Talk:O-ring

The diagram is garbage

(at top right) There's no explanation for the terms, no relationship between the ring sizes and the receptacle, the receptacle makes no sense (is it a cross-section? It needs correct shading etc if so), and so on. An engineer who understand this needs to do a new diagram that is accurate and understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1BED:6D00:99A9:7727:641A:11D8 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Pressure, Temperature, Storage

Q1: (unknown author on this talk page) What is the maximun resistance pressure and temperature? A1: This varies widely by O-ring material and joint design, and also depends (as you might expect) on the lifespan during which you need the O-ring to seal. For common O-ring elastomers, max temps may be expected to be between 100 and 200 degC, with max pressures between 500 and 5000 kPa. Unclben 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Q2: (unknown author on this talk page) If they are exposed to high temperatures or burnt, what gases are emitted? How can they best be stored? A2: Emitted gases will vary wildly by material (especially plasticizers and other low-molecular-weight components). Rubber O-rings are best stored in mild temperatures (room temp) and low humidity. The seals should be in airtight containers that block UV light. In such conditions, you may assume that the O-rings can be stored for many years with no ill effects. In a more typical warehouse environment, a reasonable guess would be 6-12 months as an acceptable shelf-life. Unclben 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Storage conditions and shelf-life periods for vulcanised rubber products (including o-rings) are given in BS ISO 2230:2002 (previously BS3574). Shelf life can be from 5 to 10 years from date of cure (vulcanisation) depending on the base elastomer. --GeordieMG 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference

I have a pdf file of the O-ring patent US2180795. I think it should be included or at least linked to, but I don't know how to execute such a thing?

you can add a link to an online source of the pdf file, or to the the US patant office copy (alternatiff plugin required to view) --Duk 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

copyright

the recent edit by Jerry Whitlock - The Seal Man™ was copied from http://www.epm.com/seal_failure_analysis.htm. I've sent an email requesting confirmation that the edit was made by the copyright owner (and was therefore a GFDL release). --Duk 20:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

reverted copyvio--Duk 12:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

O-ring or o-ring?

Just wondering, the article seems to be a little inconsistent.  :) 68.183.57.34 08:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to post the same comment. :) -65.30.187.109 13:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've used (and seen used) both styles. I generally prefer to use the capital 'O'. The downside is that you create what appears to be a proper noun but that really isn't. The upside is that you gain consistency among torodial seal cross-sections by using capital letters - the key being D-rings, which look like a capital 'D' rather than a lowercase 'd'. O-rings and X-rings are the other prominent letter-shaped sections, but they obviously look the same between upper and lowercase. Unclben 00:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I visited the link to lutzsales. Why are they using widipedia as their marketing advertising board? -65.30.187.109 13:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I'm really sick of the lutzsales spamming in this article, but I don't have the energy to grab better references right now. Unclben (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer O-ring too. The same pattern as T-shirt (not t-shirt), A-frame (not a-frame), I-beam (not i-beam) et cetera).

—DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Challenger O-ring Material

Was the elastomer used on the Challenger actually Viton? The congressional report http://www.gpoaccess.gov/challenger/64_420.pdf calls it "fluorocarbon elastomer", and excerpted statements by Thiokol engineers seem to be an improper or informal use of a trademarked name. I suggest we replace it with the generic term FKM, specifically Type I FKM. Delmlsfan (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Viton is DuPont's trade name for their FKM line, but it's widely used in industry as synonymous with FKM (like Kleenex, or Coke in the southern US). I have no idea whether Challenger O-rings were actually Viton or not, and I doubt anybody else here does either. We should definitely replace with 'FKM'. Unclben (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the failure was not due to the material but due to improper design. The O-ring cavity was not designed properly which let to the pressure concentrated to a small section of the O-ring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginnidorka (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the failure was due to grubby, corrupt, pork barrel politicians. Having O rings was unneccesary, an inferior design. O rings only required because the booster was made in sections because they had to be transported half-way across the USA, the booster should have been made in one piece. Only made thousands of miles away because of vote buying efforts by ****s in Congress. AnnaComnemna (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Find WP:RS that motors of this size could be cast in one piece, and you might have something worth adding.

Also the o-ring seal seems to have been a successful and reliable design. The failure here was caused by it being used outside its design scope, within a management structure that prioritised flight on time over safety, to the point of ignoring such scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

how to make an o-ring

can anybody tell me how to make an o-ring.i have to make an assigntment about this subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.220.238 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"PLEASE LIST DETAILS FOR BACK UP RINGS, DYNAMIC AND STATIC SEALS"

Can anybody put details up for Backup rings, Dynamic seals and semi dynamic seals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.57.129 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Gasket

Is it proper to call an O-ring a gasket? I have always understood the working principle of gaskets to be that the gasket would deform under applied pressure from the mating surfaces and fill imperfections in the surfaces. Thus the seal is created. O-rings decidedly do not act in any way like this. They use the pressure of the fluid to slightly push themselves into the crevice on the other side of the groove. In short, a gasket simply improves the seal between two surfaces while an O-ring is a seal in itself.128.6.73.200 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Groove

Would some mention of the appropriate dimensions for an o-ring groove be appropriate? Maybe the theory behind it too? Grj23 (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the external links has a good discussion... "Dichtomatik O-ring handbook", written at an introductory level --Steve (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

what does O stand for

I have to ask cause, well and "O" is a ring, and it's like saying "circle-circle". So it would seem logical O stands for something. Given the cross-section area, maybe 0 is so they didn't have to say "circle-circle". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.123.234 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about that as well after hearing the term used on a documentary the other night. I thought, maybe it stands for a word, or it's one of various types of ring designated by different letters.

Indeed, I'm confused by the Other seals section – the image caption and second sentence within the section indicate that it's still an O-ring if it has a different cross-section, whereas from the last sentence of that paragraph onwards it seems to be saying it's only an O-ring if the cross-section is circular. Meanwhile, I'm adding a contradict notice to the section. — Smjg (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It stands for "circle circle". An O-shaped filament is formed into a ring. It's not a tautology because these are two different circles: one the shape of the ring, the other the cross section of it.

This is a novelty. The precursors to O rings were metallic. They are mostly inelastic and rely on deformation to form a static seal. They can be flat washers (rings of flat sheet, sealing between their faces) or else folded U-shaped channels of thin sheet (softer, so the same strain achieved for less stress). Generally they're only capable of sealing in one direction ((per design), usually axially but sometimes radially. There are also seals made of rubber, or even formed leather, and these are often used for slow-speed moving seals where low pressure radial sealing is needed (Bike pumps, vehicle brake pistons).

After WWII the synthetic rubber industry has improved immensely. New synthetic rubbers become available that are resistant to oils and solvents (natural rubbers are fussy and intolerant of most mineral oils). These rubbers can also have their elastic modulus controlled precisely, allowing their behaviour to be defined. It now becomes possible to make useful "O rings". A simple all-purpose seal that is elastic in every direction and can seal either radially or axially - even if moving at slow speed. These are the first such seals and really the first (rope packing is ancient) that have this "O" cross section; seemingly simple but actually quite demanding of their materials. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Future" section

This section had been tagged as being unsourced since 2018. And it contained nothing useful, and was self contradictory. it said that better materials would replace o-rings, but explained that in terms of making better o-rings, not replacing them. It made vague general optimistic statements about nanotechnology that sound like PR without any source or sound justification. Then it went on to describe what I believe are existing specialized materials for specific applications, not future materials.

So I deleted it. If anyone feels that there was useful and important material there I think it should be built back up slowly with each addition based on a cited reference. Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)