Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Broome
Please pardon, I adjusted your post for clarity.
Okay, I'll play. We're just having fun here........Right?
Let's assume you cut the mating surfaces and are resizing the rods in your example.
Let's again assume you cut the mating surfaces enough that you started from a dimension smaller than you currently have (-.0025). And you honed the rods to this dimension.
Once again, let's assume that you find the taper begins at the surfaces you were holding together, and progresses outward on both rods.
And yet again, let's assume that you have been flipping this pair of rods over every half thousandths or so. You do flip your rods over don't you?
Still yet again, let's assume that you have not been over-stroking the rods beyond the honing stones too much.
One more assumption, let's assume you are honing those rods with the beams riding on separate torque bars, not the same bar.
There are still a few more things to assume, you did deburr the bolt holes at the parting line, you did make sure that the cheeks of each re-assembled rod was...were...are... flat. Because, after all that work you don't want the pair of rods you are trying to hold together to be a couple of "rocking horses".
Answer: When that happens to me, I push the "OFF" button and walk away for a while. Because it's a clear case of operator error.
What did Dirty Harry say?
|
"let's assume that you find the taper begins at the surfaces you were holding together, and progresses outward on both rods"
If your saying, and I think you might be, the first rod with the taper tight (facing the operator) would go on the mandrel first, the second rod with the taper tight up would go against the first rod. So the tight side of the housing bore would always go against each other until the taper is gone, typical flipping would start from there.