Here is a website that sells the stuff used in bearing and low and behold they use the term Babbitt throughout the site. Why are they not sued?
http://www.uamet.com/abc.htm
Another
https://www.kappalloy.com/babbitt-alloy/
I can't find a single supplier of the material used in bearing that does not call it Babbitt.
A trademark?
https://www.trademarkia.com/trademar...spx?tn=babbitt NOPE not a trade mark for metals.
Could Brent be wrong? NO WAY, NOT EVER, even if he has to change definitions to suit himself.
I have no problem in being proved wrong, none at all that is how one learns. But being told I'm wrong "because", went out when I was 6.
So what have we learned, Brent is divine in all things model A and we are all ignorant losers who should shut up and sell our A's.
Who else is wrong? I know, the Dykes Automobile and Gasoline Engine Encyclopedia. you see even in the 1920 edition they refer to the act of babbitting and the use of Babbitt. Sending the ford Model T rods back to Ford to have them rebabbitted at a cost of $.75 cents. But that's not true because Ford did not use Babbitt, right.
What any of this has to do with the video I don't know we were led off the mark trying to gain knowledge. That ain't happening this time. The thousands and thousands of sites that sell and refer to "Babbitt" are wrong. The sites that say "Babbitt" is not a trademark like Kleenex are wrong. Only one person is right, Lord Brent.
Have a great day Brent glad I could make you feel superior.