Run the tool first for an immediate 100:1 fit signal, then use the report layers to validate evidence, understand boundaries, and choose the next engineering action.
Published: 2026-05-10 · Last updated: 2026-05-11
Maintenance cadence: evidence and standards checkpoints are reviewed at least every 6 months or on major supplier revision.
Input motor, duty, and precision constraints to screen if a 100:1 reducer path is viable before RFQ.
No result yet.
Run the checker to get topology recommendation, reflected inertia estimate, and next action.
APEX PGII public data splits 2-stage ratios at 12-100 and 3-stage ratios at 120-1000, with efficiency floors dropping from >=94% to >=91%, so exact 100:1 must be treated as a stage decision, not only a ratio label.
Neugart PSFN and Harmonic CSF-GH public pages show materially different backlash/repeatability classes near 100:1, so precision target can force topology change even when nominal torque looks feasible.
Reflected inertia drops with ratio squared (Jload / i²), yet very low reflected values can still require loop tuning and resolution checks at commissioning.
SEW planning guidance states service-factor derivation is not standardized and can vary by manufacturer; starts/hour, operating time, and load classification must be normalized before cross-vendor ranking.
SEW and maxon both document self-locking conditions around forward efficiency <=0.5 at high worm ratios and warn against treating this as universal motion behavior; hoist safety still needs dedicated safety design.
ISO 6336-1:2019 (confirmed in 2025) is validated for involute spur/helical scope only and explicitly excludes assembled-system assurance; AGMA standards are revised over time, so revision lock is part of project risk control.
Open pages rarely provide transaction-normalized price and life data under one identical duty profile, so cross-brand ranking still needs standardized RFQ collection.
Numbers below are decision anchors for pre-RFQ screening. They are not universal guarantees and must be verified against final model and test conditions.
| Metric | Published Context | Why It Matters | Source Family |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planetary stage split at 100:1 | APEX PGII public ranges: 2-stage 12-100 and 3-stage 120-1000; published efficiency floors: >=94% (2-stage) and >=91% (3-stage). | A 100:1 requirement can sit at the handoff between stage architectures with different loss behavior. | APEX PGII product page |
| Harmonic 100:1 precision corridor | Harmonic CSF-GH lists ratio options including 50/80/100/120/160, repeatability around ±4 to ±10 arc-sec, and model-level 100:1 entries (e.g., CSF-32-100-GH standard accuracy 1 arcmin). | When lost-motion target is tight, harmonic can be a first-branch option at 100:1. | Harmonic Drive CSF-GH page |
| Precision planetary baseline near 100:1 | Neugart PSFN public tables include up to ratio 100 with efficiency 96-97% and reduced backlash options down to <1 arcmin on larger frame sizes. | Mainstream planetary can stay viable for precision targets when backlash class is explicitly selected. | Neugart PSFN page |
| Cycloidal RV precision baseline | Nabtesco RV-E public feature list states backlash <1 arcmin with low-lost-motion positioning context. | RV-class remains a practical branch for high-shock precision duty around 100:1. | Nabtesco RV-E page |
| Inertia reflection law | maxon technical support states reflected load inertia scales with 1 / i² after gearing. | At 100:1, large pre-gear inertia ratios can shrink quickly, but tuning quality still needs verification. | maxon support note |
| Load-class boundary for service factor | SEW 2026 guidance defines mass-acceleration load classes by fa threshold: I <= 0.2, II <= 3, III <= 10, then applies starts/hour and duty time to derive fB. | Without load classification and cycle data, service-factor claims cannot be transferred to your project. | SEW application service factor pages |
| Service-factor numeric example | SEW planning example: mass acceleration factor 2.5 (class II), 14 h/day, 300 cycles/hour => required service factor about fB = 1.51. | Nominal torque pass alone is not enough; cycle profile can force frame upsizing. | SEW project planning docs |
| Worm self-locking boundary | SEW and maxon references note self-locking behavior around worm forward efficiency <= 0.5 at very high ratios, with explicit safety caveats. | Do not assume reversible behavior or use self-locking as the only safety mechanism. | SEW + maxon self-locking notes |
| High-ratio backdriving caution | maxon guidance flags very high ratios (around i > 100) as potentially non-backdrivable depending on drivetrain conditions. | Use caution when reversible motion or compliance recovery is required. | maxon gear behavior note |
| ISO 6336 validation window | ISO 6336-1:2019 (confirmed in 2025) is validated for involute spur/helical gears with pressure angle 15°-25°, helix angle up to 30°, and contact ratio 1.0-2.5. | Outside this scope, rating transfer should be treated as extrapolation and validated by test/experience. | ISO 6336-1:2019 |
| Gear-capacity standard boundary | ISO explicitly says rating methods are not intended to assure assembled-system performance; AGMA standards are maintained and revised, so release files must lock revision IDs. | Quick-check outputs cannot be treated as final release sign-off or latest standard compliance. | ISO + AGMA catalog pages |
| SERP intent signal for this keyword | Current search patterns are dominated by product specs, ratio-selection pages, and practical fit questions rather than theory-only articles. | Justifies hybrid single URL structure: tool-first interaction plus evidence-backed report layers. | Search snapshot (2026-05-10) |
This audit tracks weak points from earlier drafts and the repairs completed in this round.
| Gap | Why It Was Weak | Enhancement in Stage1b | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intent ambiguity was not explicit in earlier drafts | Previous copy mixed calculator language and long-form guidance without showing why both were needed on one URL. | Added intent-router context and kept tool-first section above fold, with report layers below for decision evidence. | Closed in previous round (2026-05-10) |
| 100:1 boundary logic lacked explicit ratio band | Earlier wording mentioned “near 100” but did not define what counts as strict fit vs review. | Added strict 90:1 to 110:1 decision band and separate broad 40:1 to 220:1 screening corridor. | Closed in previous round (2026-05-10) |
| Servo dynamics discussion had weak numeric anchor | Inertia statements were descriptive but not formula-linked. | Added reflected inertia relation (1 / i²) and converted it into a concrete result metric in the tool output. | Closed in previous round (2026-05-10) |
| Worm-vs-planetary tradeoff lacked threshold-level evidence | Earlier wording said worm was weaker for servo precision but did not expose verifiable efficiency/self-locking thresholds. | Added SEW and maxon threshold evidence around η <= 0.5 self-locking boundary, reverse-motion caveats, and hoist safety restriction. | Closed in this round (2026-05-11) |
| Service-factor comparability risk was under-specified | Prior text used service factor concept but did not highlight that vendor methods are not directly standardized. | Added SEW manufacturer-specific comparability warning, load-class thresholds, and worked example (fB≈1.51). | Closed in this round (2026-05-11) |
| Standards boundary lacked current lifecycle context | Prior text cited ISO/AGMA scope but did not flag revision-cycle drift risk when older D04 references are reused. | Added ISO 6336 confirmed-in-2025 scope window and AGMA revision-lifecycle control notes for release documentation. | Closed in this round (2026-05-11) |
| Cross-brand commercial comparability remains partial | Public sources still lack normalized transaction and lifecycle terms under one duty template. | Kept explicit uncertainty rows and a minimum executable RFQ normalization path. | Open (待确认/暂无可靠公开数据) |
Only evidence-backed additions are listed here. If a finding cannot be supported by reproducible public sources, it remains in the uncertainty section.
| New Finding | Evidence Added | Decision Impact | Source Check |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100:1 stage boundary has measurable efficiency penalty | APEX PGII publishes 2-stage ratios up to 100 and 3-stage ratios from 120, with efficiency floors >=94% vs >=91%. | Keep 100:1 at architecture gate; stage choice changes losses and thermal margin. | APEX PGII page (checked 2026-05-11) |
| Service-factor logic requires load classification and cycle data | SEW load classes map to fa thresholds (<=0.2, <=3, <=10) and example case gives fB≈1.51 for class II at 14 h/day and 300 starts/hour. | RFQ must include starts/hour + duty hours + inertia assumptions, not torque only. | SEW application service factor docs (checked 2026-05-11) |
| Service-factor values are not directly comparable across brands | SEW planning pages state fB derivation is not standardized and may differ by manufacturer. | Use normalized duty template before ranking supplier offers. | SEW project planning docs (checked 2026-05-11) |
| Worm self-locking has explicit limit and safety caveat | SEW and maxon note worm-related self-locking behavior around forward efficiency <=0.5 and warn against using it as sole hoist safety function. | Treat worm branch as constrained comparison and require explicit reverse-motion/safety verification. | SEW + maxon self-locking notes (checked 2026-05-11) |
| Standards applicability has strict scope window | ISO 6336-1:2019 (confirmed 2025) is validated for involute spur/helical gears within pressure-angle, helix-angle and contact-ratio limits, and not for assembled-system assurance. | Use quick-check outputs as screening only; keep integration verification in release gate. | ISO 6336-1 scope page (checked 2026-05-11) |
| Standards version drift is a practical project risk | AGMA standards are actively maintained and older references can stay in circulation, creating revision-mismatch risk in multi-vendor projects. | Confirm target revision in RFQ and design dossier before final sign-off. | AGMA standards portal + ISO scope page (checked 2026-05-11) |
These boundaries determine when published data can be transferred to your project context.
| Boundary Topic | Published / Defined Condition | Decision Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict ratio boundary for page intent | Use 90:1 to 110:1 for strict 100:1 decisions. 40:1 to 220:1 is screening-only corridor. | Outside strict band, results remain directional and require architecture confirmation before go decisions. | Page methodology rule |
| Inertia-transfer boundary | Reflected inertia estimate uses pre-gear load/motor ratio scaled by 1 / i² and topology adjustment factors. | It is a screening metric, not a substitute for full loop tuning and structural compliance modeling. | maxon support inertia formula + page model rule |
| High-ratio reversibility boundary | Very high reduction can reduce backdrivability in practical drives, depending on friction and architecture. | If reversible behavior is critical, require explicit backdrive validation in RFQ and prototype testing. | maxon high-ratio behavior note |
| Service-factor transfer boundary | Service-factor references require alignment to real duty hours, starts/hour, and load classification (fa thresholds). | Nominal torque pass is not enough for high-cycling or shock-heavy applications. | SEW service-factor method guidance |
| Service-factor comparability boundary | Vendor-specific fB methods are not standardized and can differ materially by manufacturer. | Do not compare supplier ratings without one shared duty and sizing template. | SEW project planning comparability note |
| Worm self-locking boundary | Worm-related self-locking behavior is tied to very high-ratio/low-efficiency conditions (around η <= 0.5) and can be vibration-sensitive. | Do not assume self-locking or backdrivability without explicit verification. | SEW + maxon self-locking notes |
| Standards-scope boundary | ISO 6336 validation window is limited (involute spur/helical + defined angle/contact ranges) and does not certify assembled-system behavior. | Keep thermal, bearing, lubrication, controls, and integration checks in final release gate. | ISO 6336-1:2019 scope page |
| Standards-version boundary | AGMA document families evolve over time; older revisions can remain discoverable in legacy channels. | Lock standard revision ID explicitly in project records and RFQ packs. | AGMA catalog and store listings |
| Scenario | Good Fit Signal | Not-Fit Warning | Decision Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Servo axis needs around 100:1 with mainstream precision target | Planetary branch with stage and duty checks | Assuming any 100:1 catalog entry is interchangeable | Confirm stage family and backlash class before procurement lock. |
| Sub-2 arcmin precision with moderate torque | Harmonic or high-precision cycloidal branch | Standard planetary class without precision verification | Precision target can dominate family decision before torque limits. |
| High-shock indexing duty with 100:1 target | Cycloidal/RV-class comparison with conservative assumptions | Nominal-torque-only screening | Shock + starts/hour frequently drives review even when ratio is valid. |
| Project asks for exact 100:1 but input drifts to 130:1+ | Review state and architecture clarification | Treating drifted ratio as strict 100:1 without re-branching | Ratio drift should reopen topology and stage assumptions. |
The checker links input validation, topology branching, duty-based service factors, inertia reflection, and boundary actions.
Strict ratio and topology windows keep fast decisions coherent with real supplier data boundaries.
| Step | Logic | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Input normalization | Validate motor torque/speed, ratio, peak factor, duty, starts/hour, backlash, and pre-gear inertia ratio. Reject non-physical boundaries. | Clean input or explicit recoverable error state |
| Topology branch selection | Auto mode maps precision and duty signals to planetary/harmonic/cycloidal branches while keeping worm as what-if comparison. | Candidate topology plus baseline windows |
| Torque and inertia checkpoint | Compute output speed/torque using efficiency baseline, service-factor uplift, and reflected inertia ratio estimate. | Rated torque checkpoint + inertia signal |
| Boundary + action mapping | Trigger review/no-go on ratio drift, topology mismatch, torque overflow, or precision mismatch, then map a next action. | Go / review / no-go status with executable next step |
If the checker returns review or boundary status, hand off with a consistent RFQ packet before comparing supplier quotes.
Unknown or partial evidence is explicitly marked instead of being forced into fake certainty.
| Option | Strength | Tradeoff | Data Confidence | Typical Fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planetary (100:1 mainstream branch) | Balanced availability, good efficiency, broad servo integration ecosystem | Precision ceiling depends heavily on class and stage combination | Strong public data coverage for ratio classes, efficiency bands, and life references | Default branch for most industrial servo 100:1 screening tasks |
| Harmonic (strain wave) | Very low backlash and compact coaxial precision behavior | Lower efficiency and different torsional behavior than mainstream planetary | Public servo-mount pages clearly publish ratio corridors covering 100:1 | High-precision motion axes prioritizing minimal lost motion |
| Cycloidal / RV-class | Strong shock handling and robust positioning duty behavior | Packaging and integration constraints can differ from planetary defaults | Published RV-class references provide high-shock positioning context and low lost-motion classes | Indexing and shock-prone servo applications near 100:1 |
| Worm | Can realize high reduction in compact packages | Sliding-friction losses can be high at large ratios and reverse-motion behavior needs explicit validation | Public pages show explicit low-efficiency / self-locking boundary conditions and safety caveats | Comparison-only branch for this keyword intent |
| Option | Numeric Signal | Limit / Counterexample | Decision Use | Source Family |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planetary ratio segmentation | APEX PGII ranges split 2-stage at 12-100 and 3-stage at 120-1000, with efficiency floors >=94% and >=91%. | 100:1 at the boundary requires explicit stage assumption and frame check. | Anchors why the tool treats strict and broad ratio bands separately. | APEX PGII |
| Harmonic precision corridor | Harmonic CSF-GH publishes 50/80/100/120/160 ratios with repeatability ±4 to ±10 arc-sec and model-level 100:1 entries. | Efficiency and torsional behavior differ from planetary, so transfer assumptions are unsafe. | Supports harmonic branch when ultra-low backlash dominates requirements. | Harmonic Drive CSF-GH |
| Inertia reflection relation | Reflected inertia follows Jload / i² per maxon support documentation. | Formula is necessary but not sufficient for closed-loop stability sign-off. | Justifies reflected inertia output in the result card. | maxon support |
| High-ratio reversibility warning | maxon notes very high gear ratios can reduce backdrivability in practical use. | Architecture, friction, and loading details still control real behavior. | Flags reverse-motion risk when project needs compliance recovery. | maxon gear behavior article |
| Service-factor comparability warning | SEW states fB derivation is not standardized and can vary by manufacturer; example case (fa=2.5, 14 h/day, 300 cycles/h) yields fB≈1.51. | Cross-supplier fB values cannot be compared without a normalized duty template. | Prevents false certainty when vendor catalogs use different rating logic. | SEW project planning docs |
| Worm self-locking threshold | SEW and maxon references document self-locking context around forward efficiency η <= 0.5 at high worm ratios. | Self-locking is condition-dependent and cannot replace explicit safety engineering for hoist-like hazards. | Keeps worm branch in constrained-comparison mode for precision-servo intent. | SEW + maxon |
| ISO scope window | ISO 6336-1:2019 validation window: pressure angle 15°-25°, helix up to 30°, transverse contact ratio 1.0-2.5; confirmed current in 2025. | Outside this scope, calculation transfer requires extra verification by experience/test. | Defines where quick rating logic should stop and prototype validation should start. | ISO 6336-1:2019 |
| Service-factor and release-gate boundaries | SEW method ties service factor to duty/starts/load profile; ISO scope and AGMA revision lifecycle limit what legacy formula references can claim. | Quick-check outputs cannot replace full thermal-bearing-integration validation. | Converts raw ratio decisions into a controlled release workflow. | SEW + ISO + AGMA |
Risks are grouped by misuse, cost, and scenario mismatch so each has an executable mitigation.
| Risk | Trigger | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ratio anchoring risk | Treating 100:1 keyword as a single fixed SKU choice | Wrong stage family selected before detailed checks | Use strict and broad ratio bands separately and confirm stage assumptions early. |
| Precision mismatch risk | Applying mainstream backlash class to sub-2 arcmin requirements | Positioning error and commissioning delays | Route to harmonic/cycloidal precision branches and validate measurement conditions. |
| Control-loop risk | Ignoring reflected inertia/tuning implications after high reduction | Oscillation or sluggish response after installation | Check reflected inertia signal and include tuning review in release gate. |
| Duty underestimation risk | Sizing on nominal torque only while starts/hour is high | Thermal overload and premature wear | Apply service-factor uplift and run conservative-mode confirmation. |
| Backdriving assumption risk | Assuming easy reversibility at very high ratios | Unexpected behavior in manual recovery or compliance tasks | Require explicit backdrive tests where reversibility matters. |
| Topology misuse risk | Forcing worm branch for precision-servo 100:1 intent | Efficiency loss and backlash mismatch | Treat worm as comparison branch and enforce η / reverse-motion / safety checks before any commitment. |
| Standards-version drift risk | Mixing legacy rating revisions with current supplier calculations without explicit version lock | Rating mismatch across teams and avoidable redesign loops | Record required standard revision (e.g., current AGMA family) in RFQ and design dossier. |
| Commercial certainty risk | Comparing public catalog values as if transaction-normalized | Weak sourcing decision quality | Use one standardized RFQ template across suppliers before ranking. |
If reliable public evidence is missing, this page keeps the gap explicit and provides a minimum next step.
| Topic | Current Status | Why Uncertain | Minimum Next Step |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-brand normalized price benchmark at 100:1 under identical duty | 待确认 / 暂无可靠公开数据（截至 2026-05-11） | Open technical pages list ranges and classes, but not transaction-normalized pricing under one shared duty template. | Collect at least 3 RFQs using one standardized duty + precision worksheet. |
| Cross-topology lifecycle parity under one identical start/stop profile | 待确认 / 暂无可靠公开数据（截至 2026-05-11） | Life claims are published under series-specific assumptions and are not directly parity-ready. | Request life-rating assumptions and derating rules from each vendor before final ranking. |
| Scenario | Premise | Process | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Packaging line indexing servo retrofit | Target around 100:1, moderate shock, <=8 arcmin requirement, high daily uptime. | Tool selects planetary branch, raises service factor with starts/hour, and returns review due torque-envelope pressure. | Team upgrades frame shortlist before RFQ and avoids undersized prototype loop. |
| Precision fixture with <=2 arcmin requirement | Ratio near 100:1 but precision target tighter than standard planetary class. | Tool routes to harmonic/cycloidal comparison and flags precision mismatch in mainstream baseline. | Project shifts evaluation focus to low-lost-motion families earlier in the cycle. |
| Legacy project with ratio drift to 130:1 | Keyword intent says 100:1 but real requirement drifts outside strict band. | Tool returns boundary review and requires architecture clarification before go decision. | Avoided locking procurement on an assumption that no longer matches the design target. |
Is 100:1 always a planetary-only decision?
No. Planetary is often the default branch, but precision and shock requirements can push harmonic or cycloidal options.
Why does this page use a strict 90:1 to 110:1 band?
The keyword intent is 100:1. Outside that band, the page keeps results in review mode to avoid false certainty.
Can I test 130:1 here?
Yes, as broad screening. The tool will still flag boundary review because it is outside strict 100:1 intent.
Why is worm not a default in this checker?
For precision-servo 100:1 intent, worm often brings higher sliding-loss and self-locking boundary conditions, so it is comparison-only by default.
How should I read reflected inertia output?
Treat it as a screening signal derived from 1 / i² scaling. Final loop stability still needs full tuning and structural checks.
Why can I get review even when torque looks feasible?
Backlash, starts/hour, ratio drift, topology mismatch, and standard-scope limits can independently trigger review status.
Does high ratio always improve motion quality?
Not automatically. It can reduce reflected inertia but may also affect reversibility and control tuning behavior.
Can I compare service factor numbers across suppliers directly?
No. Public guidance shows service-factor derivation can vary by manufacturer, so normalize duty and assumptions first.
What is the most common sizing mistake at 100:1?
Locking selection on nominal torque and catalog labels without service-factor and precision-condition checks.
What should be included in RFQ after using this tool?
Include torque profile, speed, ratio target, backlash target, duty, starts/hour, inertia assumptions, and topology preference.
How many supplier responses are enough for comparison?
At least three responses under one normalized duty + precision template is a practical baseline.
Can this page replace full engineering verification?
No. It is a gate-0 decision aid. Release still requires thermal, life, bearing, and integration verification.
Can worm self-locking be used as a sole safety function?
No. Public SEW notes explicitly reject using worm self-locking as the only hoist safety function.
What if we need both 100:1 and another reduction stage?
Split decisions by stage architecture: lock the 100:1 intent first, then evaluate additional ratio branches separately.
Source-backed fields are listed with checkpoint date. Any value without reproducible open evidence is treated as heuristic.
| Source | Checkpoint Date | Data Used | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| APEX Dynamics PGII product page | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Published stage ratio classes (2-stage to 100, 3-stage from 120) with efficiency floors (>=94% / >=91%) and backlash by stage | https://www.apexdyna.nl/en/products/pgii-series |
| Harmonic Drive CSF-GH product page | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Ratio corridor including 100:1, repeatability range, and model-level accuracy/torque context | https://www.harmonicdrive.net/products/servo-mount-gearheads/harmonic-drive/csf-gh |
| Harmonic Drive CSF-32-100-GH model page | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | 100:1 model-specific accuracy and catalog values used as precision boundary evidence | https://www.harmonicdrive.net/products/servo-mount-gearheads/harmonic-drive/csf-gh/32/csf-32-100-gh |
| maxon support: gearhead mass inertia | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Reflected inertia relation with 1 / i² scaling for geared systems | https://support.maxongroup.com/hc/en-us/articles/360006129633-Gearhead-Mass-inertia |
| maxon support: self-locking or back-drivability | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Worm/self-locking boundary note around forward efficiency below 50% and backdrivability caveats | https://support.maxongroup.com/hc/en-us/articles/5881942527132-Gears-Self-locking-or-back-drivability |
| Neugart PSFN product page | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Stage ratios, 96-97% efficiency range, standard/reduced backlash classes (including <1 arcmin rows) | https://www.neugart.com/en-us/gearboxes/precision-gearboxes/psfn |
| Neugart PSFN chapter PDF | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Catalog-level ratio/backlash/life fields used to validate planetary reference window | https://www.neugart.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Catalog_Chapters/Neugart_PSFN_EN.pdf |
| Nabtesco RV-E product page | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | RV-E public feature statements including backlash less than 1 arcmin and precision positioning context | https://precision.nabtesco.com/en/products/detail/RV-E |
| SEW application service factor (Edition 02/2026) | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Load classification thresholds and service-factor derivation versus daily operating time and switching frequency | https://download.sew-eurodrive.com/download/html/33346739/en-EN/4007542375551665968267.html |
| SEW definition of load classification (Edition 02/2026) | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Mass acceleration factor boundaries: class I <= 0.2, II <= 3, III <= 10 | https://download.sew-eurodrive.com/download/html/33346739/en-EN/39330295947.html |
| SEW service-factor comparability note | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Manufacturer-specific warning that fB derivation is not standardized and may differ across vendors | https://download.sew-eurodrive.com/download/html/31964060/en-EN/38925667595.html |
| SEW efficiency and self-locking notes | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Stage efficiency references, worm efficiency loss at high ratios, and explicit caveat against sole-safety use of self-locking | https://download.sew-eurodrive.com/download/pdf/11690615_G05.pdf |
| SEW self-locking page (Edition 05/2025) | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Self-locking relation and explicit statement not to use as sole safety function for hoists | https://download.sew-eurodrive.com/download/html/31964060/en-EN/891277837948168607755.html |
| ISO 6336-1:2019 scope page (confirmed 2025) | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Validation limits (pressure angle, helix angle, contact ratio), non-applicability cases, and assembled-system disclaimer | https://www.iso.org/standard/63819.html |
| AGMA standards listing portal | Snapshot checked: 2026-05-11 | Public standards portal for revision lifecycle context and current catalog entry points | https://www.agma.org/standards/ |
Continue with adjacent modules after finishing this 100:1 servo reducer screening flow.
Inquiry Email