Stop in for a cup of coffee

-
71GSSDemon said:
If it is a solid shim pinion, then the yoke nut just holds everything tight, yes? I think the problem he is having is the pinion depth is wrong, which is the shims. The nut is just holding everything tight and holding the yoke on. The crush sleeve needs to have it snuck up on.
Click to expand...
yup, that's what i wanted to verify... will lock tight it and make it tight since it's shims and no sleeve
 
Looks like cass sells a full shim kit with nut/seal for $43.. prolly get that.. comes with marking paste also :( spent $20 on some already.. grr
 
71GSSDemon said:
Thanks. I think he was concerned about not tightening the nut to 240ftlbs. I have the means to do that, but an impact should be fine. Can chatter the teeth and cause bearing issues if done often on the same sets.
Click to expand...
Yes. THat's why I said tighten it until you cannot turn the pinion, then tap tap tap until you can and bump it back tight a little. It's like guitar strings. You need to always end on tightening.
 
We used to have to calibrate the 600lb torque wrenches they were fun to break. The C-130 had a huge prop nut think it was over 1000 ftlb, they used a torque multiplier on them.
 
RustyRatRod said:
With a 6' cheater bar. And two other dudes.
Click to expand...
Well it was a dial style torque wrench, 1.5" drive about 7ft long. Always in a pull down motion. Some of the guys put an eyelet in the end, then used an overhead hoist to pull up. I didn't like that as if it came off the nut, it would go flying - all 7ft of wrench!
 
halifaxhops said:
We used to have to calibrate the 600lb torque wrenches they were fun to break. The C-130 had a huge prop nut think it was over 1000 ftlb, they used a torque multiplier on them.
Click to expand...
Torque multiplier. I have a story. A young tech at an ag dealer drove their multiplier with an impact wrench. Needless to say it was explode inside.
 
It's

truckintues.jpg


Tuesday!
Good morning :D
 
toolmanmike said:
Yikes.
Click to expand...
Yeah lots of opposition to the proposal last year, voters voted down the dams removal by a vote of 86 percent against.

So the state Fish and Wildlife invoked a rarely used EPA measure that allows them remove the dams to “re-establish biological migration paths”. They claimed some breed of fish was endangered because of the dams preventing upstream travel. Mind you, the dams have existed in some cases for longer than Indiana has been a state…
 
dukeboy440 said:
Yeah lots of opposition to the proposal last year, voters voted down the dams removal by a vote of 86 percent against.

So the state Fish and Wildlife invoked a rarely used EPA measure that allows them remove the dams to “re-establish biological migration paths”. They claimed some breed of fish was endangered because of the dams preventing upstream travel. Mind you, the dams have existed in some cases for longer than Indiana has been a state…
Click to expand...
Nearby dam here, flood control mostly, has to release water every spring until the water reaches a certain point in the dry riverbed downstream. For maintenance of the ground water levels. Not very often does the water ever get to the sea. Yet Fish and Game would test the quarry for Steelhead Trout accessibility :lol:
 
Unconventional said:
Nearby dam here, flood control mostly, has to release water every spring until the water reaches a certain point in the dry riverbed downstream. For maintenance of the ground water levels. Not very often does the water ever get to the sea. Yet Fish and Game would test the quarry for Steelhead Trout accessibility :lol:
Click to expand...
It’s all just odd. I’m not a tinfoil conspiracy theory but why are they so insistent on destroying the dams that have been in place for decades and the aquifers people rely on? We’ve never had water problems in this area even in severe droughts and now we do. Makes no sense.
 
dukeboy440 said:
It’s all just odd. I’m not a tinfoil conspiracy theory but why are they so insistent on destroying the dams that have been in place for decades and the aquifers people rely on? We’ve never had water problems in this area even in severe droughts and now we do. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Lots coming down around here
 
dukeboy440 said:
It’s all just odd. I’m not a tinfoil conspiracy theory but why are they so insistent on destroying the dams that have been in place for decades and the aquifers people rely on? We’ve never had water problems in this area even in severe droughts and now we do. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Just wait and find out the water is needed for the Lithium down in Arkansas.....
 
dukeboy440 said:
Yeah lots of opposition to the proposal last year, voters voted down the dams removal by a vote of 86 percent against.

So the state Fish and Wildlife invoked a rarely used EPA measure that allows them remove the dams to “re-establish biological migration paths”. They claimed some breed of fish was endangered because of the dams preventing upstream travel. Mind you, the dams have existed in some cases for longer than Indiana has been a state…
Click to expand...
They can make fish ladders for migration. Sucks that the rivers dry. How they gonna migrate then?
 
71GSSDemon said:
Just wait and find out the water is needed for the Lithium down in Arkansas.....
Click to expand...
At least:
AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

It takes around 2.7 to 3.5 gallonsof water to produce one gallon of ethanol:


  • Older facilities: Use about 4 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol


  • Newer facilities: Use about 2.5 to 3 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol


  • Ethanol plants: Recycle most of the water they use, and the rest is released into the atmosphere as steam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top