creation rack on a cylindrical surface

[alessi0_r]

hi, we are doing with my group of the university a project for the examination of mechanical technology. we are doing a column support for drill. for the movement of the upper support we have opted for a link ruchet-cremagliera unfortunately not know how to go to create precisely the rack on the main shaft of support (the one that goes to support the whole structure) of course work I can cylindrical but around I have seen only rack
I also attached the file so if you want to take a look at it. . .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

qui qalche image of detailqui another solution.
Another is to mill the tree and fix the rack through screws and pins of centering.

from home I can't open the file, but if you talk about importing the rack I don't want you working in the environment part.
It is a work that needs to be done in the environment together where you connect the various parts with the appropriate mating constraints.

 

[marcof]

hi, we are doing with my group of the university a project for the examination of mechanical technology. we are doing a column support for drill. for the movement of the upper support we have opted for a link ruchet-cremagliera unfortunately not know how to go to create precisely the rack on the main shaft of support (the one that goes to support the whole structure) of course work I can cylindrical but around I have seen only rack
I also attached the file so if you want to take a look at it. . .

I am not very clear about the insertion of the rack. . .

If the rack should be drawn directly into the column then make a cut of extrusion for the full tooth plus half quarry to the right and half to the left of the tooth. Then make a linear repetition of that cut in the number you need to get the full rack. alternatively do the repetition of the only quarry. in any case the sketch you will use to make the cuts will have a minimum of construction geometry to correctly set the step.

If instead the rack is a separate component to be fixed on the column, which will obviously have a proper seat, then you have to work in the environment together and use the mating tools to "mount" your rack.

I saw the file you posted. I don't understand why you used that sketch so complicated that then with the feature of revolution you create a column with an internal cavity as useless as unrealizable.

 

[alessi0_r]

I am not very clear about the insertion of the rack. . .

If the rack should be drawn directly into the column then make a cut of extrusion for the full tooth plus half quarry to the right and half to the left of the tooth. Then make a linear repetition of that cut in the number you need to get the full rack. alternatively do the repetition of the only quarry. in any case the sketch you will use to make the cuts will have a minimum of construction geometry to correctly set the step.

If instead the rack is a separate component to be fixed on the column, which will obviously have a proper seat, then you have to work in the environment together and use the mating tools to "mount" your rack.

I saw the file you posted. I don't understand why you used that sketch so complicated that then with the feature of revolution you create a column with an internal cavity as useless as unrealizable.

then the initial idea was to make the rack on the tree therefore a single piece, as you said in the first part of the message, but reading I think it is better to go to fix on the tree the rack in a second moment (so when I turn on the pieces), so I would also have a greater flexibility if I have to change some quota in a second moment... for the design I weighed it so with that cavity because (according to the prof) the tree would be better

 

[marcof]

then the initial idea was to make the rack on the tree then a single piece, as you said in the first part of the message, but reading I think it is better to go to fix on the tree the rack at a later time (so when I turn the pieces up), so I would also have greater flexibility if I have to change some quotas at a later time.

the fact of having the rack milled in full or reported must depend solely on design choices, certainly not on the ease or not to make changes to the quotas on model 3d. If you plan the job well, you make all the changes that you want to make from the full part, that by bringing it back together.

for the design I did so with that cavity because (according to the prof) the tree would weigh a sproposito (it has a diameter of 60 mm) and therefore it was better to make it hollow, even if now reasoning you are right about realization.

It's not my industry, but there's a chance that it's more complicated than profit. It is not a piece of a satellite or a plane and for such a small column I have at the cost level it is not worth putting to make a deep drill only to make a lightening.
Then you see...

did you suggest me to leave just a circumference and then extrusion?

You can also make the solid of revolution, only you have to do it so that it is open to the top. the tip that will make the drill somewhere will be even entered? :wink:
I then dealt with the sketch and saw that you put two "fix" constraints in the horizontal line, down, 20 mm long and in the vertical line from 465.
remove them immediately, on the contrary, "birds", which should never be used to define the sketch completely. you have to do it using the odds, adding the diameter 60 on the vertical line from 465. Then the sketch will still walk you through the plan because you didn't leave the garden. drag the extreme right of the horizontal line from 20 mm to the origin where it will take the coincidence win automatically and you will see that all the sketch will be completely defined.

I recommend, do the tutorials before you start doing the project otherwise you risk giving you a wrapping with the 3d model from which it becomes difficult to get out without remaking half the work.
You do only two accounts of what you have to do in that simple model you posted and multiply it for 100 when you start working in the axieme.
to avoid harm: "before starting the machine read the user manual carefully"
you will work better, faster and above all without having to worry about how to draw a hollow cylinder with that particular cad, but if that cylinder must be hollow or not and why; that is designing while what I explained to you in this and other post is simply drawing.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

to be lazy if you want to reduce weight you could get the column from tube drawn; for example a 60 (tolerant ±0.25) thickness 20.
but you have to check the forces well to avoid breaks, not always what breaks is the tool.
about parallel constraints and perpendicularity do not make sense if the sketch lines are vertical and horizontal. to understand if a line is true and a horizontal are perpendicular accordingly.
beyond this as said by marcof the processing must be feasible. finished the particular try to make you an idea of the working sequence and how to perform them.
if then there are welded parts, as could be the fund from ø100, the option should be disabled to merge result in extrusion/revolution. in this way you get a multibody part

 

[marcof]

about parallel constraints and perpendicularity do not make sense if the sketch lines are vertical and horizontal. to understand if a line is true and a horizontal are perpendicular accordingly.

Ostia: eek:, I had escaped that they had put those constraints too. I had jumped to my eye the two "fixes" because to see I lacked at least one quota and I did not understand how it could be all defined.
more reason it is urgent that they do the tutorials from those of the sketch.. .

 

[alessi0_r]

Ostia: eek:, I had escaped that they had put those constraints too. I had jumped to my eye the two "fixes" because to see I lacked at least one quota and I did not understand how it could be all defined.
more reason it is urgent that they do the tutorials from those of the sketch.. .

All right, to say thank you seems to me too little for all the tips you gave me:biggrin: I will see to fix everything...a question if for fixing the top cap I use a thread? in the threaded sense the inner cylinder of the column so I can screw the cap... according to you go?

 

[marcof]

All right, to say thank you seems to me too little for all the tips you gave me:biggrin: I will see to fix everything...a question if for fixing the top cap I use a thread? in the threaded sense the inner cylinder of the column so I can screw the cap... according to you go?

depends on the function of the cap. if it is for the powder it is enough one of the plastic pressure ones that are used to close the tubes of the head. If it has mechanical functions (and in such a small column drill, I just don't think of which) you need to know if it's enough a viable metal cap.

 

[alessi0_r]

depends on the function of the cap. if it is for the powder it is enough one of the plastic pressure ones that are used to close the tubes of the head. If it has mechanical functions (and in such a small column drill, I just don't think of which) you need to know if it's enough a viable metal cap.

I imagined, now I also see that the prof says about it because it would be useful to block the upper support so that it does not escape the tree.. .

 

[marcof]

depends on the function of the cap. if it is for the powder it is enough one of the plastic pressure ones that are used to close the tubes of the head. If it has mechanical functions (and in such a small column drill, I just don't think of which) you need to know if it's enough a viable metal cap.

I imagined, now I also see that the prof says about it because it would be useful to block the upper support so that it does not escape the tree.. .

but do you already have a pattern, a sketch, a reference model for this column drill? I ask you why to feel that the plug above should prevent the parade of the support comes to me new, at least for those that are the column tapani that I have in mind.https://www.google.it/search?q=trap...flsgbtxyc4cg&ved=0caoq_auoaq&biw=1232&bih=510Here you can find it in bizeffe, including some small ones, of the "baracchini" from hobbista, where all the group with motor and rod of the spindle is raised compared to the fixed table by means of a rack. otherwise is the intermediate table between the base and the engine group that moves through the rack.
even if it was a supproto for manual drills like thesehttps://www.google.it/search?q=supp...rf4qsk14cwaw&ved=0caoq_auoaq&biw=1232&bih=510which are for 99% of traps, the need for a higher stop is relative. Just a screw fixed at the top of the column to prevent the support from escaping you by mistake while adjusting the height.

 

[alessi0_r]

but do you already have a pattern, a sketch, a reference model for this column drill? I ask you why to feel that the plug above should prevent the parade of the support comes to me new, at least for those that are the column tapani that I have in mind.https://www.google.it/search?q=trap...flsgbtxyc4cg&ved=0caoq_auoaq&biw=1232&bih=510Here you can find it in bizeffe, including some small ones, of the "baracchini" from hobbista, where all the group with motor and rod of the spindle is raised compared to the fixed table by means of a rack. otherwise is the intermediate table between the base and the engine group that moves through the rack.
even if it was a supproto for manual drills like thesehttps://www.google.it/search?q=supp...rf4qsk14cwaw&ved=0caoq_auoaq&biw=1232&bih=510which are for 99% of traps, the need for a higher stop is relative. Just a screw fixed at the top of the column to prevent the support from escaping you by mistake while adjusting the height.

Of course! however it is a support for manual drills...it does not have a real internal motor with spindle etc. like a psychic for example. the idea was that of a shouldering that blocked the race of the support but it is an idea there is nothing definitive in fact we were thinking of a different system so as not to make another piece or however not to do a shouldering on the column.. .