Bitto87
Guest
p.s. the data 45.5 I wrong to write (diameter seeger). . where it was 44,5
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
Okay.
last 2 notes:
- the tolerance of the seeger diameter is not correct, it is practically 1mm blistering... With something like that at an interview, you're a little crazy. Where did you find those tolerances? read the table well. link to another table http://www.fasteners.eu/standards/din/472/. But you too... if a table is not clear you should search on the net a more understandable
- the texts of the quotas do not have that way, but must be parallel to the quotation line facing up or to the right. The odds you put on the right are not normal while the ones on the left are.
last 2 notes:
- the tolerance of the seeger diameter is not correct, it is practically 1mm blistering... With something like that at an interview, you're a little crazy. Where did you find those tolerances? read the table well. link to another table http://www.fasteners.eu/standards/din/472/. But you too... if a table is not clear you should search on the net a more understandable
- the texts of the quotas do not have that way, but must be parallel to the quotation line facing up or to the right. The odds you put on the right are not normal while the ones on the left are.
simone1996
Guest
I don't think the 11.5mm share is correct as the b thickness of the bearing is 12mm.
the roughness where it is indicated in the drawing is wrong
the roughness where it is indicated in the drawing is wrong
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
to tell the truth there's another thing that jumped at my eye now.
it would be a design error, but in your case it is a mistake that reveals the lack of reasoning; We always talk about the seat of the elastic ring.
you put dimensional values without making a couple of accounts or not thinking about what they need. before I tell you where you wrong try to think about it over a little (regards the bearing)
it would be a design error, but in your case it is a mistake that reveals the lack of reasoning; We always talk about the seat of the elastic ring.
you put dimensional values without making a couple of accounts or not thinking about what they need. before I tell you where you wrong try to think about it over a little (regards the bearing)
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
Why? motivates your statements
Bitto87
Guest
thanks as always massive.. you're right about my not to "bate" in looking for anything else, it's just that lately I have little time available because even if I don't work taking advantage of the degree I'm still working (nothing about engineering, but with my hands in hand I don't know and I can't stand there). I'm a little more free now, so I'm going to design... Let's see this time... .
Attachments
Bitto87
Guest
Now that I take it case you,11.5 as the quota is wrong, I'm sure it is also 15,3...rragionando on the fact that the spess. b of the bearing is 12,quell 11.5 should be 12..poi for the rest I think about it later..thanks to both of you.
simone1996
Guest
roughness on that side indicates a surface inside the full part of material with roughness 1.6.
I understood that the surface to which it refers is that of the bearing housing (which is correct), but if I wanted to make a correct design, the symbol of roughness would put it on the inside side that is to all effects the processed surface.
Do you agree?
Do you agree with my statement on the bearing?
I understood that the surface to which it refers is that of the bearing housing (which is correct), but if I wanted to make a correct design, the symbol of roughness would put it on the inside side that is to all effects the processed surface.
Do you agree?
Do you agree with my statement on the bearing?MassiVonWeizen
Guest
your statement is correct, but too ligy to the norms. being a hole is obvious that roughness is on the inner surface
Bitto87
Guest
Bitto87
Guest
you will be busy, and it is, but as soon as you can, please let me know how it goes this time.... I address above all to my new guru/maestro Masses (I hope you don't offend you)... maybe you had met prof like you in my path... I thank you for the advice you are giving me, you are very kind and you are great!
simone1996
Guest
That's what I think.
I wondered why of the depth of the hole 17.65, starting from the original set of the post 1 you could make it to full size (17mm or 20mm depends on the flanged tree and the screws m10x35). At the end you would have a long hole, let me say, 20mm the seeger gorge bound to the bearing housing and the 12mm deep housing.
wrinkles are no longer indicated in the design.
You are right to say that being a hole even so you understand, but in a learning optic I find it better to explain to norm, also because so I fear that there will be someone who like me find to laugh about this stupid thing. . then I think it is more important to understand well tolerances and correct quotas.
I wondered why of the depth of the hole 17.65, starting from the original set of the post 1 you could make it to full size (17mm or 20mm depends on the flanged tree and the screws m10x35). At the end you would have a long hole, let me say, 20mm the seeger gorge bound to the bearing housing and the 12mm deep housing.
wrinkles are no longer indicated in the design.
You are right to say that being a hole even so you understand, but in a learning optic I find it better to explain to norm, also because so I fear that there will be someone who like me find to laugh about this stupid thing. . then I think it is more important to understand well tolerances and correct quotas.
Last edited:
Bitto87
Guest
ok simone also to me 20 mm would seem more correct, but taking the tavelle din 472 you see that m=1,85 b is 12 from the bearing data and n=3 and something I do not remember now because as measure is superfluous, and suming the whole comes out that 17 and odd, for this I indicated so... you think it is better not to put it and bring back quota 20? then for roughness it was a mistake due to the rush, I simply forgot to put it in. ..however if even boulders gives me the ok (inserting roughness, of course) I finally managed it
simone1996
Guest
I would do it to full size, but following the norm is more than just.
Bitto87
Guest
in fact. thanks simone
p.s. @massivonweizen What do you think? (I'm sorry if I bother you but, I repeat, your advice was fundamental to me.
p.s. @massivonweizen What do you think? (I'm sorry if I bother you but, I repeat, your advice was fundamental to me.
Bitto87
Guest
TECNOMODEL
Guest
I would share the position of the seeger seat differently.
as you quoted it you remain game between the bearing and the seeger, creating the possibility of an axial movement of the bearing.
if quoted from the bearing bar to the opposite throat side cancel the game, or rather, reduce it to the game that can have the rings.
other thing, the roughness I would put on the hole quota line, facing the "visible" side of the surface.
Did you decide that 17.65?
as you quoted it you remain game between the bearing and the seeger, creating the possibility of an axial movement of the bearing.
if quoted from the bearing bar to the opposite throat side cancel the game, or rather, reduce it to the game that can have the rings.
other thing, the roughness I would put on the hole quota line, facing the "visible" side of the surface.
Did you decide that 17.65?
Bitto87
Guest
Thanks for the answer... 17.65 is given by the sum of 12(mix of the bearing) plus 1,85 (thickness of the seeger) plus 3,8 which is the share I have not reported (possibly non-functional) above the seeger (quota that is derived from tables din 472)
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
as it writes in the post #113 is given by the width of the bearing + the throat of the seeger + the minimum quota to leave from the term of the hole indicated in the tables.
Obviously the question has not been asked that if that is the minimum measure means that you can make larger by rounding the hole depth to a round and decently measurable measure.
if instead of posting quotation images made to attempts for exclusion, he had searched on the net seeger quota would have found several pages of this forum, one also very recent, in which it explains how it should be listed.
as I have already said the question is not knowing how to quote a particular, but to ask questions about why certain quotation choices, to reason ourselves above; I have not read a single demand for explanation on for example bearing tolerance or what involves putting a roughness 3.2 on the whole piece. At this point it was possible to put quotas already at the first post
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
imposing a quota with two decimals means making an accurate control of that size which in turn means increase in costs.
wrinkle 3.2 also means making precise machines and tools that in turn increase costs.
These things you can't know of course, but if tomorrow they ask you why you put a 3.2 of roughness on the first part of the hole you have to know something
wrinkle 3.2 also means making precise machines and tools that in turn increase costs.
These things you can't know of course, but if tomorrow they ask you why you put a 3.2 of roughness on the first part of the hole you have to know something