Talk:List of gear nomenclature

Merging
I have created this page as an interim measure. I suggest that all the articles listed be merged into one. Biscuittin (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, all these articles could be merged with Gear. Biscuittin (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've merged all of the stub articles into this one. I'm going to *try* and clean it up some and then merge all of the terms from the gear article into here. Wizard191 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference Tree
This page is difficult to read due to each definition referencing atleast one other definition on the page, it would be nice to have each definition written in non-technical english so this list can be read as a list rather than needing to read the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.8.185 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal - Radial composite deviation
Radial composite deviation would appear to belong in here. --ClickRick (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

More merging
The following articles also reference ANSI/AGMA 1012-G05 - how many of them ought to be either merged in with this article or else linked? --ClickRick (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Spiral bevel gear
 * Lead (engineering), also applies to screw threads
 * Worm drive
 * Composite action test
 * Helix angle
 * Profile angle
 * Shaft angle
 * Rack and pinion
 * Pinion
 * Mounting distance
 * Index deviation
 * Crowned teeth
 * Angle of pressure
 * Backlash (engineering)
 * Pitch surfaces
 * Principal directions
 * Diameter


 * Not any of the larger articles or ones that may refer to other things outside of gears. This is what I think:

No:
 * Spiral bevel gear
 * Lead (engineering)
 * Worm drive
 * Helix angle
 * Profile angle
 * Rack and pinion
 * Backlash (engineering)

Maybe:
 * Composite action test
 * Pinion
 * Angle of pressure

Merge:
 * Shaft angle
 * Mounting distance
 * Index deviation
 * Crowned teeth
 * Pitch surfaces
 * Principal directions
 * Diameter


 * --Wizard191 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much the set I'd come to, too, except I'd put the "maybe"s into the "merge" pile. What to do with the "no" group, though? They belong – at least logically – in the same collection, so what's the best way to link them?  Just put a "See also" link in each direction?
 * --ClickRick (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For the no group we'll just make a section heading form them and put in a main template. Here's my reasoning for the maybes:
 * Composite action test - This article looks like it might be able to substantially expanded, making it too big for this article.
 * Pinion - This is another article that could definitely be expanded.
 * Angle of pressure - I'm changing this to a no; I made it a maybe before because I thought it might be used for non-gear applications. I had time now to research it and find that it's also used with cams, as shown here . Wizard191 (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I can get on and merge the ones we agree on, and create mini-sections for the ones which will remain separate. For Composite action test and Pinion can you add at least an outline of what else ought to go in there (or perhaps some hints on the respective talk pages) or should it simply get an for now? In the case of Angle of pressure, though, it sounds like two separate articles with a disambiguation page to separate …(gear) from …(cam). --ClickRick (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the angle of pressure article needs to be split. I believe it's the same concept just applied to two different applications. The other two articles are stubs, so it's not appropriate to apply expand templates to them. I'd have to do some more research to see all of what's available to fill them with, so I'll have to get back to you on that one. Wizard191 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked into Composite action test and found that there wasn't much that could be added, so I went ahead and merged it. Wizard191 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Crowned Teeth
The last sentence in this section appears to refer to dentistry. In addition, it seems to be non-encyclopedic in tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.73.77 (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, I've removed the offending info. Wizard191 (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Production" terminology
Why should we limit this article to the "production" terminology of gears? It's far easier to just include the terminology of all gears, production or not. In my mind, there is no reason to separate the two. Wizard191 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pitch Diameter section botched
The Standard Pitch Diameter/Standard Reference Pitch Diameter section is all messed up: Duplicate, inconsistent (d vs D), doesn't define d/D, etc. I don't have access to the original reference, so I can't correct it.108.213.76.24 (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A Possible Citation
These websites may be able to serve as more citations:

Changes for Module, Diametral Pitch, and Circular Pitch.
These definitions were either in error or somewhat difficult to understand. I edited these sections for a clearer understanding of these terms and added the formulae that define them. I listed the Machinist's Handbook as my source, but there are many others. The Machinist's Handbook is used by many of the people who actually make gears so it should be a good reference. I was not aware of how to make reference to it a second or third time without creating three instances of it in the list of citations. If anyone can correct this I would be appreciative. EPA3 (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A bit of a problem
List of gear nomenclature. tubes and pipes also have an inside diameter Peter Horn User talk 00:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Gear teeth "z" and correct grammar
This article should include the common "z" nomenclature. I would write it, but I don't know the correct language to use and the Internet seems split almost 50/50.

Do I write "48z" or "48Z" or "z48" or "Z48"? I see all used. The first seems the most sensible to me, but I'm no mech-e.

Do I write "48-tooth-gear" or "48-tooth gear" or "48 tooth gear" or "48-teeth-gear" or "48-teeth" gear" or "48 teeth gear"? I think I've seen every variation, including one site which uses a near 50/50 mix of "tooth" and "teeth" forcing users to search for everything twice. Anyway, my vote is for the 2nd of the 6 choices. Skintigh (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)