• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

correction model

  • Thread starter Thread starter baleritec
  • Start date Start date
or instead of one of the sections I can put another perpendicular to the q-q, which cuts in 2 equal parts the piece, so that it can also give the diameter of the internal shrinkage?
Click to expand...
the internal processing of the quoting in the q-q section (remember to rename them from the a-a).
the sections, already mentioned, serve to represent parts otherwise not dimensional or light pocpo, therefore:
the q-q section (which I do not understand why you project to the left and that is in the opposite direction) serves to quote the internal processing
the j-j section for listing the holes
the o-o section to quote other holes
 
MassiVonWeizen said:
the eccentricity is quoted from the center to a known reference, in your case from the lower floor that will be worked (you can also see it in that isometric design)

this unfortunately you may know only that you have seen; but I point out that the previous section did not have the sampling so I think it was not a section.
continue to put hidden lines in the sections

it does not seem difficult; read your second table, look for the quota 95 (you have put a few will be easy) and you will find that the definition of the surrounding geometry is missing (the fins as specified by ironmike. Moreover that quota is wrong because it is a circle arc so goes the symbol of diameter.

the odds of the holes remained almost identical, you must correct them
Click to expand...
Okay, quota 95 was in the wrong view, it was only for demonstration purposes, to show that the design is not cut in the center.

Now I have to go, I answer you after and place the updated design.
 
the design must be done already with the idea that it is definitive, not to correct to attempts
 
MassiVonWeizen said:
the eccentricity is quoted from the center to a known reference, in your case from the lower floor that will be worked (you can also see it in that isometric design)
Click to expand...
Why is it wrong to share with the radius? I ask to understand

I added a half-car to mark the center, in the q-q section and from them the eccentricity, is it correct?
 
Why is it wrong to share with the radius? I ask to understand
Click to expand...
it is not wrong in absolute, but when you do work it is advisable to quote the diameter because it facilitates the work of the operator and who will control the particular. In your case I have already highlighted that between 36h7 and 72h7 there is a difference of tolerance and this obviously is not good.
this particular serves to close and block bushings and will fit with a similar half; the eccentricity serves because between the two half remains a bit of play so that the locking is guaranteed as the surfaces of the r36 machining will press on the bushing.
The concept is this.

in the drawing there are still many quotas. as I said you do as if I thought it was finished and don't go ahead to shreds
 
MassiVonWeizen said:
it is not wrong in absolute, but when you do work it is advisable to quote the diameter because it facilitates the work of the operator and who will control the particular. In your case I have already highlighted that between 36h7 and 72h7 there is a difference of tolerance and this obviously is not good.
this particular serves to close and block bushings and will fit with a similar half; the eccentricity serves because between the two half remains a bit of play so that the locking is guaranteed as the surfaces of the r36 machining will press on the bushing.
The concept is this.

in the drawing there are still many quotas. as I said you do as if I thought it was finished and don't go ahead to shreds
Click to expand...
thank you for the explanation, it served me a lot.

apart from the odds to be adjusted, is eccentricity listed well?

for the rest I do not know what to add, I have no idea how to quotise the fittings (no r16) but those that connect the fins to the tube
 
do the reverse test. from your design rebuild the model so you control the odds you miss and what you need
 
We start from the bases that seem to me to be understood little.

when you have to check that all geometry is defined dimensionally; to do this it is useful to follow a logical process similar to that in the workshop:
first you quote the external geometry or contour and you mentally appear to have put the dimensions of encumbrance, silhouettes and other
then we take care of the processing and it happens that every single processing has the quotas to define it; Moreover you always try to put the quotas of a processing on the same view so as to facilitate the reading of the drawing and not have to go looking around the sheet losing the logical path.
In the case of welded elements the concept remains similar, but the complication of dimensionalizing each individual element present should be added

Now if you make a disamination of your design you will see that:
lack the dimensions of encumbrance
lack the size of the fins in which the lamature are made
lacks the height of the fins
missing the width of the half tube
missing the depths of processing from 36
only one hole per head is listed in the two sections and holes are missing
the odds of the holes are scattered on several views
the whole of the holes perpendicular to the a-a axis is not good because it does not define the position of both holes
the whole 88 does not know how to place it
the eccentricity, term that is however wrong because the center is always that, it makes more sense to put it where there are the workings of the holes; also needs a quota to define it compared to the rest of geometry

it seems there is enough to succeed in doing something decent on which to discuss with knowledge of cause (we are at the 30# post and the design is still short-term)
 
MassiVonWeizen said:
We start from the bases that seem to me to be understood little.

when you have to check that all geometry is defined dimensionally; to do this it is useful to follow a logical process similar to that in the workshop:
first you quote the external geometry or contour and you mentally appear to have put the dimensions of encumbrance, silhouettes and other
then we take care of the processing and it happens that every single processing has the quotas to define it; Moreover you always try to put the quotas of a processing on the same view so as to facilitate the reading of the drawing and not have to go looking around the sheet losing the logical path.
In the case of welded elements the concept remains similar, but the complication of dimensionalizing each individual element present should be added

Now if you make a disamination of your design you will see that:
lack the dimensions of encumbrance
lack the size of the fins in which the lamature are madeI try to correctlacks the height of the finsaddedmissing the width of the half tubeI did not understand what you mean specifically, I added the perpendicular intersection to a-amissing the depths of processing from 3680only one hole per head is listed in the two sections and holes are missingI added x2 to everyonethe odds of the holes are scattered on several views16 holes, you mean?the whole of the holes perpendicular to the a-a axis is not good because it does not define the position of both holes
the whole 88 does not know how to place it

the eccentricity, term that is however wrong because the center is always that, it makes more sense to put it where there are the workings of the holes; also needs a quota to define it compared to the rest of geometryI don't know how to add it. or gives me the radius as at the beginning or not from the quota. Technical advice?
Click to expand...
in the quotas the answers: the diameters of the tube are still missing, I would have added the rays and bonanotte, Monday I will have a way to ask the prof. (sign of the task)
Immagine.webpfor the size of the fins I put: the height 38,4 that can be wrong because it is not from the center, but I specified the distance of the cut from the center 1,6; vertical interaxis 88; horizontal interaxis 128; radiation distance 3,2; r16 fittings.
 
Last edited:
in the quotas the answers: the diameters of the tube are still missing, I would have added the rays and bonanotte, Monday I will have a way to ask the prof. (sign of the task)
Click to expand...
What to say, do whatever you want. the drawing after 30 post is equal to the beginning.
I've written all that's missing and insist on understanding yours, I'm probably a mone who hasn't done his job for 15 years.
good make
 
MassiVonWeizen said:
What to say, do whatever you want. the drawing after 30 post is equal to the beginning.
I've written all that's missing and insist on understanding yours, I'm probably a mone who hasn't done his job for 15 years.
good make
Click to expand...
I didn't say absolutely this, I started in September, I am at the forefront of both industrial design and software use. from what I learned, I would put the rays... I didn't say it was right, because I'm following your corrections trying to understand as much as possible. I can't quote how you told me, for the reasons I explained above.
try not to argue politely.
 
Immagine.webpis also at the beginning of the 3d... if you want the file I can do upolad and send it in private
 
Last edited:
for now I tell you:
say that you send the file in private (when there is no sensitive data) is incorrect for the function of the forum because it excludes other users.
files should be attached with the appropriate forum method
you have to do the tutorials, inside and well done, solid because you shaped very badly and you notice how to miss the basics and logic of the program.

later comment your answers to my speech this morning
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 17 (members: 0, guests: 17)
Back
Top