[lamiera] welded edges

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

:biggrin:

my esteemed colleague, tells me that already only the sense of cutting objects
equal, but cut perpendicularly one compared to the other on the same sheet,
have different bending pressure, other than tables and technical data.
he creates fold programs that take into account the satin sense
and cutting sense above.
all these things are not configurable by any manual:
field experience is our gym.

:smile:

I am professional bending and I confirm 100% what my colleague says! It's a matter of sheet metal fiber. .

 

[SolidUser]

Maybe that "minimum allowed", but from there you can decide what you want.
and anyway it is what we are telling you all; "the formulas" arise from the real process and not vice versa.

and say little. .


I think that's what we all do. You don't tell us anything new.
So you see that your book formulas serve little if you don't check out and finish filling out "in the car"?

greetings
Marco:smile:

But what are you saying?
but do you know the formula for the calculation of development?
everything is related to the neutral line of the thickness in the fold radius and is a simple algebraic formula.
born from the mathematicians of cad programs that of plates know nothing.
same thing for the fem, the only incognity are the characteristics of the material, but for the rest are mathematical formulas made by those who never broke a audition.

I don't love changing the fold radius, I leave it as what would result, otherwise it would force me to use a special knife or unconventional machine parameters.

You say I'm not saying anything new?
Maybe you have no idea what's going on.
I refresh you....I context that you can not recommend a customised method without real benefits, when there is an official method, documented and approved, where the benefits are clearly superior.

to say that formulas serve little, then I no longer discuss...I already have enough elements to understand.

 

[SolidUser]

my esteemed colleague, tells me that already only the sense of cutting objects
equal, but cut perpendicularly one compared to the other on the same sheet,
have different bending pressure, other than tables and technical data.
he creates fold programs that take into account the satin sense
and cutting sense above.
all these things are not configurable by any manual:
field experience is our gym.

all true, but never used.
How do you do with a sheet of 3000x2000 to optimize it by making nesting to keep on the same piece always the same direction of the fiber?
And if you put other pieces in that sheet with different shapes?
all this to reduce the maximum amount of the rash, because as you know, the rash does not pay you.

I don't know what pieces you do and what size they have, but lose 10 hours or more, considering that it costs 45 euros and more then to scan all the archive of the drawings to find the perfect nesting that takes into account the direction of the fiber, then avoid an error of how much?
Mah. .

 

[Mike1967]

It's the only variable you get experimentally.You're already fine.
we have done these tests with the materials we use.
we have the k factor that varies with the thickness.so when designing a sheet, once you set the thickness through the table 'gauge', I already have everything, because the formulas inserted in the excel sheet set the parameters factor k and fold radius.

Yeah?
Do you know that the fk also changes according to the fold angles?? ?
there may be abysmal differences:
1)-lam alu sp 1.5 mm, angle 90° fk 0.23 (r folds what results from a 12 mm quarry)
2)-lam alu sp 1.5 mm, angle 180° fk 1 (r fold near 0 -zero-)
3)-lam alu sp1.5 mm, angle 90° bending r 20 fk 0.5...

Here, I took out your table and tell me if these are the values you can find.. . .
well note the crushed fold, you have to add a thickness... If not it is short, I bet the table that bending is wrong.

ps: Of course the fk values of this post are related to my parameters detected
tests carried out on board machine with precision goniometer aid, caliber
and set of knives with r0.8/punzoni tecnostamp.

 

[SolidUser]

Yeah?
Do you know that the fk also changes according to the fold angles?? ?
there may be abysmal differences:
1)-lam alu sp 1.5 mm, angle 90° fk 0.23 (r folds what results from a 12 mm quarry)
2)-lam alu sp 1.5 mm, angle 180° fk 1 (r fold near 0 -zero-)
3)-lam alu sp1.5 mm, angle 90° bending r 20 fk 0.5...

Here, I took out your table and tell me if these are the values you can find.. . .
well note the crushed fold, you have to add a thickness... If not it is short, I bet the table that bending is wrong.

ps: Of course the fk values of this post are related to my parameters detected
tests carried out on board machine with precision goniometer aid, caliber
and set of knives with r0.8/punzoni tecnostamp.

Of course... but we do not bow from 0° to 180°.
You do?
design also means this, avoid making a fold at 22°.
our folds are 90°.
sometimes if there is no other solution we accept the 15-30-45-60-75°, but very rare and however before passing they look at us in many.
not because we miss the factor k, but because if you mistake also of a degree and these are coupled to others, then you do not take anymore.
and then it is easier to hold a right angle than not.

I took a look at your excel table, but your k factor values are real or related to the fact that you have a fold radius tending to 0?
My parents are quite discordant.

 

[Mike1967]

all true, but never used.
How do you do with a sheet of 3000x2000 to optimize it by making nesting to keep on the same piece always the same direction of the fiber?
And if you put other pieces in that sheet with different shapes?
all this to reduce the maximum amount of the rash, because as you know, the rash does not pay you.

I don't know what pieces you do and what size they have, but lose 10 hours or more, considering that it costs 45 euros and more then to scan all the archive of the drawings to find the perfect nesting that takes into account the direction of the fiber, then avoid an error of how much?
Mah. .

simple, try, in the limit of possible, to put equal pieces
in the same direction.
however you underestimate the capabilities of all other users, you are
too technical, but really too much, trust me.
three months ago we took a big job and when I talked about technical details with the company's chief engineer, I told him that everything
We draw in 3d is how it will result in reality.
to this affliction of mine, he laughed, saying to me,
satisfied with "one who knows": I've never seen a piece come as
drawing... at the first shot....
from the heads that was an imbecile....:biggrin:
After the delivery of the material, I receive a call: weee... as long as... how do you go... all right????... congratulations for the pieces, I wouldn't have bet. blah...blah...

for me it was a good satisfaction. ...

useless to say that we have not made evidence, the pieces have considerable dimensions. . .
I can't tell you the customer's name since our material will be
at the fair in germany to present a new type of boiler and the project
It is clearly armored.
However, good pieces with wide rays, net bends, reiterated and also
folds on trunk-conical pieces, all in stainless ac and alu.

 

[Mike1967]

I took a look at your excel table, but your k factor values are real or related to the fact that you have a fold radius tending to 0?
My parents are quite discordant.

Let's pretend I never wrote it...:biggrin:

the k factor values found in all the tables published on this forum, by me, are values that have been deducted from evidence on real pieces.
I hope it's clear... Now.
if you want to understand how, ask one of your new graduate designers that
I'm too ignorant to explain, I just know how to do it.

 

[SolidUser]

simple, try, in the limit of possible, to put equal pieces
in the same direction.
however you underestimate the capabilities of all other users, you are
too technical, but really too much, trust me.
three months ago we took a big job and when I talked about technical details with the company's chief engineer, I told him that everything
We draw in 3d is how it will result in reality.
to this affliction of mine, he laughed, saying to me,
satisfied with "one who knows": I've never seen a piece come as
drawing... at the first shot....
from the heads that was an imbecile....:biggrin:
After the delivery of the material, I receive a call: weee... as long as... how do you go... all right????... congratulations for the pieces, I wouldn't have bet. blah...blah...

for me it was a good satisfaction. ...

useless to say that we have not made evidence, the pieces have considerable dimensions. . .
I can't tell you the customer's name since our material will be
at the fair in germany to present a new type of boiler and the project
It is clearly armored.
However, good pieces with wide rays, net bends, reiterated and also
folds on trunk-conical pieces, all in stainless ac and alu.

see, you are a contractor and work by contractor and a sheet of sheet the order and optimisation for that contract.
we get steel tir every week.
the sheet should be optimized for the pieces we produce, you can't do what you say.
the only thing that the designer must indicate is the 'beautiful' part of the project, as a part of the sheet is always lined, but also here it is not always true, come matches that pity and only a double painting hides the defect and if it remains in sight, it becomes discarded.

I'll be too technical, maybe because I'm a technician, but I assure you that I've seen some pieces bent out of a bad size.
when they arrived online... they were thrown away.
You know what?
this to tell you that everything must be done as a rule of art in the planning stage and nothing left to chance.
the folder can also be one who until yesterday made the pastry chef.
It's clear that the experience helps, but it helps if the designer does the maroni.

 

[Mike1967]

the folder can also be one who until yesterday made the pastry chef.

a par of dances!!
from this phrase you understand that you never bent, it's all explained now.


Perhaps in the assembly chain, but in a workshop it must know well his craft if not
after the first fold takes the piece and throws it because it does not get to do
The second fold... that was done first...hahahahah

 

[sampom]

... comes from the mathematicians of cad programs that they know nothing...

Yes!
and this is not symptomatic according to you? ?

What about your "projectist"?

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[SolidUser]

a par of dances!!
from this phrase you understand that you never bent, it's all explained now.


Perhaps in the assembly chain, but in a workshop it must know well his craft if not
after the first fold takes the piece and throws it because it does not get to do
The second fold... that was done first...hahahahah

we are two different realities.
if it fails a folder in the workshop because he retired and the company takes one who will pay little, like a pastry chef (so he will bring once a week in the workshop his leccornie), being a low profile job, he thinks that for that type of work you learn over time, devoting a person for a defined time.

If a person of that caliber fails, they're not looking for someone who's bent for 20 years and is now unemployed.
but this is a different speech from the subject we are dealing with.

 

[SolidUser]

What about your "projectist"?

greetings
Marco:smile:

former colleague, now working at the help desk.
the designer cannot and should not be wrong.
If it is wrong, the chain of errors that comes downstream of its work costs a capital and to remedy are bitter cabbages.
orders to the production or to the supplier to manually remand with filling solutions if it is okay or to remake, review planning, information at all levels,etc...a real casino.

 

[sampom]

But what are you saying?
but do you know the formula for the calculation of development?

Surely!

everything is related to the neutral line of the thickness in the fold radius and is a simple algebraic formula. .

and here nothing new, we know it well.

I don't love changing the fold radius, I leave it as what would result, otherwise it would force me to use a special knife or unconventional machine parameters. . .

You say I'm not saying anything new?
Maybe you have no idea what's going on.
I'll refresh you...

I have a clear idea, the theory (with the various formulas) I have known it for almost 40 years, I do not need refreshed:biggrin:

and the cad of her does nothing (if not simple calculator); of course and obvious that there are formulas studied by mathematical ideas, but these are to be compiled by the user who must provide the data collected. I don't think anyone says: < tiè ciapa.. these are the k factors absolutely accurate for all materials, thicknesses, rays and corners of the world. press button and do not think of anything>>>.

who then, who knows why, to me it seems that everyone (including you) are saying the same thing.
you say you did the tests and detected by the real for materials and thicknesses the factors k; as well as me.
say you use the real rays coming out of the fold; Me too.
say that all the data collected then insert them into the cad that processes them with its formulas providing unique and repeatable results; That's what I do. .
and then what is the reason for the contender? Don't we understand?

that then someone "for his dialect" uses "irreal theorists" (magari tending to zero) the final result does not change. development will always be that, since it was detected by the real and then adjusting to the cad factor k. Obviously the k will be different from ours and we can not use it with our rays, but in the workshop this does not interest. the operator only has to trust the drawing size and, as you say, the radius will come out as physically he wants (if you have not asked for details).

Solidu, what do you say? one of sti days we go together to make an improvised to the good mike?:biggrin: (maybe when he has the new dial)

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[sampom]

the designer cannot and should not be wrong.

I would correct slightly:
the designer does not have to, but he may be wrong (and we would miss it.. Are you perfect? ).
the fact is that more than one mistake means being blind..:biggrin: (or have no idea what you are doing).

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[SolidUser]

I would correct slightly:
the designer does not have to, but he may be wrong (and we would miss it.. Are you perfect? ).
the fact is that more than one mistake means being blind..:biggrin: (or have no idea what you are doing).

greetings
Marco:smile:

It's logical that he can be wrong.
but how justified is that? and what is the incidence of his mistake?
because of his lightness or because they didn't give him enough or wrong data?
If a folder is wrong, throw away a dozen euros, if the designer is wrong, how much does this mistake cost?

 

[SolidUser]

Surely!

and here nothing new, we know it well.

I have a clear idea, the theory (with the various formulas) I have known it for almost 30 years, I do not need refreshed:biggrin:

and the cad of her does nothing (if not simple calculator); of course and obvious that there are formulas studied by mathematical ideas, but these are to be compiled by the user who must provide the data collected. I don't think anyone says: < tiè ciapa.. these are the k factors absolutely accurate for all materials, thicknesses, rays and corners of the world. press button and do not think of anything>>>.

who then, who knows why, to me it seems that everyone (including you) are saying the same thing.
you say you did the tests and detected by the real for materials and thicknesses the factors k; as well as me.
say you use the real rays coming out of the fold; Me too.
say that all the data collected then insert them into the cad that processes them with its formulas providing unique and repeatable results; That's what I do. .
and then what is the reason for the contender? Don't we understand?

that then someone "for his dialect" uses "irreal theorists" (magari tending to zero) the final result does not change. development will always be that, since it was detected by the real and then adjusting to the cad factor k. Obviously the k will be different from ours and we can not use it with our rays, but in the workshop this does not interest. the operator only has to trust the size to design and, as you say, the radius will come out as physically he wants.

Solidu, what do you say? one of sti days we go together to make an improvised to the good mike?:biggrin: (maybe when he has the new dial)

greetings
Marco:smile:

I repeat for the last time.
I context the fact that one, only because it gets the correct development, gives suggestions on strategies to use to users who would take it properly only because it folds for twenty years, when there is another method with uncompromising advantages, but that he does not believe reliable (said by him, his method has undubbi benefits).

mike uses his method and gets the correct development? yes.
does it bring benefits, apart from the calculation of development? No.
There is another method to calculate development ? yes.
Who knows? It's integrated into the cad.
Does it bring benefits, apart from the calculation of development? yes.

I feel like I'm contesting and I want to transfer to those who read it.
use the integrated method in the cad.
designed making the piece more compliant to the real possible.
the variable that is missing and that is the factor k, find them experimentally as they all do.

 

[Mike1967]

the variable that is missing and that is the factor k, find them experimentally as they all do.

mmhuuauaaaaa... is what I support since the first post... Finally you are
Come on!

However it is slightly discriminating and humiliating what you say and your wonderful previous post.... but I am happy with one thing:
it is easier to replace a "geniere" or designer than a folder. . .
because a "frutta" directly, the other "frutta" only in theory... Now forget me.. .

... and remember that a designer will never be wrong. . because it tests the malcapitato
bending the development and if by disgrace the poor, wrong from the ok is lapidated. . .
other than.
here we are in the presence of a "white collar", compliments for what you think
for who, "on the field," makes you earn your salary.
with this for me the discussion came to the capilinea, good continuation!

That's funny. .

 

[SolidUser]

However it is slightly discriminating and humiliating what you say in your wonderful previous post. . . .
here we are in the presence of a "white collar", compliments for what you think
for who, "on the field," makes you earn your salary.
with this for me the discussion came to the capilinea, good continuation!

That's funny. .

Are you offended because I considered a folder low profile?
Do we put it at the same level as a new graduate designer?
Do we give him the same pay?
What term should I have used instead of profile?
less lucky?
What is your reality and version of the facts between the two tasks?
What kind of investigation would you do about the two?
Would the bending machine suit you even if it has only the third average, but does it look like a good worker or do you look for it with ten years of experience in the field?
for the designer do the same thing?

see mike, I don't think I've written chestnuts, even if they may have chewed someone, I've been sketchy and realistic, instead you try to make the don-chisiotte of the situation, when by chance from the stupid to the folder who made a turn before the other.

 

[SolidUser]

... and remember that a designer will never be wrong. . because it tests to the poor bend the development and if by misfortune the poor, wrong from the ok is stoned. . .
other than.
here we are in the presence of a "white collar", compliments for what you think
for who, "on the field," makes you earn your salary.
That's funny. .

there are various categories of designers, engineers and workers.
who takes responsibility and who does not take them.
I take it, but my mistake costs much more than a worker's.
I'm at the beginning of the project chain and if I'm wrong, the cost of error increases at every step.
even if I am sitting in front of a pc and I do not lift every day 500 kg of iron, I assure you that I arrive at the evening that I am tired.
theut is the heart of a company.
projects start there and the problems affect them.
I'm sorry that you consider me the white collar that doesn't get dirty, I'm the opposite as many of my fellow engineers are.

I do not discriminate, but you cannot put on the same level who studied and continues to do so by those who did not.

experience is important, logical, but not enough, because to the first abnormal situation, who has only experience goes to feeling, who studied the solution finds it.

who makes money to the company is the innovation that is made, because if you do not make innovation you are cut out and orders do not arrive.

 

[sampom]

mike uses his method and gets the correct development?...
Is there another method to calculate development?...
Who knows? It's integrated into the cad.

mike uses the same method as mine and yours, and with the data detected it makes processing from the system integrated into the cad (and it is always the first to praise the features of swx), exactly like me and you.
simply establishes theoretical rays a priori, different from the real. Obviously based on these adjustments k to bring developments to the detected real dimensions. but all this does not change the calculations that use the same formulas.

if you have read throughout the forum, in all sections of the various cads, when talking about sheet metal with the requests of the k factors, always you answer to try and detect them on the field.. This is the "nothing back under the sun":biggrin:, because we all do it, always (except the new designers _a moment before calling them designers_ even graduates, who find themselves in the hand a cad that "does everything" are found paved when they cannot solve a simple development.. which, by the way, has always been "handed" since the night of time. )

greetings
Marco:smile: