number of necessary views [technical drawing]

[vale61]

... maybe I see bad but the only symbols of perpendicularity on the view do not guarantee the risk of "mal" interpretation as in the annex test2 of ipdesign (even because on one view I see it hard to explain that the axes are all on the same plane, so to the eye I would not say that there is a clear symbolism that specifies this condition on a single view, but maybe something is there ..)...

Bye-bye.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Maybe after lunch I'm slower.
I did not understand how to indicate the symbol of parallelism on the view in the plant.
because the two axes are parallax compared to the view from above but, they are not compared to the side view.

Yes, maybe the problem is lunch...:biggrin:
two axes in space, if they are parallel, they are just, not according to the view. No?

 

[Ivan1990]

Yes, maybe the problem is lunch...:biggrin:
two axes in space, if they are parallel, they are just, not according to the view. No?

At least we have all done a nice resumption of tolerances of form and position:finger::biggrin:

 

[reye]

I thank you for the interest shown in the post in the end I used the two views, which seem quite clear to me. but could I use two views in the annex alone? Moreover, could I not make a simple overturn instead of sections like some of my colleagues did?

 

[sampom]

2 phases must be distinguished:
- to answer/resolve the question of the exercise (and therefore to be able to draw the piece according to "hand/2d") the three views are necessary. mandatory to create "reticols" and report the projections of intersection points.
Although from geometry we know that the intersection of 2 cylinders of equal diameter produces two straight lines that converge on the axis with angle included of 90° (the sketch of the example of lightning with the arches is not correct:biggrin, for the other smaller cylinder instead the graphic construction is the only way to obtain the resulting curve.. That's why 3 views.

- for the simple representation of the finished piece the only front view is the "minimum union", but with the correct quotas/annotations it can be considered sufficient for understanding and production.

as they say, n.3 pipes, perhaps lacks the height of the inner diameter or the thickness of the pipe.

in the exercise we talk about cylinder, non tubi.

... but could I use two views in the annex alone? Moreover, could I not make a simple overturn instead of sections like some of my colleagues did?

with only 2 views you cannot represent correctly and give the "real" quotas to the entities that stand on the two tilted faces; 3 (or even "rebalts" as you call them), of which two will be parallel to the planes of the tilted faces. the third of the thickness can be fine (even better) a section.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Fulvio Romano]

(the sketch of the lightning example with the arches is not correct:biggrin

Good boy!
in that view they had to be segments: my mistake.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I thank you for the interest shown in the post in the end I used the two views, which seem quite clear to me. but could I use two views in the annex alone? Moreover, could I not make a simple overturn instead of sections like some of my colleagues did?

as sampom also says, you should make a "open" view (with the two tippings) of face and one from above (or even better in section).
the view "open" are actually three different views, even if attacked, then a total of four views/sections.

 

[reye]

so I can choose as a prospectus the side area of the plate, then represent the upper face by tilting the sloping surfaces. Does the section not become superfluous?

 

[Joensow]

according to me,
the indispensable minimum is to make understand how the piece is made...
if then it takes a view or more of a depends on who is making views and
own experience....cmq I use at least 2 ;-)