sampom
Guest
I allow myself to rectify slightly:
example of what a good technician can do along with good operators (with the help of the necessary equipment):biggrin::finger:
..regardless of the instrument used, which can well be the pencil (as it has always been).. Who puts it?
greetings
Marco:smile:
Mike1967
Guest
here a nice file in version 2010.. .
even this in a unique piece, my bending machine is a masochist.. .
even this in a unique piece, my bending machine is a masochist.. .
PiegatoreSolidworks
Guest
PiegatoreSolidworks
Guest
I can't even see this!:frown::frown:
PiegatoreSolidworks
Guest
I fully agree that I am both technical and operator!:finger:
Mike1967
Guest
CIARLY
Guest
no I normally let it out because I have a punching machine and this does not digest much those small arches that are generated, with simplified folds are developed easier to punch.
for the series unique pieces I attach you a piece.
I see with pleasure that it begins to come out some people chewing sheet, very well
PiegatoreSolidworks
Guest
Well I am 13 years old in the industry and from us there is a cnc punching machine, laser cutting and welding robot.... besides all the rest of the manual machines! :finger:
...the pieces you posted to me, both charly and mike, are not so difficult, sometimes I happen really impossible, but I always solve them... .
a question: why do you use such tight rays for bending? Maybe why do you work better in case I cut you extruded, or anything? in the piece of charly I noticed that it is aluminum and that always takes very narrow rays, but I still use to draw with the fold radius that brings me the matrix in use...
Last edited:
CIARLY
Guest
As far as my case was concerned, I had to use small rays because greater rays with edge locks created more complex grooves with maybe small steps of 1 mmt. that I couldn't bear, then I put myself to use 0.1 radius equal to the breath in the middle of the pieghi and I always found myself well, just adjust the factor k that functions and there is no problem.
SolidUser
Guest
I'm not an idea.
I think we must follow the production process and with the corrections coming from the workshop we go to perfect the table of factor k.
use a radius 2 on the punch, then it must be 2 also the radius on sw and so on.
if there are cracks in reality and not on the cad or vice versa, these are experiences that mature and insert into the next project.
designing with a generalized escamotage makes no sense.
What is the use of cad and sheet metal?
CIARLY
Guest
You are perfectly right when possible, I had to do also cam programs for the puncher and my cam those grooves did not digest them just and then, a hit to the circle and one to the barrel and one to fix.
PiegatoreSolidworks
Guest
I agree with you but I also understand what Ciarly says.
Mike1967
Guest
bè, imaparato to use cad 3d for necessity and when I noticed
of the help he could give no more or less.
But this should not affect the programming costs of an object, if not the discord falls.
to be found that, personally, I learned to draw directly on the
sheet metal and I find a waste of time, only by dot, increase design costs.
Perhaps I am superficial, but in my company we need to produce with
the least possible cost, the need sharpens the ingenuity... and if to get the same result I put r 0.01 I just do it.
r 0.01 but saved several times, especially with older sw versions.
There are objects designed with real rays you can't just pull out.. so r fittizio a vita.:biggrin:probably who approached solidworks in recent years has benefited, now it is possible
modify and implement folds and flanges that in old versions made you mad. is not affected to avoid some settings that now, probably, are
reliable and well-used.
I noticed that from the 2007 version onwards they have implemented a lot of functions and improvements, evidently the demands of us users has made this wonderful sw significantly improve.
Good dassault... .
It is also true that sometimes you are forced to set the real fold radius (objects that go into contact or shoulders to make sides coincide etc. etc.) in that case, pay that moment trying not to be more than necessary.
of the help he could give no more or less.
But this should not affect the programming costs of an object, if not the discord falls.
to be found that, personally, I learned to draw directly on the
sheet metal and I find a waste of time, only by dot, increase design costs.
Perhaps I am superficial, but in my company we need to produce with
the least possible cost, the need sharpens the ingenuity... and if to get the same result I put r 0.01 I just do it.
r 0.01 but saved several times, especially with older sw versions.
There are objects designed with real rays you can't just pull out.. so r fittizio a vita.:biggrin:probably who approached solidworks in recent years has benefited, now it is possible
modify and implement folds and flanges that in old versions made you mad. is not affected to avoid some settings that now, probably, are
reliable and well-used.
I noticed that from the 2007 version onwards they have implemented a lot of functions and improvements, evidently the demands of us users has made this wonderful sw significantly improve.
Good dassault... .
It is also true that sometimes you are forced to set the real fold radius (objects that go into contact or shoulders to make sides coincide etc. etc.) in that case, pay that moment trying not to be more than necessary.
SolidUser
Guest
do as you like, once said... I'm fine with everyone, but our products are 80% of sheet and these escamotages have never used them.
there are companies that do only sheet metal and also these escamotage do not use them.
the sheet metal environment is used to create development.
the program must be known as knowing the bending process.
the bending process you learn after years, not because a cad gives you the possibility to design the sheet and get the development.
the development is linked to the bending machine, the quarry, the punch, the material to the tonnage, etc...
all this makes that the development that the cad gives you is not always true, in fact these parameters that I mentioned do not find them in any cad, you take them into account through factor k.
Moreover the deformations that create a result not corresponding to that of the cad, add it by adding material or removing material, not bringing the radius to zero and putting an unreal k value.
these accumulations can create problems at the design level of assemblies and then in case you purchase a bending machine that reads your file to obtain some information. What are you doing?
with the historian you are screwed and with the new you have to reset your experience and data because you have to question everything.
there are companies that do only sheet metal and also these escamotage do not use them.
the sheet metal environment is used to create development.
the program must be known as knowing the bending process.
the bending process you learn after years, not because a cad gives you the possibility to design the sheet and get the development.
the development is linked to the bending machine, the quarry, the punch, the material to the tonnage, etc...
all this makes that the development that the cad gives you is not always true, in fact these parameters that I mentioned do not find them in any cad, you take them into account through factor k.
Moreover the deformations that create a result not corresponding to that of the cad, add it by adding material or removing material, not bringing the radius to zero and putting an unreal k value.
these accumulations can create problems at the design level of assemblies and then in case you purchase a bending machine that reads your file to obtain some information. What are you doing?
with the historian you are screwed and with the new you have to reset your experience and data because you have to question everything.
Mike1967
Guest
soliduser, I understand what you mean, but I've been doing this for 10 years and so far.
I did not sing a development, if not for unrelated dimensional errors
to software.
are in the field since 1985 years with direct experience to the fold, rightly with the means we had at the time.
for practicality suitable only the factor k.
thinks that up to 10 years ago the development was created with the 2d, other than rays
realistic fold...:biggrin: and first again, stripe and tip by sign.
I did not sing a development, if not for unrelated dimensional errors
to software.
are in the field since 1985 years with direct experience to the fold, rightly with the means we had at the time.
for practicality suitable only the factor k.
thinks that up to 10 years ago the development was created with the 2d, other than rays
realistic fold...:biggrin: and first again, stripe and tip by sign.