Talk:Chain drive

message: I found this image on Commmons, which looks like a good illustration of a chain drive, but I can't translate the caption to be sure that it isn't something subtly different. -- Solipsist 07:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible image

message: I suspect chain vs belt vs driveshaft vs pneumatic vs hydraulic transmission of mechanical force should be an article of its own. Til then, I've added some belt and driveshaft stuff here. We could also use some pics of non-vehicle applications. -- Akb4 19:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanical Power Transmission

message: When you, User:Gun Powder Ma, wrote this:
However, Soedel and Foley disagree by pointing out that "no earlier instance of such a cam is known, and none as complex is known until the 16th century. It is here that the flat-link chain, often attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, actually made its first appearance."
As a rebuttal to this:
However, Needham points out that this device did not transmit power continuously since the chains "did not transmit power from shaft to shaft, and hence they were not in the direct line of ancestry of the chain-drive proper."
How does that even make sense? How is that a rebuttal? Needham states that the chain drive of Philon did not endlessly and continuously transmit power from shaft to shaft, like Su Song's chain drive. So how is Soedel and Foley's statement above a coherent rebuttal to this specific point? Your use of "however" and "disagree" simply doesn't make sense in this context.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a rebuttal to Needham's "ancestor" comment. Needham isn't saying that Philon's device didn't incorporate a flat-link chain, he is saying that Philon's flat-link chain did not transmit power continuously. I think you're confusing the two.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe when Needham says "chain-drive proper" he is referring to a chain drive that acts continuously and endlessly (without having to manually work sinews like in Philon's repeating crossbow), which is what Su Song's chain drive was capable of doing since it was powered by hydraulics.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: Most front-wheel-drive automobiles with transverse engines use a heavy-duty chain called a drive link to drive the transmission from the clutch or torque converter, which is mounted to the flywheel. This should probably be discussed in this article. weetbixkid (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simply untrue to claim that "most" transverse FWD transmissions use a chain. "Rare" at most. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drive link in FWD transmissions? 

message: Chain drive is an actuator that can transmit mechanical power from one place to another. It is often used to convey power to the wheels of a vehicle, particularly bicycles and motorcycles. It is also used in a wide variety of machines besides vehicles, including as a linear actuator in material handling equipment.  
:See belt drive article discussion page regarding question of chain drive as an actuator.  Please voice any objections to the proposed revision. —Catsquisher (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a badly misleading lead for chain drives, or belt drives. They're power transmission devices, not actuators. If a handful of actuators have been produced that make use of these mechanisms, that's worthy of mention, maybe even worthy of categorization, but no way does it belong in the lead, and especially not in the first sentence before the use for power transmission. Power transmission alone, in the classic use for chain & belt drives, is no actuator. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revision of opening paragraph

message: I didn't understand the following:
"If the chain moves at constant speed, then the shafts must accelerate and decelerate constantly. If a drive sprocket rotates at constant RPM, then the chain (and probably the driven sprocket) must accelerate and decelerate constantly."
Oh, ok, now I get it, but I don't think it is very clear.
I might say that what is being said is true at a finer level of detail--at a high level, when the speed of the chain is (almost) constant (in fpm or similar), the speed of the sprockets are also (almost) constant (in rpm or similar).  It is only when you look at the chain in finer detail that you see things like the radius of the bend of the chain around the sprocket and the bending of the links makes (relatively) tiny fluctuations in the speed.  
The average speed of the chain and sprockets would seem constant.  There are tiny fluctuations in the speed of individual parts of the links of the chains (one explanation might be because the links are not infinitely small), and those tiny fluctuations cause tiny fluctuations in the speed of the sprockets, all of which (those tiny fluctuations) cause (or are) vibrations.
I wish there was a way to make that more clear (without too many words). --Rhkramer (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear explanation of Vibration