cone/cono coupling

[d-prom]

Good evening, guys.
I found myself having to do a couple of two conical surfaces, of course identical conical, that guarantee me both coaxiality and the coincidence of the summit of the cones. Does anyone know how to do that?
thanks in advance to those who give me some tips.

 

[Tarkus]

Good evening, guys.
I found myself having to do a couple of two conical surfaces, of course identical conical, that guarantee me both coaxiality and the coincidence of the summit of the cones. Does anyone know how to do that?
thanks in advance to those who give me some tips.

That's pretty vague. .
Is that a cone inside the other?
mating together?

 

[davide75]

try to use plans?? Maybe you do a passing plan for the summit and one on the halfway

 

[d-prom]

solved, guys.

That's pretty vague. .
Is that a cone inside the other?
mating together?

simply a conical centering, that is a conical tree inside a conical hole, of course with the same conicness.

try to use plans?? Maybe you do a passing plan for the summit and one on the halfway

That can be a system. I resurfaced it making a "co-accident" coupling between the two conical surfaces, which puts them in condition of coaxiality, and then a "tangent" coupling, selecting the option to put the two surfaces one inside the other and not to the outside.
Anyway, thank you all.

 

[meccanicamg]

I did not want to create a new discussion but speaking of cones, I have recently come across the following question: How much force is needed and how much copy transmits a conical tree?
Artificial intelligence gave me very strong results.
niemann has given me high values and are probably valid for heavy applications.
Other texts, including Publications online give some simplified formulas. some online calculators give similar values and other different.
It would remain the only thing experimental, but I have no conditions to experiment.
formulas are as follows.
with:
t=pair to transmit[imath]\phi=arctan(\mu)[/imath]μ=Attrary coefficient

What experiences do you have?
how much does the reality differ from this calculation for a well-kept steel joint on stable rectified material?
niemann speaks of coupling to the press, I actually have a screw that generates strength.
I read that the coupling stabilizes after a couple of days.
is a little known phenomenon and we are in 2024....

inventor computer says:but the clamping factor varies too leading to results completely out.

 

[meccanicamg]

I saw the manual of niemann-winter-hohn machine organs treats the topic in detail, taking into account both the expansion geometry for the cazaggio, and the roughness.
It also treats the din 7190 standard as quickly as possible.
basic formulas are the same but the clamping factor is treated which also depends on the outer diameter of the hub.

annexed the German extract of a university.....that I used before understanding that on the above mentioned manual there is explained everything in Italian.
Unfortunately not knowing the German I used google lens and image after image I interpreted what was written there.

 

[meccanicamg]

today with a little more calm I am given to look at the first volume of the three.... of the niemann. in a previous post I indicated that I was given high values.
I discovered that it is actually aligned with other sources. the problem is in two directions, which make reasoning for themselves because it uses names of others to indicate different things.
the alpha angle considers it as a cone medium, while others mean alpha as the whole corner of the cone.
Moreover the interference is diametrical and not radial and therefore with three formulas are wrong numbers if you consider the indications of various sources.
So I would say that the matter is resolved.

 

[meccanicamg]

just because I fell my eye on a beautiful skf tool dedicated to mounting and dismantling cylindrical hole bearings and conical hole.
the tool is This is.
he also adopts the same parameters and formulas previously indicated, so it is aligned to the rest of the documentation.