Originally Posted By: bigj_16
That "Minimum Oil Film Thickness" you are pointing to is the tail end of the wedge. That has nothing to do with the oil weight you are using.
It IS the definition of "Minimum Oil Film Thickness" in the engineering sense...the bearing design sense...It would appear that you are not versed in the engineering side of things to deny same...
Here's the engineering design charts, that we used pre CFD...note that this is journal bearings, and it's MINIMUM OIL FILM THICKNESS versus bearing parameters
the X Axis is (r/c)^2 (radius on clearance) times viscosity times speed divided by specific pressure...change one and trace with your finger the direction that MOFT goes with each variable...
As to your statement about viscosity and MOFT...if you do the above, you can see it's plain wrong...
Here's an FE calculated Rod bearing for different viscosities and speeds...
Clearly, more viscosity, more MOFT...just like the universal laws of physics say that there will be.
That "Minimum Oil Film Thickness" you are pointing to is the tail end of the wedge. That has nothing to do with the oil weight you are using.
It IS the definition of "Minimum Oil Film Thickness" in the engineering sense...the bearing design sense...It would appear that you are not versed in the engineering side of things to deny same...
Here's the engineering design charts, that we used pre CFD...note that this is journal bearings, and it's MINIMUM OIL FILM THICKNESS versus bearing parameters
the X Axis is (r/c)^2 (radius on clearance) times viscosity times speed divided by specific pressure...change one and trace with your finger the direction that MOFT goes with each variable...
As to your statement about viscosity and MOFT...if you do the above, you can see it's plain wrong...
Here's an FE calculated Rod bearing for different viscosities and speeds...
Clearly, more viscosity, more MOFT...just like the universal laws of physics say that there will be.
Last edited: