[0004] However, the common "three U-shaped" (cross-sections are U-shaped outer rails, U-shaped inner rails and U-shaped ball racks) ball slides used in the prior art have an open U-shaped cross-section. The U-shaped opening structure, and since the inner rail is U-shaped, there is an opening, that is, the opening size, and the thickness of the inner rail is very large, which in turn leads to the overall thickness of the slide rail being large and unable to adapt to the thin support required by the thickness. That is to realize the
thinning of the support frame, which is one of its important defects. But suppose there is a way to make the thickness of the slide rail very thin, but the outer
diameter of the winding end of the indispensable
constant force spring in the bracket (which can be roughly regarded as circle) If it cannot be reduced, it is still impossible to realize the
thinning of the bracket. At present, the arrangement of the
constant force spring in the existing technology has highlighted another
bottleneck problem other than the slide rail that hinders the
thinning of the bracket. This is because the existing technology No matter the
constant force spring used is one or more constant force springs, its arrangement and installation in the bracket are all on roughly the same height plane, that is, in a row, and most of the constant force springs are placed in their coils. The rotation axis of the winding end is roughly parallel to the working surface and parallel to the common plane of the two slide rails (the installation of the slide rails in this direction is hereinafter referred to as upright, and the arrangement of the other 90° rotation is called lateral). The
advantage is that the size of the constant force spring can be very large when viewed from the direction of the winding axis or from the width of the
spring steel sheet. Under the same outer
diameter of the winding end (approximately a circle, the same below), it is obviously smaller than the fixed force spring with a smaller width. The tension of the force spring is proportionally large, but this is not a big problem when the thickness of the bracket (referring to the front and rear direction) is loose, and there is no requirement for thinness or thinness. However, when the appearance of the bracket is required to be very thin or even ultra-thin (assuming that the slide rail can be thinned), this is because the life requirements of the stretching times of the constant force spring always correspond to the requirements for the shape of the winding part The size has a certain outer
diameter (approximately a circle), and the outer diameter of its winding part cannot be excessively reduced, otherwise the life of the spring will not meet the requirements, and the
processing and manufacturing process and the bending requirements of the
spring steel sheet itself are not allowed to be too small Therefore, the ordinary fixed force spring installed upright will not be able to be installed in a thin bracket (assuming that the slide rail can be thinned), even if there are very few fixed force springs in the support bracket that are side-mounted, but These constant force springs include a maximum of two (because a row of ordinary brackets can only put two at most, and there is no space to arrange them), and their arrangements are all at the same height, that is, there is only one row up and down, because there is only one row. One row, if you need a thinner shape, you can only further reduce the size of the spring (note that the size under the side position does not refer to the outer diameter of the winding end, but the size of the winding end sliding axis, which is also equivalent to the steel sheet width dimension), so that the total stretch is not enough
Therefore, for a long time, when encountering such a support frame structure that requires a thin support thickness, due to the restrictions on the thickness of the slide rail and the arrangement of the constant force spring, as mentioned above, the two constraints often have to be given up, which seriously limits the product. The scope of use, especially in today's era when people are increasingly pursuing ultra-thin support frames, cannot meet people's new aesthetic needs.