dense wheel section

[ste8]

Bye to all,
some of you will certainly have already read the discussion in the section "students mechanical engineering". I now have a problem with sw 2007, it seems right to ask the question here:

once the table of a set (for the record it is a parallel axle reducer), how do I make the schematic design according to rules of the dentate wheels, as solid me "cut" in half everything you find?

Thank you.
greetings
steak

 

[sampom]

once the table of a set (for the record it is a parallel axle reducer), how do I make the schematic design according to rules of the dentate wheels, as solid me "cut" in half everything you find?

Hi there. Are you going on?

I understand what you mean and it will look like nonsense, instead you have asked a very good question: why demonstrate application in the study of "antiche" technical design standards. norms that unfortunately "the automation" of cad 3d does not always succeed in respect. flashing case, like this, is the classic table 2d. the programs are exactly 3d and although full of comfortable functions, part 2d "black on white" seems a little neglected (they do, even quite well, but they are not born for that).
and it's what, to me old designer "amanuense" (it's about 3 years I use swx) makes me :biggrin:.

as you rightly noticed when you make a section the program cuts everything that finds along the section plan. together you can exclude components from cutting but in this case you do not need.
where there is material of one body the program ("stupid") does not distinguish the tooth from the rest of the wheel.. and worse in the gear, where the teeth "intersect". see or empty or full.

And there's no way, you have to keep it that way. or if you have patience and time to lose you hide the fields and lines and, by hand, with the sketches at the table, rebuild the right continuous lines and treated according to norm, the axes that indicate the øprimitivo etc.. then put the samples back as notes in the regions where they serve... but it is an absurd job for programs that should "do all of them".
see you, perhaps if the prof. knows cad maybe does not require "perfection" in that sense. informed.

there are other "inconsistencies" in the tables, going forward with the use you will notice.. However, in the end, it is arranged.

greetings and good work
Marco:smile:

 

[ste8]

Hi there. Are you going on?

I understand what you mean and it will look like nonsense, instead you have asked a very good question: why demonstrate application in the study of "antiche" technical design standards. norms that unfortunately "the automation" of cad 3d does not always succeed in respect. flashing case, like this, is the classic table 2d. the programs are exactly 3d and although full of comfortable functions, part 2d "black on white" seems a little neglected (they do, even quite well, but they are not born for that).
and it's what, to me old designer "amanuense" (it's about 3 years I use swx) makes me :biggrin:.

as you rightly noticed when you make a section the program cuts everything that finds along the section plan. together you can exclude components from cutting but in this case you do not need.
where there is material of one body the program ("stupid") does not distinguish the tooth from the rest of the wheel.. and worse in the gear, where the teeth "intersect". see or empty or full.

And there's no way, you have to keep it that way. or if you have patience and time to lose you hide the fields and lines and, by hand, with the sketches at the table, rebuild the right continuous lines and treated according to norm, the axes that indicate the øprimitivo etc.. then put the samples back as notes in the regions where they serve... but it is an absurd job for programs that should "do all of them".
see you, perhaps if the prof. knows cad maybe does not require "perfection" in that sense. informed.

there are other "inconsistencies" in the tables, going forward with the use you will notice.. However, in the end, it is arranged.

greetings and good work
Marco:smile:

thanks for the answer, I am very happy

I think about it.

In the meantime, I ask you something else on the table of the aid:

to do the section, I had to insert the front view, do the section and then hide it. Now, when I do the automatic bubble (other than the fact that for example the bearings downloaded from theskf are formed by various parts that indicate with different numbers and the numbers are corrected manually?), I only get out very few "blues", but for a very few I mean 2/3 about 40.. .
What's wrong?

Thank you very much
Hi.

 

[sampom]

to do the section, I had to insert the front view, do the section and then hide it. Now, when I do the automatic bubble (other than the fact that for example the bearings downloaded from theskf are formed by various parts that indicate with different numbers and the numbers are corrected manually?), I only get out very few "blues", but for a very few I mean 2/3 about 40.. .
What's wrong?

maybe as a reference view for the bubble you assigned the front one that you then hid (but why do you hide it? Don't you want to put a front view on the table? ... and then the indication of the section plan/freshes where you have them?). in that view there would be all the boils, at least those of the parts that are not hidden. otherwise cancel/delete the bubble and remake another starting from a view you have at the table. the missing bubbles can be added individually in any view with the "manual" command.. and before making bubble try to insert (always from the annotation menu) the different materiali, of course always referring to a visible view.

the skf bearings (but it applies to any commercial/united element assembly) after you downloaded them as a part, rename and insert that into your set. it is useless to have in separate every sphere :biggrin:.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[MBT]

I understand what you mean and it will look like nonsense, instead you have asked a very good question: why demonstrate application in the study of "antiche" technical design standards. norms that unfortunately "the automation" of cad 3d does not always succeed in respect. flashing case, like this, is the classic table 2d. the programs are exactly 3d and although full of comfortable functions, part 2d "black on white" seems a little neglected (they do, even quite well, but they are not born for that).
and it's what, to me old designer "amanuense" (it's about 3 years I use swx) makes me :biggrin:.

standing ovation !!!!

 

[cacciatorino]

standing ovation !!!!

we say that to put back in place a "short" view made by a 3d is done much before drawing it "correct" with a 2d....:wink:

 

[sampom]

we say that to put back in place a "short" view made by a 3d is done much before drawing it "correct" with a 2d....:wink:

depends..(especially se you know how it must be the correct view/section and/or to norm, that not necessarily_anti_is the real one).

My reference is not the cad2d, but the tecnigraph :biggrin:

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[re_solidworks]

I usually do as in the attached example. the place because the good mike lately makes me notice often the lack of explanatory models. ..biggrin:

 

[ste8]

I usually do as in the attached example. the place because the good mike lately makes me notice often the lack of explanatory models. ..biggrin:

I have solid 2007, it doesn't open them!

 

[ste8]

Hi there. Are you going on?

I understand what you mean and it will look like nonsense, instead you have asked a very good question: why demonstrate application in the study of "antiche" technical design standards. norms that unfortunately "the automation" of cad 3d does not always succeed in respect. flashing case, like this, is the classic table 2d. the programs are exactly 3d and although full of comfortable functions, part 2d "black on white" seems a little neglected (they do, even quite well, but they are not born for that).
and it's what, to me old designer "amanuense" (it's about 3 years I use swx) makes me :biggrin:.

as you rightly noticed when you make a section the program cuts everything that finds along the section plan. together you can exclude components from cutting but in this case you do not need.
where there is material of one body the program ("stupid") does not distinguish the tooth from the rest of the wheel.. and worse in the gear, where the teeth "intersect". see or empty or full.

And there's no way, you have to keep it that way. or if you have patience and time to lose you hide the fields and lines and, by hand, with the sketches at the table, rebuild the right continuous lines and treated according to norm, the axes that indicate the øprimitivo etc.. then put the samples back as notes in the regions where they serve... but it is an absurd job for programs that should "do all of them".
see you, perhaps if the prof. knows cad maybe does not require "perfection" in that sense. informed.

there are other "inconsistencies" in the tables, going forward with the use you will notice.. However, in the end, it is arranged.

greetings and good work
Marco:smile:

I'm always here!
once drawn according to norm, on the table I remain in light gray, when mold what happens?

 

[sampom]

I usually do as in the attached example.

Yes, it's a good "raggiro".
but do you use the same in the 3d axieme/model, or do you make appropriate display settings/stats for table setting? ... because in the real model they would be a little "bruttini" :biggrin:

I have solid 2007, it doesn't open them!

would be this ste:that you then mount together, with a minimum of the usual "cut and sew" (which still takes re_) you get this:

I'm always here!
once drawn according to norm, on the table I remain in light gray, when mold what happens?

you need to change the color of the sketch lines, or put them on a layer (Level for swx) to which you will have assigned the black color (or whatever you want).

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Mike1967]

I usually do as in the attached example. I'm the one the good mike lately makes me notice often the lack of explanatory models...:biggrin:

sure :finger:, since I am curious I like to "see" on the field the various
solutions, I have no technical preparation to be able to deal with
all topics only theoretically present in this educational forum, so a more earthly approach is understandable to 99.9% of users (I know, they are optimistic...:biggrin. . .

:smile:

 

[Whooring]

not bad as a system for the months at the table.
only that in the 3d you have to work a little with the configurations if we want to see the wheel with its beautiful dentoni

 

[TheGio]

Hello, ste8, I'm also a student with a parallel axle reducer. . .
.....who knows why all prof. have the fixing for the gearboxes with so many beautiful things to design? Whatever.
However, I wanted to add one thing to what you have already suggested, regarding the skf bearings the fastest method is to save them as parts for not having separate problems, but if like me you have already done the ca**a to insert them as assemblies you can solve with a "different to multiple levels" so that only the assemblies of the bearing appear separately, search in the forum and you will find interesting discussions; It remains the fact that using a separate multi-level bearing is quite useless, but educationally interesting for when we are in the condition of having to use subaxis.

Hello, and good work

I was told that the two wheels in the table made me regret the 2d, and that the two wheels were practically redesigned.

 

[re_solidworks]

I answer a little to everyone without quotation, take patience. the system is not ready to use, but it seems to me the most practical in case you have to dissect + times the wheel (in several tables). the problem is the mass altered by the lack of teeth, in the case of large wheels or ralles you lose a few pounds too.
the processing to be done is to hide two edges, certainly having it ready would be better, you should require an ad hoc function in which you could insert the teething parameters and swx should create the solid with the teething data inserted in the properties.