Gizmag tells us about how a Japanese company, Coo Space, has developed an innovation in ball bearings that will allow the balls to automagically space themselves out. That will lead to vastly reduced friction which, in turn, will lead to the elimination of the necessity to grease the bearing to reduce the friction. This is potentially a huge development across all forms of industry.
The Autonomous Decentralised Bearing (ADB) puts a small indentation, or groove, into the outer bearing race. As the balls slide over this tiny groove, they slow down ever so slightly, and then speed back up. This does nothing to affect the bearing's regular performance, but if two balls are touching each other as they cross over the groove, the first ball's deceleration puts a tiny brake on the second ball, which separates the two as they go around the races.
It's an incredibly simple and tiny change, but it does a remarkable job.
...
Without the need for a cage, you can run these bearings un-lubricated, and that's where the real performance benefits come in. Coo Space claims the ADB experiences as little as 10 percent of the friction of a regular ball bearing
Here is a YouTube video of the bearings spacing themselves out within the races.
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:04AM
These things are pretty coo.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 27 2015, @05:52AM
These things are pretty c...o...o...
FTFY!
(Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:12AM
Agreed, elegant and (apparently) effective. I like it when things are invented/designed that don't rely on new materials or tech... Just a good idea.
(Score: 2) by KilroySmith on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:07AM
I've done an awful lot with bearings, but I would never have guessed that 90% of the friction is ball-to-ball, or presumably ball-to-cage. I find that difficult to accept.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:32AM
Why? Do you find difficult to accept that a car can brake effectively by blocking its whells (in other words, a locked wheel of a car offers more resistence to movement than when rolling unblocked)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by KilroySmith on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:44AM
And these two situations are similar, how?
I'm not saying that there's no friction between two adjacent balls, just that I find it difficult to believe that it's 90% of the friction in a bearing.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday May 27 2015, @05:10AM
* mentally switch to a cylinder bearing with rusty/rough cylinders which touch one another: what do you feel is going to be larger - the rolling resistance on the track or the friction between two adjacent cylinders (which surfaces, at the point of contact, moves in different direction)? Imagine different levels of roughness due to rust.
* switch back to a ball bearing and repeat the tought experiment. What changed? Why the two cases would be different?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by KilroySmith on Wednesday May 27 2015, @06:44AM
When you load the bearing, the normal force between the bearing and race becomes significantly higher than the normal force between two bearings. My intuition doesn't have a lot to say about whether two surfaces lightly rubbing against each other in opposing directions have more or less friction than two equivalent surfaces rolling past each other while loaded.
But, my experience with lubricated and unlubricated bearings seems to indicate that the roughness and noise of an unlubricated bearing "seems" to be more related to the rolling of the bearing in the race, than to the scraping of two balls against each other.
If we imagine a caged bearing (where the ball bearings are prevented from touching each other by some type of framework or cage), the friction that this summary claims is 90% of the friction of a bearing should be eliminated, although there will be some friction against the cage - proper choice of cage material should minimize that friction. And yet, in various applications, I've seen both free and caged bearing styles with no significant difference in felt friction - maybe I'm just not sensitive enough.
So, reduced friction in an unlubricated bearing? Perhaps, though the new groove will create some of it's own. I still don't see a 90% reduction. 20% I'd buy.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 27 2015, @07:03AM
Good point. Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:43PM
Consider that rolling "friction" is a misnomer, it's actually rolling *resistance*, and originates primarily from a variety of deformation effects which can be minimized by using sufficiently hard materials (and/or large contact surfaces). As such, so long as the loading is insufficient to cause notable deformations in the bearings or races, it can usually be ignored. And it won't be affected by lubrication.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Wednesday May 27 2015, @10:53PM
We have those caged bearings on skateboards for decades. My first board was a banana board with Cadillac wheels and loose ball bearings. A few years later, about 1975, they came out with "precision" bearings which were similar but caged. You would not believe the difference in rolling resistance.
I wouldn't mind picking up a set of greasless bearings for my Landyachtz downhill racer. Hook it up with some Monster Hawgs and Bear trucks. Schweet!!!!
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:36AM
I could see ball-to-ball induced friction, the nose of the rear ball is rolling the opposite direction of the back end of the front ball. Friction at a rate of twice the speed of the ball.
But even in a bearing cage, you are going to have some friction.
But I wonder how those little cuts stand up to a couple years of wear and tear and high-speed high-heat operation.
Tiny slivers of metal or dirt that get into the bearings (and turn your grease black) don't follow little groves, but they will mess up the best paid plans of this new design. You can't expect the bearings to run clean forever.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Common Joe on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:41AM
I wondered about the long term wear and tear as well.
I also wonder about that one ball that takes no load. Laid flat, it shouldn't be a problem, but when turned vertically, I'm not sure what the implications are. If that groove winds up at the bottom, what specifically is taking the weight? Will that cause faster wear and tear? I can imagine that would even impact something as small and lightweight as hard drives -- horizontal, no problem; vertical, shorter life.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Wednesday May 27 2015, @05:19AM
I can't help but notice this video was published in September of 2012.
It seems to make sense, but where has this been in the last 2.5 years? Seems like something all sorts of industries would have tried by now.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @05:29AM
It hadn't appeared on SoylentNews yet so absolutely nobody had heard of it.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday May 27 2015, @07:41PM
I wondered about that... IANAE, but seems to me that vertical, there's probably more stress from bearings being pushed uphill, so to speak.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday May 27 2015, @09:48PM
From what I saw on the video, all the balls still take the weight all the time. The "leaf shaped" groove that they have doesn't appear to actually "lower" the ball - but rather, the groove is cut so that the point of contact between the surface of the ball and the outside track changes. Rather than rolling along an single outside surface (the longest path around the ball) it creates two points of contact higher up, closer to the centre of the ball. This means that the ball would have to spin faster to move at the same speed. In doing so, there is an introduction of friction as the inner track has no changes its point of contact with the ball. This slows the ball down ever so slightly, meaning that if it was rubbing against the ball in front of it, it no longer is.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:36AM
I was actually discussing something similar a few weeks ago with a geeky friend. My thinking, at the time, was that it could probably be done with magnets and not perfectly round bearings.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by Balderdash on Thursday May 28 2015, @12:38AM
Not magnets...
RADIUM!!!
I browse at -1. Free and open discourse requires consideration and review of all attempts at participation.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 27 2015, @08:09AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @08:18AM
Well, I think it's intuitive: The effect of a ball bearing is that the balls roll instead of gliding; rolling has a much lower friction than gliding (that's why your car will easily continue going forward when running idle as long as you don't break, but will stop after a relatively short way as soon as you do).
Now as soon as two balls come into contact, it is physically impossible for them to roll on all contact areas. Therefore as soon as balls come into contact, you get gliding somewhere. And therefore the much higher gliding friction.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:14AM
Hard drive motors that never wear out?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by anubi on Wednesday May 27 2015, @06:52AM
I was also considering spaceborne applications where one has one helluva time keeping lubricants from simply outgassing into vapor.
Sometimes it is one helluva problem to keep lubricant systems going in hostile environments.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @08:00AM
Or any vacuum system... many more vacuum systems than space.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday May 27 2015, @07:17AM
And more life for the SL1200s too. Which are already more eternal than us.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by Frost on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:36PM
(Score: 4, Funny) by SlimmPickens on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:24AM
A clearance into a crowded portion!
All your balls are belong to us!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @05:12AM
Lubricated by pussy groove.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Wednesday May 27 2015, @07:09AM
Meh, those can't withstand any pressure.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Geezer on Wednesday May 27 2015, @09:35AM
The lubrication in any bearing not only serves to reduce friction but also helps prevent wear and coats surfaces against internal corrosion in susceptible environments. This could be mitigated, one supposes, by making both races and rollers from materials of identical hardness nickel or chromium alloys, but I didn't see that being addressed in TFA. In low radial and thrust load uses I suppose a composite material might be possible, but I wouldn't want plastic wheel bearings on a 747 I'm riding.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by carguy on Wednesday May 27 2015, @10:35AM
For anyone having trouble understanding how the addition of a groove can change the speed of the ball bearing, it might help to relate it to this once-popular toy, http://www.toysrus.com/buy/active/shoot-the-moon-4099084-2323497 [toysrus.com] As the rods are moved apart or together, the contact with the large ball bearing moves up and down relative to the center of the ball. For a constant rotation speed, moving the contact points higher on the ball slows the linear speed of the ball. Oddly, I couldn't find a Wikipedia page on this toy, which must be interesting to physics modelers?
Ball bearing manufacturers already change the shape of the groove depending on the intended use of the bearing. For example, angular contact bearings are designed to take axial thrust in one direction, a common use is for the headset (steering) bearings on a bicycle.
Changing the groove shape *locally* could be a game changer for other reasons too, not just this one? I predict that there will be other uses for the ability to tune or adjust the ball rotation speed at different places around the bearing. For example, something might be done to reduce or change the vibration induced by the rate that the balls pass (when the balls act somewhat like the planets in a planetary gear reducer.)
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:58PM
Assuming this is a great idea, and doesn't suffer from other problems that we have yet to discover because these bearings have not been in use for years, I wonder how many applications could use this advance but won't thanks to patents. The patent holders will be too greedy, too hard to contact and negotiate with. That patent holders can just say no and refuse to deal at any price is one of the many flaws in the system. They might think to go into business themselves, and do a bad job of getting this advance into our hands, preferring to sell limited numbers at premium prices in part because they don't have the capacity.
The 17 year wait might not be enough, they might have more features to patent at a later date to keep the advance effectively locked up.