MassiVonWeizen
Guest
It's hard to read those pictures. .
He doesn't cut himself like that.
Why does the threaded parts and the pipe not?
missing the hidden entities, how do you understand how the tube is made internally?
how does the same detail be at the same time 90 (50+40) and 78 (53+22)?
the reference tolerance to does not make sense put on the face of the hexagon because it is not obtained from processing, but from fusion and however that the key is stunned does not affect the operation; Makes sense to put it on the thread. putting position tolerances sensa to know what function has that object makes little sense and can go well almost anything (perhaps the most logical thing is perpendicularity between the two threads). tolerances too tight for that particular type of
lack of constructive quotas
He doesn't cut himself like that.
Why does the threaded parts and the pipe not?
missing the hidden entities, how do you understand how the tube is made internally?
how does the same detail be at the same time 90 (50+40) and 78 (53+22)?
the reference tolerance to does not make sense put on the face of the hexagon because it is not obtained from processing, but from fusion and however that the key is stunned does not affect the operation; Makes sense to put it on the thread. putting position tolerances sensa to know what function has that object makes little sense and can go well almost anything (perhaps the most logical thing is perpendicularity between the two threads). tolerances too tight for that particular type of
lack of constructive quotas
pyrokar22
Guest
1. the conical connection is internal, the exterior is of constant diameter.
2. the "41" on the key, as you can also see in the exercise, should be quoted from the two short sides and not from the edges.
3. There is no straight/symmetric line.
4. missing the whole section to see how it is done internally.
in the third superior in a mechanical itis were seen better designs than this.
2. the "41" on the key, as you can also see in the exercise, should be quoted from the two short sides and not from the edges.
3. There is no straight/symmetric line.
4. missing the whole section to see how it is done internally.
in the third superior in a mechanical itis were seen better designs than this.
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
Sure? I read that the end on the nut is ø51 while the other ø45, the hole is ø31
pyrokar22
Guest
ø31 as ø45 refer to the inner diameter. the ø51 is all the outer diameter
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
It is true, it is the initial flushing of the hole and in the lower view you can see also well... that they are
LaboratorioDieci
Guest
I would say that errors result from the fact that you did not correctly display the object to be depicted.
the best
the best
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
will you be worthy of contributing to your post as well as opening others with the same requests?
Martakynghi
Guest
okok