quote:

Originally posted by electricpete: But I have no idea what is meant by a sideband around a natural frequency.

Pete, I think they are describing a high frequency peak that does not match up w/ an expected fault frequency, that is a product of the ringing of the brg component (probably outer race), and sidebands around that. I mean, if you believe in that sideband / natural frequency mumbo-jumbo

Bill F.,

What in your investigation into the theory in question led you to discount its scientific worth? Did your discussions with the developers lead you to question their methods?

Folks,
Jim Berry and his people state many times in their course notes that the results of their catagorizations are based on having looked at over 1000 pieces of equipment for each type of machine they discuss.
My experience in vibration analysis of rolling element bearings started over 37 years ago with a real time analyzer from Federal Scientific. We just so happened to use a log scale for amplitude. Now, most would argue that there is so much data, you can't see the forest for the trees. I will agree with you that in my later years, I stopped giving so much data to my customers, because it brought up so many questions concerning peaks that were of little or no significance.
I do know that many bearings were diagnosed as 'failing' by the appearance a 'haystack' of energy in the 60KCPM to 120KCPM region. That energy was the natural frequencies of the bearing components and riding that energy we could identify sidebands of the ball pass frequencies.
Now, does every bearing that fails follow the four stages? Of course not. Is there enough information contained not only in the chart, but also in the course notes that accompany those charts to help a novice look in the right direction? I believe so.
Jim Berry took a chart that Mr. Peter Phillips and myself designed while working for Nicolet Scientific. He credited Wavetek, the company that bought Nicolet. I will credit where it is due, Jim added extensively to the original chart, but our chart was the first to add the important column 'envelope characteristics' that explained what the user could expect to see in a narrow band spectrum. We also completed a book of thirty eight case histories that gave examples of narrow band spectra for each fault in the chart.
So, Bill, when you plow in with your thoughts and comments, give a little consideration to where this technology started and what was put out to the people in the field to attempt to better the trade, circa 1978. Most people were still using tunable filters, o'scopes, and vacuum tubes.
Ask Nelson Baxter where his roots started. My guess is he will mention a series of seminars put on by Nicolet Scientific that included machinery diagnostics and singel and dual channel digital signal processing. I hope he remembers, he was in the class I gave.
The charts were never meant to be the answer to every vibration problem, just a starting point and an assist to lead the investigation in the right direction.

quote:

So, Bill, when you plow in with your thoughts and comments, give a little consideration to where this technology started

Interesting, this is where I started this branch of the thread. So, so potential history has been added. However, I still don't see the science in the theory.

If the theory doesn't stand up to the light of day, simply adding peoples names is nothing short of a classic logical fallacy; this information does not pertain to the topic.

One (of many) supporting research papers for Stage 1

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...a90675eebccf60cc30a3

I am not a member and it cost $31.50 to join and get the paper. It comes from Brazil and may or may not hold a US or International copywright. Can it be supplied to this site?

Bill K: Have you read the article and have seen the support data?

Duncan, your guys bearing analysis is I believe based on a major number of bearing failing in controlled situations in a scientific way but I don´t think the result split the decay in 4 stages? I think it´s more but may be wrong. So if I am not wrong there are research done on bearing fail in substantial numbers or? I normally only need 3 grades, replace it "now" or it will stop, replace it when suitable at next planned stop, replace it some time in the future when spares can be found as it´s a rare item and indications give long time to plan ahead. So I know, I messed it up with what environment or operation condition the fault exist and it´s then it´s getting more interesting. Without the surrounding conditions the absolute decay level of a bearing is not always the only factor that counts. It is also in my view not so simple that a bearing reached a level of decay but also how fast the process is that indicate the severity of the problem. Only my 0.5 SEK. I will soon need to raise the stake to 1 SEK as 0.5 SEK coin is about go lost in the next inflation cycle. Olov

Bill F.,

Have you LOOKED for the science or are we supposed to deliver it to you?

Hey Danny; great - since you offered, I for one would like to see what you have. Bill K made an offering but you have to pay to view it.

Since the question has arisen it has become interesting. I have my views; which are views based on my own experience primarily and wouldn't go past theory as not having the documentation outside of my head and WORD. I do not have hard-core proof. Nor am I fully exhaustive. But, I would like to see what you have.

I've already shared what I have. I figured that since Bill was the one who questioned the science, he had looked for it and found it questionable.

From what I can tell, he questions it because it hasn't been directly put before him in this forum. I can only suppose since he doesn't answer my questions.

quote:

Originally posted by Samuel Pickens:
Bill K made an offering but you have to pay to view it.

.

I'd think a multi-national firm like Sam Pickens Inc. would have the resources to purchase their own technical information without bumming it off of others

quote:

I have my views; which are views based on my own experience primarily and wouldn't go past theory as not having the documentation outside of my head and WORD. I do not have hard-core proof.

Then it ain't worth spit.

/bp

This forum could really get to be fun if every time someone offered help they were required to provide the science behind it. Who gets to determine what science is anyway? It seems some will only rely on information that has come out of universities. I have seen opinions (sorry, I meant science) change on some subjects every 10 to 40 years. If it doesn't fit in our mold, it's not science, right? Jim Berry has provided enough science for me by gathering a large group of data and drawing conclusions from that data (I thought that is how scientists do it, but I must be wrong). Those conclusions were meant to be a guideline and if I use it as a guideline, it works pretty well. I have seen bearings in stage 1 that last just a few hours and bearings that are in stage 4 that ran for two years. I've seen bearings that never produced a discrete bearing defect frequency in any of the data collects throughout its long failure process. Like most data, there are points that fall within the norm and points that fall out of the norm. Look at all the general rules of vibration. How many times do we see machines that defy those rules. They are GUIDELINES. Can we get back to helping each other, rather that trying to determine or show who is the smartest?

Happy Thanksgiving,
John J

quote:

I'd think a multi-national firm like Sam Pickens Inc. would have the resources to purchase their own technical information without bumming it off of others

Nice contribution; just what I expected - nothing more. I have mine own chart and book; thank you. But, haven't been out of the country in a number of years, although I do sell some across the boarder. Would even consider KY.

I have taken three plants to planned scheduled maintenance. Surely you passed that years ago; Maybe even before I hit my 40th year.

Mike S; you may look down your nose if you choose - who cares? Maybe your 130 post have been have been an enlightenment to your ego if nothing more. But, the 131st wasn't impressive to me.

quote:

I have taken three plants to planned scheduled maintenance

At the top of the page, click the "Find" tab and type in "planned scheduled maintenance"....

quote:

Originally posted by Samuel Pickens:

quote:

I'd think a multi-national firm like Sam Pickens Inc. would have the resources to purchase their own technical information without bumming it off of others

Nice contribution; just what I expected - nothing more. I have mine own chart and book; thank you. But, haven't been out of the country in a number of years, although I do sell some across the boarder. Would even consider KY.

I have taken three plants to planned scheduled maintenance. Surely you passed that years ago; Maybe even before I hit my 40th year.

Mike S; you may look down your nose if you choose - who cares? Maybe your 130 post have been have been an enlightenment to your ego if nothing more. But, the 131st wasn't impressive to me.

Sam,

I've been tempted to make this post before, but until now you've never addressed me directly.

I remember your 1st post on this board. Something to the effect of you aligning a 15 component machine train in 15 minutes with dial indicators and a putty knife (or something equally ridiculous). When challenged, you went into a similar spiel as above.

You've had your chest stuck out since day 1, picking fights in nearly every thread anybody posts on here. Before your arrival, I don't remember seeing the 1st post with any animosity among any of the posters, and I have been here a long time. Since your arrival, it's a regular occurrence.

I don't care how many plants you have transformed into the NASA space program, you still come across as an arrogant arse every time you post your semi-literate gibberish. It actually causes my eyes to hurt when I try to make sense of your ramblings. I have mine own chart and book I hope the publisher has a good proofreader on the payroll.

If there were an "ignore poster" feature on this board, I'd have activated it on you long ago.

Good Night, sir, and Happy Thanksgiving.

From Mike S below: a fabrication and lie. Why post such an obvious lie? Better to learn the craft and be a contributor to the discipline.

quote:

I remember your 1st post on this board. Something to the effect of you aligning a 15 component machine train in 15 minutes with dial indicators and a putty knife (or something equally ridiculous). When challenged, you went into a similar spiel as above.

I've been on now for ~8 years and never once posted anything remotely resembling something like that in any of the thousdands of postings I have made.

Now for the ignore: it's easy to ignore you. What you say doesn't upset me. I don't ever remember reading one of your post anyway - no, not one. But why not skip over my comments since you can't read them anyway. I get a number of letters from folk that have appreciated contributions and thank God for such.

Like my old friend BR Lakin said, you can tell when you're out front when they're kicking you from behind.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sam Rme1,

Michael is a long-time respected member of the forums as well, and I have never heard him direct harsh comments to anyone else. Although his comments had a tone of frustration, I share some of his underlying concerns.

quote:

you can tell when you're out front when they're kicking you from behind.

Sounds like you view the forum as a competition. It shouldn't be that way.

I am thankful for having you on the forum Sam as well as many others. But I hope we can all offer and accept constructive feedback about our forum activities. Don't attack the messenger.

Almost time for Turkey. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: electricpete,

Thank you Pete for the kind words. I do not know Mr. M.S. nor do I remember him or his comments. His post indicated 131 post but mine as well isn't displaying the thousands I've posted.

Still there was no need to post a falsehood about me or attack me.

God is my witness and knows my heart and will be my judge. I am not perfect nor do everything perfectly. But as I said, God knows my heart and my intentions and I am not ashamed nor do I feel condeemed for trying to share and contribute. I spend more time nowadays studying manuscripts and orgins and text concerning scripture with respect to the Holy Bible plus the genelogies of Noah.

I have tried to contribute to this forum and not be self-serving. I haven't seen my writings as having been that difficult to understand nor would I think they are to the initiated. Some language is pecular to our discipline and/or may be difficult to the novice at first. It was probably late '90's when I asked Terry O to look at my Vibration Field ID Handbook that he posted on reliabilityweb. He was complimentary on it. I have not had anyone read it and give me a bad comment or say they couldn't understand it.

quote:

If there were an "ignore poster" feature on this board, I'd have activated it on you long ago.

There is one. Click on "Sam Pickens" (or whoever it is that you want to ignore). Then select "Add Sam Pickens to my ignore list". Then all of Sam Pickens' posts look like this:

quote:

Ignored post by Samuel Pickens posted 26 November 2009 04:19 PM Show Post

If you click "Show Post", you can view the post. Then you can click "Hide Post" to get rid of it again.

Show post, hide post, hit post, go to the post, drop this in the post for me. It's right over thar, string the wire on the post; what were they thinking - sounds like gibberish to some maybe