Talk:Fluid bearing

Should Foil bearing be merged with this page?? Pud, 8 June 04, 12:18 PST

This issue was previously discussed on the Foil bearing discussion Talk:Foil bearing. I don't favor a merger, but if a merger were done there should be clear redirects and other ways to identify the distinctive foil bearings through the search engine here. Sometimes things get submerged into subcategories of subcategories, and as a result it's very hard to find and even harder to provide a clear link to a relevant subcategory for readers.--Mack2 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it should not be merged, both because of afforementioned issue with subcategories, and because I believe that foil bearings are different from fluid bearings. Even though foil bearings also use a fluid to support the weight, they are different in that they use thier own rotational speed to generate the pressure, rather than having the pressure supplied externally.

I am in favor of more seperate and smaller pages rather than huge pages.141.157.83.53 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Foil bearings are a type of air bearing, and air bearings are a type of fluid bearing. I second all the above from fluid bearings, seperate pages within a bearings, or more likely fluid bearings category would be best to increase ability to access and retrieve. This appears to have become a dead area discussion wise, but I am interested in helping to complete this it, although new to editing. Wease459 17:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Can someone add some information about disadvantages of fluid bearings? The article lists only advantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.158.183 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that fluid bearings are stiffer than rolling element bearings. While it is possible to change design parameters and get anamolous results, typically in disk drive applications where I have worked the typical ball bearing stiffnesses are ~10^7 MN/m, typical reasonably designed fluid bearings have stiffness of ~10^6 MN/m.

Some disadvantages of fluid bearings: 1. power consumption is typically higher than ball bearings 2. power consumption and stiffness / damping greaty vary with temperature so complicates the design / operation of a fluid bearing in wide temperature range situations. 3. bearing seizures. Ball bearings deteriorate more gradually and show acoustic symptoms. Fluid bearings can lock up instantly under shock situations very catastrophically. 4. Half frequency whirl. Parallel to cage frequency vibration in a ball bearing, the half frequency whirl is a bearing instability that generates eccentric precession which can lead to poor performance / life. 5. Fluid leakage: keeping oil in bearing is a challenge and in environments where oil leakage can be destructive (ie. disk drives) or where maintenance is not economical (i.e. disk drives, in contrast to aircraft turbine bearings for instance can be serviced and make up oil can be arranged) fluid bearings can introduce complications.

A great advantage: 1. Damping: what fluid bearings compromise in stiffness they greatly compensate for with damping. This helps attenuate resonation at the gyroscopic frequencies (sometimes called conical or rocking modes).

S71murfy (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC) S71murfy

Hydrostatic or Hydrodynamic

At the beginning of this article, it is stated that a hydrostatic bearing uses an external pressure pump. Under "Journal Bearings", it is stated that the bearings used in petrol and diesel motors are hydrodynamic. These motors use external pressure pumps to maintain fluid pressure. The article contradicts itself.--69.122.62.231 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does this first sentence sound like it is describing how lubricants work in general. "Fluid bearings are bearings which support the bearing's loads solely on a thin layer of liquid or gas.". You and I know there are hundreds of bearings that use a "thin" layer of liquid lubricants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelmesh (talk • contribs) 01:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Patent

Michell's patent was granted in 1905, while Kingsbury's first patent attempt was 1907.

The US didn't have a Patent Agreement with the UK (Michell would have been British) until 1906 and so any patent Michell made in 1905 would have held no validity in the US, as the US didn't recognise UK patents until after 1906.

I suspect this may also have been the origin of the dispute between Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison over who invented the lightbulb.

I remember what year the US finally agreed to an agreement with the UK as it was (no doubt coincidentally) the same year HMS Dreadnought was launched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.43 (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Section is poorly formatted

I think it's a bit difficult to read and that more can be done with formatting to make it easier to understand. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)