I’m not into charts but personally I would have used the far right column, 20mm to 150mm and 1800 to 3600 RPM.  Why?  The impact of 1760 RPM vs. 1800 RPM is relatively insignificant as compared to the impact of 50mm vs. 35mm diameter.

I have not seen that table before, so I don't know the technical basis (any test data?) for its content and intended use. I would place greater importance on shaft speed affecting vibrations more than bearing size, like the OP statement. Frankly, I would not base a maintenance decision or action (other than lubrication) on this chart/table, since it represents only a small indicator of machine condition. There are very few distinctive and absolute machine condition indicators, so it is best to have more than one indicator and use good practical judgement!

Walt

@Registered Member posted:

I have not seen that table before, so I don't know the technical basis (any test data?) for its content and intended use. I would place greater importance on shaft speed affecting vibrations more than bearing size, like the OP statement.

Walt

I would not expect much variation in vibration from 1760 to 1800 RPM except in the presence of a critical speed.

John, I agree. I also would not expect much difference between a 35 mm and a 50 mm bearing. Put the chart on the wall, get some darts, and make a selection!

Walt

Put the chart on the wall, get some darts, and make a selection!

Indeed, use the Monte Carlo simulation method with real darts to find the problem!

First time to see this table and it raises questions about its clarity and context. To understand what it covers what it doesn't, I've created the attached chart.

A lot of Red area in chart that is not covered! It is now ready to make it ISO certified!

I'm surprised anyone would attempt to quantify the severity of Gse, since it is extremely sensitive to speed, load, but most importantly, the rigidity of the sensor connection.

@Registered Member posted:

I'm surprised anyone would attempt to quantify the severity of Gse, since it is extremely sensitive to speed, load, but most importantly, the rigidity of the sensor connection.

I've seen that chart as far back as 2011 but can't find a reference as to its origin.  It is on the webpage for an STI transducer (https://www.stiweb.com/Acceler...onitor_p/cmcp590.htm).  A far better document on "Ge" can be found on an SKF site, specifically Recommended Initial Alarm Criteria for Bearing Condition Assessment Using Enveloped Acceleration Measurements.

It might be from TEC.  I’ll check. On second thought theirs looks like an incline with a flat response on each end.  I still contend it is not possible.

SKF has mentioned in the past (if I remember) that this is extremely sensitive to sensor position and mounting. This requires faith in a technology that I do not have.

I've seen some case histories purported to support this. I wonder how many case histories do not support this. I have seen material supporting/promoting the use on fluid film bearings. ????

I added these measurements to an online system that had permanently mounted accelerometers (stud mounted and properly torqued) and STILL did not get repeatable results.

@Registered Member posted:

SKF has mentioned in the past (if I remember) that this is extremely sensitive to sensor position and mounting. This requires faith in a technology that I do not have.

I've seen some case histories purported to support this. I wonder how many case histories do not support this. I have seen material supporting/promoting the use on fluid film bearings. ????

I know a place or two where they have one of those installed