subset components

[andreaf93]

good evening, when you have a set in which there are flexible components (so that they have couplings that define only a position or concentricity ensuring a swing or however the movement you need) is normal that these components are subdefined?

I make a practical example: Let's imagine a system like that of the photo, the pinions are well positioned the idem belt and the shirts are all coupled with the belt itself.
the only movement is the normal rotation of the pinions and as a result of the mesh along the path of the belt, as you notice however all the pinions and all the repetitions of the mesh are under defined.

Thank you.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

If a component is not underdefinite, then it has blocked all the degrees of freeing, how does it move?
However, there are no flexible sub-axioms in that unit, nor do we see its mobile components.
in fact this is not a set with flexible components, but a set with components not blocked in all degrees of freedom

 

[andreaf93]

If a component is not underdefinite, then it has blocked all the degrees of freeing, how does it move?
However, there are no flexible sub-axioms in that unit, nor do we see its mobile components.
in fact this is not a set with flexible components, but a set with components not blocked in all degrees of freedom

I impose the axieme of the flexible image when I go to insert it into the general axieme where there are all the other components of the project.
However the important thing is that it is not considered a "mistake" to leave parts or assemblies under defined in case of movements like that in the photo.

 

[teseo]

Hi.
It is not a mistake otherwise it will never become flexible, the flexible axieme is subdefined by force otherwise it will never move.

Hi.

 

[andreaf93]

Thank you very much