gnome-rhone 14m mars

[Er Presidente]

I opened the complete axieme to quickly verify some things that didn't come back to the reducer.
the first two that jumped to my eye:
I don't know if it depends on the fact that you haven't finished it yet, but on the plank the main tree with the satellite headquarters I see it done as attached images.View attachment 32452View attachment 32453I tried to assemble it on the engine shaft and the satellite gears stick to the front of the outer mobile crown that drags them. in the vb plan you can see well that they are perfectly aligned to the front face of the crown.
in our model if the satellites align the heads of the rolling pins vii_404 go to interfere with the inner face of the mobile horn.

I don't understand a saw, but your group, I think I see, is it up-to-date than exa?
is only completed with ex-novo pieces or completely reassembled?

I'm getting old, but I don't understand you when you talk, scream anymore? I don't feel...

 

[Er Presidente]

Do we load every single piece as distinct, or the various subgroups as done until now?

absolutely single pieces as distinct, then groups, after having decided together how to structure them.
On the contrary, we could even throw down some ideas because we all have more or less "pasteggiated" the "monster".

 

[Exatem]

I opened the complete axieme to quickly verify some things that didn't come back to the reducer.
the first two that jumped to my eye:
I don't know if it depends on the fact that you haven't finished it yet, but on the plank the main tree with the satellite headquarters I see it done as attached images.View attachment 32452View attachment 32453I tried to assemble it on the engine shaft and the satellite gears stick to the front of the outer mobile crown that drags them. in the vb plan you can see well that they are perfectly aligned to the front face of the crown.
in our model if the satellites align the heads of the rolling pins vii_404 go to interfere with the inner face of the mobile horn.

exatem, it was not my intention to put you any kind of rush (which we have, indeed, I am to pull a little brake...) or worse to criticize a lot at the kilo. Forget it.
for me this gnome thing is an evening pastime (when I have time). It's not exactly the case of filling the bitter blood so if I misunderstood me.
I limited myself to doing some control (even because these last models were in the "models_released" folder and I thought they were so final) reporting to you what didn't come back.

oh exa... We don't write atomic propulsion minks, please! :smile:
It is only about organizing a layout from the relative planche, resized as accurately as possible, and on that build all its group. if you do all inside the assembling you will have away more and more 3d geometry to which to connect the various parts you are modeling and the layout will serve less and less, if not to remind you which components are missing. :finger:

No problem.
Of course I'm doing the parts inside the axieme and in fact I checked the axieme section I attach.
It's clear that the satellite highlighted by the red arrow must wire the crown marked in yellow.
the same crown must be reshaped and elongated.
the space highlighted in green is excessive, looking at the sections taken from pdf you notice the differences.
for weekend remedy to errors.

 

[Er Presidente]

No problem.
Of course I'm doing the parts inside the axieme and in fact I checked the axieme section I attach.
It's clear that the satellite highlighted by the red arrow must wire the crown marked in yellow.
the same crown must be reshaped and elongated.
the space highlighted in green is excessive, looking at the sections taken from pdf you notice the differences.
for weekend remedy to errors.
View attachment 32455View attachment 32456View attachment 32457

do not discourage you marcof is done so for him a cent to the eye is worth a meter!

 

[radio]

No problem.
Of course I'm doing the parts inside the axieme and in fact I checked the axieme section I attach.
It's clear that the satellite highlighted by the red arrow must wire the crown marked in yellow.
the same crown must be reshaped and elongated.
the space highlighted in green is excessive, looking at the sections taken from pdf you notice the differences.
for weekend remedy to errors.
View attachment 32455View attachment 32456View attachment 32457

last night I looked at your reducer and I found many inconsistencies, but I compared a section 2d of your together with the section of the planche vii, while I see that you used the x and xi planks (in comparison with which there is much more consistency), maybe the problem is all here: the sections present in different manual planks may not be consistent among them.
Now I can't verify, I'm in a hurry and for this evening I can't do anything, tomorrow maybe I try to overlay the plans vii, x and xi and see what happens.
I attach an image of the 2d I made last night, the section derived from the 3d (red lines) in comparison to a portion of the sez of planche vii.

Bye.

 

[Exatem]

last night I looked at your reducer and I found many inconsistencies, but I compared a section 2d of your together with the section of the planche vii, while I see that you used the x and xi planks (in comparison with which there is much more consistency), maybe the problem is all here: the sections present in different manual planks may not be consistent among them.
Now I can't verify, I'm in a hurry and for this evening I can't do anything, tomorrow maybe I try to overlay the plans vii, x and xi and see what happens.
I attach an image of the 2d I made last night, the section derived from the 3d (red lines) in comparison to a portion of the sez of planche vii.

Bye.

and then the question arises spontaneously. . .
which section do we adopt as reference? (although then, since everything is done without quotas, errors are for me within an acceptable range).

 

[marcof]

and then the question arises spontaneously. . .
which section do we adopt as reference? (although then, since everything is done without quotas, errors are for me within an acceptable range).

for the reducer I would say that without doubt the reference section, also for print quality and readability of details, is the planche vii.
the xb planche is more than other schematics of the rotation senses and is read together with the relative table where the characteristics of the various gears are indicated.
the xi plan is, among all, the most deformed in every direction, but being the only one showing a complete section of the engine will have to be taken reference imho only to establish an acceptable criterion of assembly of the various subgroups. in the specific case then determine at what distance to mount the reducing group on the tree group.

 

[Er Presidente]

I would like to better analyze the problem, I'm almost certain that by working economy nobody at the time dreamed of keeping updated and consistent the various tables and, therefore, we find ourselves with tables made in different times that represent evolutions of the same object (reducer in case).
knowing the problems that these engines had (not the mars in particular how the greatest "l" and "n") the reducer definitely had "vicissitudes".
attention that the rhone gnome was famous for its gearboxes whose licences were acquired practically by all the world producers (I also guess that's all to say).
Mars was a novelty for its compact epicycloidal reducer (k-l-n) had the most img shadowy gearboxes with oblique satellites) and like all new things with "identity" problems.
to "recognize" the "right" version (the last) we should analyze the differences and try to "elucubrate" what changes may have been the result of an attempt to improve (increase the surface of the teeth, decrease in the footprint, decrease in the "balance" of the components).
At first, we might think that a "compact" of the reducer is a symptom of an evolution, but it is not said that it is.
ci sentiamo.
ciao
stefano

 

[Exatem]

for the reducer I would say that without doubt the reference section, also for print quality and readability of details, is the planche vii.
the xb planche is more than other schematics of the rotation senses and is read together with the relative table where the characteristics of the various gears are indicated.
the xi plan is, among all, the most deformed in every direction, but being the only one showing a complete section of the engine will have to be taken reference imho only to establish an acceptable criterion of assembly of the various subgroups. in the specific case then determine at what distance to mount the reducing group on the tree group.

Okay.
Then we all follow the same pattern.
planche vii as reference.
the xb I posted it only because it pointed out the sections well but I did not consider it as a reference for quotas etc.
xi would be the best but as you say, it is deformed.
the ideal was perhaps (orror) to draw it in 2d taking as reference the quotas on the table the "profil"?

 

[Exatem]

Now it should be a little better, even if we're not in place yet.
What do you say?

 

[Er Presidente]

Now it should be a little better, even if we're not in place yet.
What do you say?

missing the starter!
:wink:

 

[Exatem]

missing the starter!
:wink:

There he is. .

 

[Er Presidente]

There he is. .

I don't care! That's a 2cv.

 

[Exatem]

I don't care! That's a 2cv.

but ours has many cvs and some "yes". Isn't that okay?

 

[radio]

I was told that the pdf I posted yesterday had some problem, I regenerated it and I re-allege it; even if the problem is clarified.

Bye.

 

[Exatem]

I was told that the pdf I posted yesterday had some problem, I regenerated it and I re-allege it; even if the problem is clarified.

Bye.

I think there's another problem.
I noticed from your pdf of the difference between the drawing dice and mine. parts such as castle dice, are now unified and to realize them just follow the norms.
I go to memory, it seems that the prisoners who are stalking from the reducer are m8 so for the dice to castle I settled with the one in force.
but in 1930... what standards did they follow? is it possible that the dice used then today are no longer available?
Something similar happened to me in the office where you couldn't come to the head of a flange apparently out of measure.
then thanks to number1, it turned out that the same flange referred to a rule withdrawn around the 1930s with a decree of the Prime Minister of then (mussolini).
It's just an example, but it's an emphasis on the difficulties that can be encountered. . .

 

[Er Presidente]

I was told that the pdf I posted yesterday had some problem, I regenerated it and I re-allege it; even if the problem is clarified.

Bye.

I'm wrong.

 

[Er Presidente]

I think there's another problem.
I noticed from your pdf of the difference between the drawing dice and mine. parts such as castle dice, are now unified and to realize them just follow the norms.
I go to memory, it seems that the prisoners who are stalking from the reducer are m8 so for the dice to castle I settled with the one in force.
but in 1930... what standards did they follow? is it possible that the dice used then today are no longer available?
Something similar happened to me in the office where you couldn't come to the head of a flange apparently out of measure.
then thanks to number1, it turned out that the same flange referred to a rule withdrawn around the 1930s with a decree of the Prime Minister of then (mussolini).
It's just an example, but it's an emphasis on the difficulties that can be encountered. . .

30s?
aviation?
French?
standard?

There's no logical connection, unfortunately.

 

[Exatem]

30s?
aviation?
French?
standard?

There's no logical connection, unfortunately.

So what do you think we should do?
for those who are the components that today we could define unified, what road do we follow?
do we use, with the errors that this entails, the current rules?
It's not a small thing.
This morning I was doing the vii_395 part and using castle dice borrowed from current norms, risk of having interference between part and dice (m8). to solve I have to change the geometry of the part but then, if you overlap it to the section we have availability, logically it does not match.
and then you feel the rest of the scam!:wink:

Something like that happened to me. an axis of American origin and about 30 years ago, had an avary for which it was dismantled.
disassembled the mancione, found the wrench/language literally crumbled but from the surviving pieces, could not determine its geometry.
It was therefore decided to ignore geometry, which was probably dictated by a 30-year-old norm and dug the seat for a tab suitable for the diameter of the tree.

 

[Exatem]

un funghetto...