machine design definitions

[snaroz]

Since engineering knowledge unlike mathematics is not organized in the form of a first-order formal language with axioms etc..., I think it is useless to take such an approach, and I will try to be more concrete for your pleasure.

said this, iul chirone backincasa, about two series mounted propeller springs, states that they must be mounted with inclination of the opposite propeller to avoid "pizzicamenti". What the hell does that mean?
Thank you!!!)

 

[Venez]

with "pizzicamento" means that the adjoining edges of the one and the other in the compression phase could be framed "by screwing". So you think, why is it important that the inclination of the coils is opposite for the 2 springs?

 

[snaroz]

Thank you, I think I understand
I wanted to ask you something else that is fundamental to me: the definition of a mechanical component is given by means of a design in which they appear seen in projection of the object in question?
Thank you!

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Thank you, I think I understand
I wanted to ask you something else that is fundamental to me: the definition of a mechanical component is given by means of a design in which they appear seen in projection of the object in question?
Thank you!

What do you mean by mechanical component definition?
mechanical components are not defined, but described. the design you say is that description.

the number of parts, at the limit, can be considered a definition, but it is neither injective nor surititive, so I would not call it "definition".

 

[snaroz]

Hey, what I meant was this. the various mechanical components, from what I understand, are not defined by words. the words, if anything, can as you said you describe them, but they do not define them. For example, when on the book I read that a "washer is a perforated flat diskette", this is not the definition of washer, but it is simply a description "to the good" of a washer. the mechanical component is strictly defined by the various rules in the form of design, with various views, possibly sections to make well understand what you are talking about.
to verify that some object is a spring to cup what should I do? I would say that I must verify that this object has exactly the same shape as indicated by a certain standard in a design.
I hope I've been clear.... do you find yourself or have I said shit?
Thank you guys and not!

 

[wizardluke]

Of course, it should be defined as a drawing rosette or drawing spacer...etc, the table rosette is unified and should be reported with a single acronym.

 

[Venez]

...to verify that a certain object is a spring to cup what should I do? I would say that I must verify that this object has exactly the same shape as indicated by a certain standard in a design.
I hope I've been clear.... do you find yourself or have I said shit?
Thank you guys and not!

be careful not to be too strict with definitions.

if I take the design of a screw in the normalized tables, I have a precise definition of that screw (code uni), and its design with the size of the head k, dk, inner hazel, external threads, length, etc. so if my screw respects the indicated norms, can define a screw uni en iso xxxx

If one morning I wake up and decide to make me realize a triangular screw, with thread diameter at my liking, and a length suitable for my needs, that stops being a screw? no, simply will not be a normalized screw, describable by a code, and whose geometric features are uniquely indicated in the tables, but always lives remain.
if your cup spring does not reflect the size indicated by the norms, because maybe it is built on misaura, what becomes you, an elastic bombed disk? will be a non-normalized cup spring. .

 

[snaroz]

be careful not to be too strict with definitions.

if I take the design of a screw in the normalized tables, I have a precise definition of that screw (code uni), and its design with the size of the head k, dk, inner hazel, external threads, length, etc. so if my screw respects the indicated norms, can define a screw uni en iso xxxx

If one morning I wake up and decide to make me realize a triangular screw, with thread diameter at my liking, and a length suitable for my needs, that stops being a screw? no, simply will not be a normalized screw, describable by a code, and whose geometric features are uniquely indicated in the tables, but always lives remain.
if your cup spring does not reflect the size indicated by the norms, because maybe it is built on misaura, what becomes you, an elastic bombed disk? will be a non-normalized cup spring. .

Hey, sure, I agree. then, recapitulating, a mechanical component is defined by a design. this because to define it in words it would not be enough maybe dozens and dozens of pages. the design, instead, in a little less than a quarter of page allows me to define in a precise, rigorous and unambiguous way a certain component. in the drawing, moreover, there are some dimensions indicated by a letter and it is flanked by a table in which the numerical values that can take the various letters are written. This table imposes restrictions on the size of the object defined in drawing. This prevents you from trading for example a thousand types of dice of different size, thus also reducing the number of tools needed. Finally, if a design defines a split elastic washer and a certain object respects the design, that is it has the same shape indicated to design, but it has different sizes than those prescribed by the table, it does not mean that that the object is not a split elastic washer; it continues to be a split elastic washer, however it will be a non-normalized split elastic washer.
are there?

I have another question. the chirone backincasa says that the norm uni 1751 defines the "shaded elastic washer", while the manual of the designer indicates only "elastic washer". Who's right?
Thank you! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I have another question. the chirone backincasa says that the norm uni 1751 defines the "shaded elastic washer", while the manual of the designer indicates only "elastic washer". Who's right?
Thank you! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

What's the difference between the two definitions?
Why do you assume that the application of a definition on an object is biunivocal? two different definitions cannot indicate the same object? the opposite obviously not.

 

[snaroz]

What's the difference between the two definitions?
Why do you assume that the application of a definition on an object is biunivocal? two different definitions cannot indicate the same object? the opposite obviously not.

So you're telling me that the standard uni 1751 defines a certain component, called "elastic washer" or even "scratch elastic washer"?

the speech I made in the previous post is correct?
Thank you very much

 

[Counterblow Hammer]

the uni1751 indicated the split elastic rosettes; If you want to omit split, just say elastic rosettes uni1751. This is due to the fact that saying elastic rosettes means everything and nothing: in fact they can be wavy, zigrinate, etc...

remember: of a mechanical component there are various definitions, the important thing is that you always give what it indicates in a certain and unequivocal way the object you have in your head, otherwise they come out of trouble... !

 

[MBT]

In the end, the concept is similar.. .

 

[Enigma]

In the end, the concept is similar.. .
View attachment 33727

You are a real poet...:biggrin:

enigma