Darn!!! I was so hoping for a way to acquire more time!charlese wrote:Whoops! Calendars have always been troublesome for me! And it's worse now-a-days. At my age all time/date things seems to run amuck.
There it's fixed! Thanks Tim!:D

Moderator: admin
Darn!!! I was so hoping for a way to acquire more time!charlese wrote:Whoops! Calendars have always been troublesome for me! And it's worse now-a-days. At my age all time/date things seems to run amuck.
There it's fixed! Thanks Tim!:D
Please explain the dimensions in both statements above. They are inconsistant/confusing to me. I assume you are referring to the width at the outer edge(circumference). 29/64 and 15/32 do not equal .447 and .461. 7/16 to 15/32 is a very large deviation.charlese wrote:. . . My first diameter measurement of that belt was 7/16". Most of the belt's diameter however is 15/16"
. . . .
The Diameter of the Gates belt decreased from 29/64" (0.447") to 15/32" (0.461") in approximately 125 hours of use
That's the problem with trying to give exact measurements. As soon as I took off the Gates belt, I measured the width with my caliper. It measured 7/16". Then I marked the outside of the belt at 1 inch increments and measured at each mark. My noted show there were 4 consecutive inches where the belt width was 7/16" wide. The rest of the belt showed 29/64".JPG40504 wrote:Please explain the dimensions in both statements above. They are inconsistant/confusing to me. I assume you are referring to the width at the outer edge(circumference). 29/64 and 15/32 do not equal .447 and .461. 7/16 to 15/32 is a very large deviation.
What is the final conclusion? Are the belts performing satisfactorily? Is the wear over eight months excessive?charlese wrote:That's the problem with trying to give exact measurements. As soon as I took off the Gates belt, I measured the width with my caliper. It measured 7/16". Then I marked the outside of the belt at 1 inch increments and measured at each mark. My noted show there were 4 consecutive inches where the belt width was 7/16" wide. The rest of the belt showed 29/64".
Above the 1st photo, I inadvertently reversed the before and after measurements. The unused belt measured 15/32" and 0.461" on my caliper. The belt I took off of the machine measured (mostly) 29/64" and 0.447". A decrease of 0.014" or 1/16".
Hope this clears up the confusion. Perhaps the decimal conversions are not exact, but they are what my caliper read.
The inside circumference decreased by the same amount. Because of the scuffs on the inside of that belt, I had suspected more wear on the center edges that the outside edges. However that just didn't happen.
MOSTLY! However, the last time I checked:p 1/16" was 0.0625".charlese wrote:. . . . The unused belt measured 15/32" and 0.461" on my caliper. The belt I took off of the machine measured (mostly) 29/64" and 0.447". A decrease of 0.014" or 1/16".
. . .
Hope this clears up the confusion. Perhaps the decimal conversions are not exact, but they are what my caliper read. . . .
JPG40504 wrote:I could not help but notice when going to "GOODYEAR.COM" the absence of any reference to belts!
Let me rephrase that! No reference to NON-AUTOMOTIVE (industrial) belts.