Ezio199512
Guest
Hello everyone, I wanted to ask you which of the two ways to quote the bevel on the left is more correct. initially the tip is triangular, then I performed a bevel. Thank you.
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
because you do not open ten other identical posts, maybe guess the correct section since the question is not inherent to any of the 4 sections where you opened it
reply: none of the 2. you cut the tip of 3mm and just
reply: none of the 2. you cut the tip of 3mm and just
Ezio199512
Guest
I'm sorry, I thought you had to post it in the most suitable sections.
Can you tell me how it would be quoted?
Thank you.
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
I integrated the answer
Ezio199512
Guest
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
Does it make sense to share with 2 decimals? is it a particular that should be measured with the micrometer? What functionality does it have? where are the tolerances?
Ezio199512
Guest
has not been required to enter tolerances and functions. my doubt was on the quotation of the bevel in itself, because following the norm, he says to quote its length in axial direction, in this case however the bevel is perpendicular to the axial direction.
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
if quoti with 2 decimals it is not clear how to size a particular.
However, the concept of quotation is wrong.
you do not quote the tip of the triangle unless you do the drilling of the tip at a later time.
the actual size, therefore without tip, at that point it makes sense to give the dimensions of the side bevels.
size 29,97 does not serve anything
Ezio199512
Guest
I realized what you're saying to me, but the idea was born from having a triangular tip and going to beveled later, so the bevel is on the tip, not on the side dimensions. I probably complicated my life starting from the triangular tip and bevelling it. I could have achieved the same goal by betting sideways.
But now that bevel is making me mad at the quotation and clarify it
Ezio199512
Guest
because using inventor in the ipt I went to make the bevel of the tow point, so in drawing I have to quote and make understand that there was the bevel
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
just quote the cut depths as in post #5.
ask the modifiers to eliminate excess discussions and when you open a new discussion reason well on what is the topic you are facing, none of the sections in which you inserted it is suitable because it does not concern any software, but it is a technological question. There's the student section on purpose.
ask the modifiers to eliminate excess discussions and when you open a new discussion reason well on what is the topic you are facing, none of the sections in which you inserted it is suitable because it does not concern any software, but it is a technological question. There's the student section on purpose.
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
to correctly quote you always have to, always, what a particular needs and how you want to get it, otherwise the quotation will never be correct, except barrels of luck.
meccanicamg
Guest
neither. the long side and the corner... .
Do you do it first with the file??
meccanicamg
Guest
According to the rules, the measure parallel to its symmetry axis is quoted and the bevel is indicated as by quotas below.
It is predictable that the important quotas are those indicated, while in parentheses the construction quotas.
with the quota from 44.42 one adjusts to buy the crude and is the leading theorist.
It is predictable that the important quotas are those indicated, while in parentheses the construction quotas.
with the quota from 44.42 one adjusts to buy the crude and is the leading theorist.