| .. | ||
| .osr | ||
| cad | ||
| components | ||
| drawings | ||
| laser | ||
| media | ||
| renderings | ||
| resources | ||
| templates/shared | ||
| config.json | ||
| config.yaml | ||
| readme.md | ||
Found it! However: Clip Bushing - IS NOT CORRECT NAME, is either Conical Clamping Hub, Cone Clamping Element, or Keyless Locking Coupling, even Shaft-Hub Connections is a better name when googling (actually in the Build video is referred to as CLAMP bushing, which is a little better)
Part Norelem 23356, with dimensiones shown, supports max torque of 360MNm, but is only making contact with 17mm (L1), 22mm (L2) of total available 32mm (L1/L2) hub interior.. why THIS part, when there is plenty space in front of Coupling Shaft (37mm until Barrel inlet flange1) to put a longer Coupling which makes more internal contact inside hub? This part has L3 28mm (interior clamping part is still inside hub), and B 34mm (tops of screws just above hub mouth (ID47, OD60 = max D2):
Norelem 23356, L1 17mm, L2 22mm, L3 28mm, B34mm, D1 & D2 47mm, max torque 360MNm, 36mm left until Flange 23351, L1 26mm, L2 n/a (est 33mm), L3 39mm, B45mm, D1 & D2 47mm, max torque 550MNm, 25mm left until Flange Ringspann RLK 132, L1 17mm, L2 22mm, L3 28mm, B34mm, max torque 580MNm, 36mm left until Flange (same as Norelem 23356, but higher torque?? How?) RLK 130, L1 26mm, L2 31mm, L3 42mm, B48mm, max torque 580MNm, 22mm left until Flange (how is same max torque but RLK 132 has less holding area??) Actually, after revision and learning the different types of Cone Clamping Elements (Ringspann) and Keyless Locking Coupling (Norelem), I now see that internally seated couplings permit more torque than those that prevent axial movement of the shaft (by resting a lip of the lower interior clamping part against the edge of the hub), however, my question stands: there is an option for a stronger Coupling to be installed, although leaves only 25mm of space until Barrel Inlet Flange1… Revising typical allen key dimensions for M6 socket screws, one would need 33mm clearance to get a normal size key into the side window of the Bearing Body Transition Piece, so assume this is the reason for using the lesser torque version..? I have occasionally had to cut down an allen key to fit in a space, and given that the initial mounting process there is no use of the side window, why should I not get the stronger but longer option..?