“With these data the writer has found that the total length of the arc x y of Fig. 110, which appears instead of the cycloid in the outline of a cutter for a 1-pitch rack, is less than 0.0175 inch; the real deviation from the true form, obviously, must be much less than that. It need hardly be stated that the effect upon the velocity ratio of an error so minute, and in that part of the contour, is so extremely small as to defy detection. And the best proof of the practical perfection of this system of making epicycloidal teeth is found in the smoothness and precision with which the wheels run; a set of them is shown in gear in Fig. 111, the rack gearing as accurately with the largest as with the smallest. To which is to be added, finally, that objection taken, on whatever grounds, to the epicycloidal form of tooth, has no bearing upon the method above described of producing duplicate cutters for teeth of any form, which the pantagraphic engine will make with the same facility and exactness, if furnished with the proper templates.
“The front faces of the teeth of rotary cutters for gear-cutting are usually radial lines, and are ground square across so as to stand parallel with the axis of the cutter driving spindle, so that to whatever depth the cutter may have entered the wheel, the whole of the cutting edge within the wheel will meet the cut simultaneously. If this is not the case the pressure of the cut will spring the cutter, and also the arbor driving it, to one side. Suppose, for example, that the tooth faces not being square across, one side of the teeth meets the work first, then there will be as each tooth meets its cut an endeavour to crowd away from the cut until such time as the other side of the tooth also takes its cut.”
It is obvious that rotating cutters of this class cannot be used to cut teeth having the width of the space wider below than it is at the pitch line. Hence, if such cutters are required to be used upon epicycloidal teeth, the curves to be theoretically correct must be such as are due to a generating circle that will give at least parallel flanks. From this it becomes apparent that involute teeth being always thicker at the root than at the pitch line, and the spaces being, therefore, narrower at the root, may be cut with these cutters, no matter what the diameter of the base circle of the involute.
To produce with revolving cutters teeth of absolutely correct theoretical curvature of face and flank, it is essential that the cutter teeth be made of the exact curvature due to the diameter of pitch circle and generating circle of the wheel to be cut; while to produce a tooth thickness and space width, also theoretically correct, the thickness of the cutter must also be made to exactly answer the requirements of the particular wheel to be cut; hence, for every different number of teeth in wheels of an equal pitch a separate cutter is necessary if theoretical correctness is to be attained.
This requirement of curvature is necessary because it has been shown that the curvatures of the epicycloid and hypocycloid, as also of the involute, vary with every different diameter of base circle, even though, in the case of epicycloidal teeth, the diameter of the generating circle remain the same. The requirement of thickness is necessary because the difference between the arc and the chord pitch is greater in proportion as the diameter of the base or pitch circle is decreased.
But the difference in the curvature on the short portions of the curves used for the teeth of fine pitches (and therefore of but little height) due to a slight variation in the diameter of the base circle is so minute, that it is found in practice that no sensible error is produced if a cutter be used within certain limits upon wheels having a different number of teeth than that for which the cutter is theoretically correct.
The range of these limits, however, must (to avoid sensible error) be more confined as the diameter of the base circle (or what is the same thing, the number of the teeth in the wheel) is decreased, because the error of curvature referred to increases as the diameters of either the base or the generating circles decrease. Thus the difference in the curve struck on a base circle of 20 inches diameter, and one of 40 inches diameter, using the same diameter of generating circle, would be very much less than that between the curves produced by the same diameter of generating circle on base circles respectively 10 and 5 inches diameter.
For these reasons the cutters are limited to fewer wheels according as the number of teeth decreases, or, per contra, are allowed to be used over a greater range of wheels as the number of teeth in the wheels is increased.
Thus in the Brown and Sharpe system for involute teeth there are 8 cutters numbered numerically (for convenience in ordering) from 1 to 8, and in the following table the range of the respective cutters is shown, and the number of teeth for which the cutter is theoretically correct is also given.
| No. of cutter. | Involute teeth. | Teeth. | |||||||||
| 1 | Used | upon all | wheels | having | from | 135 | teeth | to a rack correct for | 200 | ||
| 2 | „ | „ | „ | „ | „ | 55 | „ | to | 134 | teeth, | 68 |
| 3 | „ | „ | „ | „ | „ | 35 | „ | to | 54 | „ | 40 |
| 4 | „ | „ | „ | „ | „ | 26 | „ | to | 34 | „ | 29 |
| 5 | „ | „ | „ | „ | „ | 21 | „ | to | 25 | „ | 22 |
| 6 | „ | „ | „ | „ | „ | 17 | „ | to | 20 | „ | 18 |
| 7 | „ | „ | „ | „ | „ | 14 | „ | to | 16 | „ | 16 |
| 8 | „ | „ | „ | „ | „ | 12 | „ | to | 14 | „ | 13 |
Suppose that it was required that of a pair of wheels one make twice the revolutions of the other; then, knowing the particular number of teeth for which the cutters are made correct, we may obtain the nearest theoretically true results as follows: If we select cutters Nos. 8 and 4 and cut wheels having respectively 13 and 26 teeth, the 13 wheel will be theoretically correct, and the 26 will contain the minute error due to the fact that the cutter is used upon a wheel having three less teeth than the number it is theoretically correct for. But we may select the cutters that are correct for 16 and 29 teeth respectively, the 16th tooth being theoretically correct, and the 29th cutter (or cutter No. 4 in the table) being used to cut 32 teeth, this wheel will contain the error due to cutting 3 more teeth than the cutter was made correct for. This will be nearer correct, because the error is in a larger wheel, and, therefore, less in actual amount. The pitch of teeth may be selected so that with the given number of teeth the diameters of the wheels will be that required.
We may now examine the effect of the variation of curvature in combination with that of the thickness, upon a wheel having less and upon one having more teeth than the number in the wheel for which the cutter is correct.
First, then, suppose a cutter to be used upon a wheel having less teeth and it will cut the spaces too wide, because of the variation of thickness, and the curves too straight or insufficiently curved because of the error of curvature. Upon a wheel having more teeth it will cut the spaces too narrow, and the curvature of the teeth too great; but, as before stated, the number of wheels assigned to each cutter may be so apportioned that the error will be confined to practically unappreciable limits.
If, however, the teeth are epicycloidal, it is apparent that the spaces of one wheel must be wide enough to admit the teeth of the other to a depth sufficient to permit the pitch lines to coincide on the line of centres; hence it is necessary in small diameters, in which there is a sensible difference between the arc and the chord pitches, to confine the use of a cutter to the special wheel for which it is designed, that is, having the same number of teeth as the cutter is designed for.
Thus the Pratt and Whitney arrangement of cutters for epicycloidal teeth is as follows:—
[All wheels having from 12 to 21 teeth have a special cutter for each number of teeth.][6]
| Cutter correct for | ||||||||
| No. of teeth. | ||||||||
| 23 | Used on | wheels | having | from | 22 | to | 24 | teeth. |
| 25 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 25 | to | 26 | „ |
| 27 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 26 | to | 29 | „ |
| 30 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 29 | to | 32 | „ |
| 34 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 32 | to | 36 | „ |
| 38 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 36 | to | 40 | „ |
| 43 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 40 | to | 46 | „ |
| 50 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 46 | to | 55 | „ |
| 60 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 55 | to | 67 | „ |
| 76 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 67 | to | 87 | „ |
| 100 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 87 | to | 123 | „ |
| 150 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 123 | to | 200 | „ |
| 300 | „ | „ | „ | „ | 200 | to | 600 | „ |
| Rack | „ | „ | „ | „ | 600 | to rack. | ||
[6] For wheels having less than 12 teeth the Pratt and Whitney Co. use involute cutters.
Here it will be observed that by a judicious selection of pitch and cutters, almost theoretically perfect results may be obtained for almost any conditions, while at the same time the cutters are so numerous that there is no necessity for making any selection with a view to taking into consideration for what particular number of teeth the cutter is made correct.
For epicycloidal cutters made on the Brown and Sharpe system so as to enable the grinding of the face of the tooth to sharpen it, the Brown and Sharpe company make a separate cutter for wheels from 12 to 20 teeth, as is shown in the accompanying table, in which the cutters are for convenience of designation denoted by an alphabetical letter.
| Letter | A | cuts | 12 | teeth. | Letter | M | cuts | 27 | to | 29 | teeth. | ||
| B | „ | 13 | „ | N | „ | 30 | „ | 33 | „ | ||||
| C | „ | 14 | „ | O | „ | 34 | „ | 37 | „ | ||||
| D | „ | 15 | „ | P | „ | 38 | „ | 42 | „ | ||||
| E | „ | 16 | „ | Q | „ | 43 | „ | 49 | „ | ||||
| F | „ | 17 | „ | R | „ | 50 | „ | 59 | „ | ||||
| G | „ | 18 | „ | S | „ | 60 | „ | 74 | „ | ||||
| H | „ | 19 | „ | T | „ | 75 | „ | 99 | „ | ||||
| I | „ | 20 | „ | U | „ | 100 | „ | 149 | „ | ||||
| J | „ | 21 | to | 22 | „ | V | „ | 150 | „ | 249 | „ | ||
| K | „ | 23 | „ | 24 | „ | W | „ | 250 | „ | Rack. | |||
| L | „ | 25 | „ | 26 | „ | X | „ | Rack. | |||||
In these cutters a shoulder having no clearance is placed on each side of the cutter, so that when the cutter has entered the wheel until the shoulder meets the circumference of the wheel, the tooth is of the correct depth to make the pitch circles coincide.
In both the Brown and Sharpe and Pratt and Whitney systems, no side clearance is given other than that quite sufficient to prevent the teeth of one wheel from jambing into the spaces of the other. Pratt and Whitney allow 1⁄8 of the pitch for top and bottom clearance, while Brown and Sharpe allow 1⁄10 of the thickness of the tooth for top and bottom clearance.
It may be explained now, why the thickness of the cutter if employed upon a wheel having more teeth than the cutter is correct for, interferes with theoretical exactitude.
First, then, with regard to the thickness of tooth and width of space. Suppose, then, Fig. 112 to represent a section of a wheel having 12 teeth, then the pitch circle of the cutter will be represented by line a, and there will be the same difference between the arc and chord pitch on the cutter as there is on the wheel; but suppose that this same cutter be used on a wheel having 24 teeth, as in Fig. 113, then the pitch circle on the cutter will be more curved than that on the wheel as denoted at c, and there will be more difference between the arc and chord pitches on the cutter than there is on the wheel, and as a result the cutter will cut a groove too narrow.
The amount of error thus induced diminishes as the diameter of the pitch circle of the cutter is increased.
But to illustrate the amount. Suppose that a cutter is made to be theoretically correct in thickness at the pitch line for a wheel to contain 12 teeth, and having a pitch circle diameter of 8 inches, then we have
| 3.1416 | = | ratio of circumference to diameter. | ||||
| 8 | = | diameter. | ||||
| Number of teeth | = | 12 | ) | 25.1328 | = | circumference. |
| 2.0944 | = | arc pitch of wheel. | ||||
If now we subtract the chord pitch from the arc pitch, we shall obtain the difference between the arc and the chord pitches of the wheel; here
| 2 | .0944 | = | arc pitch. |
| 2 | .0706 | = | chord pitch. |
| .0238 | = | difference between the arc and the chord pitch. |
Now suppose this cutter to be used upon a wheel having the same pitch, but containing 18 teeth; then we have
| 2 | .0944 | = | arc pitch. |
| 2 | .0836 | = | chord pitch. |
| .0108 | = | difference between the arc and the chord pitch. |
Then
| .0238 | = | difference | on wheel | with | 12 | teeth. |
| .0108 | = | „ | „ | „ | 18 | „ |
| .0130 | = | variation between the differences. | ||||
And the thickness of the tooth equalling the width of the space, it becomes obvious that the thickness of the cutter at the pitch line being correct for the 12 teeth, is one half of .013 of an inch too thin for the 18 teeth, making the spaces too narrow and the teeth too thick by that amount.
Now let us suppose that a cutter is made correct for a wheel having 96 teeth of 2.0944 arc pitch, and that it be used upon a wheel having 144 teeth. The proportion of the wheels one to the other remains as before (for 96 bears the proportion to 144 as 12 does to 18).
Then we have for the 96 teeth
| 2 | .0944 | = | arc pitch. |
| 2 | .0934 | = | chord pitch. |
| .0010 | = | difference. |
For the 144 teeth we have
| 2 | .0944 | = | arc pitch. |
| 2 | .0937 | = | chord pitch. |
| .0007 | = | difference. |
We find, then, that the variation decreases as the size of the wheels increases, and is so small as to be of no practical consequence.
If our examples were to be put into practice, and it were actually required to make one cutter serve for wheels having, say, from 12 to 18 teeth, a greater degree of correctness would be obtained if the cutter were made to some other wheel than the smallest. But it should be made for a wheel having less than the mean diameter (within the range of 12 and 18), that is, having less than 15 teeth; because the difference between the arc and chord pitch increases as the diameter of the pitch circle increases, as already shown.
A rule for calculating the number of wheels to be cut by each cutter when the number of cutters in the set and the number of teeth in the smallest and largest wheel in the train are given is as follows:—
Rule.—Multiply the number of teeth in the smallest wheel of the train by the number of cutters it is proposed to have in the set, and divide the amount so obtained by a sum obtained as follows:—
From the number of cutters in the set subtract the number of the cutter, and to the remainder add the sum obtained by multiplying the number of the teeth in the smallest wheel of the set or train by the number of the cutter and dividing the product by the number of teeth in the largest wheel of the set or train.
Example.—I require to find how many wheels each cutter should cut, there being 8 cutters and the smallest wheel having 12 teeth, while the largest has 300.
| Number of teeth in smallest wheel. |
Number of cutters in the set. |
|||
| 12 | × | 8 | = | 96 |
Then
| Number of cutters in set. |
Number of cutter. |
|||
| 8 | - | 7 | = | 1 |
| Number of teeth in smallest wheel. |
The number of the cutter. |
The number of the teeth in largest wheel. |
||
| 12 | × | 8 | ÷ | 300 |
| 12 | |||||
| 8 | |||||
| 300 | ) | 96 | 0 | ( | 0.32 |
| 90 | 0 | ||||
| 6 | 00 | ||||
| 6 | 00 | ||||
Now add the 1 to the .32 and we have 1.32, which we must divide into the 96 first obtained.
Thus
| 1.32 | ) | 96 | .00 | ( | 72 | |
| 92 | 4 | |||||
| 3 | 60 | |||||
| 2 | 64 | |||||
| 96 | ||||||
Hence No. 8 cutter may be used for all wheels that have between 72 teeth and 300 teeth.
To find the range of wheels to be cut by the next cutter, which we will call No. 7, proceed again as before, but using 7 instead of 8 as the number of the cutter.
Thus
| Number of teeth in smallest wheel. |
Number of cutters in the set. |
|||
| 12 | × | 8 | = | 96 |
Then
| Number of cutters in the set. |
Number of cutters. |
|||
| 8 | - | 6 | = | 2 |
And
| Number of teeth in smallest wheel. |
The number of the cutter |
The number of teeth in the largest wheel. |
||
| 12 | × | 8 | ÷ | 300 |
Here
| 12 | |||||
| 8 | |||||
| 300 | ) | 96 | 0 | ( | 0.32 |
| 90 | 0 | ||||
| 6 | 00 | ||||
| 6 | 00 | ||||
Add the 2 to the .32 and we have 2.32 to divide into the 96.
Thus
| 2.32 | ) | 96 | .00 | ( | 41 |
| 92 | 8 | ||||
| 3 | 20 | ||||
| 2 | 32 | ||||
| 88 | |||||
Hence this cutter will cut all wheels having not less than the 41 teeth, and up to the 72 teeth where the other cutter begins. For the range of the next cutter proceed the same, using 6 as the number of the cutter, and so on.
By this rule we obtain the lowest number of teeth in a wheel for which the cutter should be used, and it follows that its range will continue upwards to the smallest wheel cut by the cutter above it.
Having by this means found the range of wheels for each cutter, it remains to find for what particular number of teeth within that range the cutter teeth should be made correct, in order to have whatever error there may be equal in amount on the largest and smallest wheel of its range. This is done by using precisely the same rule, but supposing there to be twice as many cutters as there actually are, and then taking the intermediate numbers as those to be used.
Applying this plan to the first of the two previous examples we have—
| Number of teeth in the smallest wheel. |
Number of cutters in the set. |
|||
| 12 | × | 16 | = | 192 |
Then
| Number of cutters in the set. |
Number of the cutter. |
|||
| 16 | - | 15 | = | 1 |
And
| Number of teeth in smallest wheel. |
The number of the cutter. |
The number of the teeth in the largest wheel. |
||
| 12 | × | 15 | ÷ | 300 |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 1 | 5 | |||||
| 6 | 0 | |||||
| 12 | ||||||
| 300 | ) | 18 | 0.0 | ( | 0.6 | |
| 18 | 00 | |||||
Then add the 1 to the .6 = 1.6, and this divided into 192 = 120.
By continuing this process for each of the 16 cutters we obtain the following table:—
| Number of Cutter. |
Number of Teeth. |
Number of Cutter. |
Number of Teeth. |
||||
| 1 | 12 | 9 | 26 | ||||
| *2 | 13 | *10 | 30 | ||||
| 3 | 14 | 11 | 35 | ||||
| *4 | 15 | *12 | 42 | ||||
| 5 | 17 | 13 | 54 | ||||
| *6 | 18 | *14 | 75 | ||||
| 7 | 20 | .61 | 15 | 120 | |||
| *8 | 23 | *16 | 300 | ||||
Suppose now we take for our 8 cutters those marked by an asterisk, and use cutter 2 for all wheels having either 12, 13, or 14 teeth, then the next cutter would be that numbered 4, cutting 14, 15, or 16 toothed wheels, and so on.
A similar table in which 8 cutters are required, but 16 are used in the calculation, the largest wheel having 200 teeth in the set, is given below.
| Number of Cutter. |
Number of Teeth. |
Number of Cutter. |
Number of Teeth. |
||||
| 1 | 12 | .7 | 9 | 26 | .5 | ||
| 2 | 13 | .5 | 10 | 29 | |||
| 3 | 14 | .5 | 11 | 35 | |||
| 4 | 15 | .6 | 12 | 40 | .6 | ||
| 5 | 16 | .9 | 13 | 52 | .9 | ||
| 6 | 18 | 14 | 67 | .6 | |||
| 7 | 21 | 15 | 101 | ||||
| 8 | 23 | .5 | 16 | 200 | |||
To assist in the selections as to what wheels in a given set the determined number of cutters should be made correct for, so as to obtain the least limit of error, Professor Willis has calculated the following table, by means of which cutters may be selected that will give the same difference of form between any two consecutive numbers, and this table he terms the table of equidistant value of cutters.
| Number of Teeth. |
| Rack—300, 150, 100, 76, 60, 50, 43, 38, 34, 30, 27, 25, 23, 21, 20, 19, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12. |
The method of using the table is as follows:—Suppose it is required to make a set of wheels, the smallest of which is to contain 50 teeth and the largest 150, and it is determined to use but one cutter, then that cutter should be made correct for a wheel containing 76; because in the table 76 is midway between 50 and 150.
But suppose it were determined to employ two cutters, then one of them should be made correct for a wheel having 60 teeth, and used on all the wheels having between 50 and 76 teeth, while the other should be made correct for a wheel containing 100 teeth, and used on all wheels containing between 76 and 150 teeth.
In the following table, also arranged by Professor Willis, the most desirable selection of cutters for different circumstances is given, it being supposed that the set of wheels contains from 12 teeth to a rack.
| Number of cutters in the set. |
Number of Teeth in Wheel for which the Cutter is to be made correct. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | 50 | 16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 75 | 25 | 15 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | 100 | 34 | 20 | 14 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | 150 | 50 | 30 | 21 | 16 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | 200 | 67 | 40 | 29 | 22 | 18 | 15 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||
| 10 | 200 | 77 | 50 | 35 | 27 | 22 | 19 | 16 | 14 | 13 | ||||||||||||||
| 12 | 300 | 100 | 60 | 43 | 34 | 27 | 23 | 20 | 17 | 15 | 14 | 13 | ||||||||||||
| 18 | 300 | 150 | 100 | 70 | 50 | 40 | 30 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 20 | 18 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | |||||||
| 24 | Rack | 300 | 150 | 100 | 76 | 60 | 50 | 43 | 38 | 34 | 30 | 27 | 25 | 23 | 21 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 |
Suppose now we take the cutters, of a given pitch, necessary to cut all the wheels from 12 teeth to a rack, then the thickness of the teeth at the pitch line will for the purposes of designation be the thickness of the teeth of all the wheels, which thickness may be a certain proportion of the pitch.
But in involute teeth while the depth of tooth on the cutter may be taken as the standard for all the wheels in the range, and the actual depth for the wheel for which the cutter is correct, yet the depth of the teeth in the other wheels in the range may be varied sufficiently on each wheel to make the thickness of the teeth equal the width of the spaces (notwithstanding the variation between the arc and chord pitches), so that by a variation in the tooth depth the error induced by that variation may be corrected. The following table gives the proportions in the Brown and Sharpe system.
| Arc Pitch. | Depth of Tooth. |
Depth in terms of the arc pitch. |
| inches. | inches. | inches. |
| 1.570 | 1.078 | .686 |
| 1.394 | .958 | .687 |
| 1.256 | .863 | .686 |
| 1.140 | .784 | .697 |
| 1.046 | .719 | .687 |
| .896 | .616 | .686 |
| .786 | .539 | .685 |
| .628 | .431 | .686 |
| .524 | .359 | .685 |
| .448 | .307 | .685 |
| .392 | .270 | .686 |
| .350 | .240 | .686 |
| .314 | .216 | .687 |
To avoid the trouble of measuring, and to assist in obtaining accuracy of depth, a gauge is employed to mark on the wheel face a line denoting the depth to which the cutter should be entered.
Suppose now that it be required to make a set of cutters for a certain range of wheels, and it be determined that the cutters be so constructed that the greatest permissible amount of error in any wheel of the set be 1⁄100 inch. Then the curves for the smallest wheel, and those for the largest in the set, and the amount of difference between them ascertained, and assuming this difference to amount to 1⁄16 inch, which is about 6⁄100, then it is evident that 6 cutters must be employed for the set.
It has been shown that on bevel-wheels the tooth curves vary at every point in the tooth breadth; hence it is obvious that the cutter being of a fixed curve will make the tooth to that curve. Again, the thickness of the teeth and breadth of the spaces vary at every point in the breadth, while with a cutter of fixed thickness the space cut will be parallel from end to end. To overcome these difficulties it is usual to give to the cutter a curve corresponding to the curve required at the middle of the wheel face and a thickness equal to the required width of space at its smallest end, which is at the smallest face diameter.
The cutter thus formed produces, when passed through the wheel once, and to the required depth, a tooth of one curve from end to end, having its thickness and width of space correct at the smaller face diameter only, the teeth being too thick and the spaces too narrow as the outer diameter of the wheel is approached. But the position and line of traverse of the cutter may be altered so as to take a second cut, widening the space and reducing the tooth thickness at the outer diameter.
By moving the cutter’s position two or three times the points of contact between the teeth may be made to occur at two or three points across the breadth of the teeth and their points of contact; the wear will soon spread out so that the teeth bear all the way across.
Another plan is to employ two or three cutters, one having the correct curve for the inner diameter, and of the correct thickness for that diameter, another having the correct curve for the pitch circle, and another having the correct curve at the largest diameter of the teeth.
The thickness of the first and second cutters must not exceed the required width of space at the small end, while that for the third may be the same as the others, or equal to the thickness of the smallest space breadth that it will encounter in its traverse along the teeth.
The second cutter must be so set that it will leave the inner end of the teeth intact, but cut the space to the required width in the middle of the wheel face. The third cutter must be so set as to leave the middle of the tooth breadth intact, and cut the teeth to the required thickness at the outer or largest diameter.
The most correct method of cutting the teeth of a worm-wheel is by means of a worm-cutter, which is a worm of the pitch and form of tooth that the working worm is intended to be, but of hardened steel, and having grooves cut lengthways of the worm so as to provide cutting edges similar to those on the cutter shown in Fig. 107.
The wheel is mounted on an arbor or mandril free to rotate on its axis and at a right angle to the cutter worm, which is rotated and brought to bear upon the perimeter of the worm-wheel in the same manner as the working worm-wheel when in action. The worm-cutter will thus cut out the spaces in the wheel, and must therefore be of a thickness equal to those spaces. The cutter worm acting as a screw causes the worm-wheel to rotate upon its axis, and therefore to feed to the cutter.
In wheels of fine pitch and small diameter this mode of procedure is a simple matter, especially if the form of tooth be such that it is thicker, as the root of the tooth is approached from the pitch line, because in that case the cutter worm may be entered a part of the depth in the worm-wheel and a cut be taken around the wheel. The cutter may then be moved farther into the wheel and a second cut taken around the wheel, so that by continuing the process until the pitch line of the cutter worm coincides with that of the worm-cutter, the worm-wheel may be cut with a number of light cuts, instead of at one heavy cut.
But in the case of large wheels the strain due to such a long line of cutting edge as is possessed by the cutter worm-teeth springs or bends the worm-wheel, and on account of the circular form of the breadth of the teeth this bending or spring causes that part of the tooth arc above the centre of the wheel thickness to lock against the cutter.
To prevent this, several means may be employed. Thus the grooves forming the cutting edges of the worm-cutter may wind spirally along instead of being parallel to the axis of the cutter.
The distance apart of these grooves may be greater than the breadth of tooth a width of worm-wheel face, in which case the cutting edge of one tooth only will meet the work at one time. In addition to this two stationary supports may be placed beneath the worm-wheel (one on each side of the cutter). But on coarse pitches with their corresponding depth of tooth, the difficulty presents itself, that the arbor driving the worm-cutter will spring, causing the cutter to lift and lock as before; hence it is necessary to operate on part of the space at a time, and shape it out to so nearly the correct form that the finishing cut may be a very light one indeed, in which case the worm-cutter will answer for the final cut.
The removal of the surplus metal preparatory to the introduction of the worm-cutter to finish, may be made with a cutter-worm that will cut out a narrow groove being of the thickness equal to the bottom of the tooth space and cutting on its circumference only. This cutter may be fed into the wheel to the permissible depth of cut, and after the cut is taken all around the wheel, it may be entered deeper and a second cut taken, and so on until it has entered the wheel to the necessary depth of tooth. A second cutter-worm may then be used, it being so shaped as to cut the face curve only of the teeth. A third may cut the flank curve only, and finally a worm-cutter of correct form may take a finishing cut over both the faces and the flanks. In this manner teeth of any pitch and depth may be cut. Another method is to use a revolving cutter such as shown in Fig. 107, and to set it at the required angle to the wheel, and then take a succession of cuts around the wheel, the first cut forming a certain part of the tooth depth, the second increasing this depth, and so on until the final cut forms the tooth to the requisite depth. In this case the cutter operates on each space separately, or on one space only at a time, and the angle at which to set the cutter may be obtained as follows in Fig. 114. Let the length of the line a a equal the diameter of the worm at the pitch circle, and b b (a line at a right angle to a a) represent the axial line of the worm. Let the distance c equal the pitch of the teeth, and the angle of the line d with a a or b b according to circumstances, will be that to which the cutter must be set with reference to the tooth.