modeling piece

[volaff]

I read them, but I don't know where I did the "damn." ...

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

But did you check them out? verification of the radius (the "2xr345" means that there are two arches, in this case specular, of that radius...just for clarification)

 

[volaff]

Yes. In fact I realized the arch at the center at 133 from the extreme left of the radius circumference 34.5 and then I mirrored the excavation that I made.
In summary:

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

look how you listed the 133, genufletti on the chickpeas and make amends

 

[volaff]

I've seen it, but I still have to understand that I've done it.
ps: I can't grind I have the knee operated.xd!

I really didn't understand, sure I misinterpreted the quota, but where did I wrong?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

What is listed with 133?
instead of digging on the other side mirroring the function, do it in the same sketch

 

[volaff]

I'll be dumb, but I don't understand.
If I do the hole on the other side comes out the same thing (idem for the excavation): in practice the quota 133 to which it refers? ?

I thought it was the dyst from the extreme left of the circumference at the center of radius 34.5.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

So according to your reasoning one has the nod on the circumference while the other outside to it?
but in the message #17 they are specular. . .

 

[volaff]

I also realized the other excavation with the center of the other outside to the circumference and I find to the same thing. I'm a sure idiot, but I don't understand. xd

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

mi arrendo...

 

[volaff]

I'm so sorry.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

There's nothing to shake, only I don't know how else you're on the road to figure out where you're wrong. I could just tell you, it's not what you need.

 

[volaff]

but in fact it's okay, maybe it's the fatigue....but the two excavations to me seem symmetrical..... they seem!
or better, from the drawing I understand that the center of a bow belongs to the circumference, while the other center is out of circumference. .

 

[Mike1967]

Yes. In fact I realized the arch at the center at 133 from the extreme left of the radius circumference 34.5 and then I mirrored the excavation that I made.
In summary:

volaff, I'm not a designer, I'm a metalbuilder, I'm a blacksmith, but looking at your crescent schzzo and looking at the model to copy (so simple sound my work) blows to the eye the gross error you made.
Excuse me, but the 133 start on the scan model, where is it positioned?? ?
on the edge of the object or mark the axes of the holes, on, these are very but very trivial exercises....

 

[volaff]

on the edge of the object. . .

 

[sampom]

on the edge of the object. . .

no! absolutely! look good.. and note that that piece is symmetric; so the size to what will be reported? Then would it seem normal to share in that way you suppose?

 

[volaff]

I throw it there: 133 compared to the axis of symmetry?

 

[Mike1967]

I throw it there: 133 compared to the axis of symmetry?

Didn't I get it? ?
how do you draw to sympathy?
If it's not soup is wet bread?
the technical design does not feel but is based on coherent geometries.
I don't know what you're doing, but I don't hide my perplexity for something that simple.
a fundamental help you have from the very form of the piece: is a circular object where the axis is fundamental for its
symmetricity and its realization both theoretical and physical.
133, do you pretend to see it as a ø, where does the center start??? ?

 

[volaff]

I understood:133 compared to the center i.e. 133/2 to the left of the center and 133/2 to the right of the symmetric center.

In practice, that kind of "crace" really indicates that?

 

[volaff]

Thank you very much.
I've done it all right.
next time.

Have a good day!