design of particular

[Martakynghi]

salve vorrei sapere se sa bene

 

[TECNOMODEL]

many odds are missing, the projection is wrong.
I'd say it's not good.

 

[Chris_BRB]

salve vorrei sapere se sa bene

it would be good if the view below was on the right side (European view)

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

it would be good if the view below was on the right side (European view)

It wouldn't be... alternatively, if the space does not allow it, the drift arrow must be inserted and the relative indication (similar to the sections).
I wonder how he made projections by putting the views that way

 

[Martakynghi]

the first is profile and the one below...

 

[Martakynghi]

Is it okay if the detail puts it this way? And I design the views by seeing it that way?

 

[TECNOMODEL]

a little better.
but I would do the front view and a section. in this I would quote the diameters and threads.
In the front you did, I wouldn't put that 10 on the final point of a ray, but the center of the radius itself.
unless that quota is functional, but it doesn't seem to me by seeing the piece.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

beyond this design you are still waiting for your answer to this discussion you open https://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/esercizio-di-disegno-tecnico-meccanico.56681/.

on this design:
missing hidden lines
as it is the round part to be 40 and the total, much longer, always 40 (right view)
That diameter 30, you don't understand what it is: a capped mouthpiece?
very narrow tolerances on rough surfaces do not work well
the hole from m167 being tolerated should not be quoted by a rough surface, but by the other hole

Is it okay if the detail puts it this way? And I design the views by seeing it that way?

no because the constructive drawings are not that way.
in the light of these images I tell you that your design is wrong (the hole from 30) and lacks a view to see the ribs of the mouth

 

[Martakynghi]

Should I have another view? with regard to roughness and tolerances the professor said it is enough to assign them well does not make a difference if it is 0.01 or 0.05

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Should I have another view?

for you is clearly represented the 10 distant part 25 under the bushing?

with regard to roughness and tolerances the professor said it is enough to assign them well does not make a difference if it is 0.01 or 0.05

This is right because without knowing what a component needs, one cannot define the value of tolerances, but if one imposes tolerance, one must also define the degree of processing and therefore of roughness.

 

[Martakynghi]

I thought I put all the odds... Now?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

the view on the top left does not understand what it should represent.
What are those 25, 10, 5?
look well how the isometric view of the exercise is made, there are all the necessary quotas, you have to verify that you have put them in your design.
the 30 hole continues to be wrong.
before there were tolerances and now there are no more.... why?

 

[Martakynghi]

the top left view is lateral floor to the right p.v and under p.o

 

[Martakynghi]

30 xk diameter is wrong?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

30 xk diameter is wrong?

si

 

[Martakynghi]

So I'm gonna... cmq I reversed pv views with pl
25 10 and 5 in the po I gate and leave the 25?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I didn't write that hole 30 doesn't go, I wrote that it's wrong. to be more precise is not a hole, but a lamatura and is represented wrong.
pv, pl, little are terms that tell me nothing.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

I thought I put all the odds... Now?

the view below is wrong as a projection, unless you are using "American" projections.

 

[Martakynghi]

the view below is wrong as a projection, unless you are using "American" projections.

I should represent it from below.

 

[Martakynghi]

I didn't write that hole 30 doesn't go, I wrote that it's wrong. to be more precise is not a hole, but a lamatura and is represented wrong.
pv, pl, little are terms that tell me nothing.

excuse my ignorance but then can I ask you where the diameter 30 of cylindrical enlargement is placed?