MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800399334 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2008-0016

A PLANETARY GEAR TRAIN WITH RING-INVOLUTE TOOTH

2008· article· en· W2800399334 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shyue-Cheng Yang, Tsang-Lang Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGear trainInvolutePlanetInvolute gearEnvelope (radar)RackConical surfaceRing (chemistry)Non-circular gearEngineeringDifferential (mechanical device)Cycloid gearMechanical engineeringSpiral bevel gearStructural engineeringPhysicsAerospace engineeringReducer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a planetary gear train with ring-involute tooth profile. Inherent in a planetary gear train is the conjugate problem among the sun, the planet gears and the ring gear. The sun gear and the planet gear can be obtained by applying the envelope method to a one-parameter family of a conical tooth surface. The conical tooth rack cutter was presented in a previous paper [5]. The obtained planet gear then becomes the generating surface. The double envelope method can be used to obtain the envelope to the family of generating surfaces. Subsequently the profile of a ring gear of the planetary gear trains can be easily obtained, and using the generated planet gear and applying the gear theory, the ring gear is generated. To illustrate, the planetary gear train with a gear ratio of 24:10:7 is presented. Using rapid prototyping and manufacturing technology, a sun gear, four planet gears, and a ring gear are designed. The RP primitives provide an actual full-size physical model that can be analyzed and used for further development. Results from these mathematical models are applicable to the design of a planetary gear train.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations ResearchFrench-language works237,207