or "relief" that can be machined on an anvil. The Larger the outer race of the bearing the less radius on the o.d. I use 1/2" Axles because the same bearing is available with a 5/8's i.d. This enables me to offer 2 options on Axles. 3/8's would work quite well, As Richard stated.

[Gene Newcomb]

Richard,
I think when we started making anvils four+ years ago I found some bearings on Ebay that were 3/4" ID. Now 5000+ anvils later switching would be a pain.
Its definately over kill and we even used 4140 for the shafts briefly because an Ebay competitor was. People kept asking me why the heck I was using 4140.
I'ld switch today if I didn't have so many units out there. I would have to carry both and violate the KISS principle.
Gene

[CCWKen]

It's not so much the axle size that really means anything. If the parts were engineered, this question wouldn't come up. So the monkey see monkey do is probably correct. It's the bearing size and it's ability to handle the loads. The dynamic and static load ratings for smaller bearings fall below the load applied in an E-wheel, when you factor life over 300 hours and any axial load. A larger bearing will mean longer life for the bearing.

A bad bearing will show up on a wheeled panel too.

[Gene Newcomb]

Ken,
Do you have a link to a bearing load table than includes static loads. I am working on a ring roller similar to the Italian model posted a few weeks ago and can't find a good table. Course I already bought one to try 1.5" OD standard. I might need a roller bearing. I initially was going to use a pillow block, like the Italian but decided to bore a bushing and weld it on so as not to have to worry about the cast part of a pillow block breaking.
So far I have onlu been able to find dynamic loads at 3000 RPM and a roller would be more like 3 RPM.
Gene

[anders nørgaard]

Hi Gene,

Check this link, it should have all the info you need:

http://www.ahrinternational.com/koyo_bearings.htm

In case that doen't have what you want, check this:

http://www.directindustry.com/cat/linear-guides-positioning-bearings/magnetic-and-hydrodynamic-bearings-accessories-F-56.html

[Gene Newcomb]

Anders,
I got lost on those but found it on the AEC site that actually made the 1.5 ID bearing I am trying out. You probably know how many lbs 7.5 kN is? Maybe you could also tell me why we bother to fight wars if we cannot impose our antiquated measurements on countries we "liberate"?!
Gene

[CCWKen]

Kilonewton (kN) is usually associated with a torque, force or impact--kN/m^2. Converting 7.5kN gives about 1687lbs/ft.

Here's a couple of links that can help you calculate dynamic and static load requirements. A warning though, get out your calculator and metric conversion tables. ;) :D

http://www.efunda.com/DesignStandards/bearings/bearings_rotary_ld_life.cfm

http://www.efunda.com/DesignStandards/bearings/bearings_rotary_ld_life_data.cfm#DeepGrooveBall

What size/material do you plan to roll? A general requirement will be that your bearing must withstand the force necessary to bend the material or about 30,000lbs per cubic inch of metal (steel). The design of the roller will have a lot to do with that--The distance between the rollers and the size of the material. Note that the roller frame will also have to support the stresses.

The roller bearing is a good idea. These types of bearings provide the highest load handling. I don't think bushings would last very long unless they are steel.

[anders nørgaard]

Anders,
I got lost on those but found it on the AEC site that actually made the 1.5 ID bearing I am trying out. You probably know how many lbs 7.5 kN is? Maybe you could also tell me why we bother to fight wars if we cannot impose our antiquated measurements on countries we "liberate"?!
Gene

Gene,
Sorry you got lost but glad you got found again http://www.metalmeet.com/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif
Yup! 7.5kN = 7,500N...... 7,500 N / 9.81 = 764.526 kilogram ...... (1 lbs = 0.450 kg)... 764.526 kg / 0.450 kg = 1698.947lbs http://www.metalmeet.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif http://www.metalmeet.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

Your second question:
Not a clue..... I've wondered about that in years myself :lol: :lol: :lol: ........ Guess it's hard to change habits... and in this instance EXPENSIVE

[anders nørgaard]

Ken,

Oops, Sorry, got so exited about answering Gene that I didn't even notice that the thread had been extended with another page and that you had answered already http://www.metalmeet.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif
Nice links, THANKS!

Richard,
The drawing in the middle of your (as usual great) graphics is exactly the way I made my axles! 5/8 center, 1/2 on bearing races (sp) and 3/8 in saddle. This way there's practically no "side travel" and spacers can be let out http://www.metalmeet.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[CCWKen]

No problem Anders. I was just figuring in my head and probably dropped a few decimals in rounding. That's why I said ABOUT. :D Glad we have folks like you cause I'm too lazy to figure it out.http://www.metalmeet.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif

[anders nørgaard]

No problem Anders. I was just figuring in my head and probably dropped a few decimals in rounding. That's why I said ABOUT. :D Glad we have folks like you cause I'm too lazy to figure it out.:lol:

Thanks Ken!
The reason I did it with all the decimals is, that doing it that way would show how I got the result and then other folks might be able to convert other metric figures to ..... uhm... err... "mother tongue" :lol: