MassiVonWeizen
Guest
you keep the tube, but the bearing instead of putting it in the axieme together pipe and bearing graft put it externally in the general axieme
Marvel
Guest
Okay, I try and let you know.
Thank you!
Thank you!
Marvel
Guest
hi massive, then after several tests and a dozen tutorials seen I think (and hope) of having solved. I made some details and a combination of the right flight to verify the movement between a (fake) bearing and a "binary" from spline, then I replicated the coupling on the test aid to see if it came back.
attached a video of the movement between cam and bearing and the zipped files of the two axioms I used.
the movement between the cam and the bearing is a bit "fucking" but I think it is due to the geometry of the path.
If you look at him when you have time, tell me what you think.
ciao.
Landmark
attached a video of the movement between cam and bearing and the zipped files of the two axioms I used.
the movement between the cam and the bearing is a bit "fucking" but I think it is due to the geometry of the path.
If you look at him when you have time, tell me what you think.
Landmark
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
I can tell you, in future memory, that if you allegiemi have parallelisms that do not allow movement like Hose graft alignment in the aid study movement (which then a parallel between two edges is a geometric obscenity) and parallel in thetogether of test forcing to lose time to search for what blocks the movement, you are not making good use of the help of others. what places must be exactly what you ask otherwise they are misunderstandings. in addition to specify what you refer to if there are multiple parts/assiem in the post.
returning to the real question, if the movement of the video (which refers to the test axieme and not to the assieme study of movement) meets you are in place. to me it does not seem at all snappy together of reference of the video while in the other just I can not move it perhaps for some bond of too... maybe.
returning to the real question, if the movement of the video (which refers to the test axieme and not to the assieme study of movement) meets you are in place. to me it does not seem at all snappy together of reference of the video while in the other just I can not move it perhaps for some bond of too... maybe.
Marvel
Guest
Hello Mass, thank you for the answer and apologize for the parallelisms too. In fact, not making mention of it, for those who see the assemblies is an extra complication....
. I used those parallels to bring back the movement lever and the pipe graft under "hot" conditions after handling.....
The video refers to the two axioms I flew yesterday afternoon. in the first part there is the track-spline and the fake bearing that I used to verify the coupling path and in the second part there is another the axieme, made at the moment (not using that of the other times), to replicate the coupling path.
the "exhaust" movement refers to the fact that compared to the axieme with rail-spline (proof axiom) that moves smoothly (and that I will re-seat without parallels), the movement of the axieme "study movement between cams and bearing", is not as fluid as in the first; also this I will arrange to repost it without blockades... .
Bye!
Mar
. I used those parallels to bring back the movement lever and the pipe graft under "hot" conditions after handling.....The video refers to the two axioms I flew yesterday afternoon. in the first part there is the track-spline and the fake bearing that I used to verify the coupling path and in the second part there is another the axieme, made at the moment (not using that of the other times), to replicate the coupling path.
the "exhaust" movement refers to the fact that compared to the axieme with rail-spline (proof axiom) that moves smoothly (and that I will re-seat without parallels), the movement of the axieme "study movement between cams and bearing", is not as fluid as in the first; also this I will arrange to repost it without blockades... .
Bye!
Mar
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
the fact that it is snappy can disperse from how you did the sketch, and here it brushes the speech of using fixed relationships when it is not absolutely indispensable, in which the junction arc between the two edges is not tangent but fixed.
this may mean that the passage between edge and curve is not fluid. Besides the radius is not 6mm, but 6,000equalthing. They may seem silly, but they just fake the results and sometimes lose days to find the solution.
correct that sketch by making the bow tangent and putting it the correct radius; before doing it however take the end point, coincident to the arc, lines and drag it otherwise will give you error
this may mean that the passage between edge and curve is not fluid. Besides the radius is not 6mm, but 6,000equalthing. They may seem silly, but they just fake the results and sometimes lose days to find the solution.
correct that sketch by making the bow tangent and putting it the correct radius; before doing it however take the end point, coincident to the arc, lines and drag it otherwise will give you error
Marvel
Guest
Okay, I can fix the sketch and try again.
Hello, thank you.
m
Hello, thank you.
m
Marvel
Guest
Hello, people, it's been a while but I finally managed to make the mechanism. I corrected the sketch as suggested by boulders but the movement of cams on sw failed to make it come back, probably for the geometry of the cams and the point of rotation.
However these are some photos and a video of the mechanism:
the movement is a bit "fucky" but at the moment it's okay so, if you need I will see to make it more fluid.
now it's just missing to fix the two hall sensors that serve as potentiometers and I should be at the bottom.
Thank you all for your help.
Bye!
Mar
However these are some photos and a video of the mechanism:
now it's just missing to fix the two hall sensors that serve as potentiometers and I should be at the bottom.
Thank you all for your help.
Bye!
Mar