Talk:Rolling-element bearing

message: I added a number of images to the article, but these have been repeatedly removed for, I believe, no good reason.
The reasons were:
rm images that are already covered in sub-articles. +commons link so all images are accessible
:Yeah, along with about 50 other images... you can't be serious.WolfKeeper 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really. Actually most articles don't have enough images.WolfKeeper 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A little, but less so than if we put them on the right. If that's a problem for you, reformat the article, don't remove information. Make them a bit smaller or move them around.WolfKeeper 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm there seems to be a bug or something in the layout software if the width of the browser is over a particular range the image jumps in and leaves a hole. I've reformatted it and it no longer does that.WolfKeeper 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no such policy. Show me such a policy. In any case we don't show all the pictures, we show one example of each bearing, in thumbnail form, and most of the specific articles have several different examples of the bearing, or they really should have.
Or perhaps you think this is duplication, but it really isn't, the images aren't really in the article they're still in the commons, and are being referred to, so it's not as if we're using more space, the images aren't copied anywhere. And if the image was modified it would change everywhere. There's no problem at all with using images in several places where appropriate.WolfKeeper 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a policy or technical issue, it's an aesthetics issue.  As such, it's pointless to revert multiple times over it.  Anyway, the smaller images do look better.  The images on the left still jump away from the left side at ~1280px wide.  And MSIE renders a lot of gaps between the paragraphs at 1920px wide.  But maybe it's impossible to get perfect. --Interiot 00:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding images to the article?

message: Fatigue is not caused by bending it is caused by stress.  Particularly in tension.  (See fatigue article) (This unsigned comment was added by 69.213.70.93 at 20:54, 30 March 2007) 
I think the article is fine. The opening of the Fatigue article says fatigue is caused by "cyclic or fluctuating strains", and in this case the strain arises from the sharp bending at the contact points. As the fatigue article also points out, the stresses involved in fatigue "have maximum values less than (often much less than) the static yield strength of the material". In this sense, it would be very misleading to say fatigue is "caused by" stress. 132.244.246.25 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause of fatigue

message: The section under "Types" says "Clever use of surface tension allows balls of high accuracy to be made much more cheaply than comparable cylinders", but the external link "How ball bearings, races, and cages are manufactured" describes a manufacturing method that doesn't seem to involve surface tension at all. Please could someone knowledgeable clarify this? Thanks. 132.244.246.25 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manufacture of balls for ball bearings

message: The image for the tapered bearings appears to show cylindrical bearings, which are not covered by the article. At any rate, the bearings are most certainly not tapered in any way, so I have removed the image. Apologies if I am missing something important. BeeJones (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, they very definitely are tapered, and they are tapered roller bearings. If you look carefully you will notice that the angle of the race way is not parallel with the rotation axis, but a section of a cone.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tapered Bearing Image

message: I completely disagree with moving the thrust bearing section to the applications section. Roller and ball thrust bearings have a unique design; see  and . Yes, tapered roller bearings can be used in thrust applications, but that doesn't make it a thrust bearing. Moreover, Conrad style bearings cannot be properly used in thrust applications, because they are not designed to handle that type of load. Therefore the previous layout should be restored. Wizard191 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All bearings can take differing amounts of axial and radial thrust. If a bearing is designed to take mainly an axial thrust, then it's a thrust bearing. Otherwise it's a radial bearing.Planetscared (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

text: But thrust bearings are not a distinct type of bearing in the same sense as ball bearing, roller bearing, tapered rolling bearing etc. are, because (for example) by changing the geometry of the bearing you can change the percentages of axial and radial thrust it can take. There's no distinctly different type of bearing there. And the other types are mutually exclusive, it's either a roller bearing or it isn't. It's either a tapered roller bearing or it isn't. But it can be a roller bearing and thrust bearing or a roller bearing and a radial bearing or you can angle the rollers and be a bit of each.Planetscared (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

text: In terms of the text, by putting it in with the others, you're implying that it's distinct from the others, but really it's orthogonal to the others.Planetscared (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I mean, tapered roller thrust bearings absolutely do exist, and are a common type.For example And I'm sure that Planetscared (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "roller thrust bearing" refers to one and only one type of bearing (again see ). It is not a "radial roller bearing", more commonly called a "roller bearing", nor is it a "tapered roller bearing"; therefore it is mutually exclusive of the other types and a unique type of roller bearing. The exact same argument can be made for the ball type bearings (except there's no such thing as a tapered ball bearing, but this is replaced with an "angular contact ball bearing"). As such, it is distinct from the other and not orthogonal, therefore please revert your edits. Wizard191 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that this article is/was not trying to define any of those terms, it's talking about rolling element bearings and trying to explain their principles to the reader.Planetscared (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well after you recent changes, I like the new layout, where it independently discusses the elements and the motions/loadings. I've made some more improvements. I'm glad to see that this discussion has brought about an even better article. Cheers! Wizard191 (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, it does seem better, and your changes improved it even more.Planetscared (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrust roller element bearings 

message: This is a question referring to the article title.  There is some debate or uncertainty in the academic community and industry as to what these types of bearings are properly referred to as.  I believe the title of the article 'Rolling-element bearings' best refers to the bearing type, but am otherwise indifferent to the 'official label', but it seems that some discussion should be had to settle the argument.  I have searched quite a bit and found reference to all three labels in both patent listings and academic papers with no seemingly clear bias to nationality or location.Gregzore (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Rolling-element bearing', 'Rolling contact bearing', or 'Rolling bearing'?