should I use loose balls or retainers?

On 2009-09-27, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 26, 8:05*pm, someone wrote:
*Real world experience dictates my method not guesswork. *

Show us the data. We can then pass it on to professional lubrication
and bearing engineers, who will be very thankful to you for
demonstrating that they've had it all wrong for many decades. Despite
their apparent success, that is.

But how do we know they aren't all either blinded by religion or really
working for the marketing department?

On Sep 27, 12:29*am, someone wrote:
On 27 Sep, 04:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sep 26, 8:05*pm, someone wrote:

*Real world experience dictates my method not guesswork. *

Show us the data.

I'll repeat it, because unfortunately you seem to have edited it out.

All bearings which have had some additional oil from day one and
continued with oil lubrication are in good to excellent condition.
All bearings which had been run on grease alone and had never seen any
additional oil all failed within three years. *This was despite using
bicycle grease in a tube or a pot or automotive grease of various
types.

*We can then pass it on to professional lubrication

and bearing engineers, who will be very thankful to you for
demonstrating that they've had it all wrong for many decades. *Despite
their apparent success, that is.

If they told you to oil the bearings, the manufacturers would have to
supply a higher grade bearing. *It's better for them, they dont say.
It's better for the user to realise the bearing is rough and it needs
to wear in, but grease will lead to fatigue, quickly. *Changing to oil
and replenishing before contamination is high will mean the bearing
will last.

Trevor, the only piece of data in that post was: "three."

- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 27, 4:36*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-27, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sep 26, 8:05*pm, someone wrote:
*Real world experience dictates my method not guesswork. *

Show us the data. *We can then pass it on to professional lubrication
and bearing engineers, who will be very thankful to you for
demonstrating that they've had it all wrong for many decades. *Despite
their apparent success, that is.

But how do we know they aren't all either blinded by religion or really
working for the marketing department?

:-) Ah! The conspiracy is revealed! Huge teams from marketing
departments are sneaking into everyone's garage every couple weeks.
Under cover of darkness, they secretly inject Trevor's concoctions
into all the cars' front wheel bearings!

- Frank Krygowski

On 27 Sep, 09:36, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-27, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sep 26, 8:05*pm, someone wrote:
*Real world experience dictates my method not guesswork. *

Show us the data. *We can then pass it on to professional lubrication
and bearing engineers, who will be very thankful to you for
demonstrating that they've had it all wrong for many decades. *Despite
their apparent success, that is.

But how do we know they aren't all either blinded by religion or really
working for the marketing department?

Presenting an attractive product following three months on the ocean
waves dictates that grease be used and be contained. No doubt there's
a town in India with all engineering skills together as was
Birmingham, which manufactures all the bicycle components and
assembles them with a handful of sloppy grease. But those same bikes
are oiled in use. High technology for the Victorian era, not really
bettered, just different values in the western world today.
Attempting to lubricate a bearing as well as anextra shot or two of
oil is a difficult task in the confines of a sealed cartridge bearing
to suit a bicycle. My argument is not just the longevity of the
bearing in general, but the servicing time which is spent to replace
it every X years or miles.

On 09/25/2009 10:16 PM, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Total nonsense. First there's space between the balls, they are
not "locked together". Second, even when they touch there's
lubrication. Third, the load is at a level that is infinitesimal
compared to the load they are under between the cone and race.

Correct.

The balls can be locked together if the bearing is filled with
them. Then, taking one out leaves a large gap.

Wrong. Bearing balls are never jammed into an assembly, so they
won't be locked together. There is always one gap, and the gap is
always less than the space required to fit in one more ball -
because if there were space for another ball, you'd put one in!

The size of the one gap in a bearing without a retainer is typically
about the size of _each_ gap in a bearing with retainers. But with
the retainer, you've got as many gaps as bearing balls.

"Someone" seems unaware that bearing capacities are very well
understood. Ball bearings are used in countless devices. The
bearings are commodities, they obey the same rules no matter who
makes them, which is why one manufacturer's offering can be replaced
by a practically identical one from a different manufacturer.

He also seems unaware that modern lubricants allow things like wheel
bearings in automobiles to last tens of millions of revolutions in
temperatures far more extreme and at speeds far higher than those
seen by bike parts. There's no need for custom-blended greases,
whale oil, or any of the rest. There's no need for alchemy.

Frank, you are treading on religious territory, that area of science
that is in opposition to common bicyclist's belief. You could become
expelled from the Church as Galileo was or for that matter the way
Tesla was by Edison. Even Darwin could not avoid these strictures or
for that matter Albert Einstein who was denounced for not having done
the research to support his "Special relativity or (E=m*c**2)"


Science is a dangerous subject as we see in friction, Brinelling,
fretting, or lubrication.

Don't mess with the faithful, you atheist!


as opposed to the religionists that want us take "stress relief" on
faith with no evidence?

as opposed the religionists that want us to accept "fretting" on
bearings, even though the religionist has failed to read their bible
properly and failed to do the hardness testing that proves them wrong?

as opposed the religionists that want us to accept the myth of
anodizing and rim cracking, even though the evidence contradicts?

as opposed the religionists that think increasing spoke tension
increases wheel strength, even though aluminum rims have tensile
strength as well as compressive?

as opposed the religionists that think they can eliminate metal fatigue
in materials that don't strain age?

as opposed the religionists that can't do the math for brake cable
elasticity?

[etc]

jobst brandt, thy name is "hypocritical bull****ter"