problem in technical design.

[Apprendista]

Hello people, hello designers or simple mechanical engineering students. I am a freshman of this degree program and unfortunately, not having good technical design basics, I am encountering difficulties in this matter.

the first exercise consisted of representing in orthogonal projections of solids in assonometry and, by strengthening me, I managed to realize it; as well as some simple views of pieces.

the fact is that at one of the last exercises, we were given this piece:
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/2779/catturauv.jpgand we are asked to represent it: we have to understand how, that is what views and/or sections to do.

Is there anyone who could help me? Is there anyone who could advise me any way to make it in the technical design?

Thank you.

 

[davide75]

to become a good designer designer you should be able to read the technical design with its orthogonal representations as well as to make them. You need to do some orthogonal projection exercises to be able to understand with experience how many views serve to represent a piece. Usually 2 views are enough to make the piece understand (of course that it should not be too complex otherwise serve more views/sections and magnifiers).

 

[pika]

being a solid revolution would suffice a section along a diametrical plane... I recommend not to forget the rotation axis (it was always indicated for the trees and all these types of solids).
the problem is that here there are also all those pins on a face and so you also need a side view that shows them (I recommend not to forget the circumference on which the holes lie and indicates with what angle they are spaced). the fact that they are passing you see it in the section before.

with regard to the technical design in general, run to the library and buy the return house (it is the author) that, as from many reported here, represents the bible of the designer.

 

[davide75]

@pika
with a section do everything to me.
if the holes are equidistant it would only be enough to quota them indicating diameter and number of holes to 360°/n

 

[pika]

@pika
with a section do everything to me.
if the holes are equidistant it would only be enough to quota them indicating diameter and number of holes to 360°/n

Yes, it is. But knowing the professors, I know they prefer the solution that represents all the holes seen frontally with all the odds of the case reported well, after all the purpose is educational.

 

[Apprendista]

the fact is that I have just visualization issues:frown:

I mean, I guess I cut it halfway and then what do I see? you who are practical, you could not sketch me a moment the figure (if you can do it quickly) that I know, using some software.. . By the way, software like autocad could help me in learning or in order to be able to use it is first indispensable to know how to draw freely?

 

[sampom]

Hello people, hello designers or simple mechanical engineering students. I am a freshman of this degree program and unfortunately, not having good technical design basics, I am encountering difficulties in this matter.

the first exercise consisted of representing in orthogonal projections of solids in assonometry and, by strengthening me, I managed to realize it; as well as some simple views of pieces.

the fact is that at one of the last exercises, we were given this piece:
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/2779/catturauv.jpgand we are asked to represent it: we have to understand how, that is what views and/or sections to do.

Is there anyone who could help me? Is there anyone who could advise me any way to make it in the technical design?

Thank you.

the particular is very simple if it was not for the many quotas to give.
for a constructive "workshop" you only need a single view, the section (like that of your assonometry, maybe complete at 180°); it would already be widely understandable for the lather.
I repeat, the quotas are many and we must proceed with good order to avoid pastries of crossed lines (and there will be). attention to assign them all because in such a representation the risk is precisely to forget some.

you may at the limit add a frontal view (looking the nozzle from the tip) just to show the "circonferential" layout of the 12 holes ø5; but the superfluous tenets (in the end it would be an anonymous series of concentric circles).
you can solve the question of the 12 holes in the section by assigning to the diameter of the circumference the indication centro fori (c.f.) ø80 n ° 12 fori ø5 a 30 °, so many are in equal numbers and in the section see well the two diametrically opposite and also, clearly, that they are passing.

Yes yes, I would only do one in section.. then I don’t know what the profs require (work is not always pure academy:smile.
My all-yes, among the many things, measured the interspaces between the quota lines.. but it was 30 years ago and drew by hand with the china:biggrin:. Now at least those "errors" avoid "automatic".
if nothing else you learned to keep the tables neat, clean and essential.

greetings
Mar

 

[pika]

The thing is, the sketch we'd do you already have... That's what you posted!
to speak untechnically, in that design was cut off a 90° clove, you to put it in 2d you have to think you cut it right in half. in practice you have to mirror the upper section (the section is the cut profile filled with the oblique lines, say fields) and then side by side make a side view that in practice is a series of concentric circles to really tell the caxxo!

If things are like this, however, do not wait tomorrow, run immediately to buy a technical drawing book if not I know that mechanical engineering will become a real long bald!
technical design is the language of the mechanical engineer, without learning anything or making you understand.

 

[sampom]

the fact is that I have really visualization problems

I mean, I guess I cut it halfway and then what do I see? you who are practical, you could not sketch me a moment the figure (if you can do it quickly) that I know, using some software.. . By the way, software like autocad could help me in learning or in order to be able to use it is first indispensable to know how to draw freely?

as would be <What do I see? > (ahi ahi, we start badly..:tongue.
see exactly what you see in the asymmetric you posted. only that the cut will be complete throughout half of the piece (not only dissected for a quarter as the attachment) and clearly the lower part will be speculating to the top since it is a solid revolution.
Come on, I'll give you a hand (someone will cripple me, but at least start with something):I think there's nothing complicated, just like it's inside.

Now you will have the obligation to quote it correctly and post the result obtained :biggrin:

However, yes, you just have to study and learn how to "read" the drawings and then immediately recognize the details (I think you'll attend a course, no?).
autocad is a 2d, so the sections you have to draw them anyway, and just for this (but not only, for me who are of the "old school") I think that knowing how to draw "hand" would be a great thing (now you unleash flames:tongue.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Apprendista]

The thing is, the sketch we'd do you already have... That's what you posted!
to speak untechnically, in that design was cut off a 90° clove, you to put it in 2d you have to think you cut it right in half. in practice you have to mirror the upper section (the section is the cut profile filled with the oblique lines, say fields) and then side by side make a side view that in practice is a series of concentric circles to really tell the caxxo!

If things are like this, however, do not wait tomorrow, run immediately to buy a technical drawing book if not I know that mechanical engineering will become a real long bald!
technical design is the language of the mechanical engineer, without learning anything or making you understand.

However the chirone-tornincasa is our text book that I have to buy as soon as possible. In practice I realized that to do the section, I imagine to remove the other quarter of an eye, I look at it in front, mirroring the piece of the upper section. Is this section not enough? I have to do the side view, too? In fact I with this section only see the inside and not the outer holes. ..but the users first spoke of section only...however thanks to all for the answers.. .

 

[pika]

my advice is to add the other view, just for completeness.
It is not mandatory (as long as you specify the notes that others have said, that is, how the holes are arranged), however, to show the prof you understood I would do it.

It's true, the other author is chirone... and think it was my professor!
Let's hope you don't know I forgot about him!

....then we wait for your job now!

 

[Apprendista]

Of course I have to try to interpret the odds that are really several. . .

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I think the chirone-tornincasa is if not the best, at least in the top ten of the best drawing texts. to the aun was gergally called "the bible"!

I beg you to ask on the forum a sketch of the piece. is a very simple piece (although there are so many elements), it is worth trying.

Someone said that just one section. .. wanting to be avarious, probably yes, but it would not be a good design, which must first be clear. the problem lies only in the forellini, which could not be quoted, but would be "described" with a note.

I would make a view from one of the two round sides. starting from this I would do a section. this section could either diametrically cut the piece, or follow two rays, one that passes to the center of a hairpin, and another that passes between two forekins. ..this is the classic method to designate these pieces, although in this case it is not quite obligatory. . .

make the drawing, then post it. after you have strived, a multi-hand correction will certainly be more fruitful.

Good luck

 

[sampom]

I think the chirone-tornincasa is if not the best, at least in the top ten of the best drawing texts. to the aun was gergally called "the bible"!

I beg you to ask on the forum a sketch of the piece. is a very simple piece (although there are so many elements), it is worth trying.

Someone said that just one section. .. wanting to be avarious, probably yes, but it would not be a good design, which must first be clear. the problem lies only in the forellini, which could not be quoted, but would be "described" with a note.

I would make a view from one of the two round sides. starting from this I would do a section. this section could either diametrically cut the piece, or follow two rays, one that passes to the center of a hairpin, and another that passes between two forekins. ..this is the classic method to designate these pieces, although in this case it is not quite obligatory. . .

make the drawing, then post it. after you have strived, a multi-hand correction will certainly be more fruitful.

Good luck

..sometimes it seems to respond without reading all previous posts:smile:

I repeat that the holes in the section are absolutely not a problem:Why wouldn't this be a "good design"? and especially why unclear?
I'm talking about stuff that needs to go to production right away (yet yesterday ); in the hands of people "of the trade". with the "didactic" I have little to do.
who does not know how to "read" is certainly not helped by more views and sections (addressing those staggered then..), indeed worse the situation. for these are the beautiful "models" 3d:smile:.
to a simple detail must correspond a simple and essential design (clearly equipped with all information); the operator throws us an eye and mounts the piece in the car, enough.
unnecessary and unnecessary views were considered error (more votes). and are considered loss of time (money) by the "masters".
once they were also true and proper fatigue, uselessly end to themselves, since you had to do everything by hand (today you can consider "style exercises", but always end to yourself). on the other hand, they studied the norms and conventions (also customary) unique and international (as far as possible), a language. It's enough "just words" and everything is said, and so it must be!
Coming out of mechanics, to understand, if I design a lawn I don't make all the flowers with the bees flying. I have my beautiful sampling (when called simply restraint) which tells me, and I do not fill the whole area if it is large, but only a corner.. and who must understand understand (if he knows the language).

As reiterated, the one in question is a particular elementary, that section is sufficient and advanced. it is useless to go from the u.c.a.s. :biggrin:

at the "poor" apprentice I posted the drawing, a help I feel kindly to give it, but just to start. it will be his care to return it to his table and to complete it of all quotas and any notes (sometimes not for a beginner completely fast) and clearly put here the result.
I would like to add that ours is a good job, but to the knowledge you get also with a minimum of passion (which helps to know what you are doing), otherwise I do not understand the choice of the faculty.

greetings
Marco:smile:

However, I would like to get rid of the responsibilities. .
you never know that waiting for teachers (those do not work "on the field", not all at least)

 

[cacciatorino]

I repeat that the holes in the section are absolutely not a problem:

I do as you say, but I don't feel wrong about Roman lightning when it says that with the presence of the front view the design becomes more robust. propio two weeks ago I sent away a drawing where there was written "n.6 holes" and instead the model had 8 (the reason was that I had modified the 3d model and the note had not updated automatically). the assembly reported the non-conformity with addition the note: "the next time you also do the front view."
That's because if they saw the writing where I indicated 6 holes and the view with 8, at least one phone call would make it.

 

[Apprendista]

..sometimes it seems to respond without reading all previous posts:smile:

I repeat that the holes in the section are absolutely not a problem:View attachment 11531Why wouldn't this be a "good design"? and especially why unclear?
I'm talking about stuff that needs to go to production right away (yet yesterday ); in the hands of people "of the trade". with the "didactic" I have little to do.
who does not know how to "read" is certainly not helped by more views and sections (addressing those staggered then..), indeed worse the situation. for these are the beautiful "models" 3d:smile:.
to a simple detail must correspond a simple and essential design (clearly equipped with all information); the operator throws us an eye and mounts the piece in the car, enough.
unnecessary and unnecessary views were considered error (more votes). and are considered loss of time (money) by the "masters".
once they were also true and proper fatigue, uselessly end to themselves, since you had to do everything by hand (today you can consider "style exercises", but always end to yourself). on the other hand, they studied the norms and conventions (also customary) unique and international (as far as possible), a language. It's enough "just words" and everything is said, and so it must be!
Coming out of mechanics, to understand, if I design a lawn I don't make all the flowers with the bees flying. I have my beautiful sampling (when called simply restraint) which tells me, and I do not fill the whole area if it is large, but only a corner.. and who must understand understand (if he knows the language).

As reiterated, the one in question is a particular elementary, that section is sufficient and advanced. it is useless to go from the u.c.a.s. :biggrin:

at the "poor" apprentice I posted the drawing, a help I feel kindly to give it, but just to start. it will be his care to return it to his table and to complete it of all quotas and any notes (sometimes not for a beginner completely fast) and clearly put here the result.
I would like to add that ours is a good job, but to the knowledge you get also with a minimum of passion (which helps to know what you are doing), otherwise I do not understand the choice of the faculty.

greetings
Marco:smile:

However, I would like to get rid of the responsibilities. .
you never know that waiting for teachers (those do not work "on the field", not all at least)

thanks, in fact also our prof always says to make the necessary and sufficient views to represent the piece, what is more not needed, unless it is indispensable for understanding the design.. .

I have difficulties in technical design, but I'd like to fill them. ..however as you say, the technical design in such a faculty is very important, but why for example to the threesome there is only one drawing examination and to say one, 3 of mathematics?

It seems that more than forming designers, we want to form applied mathematicians. ..but as perhaps it is very truthful, often an occupational outlet for a mechanical ing, presupposes a fairly detailed knowledge of the technical design. . .

 

[michele81]

I have difficulties in technical design, but I'd like to fill them. ..however as you say, the technical design in such a faculty is very important, but why for example to the threesome there is only one drawing examination and to say one, 3 of mathematics?

It seems that more than forming designers, we want to form applied mathematicians. ..but as perhaps it is very truthful, often an occupational outlet for a mechanical ing, presupposes a fairly detailed knowledge of the technical design. . .

I don't know how vo was, but the engineering of the last 10 years for a while for granted the technical design. inconceivable because it is equivalent to grammar for those who want to write a book. Math is hated by almost every ing. but it is the means that makes the difference between taking a book and applying a formula without knowing what it means and developing new an analysis of a problem. it is not said that you use it anyway...:wink:

 

[Fulvio Romano]

[cut]the problem lies only in the forellini, which could not be quoted, but would be "described" with a note.[cut]

[cut] ..sometimes it seems to respond without reading all previous posts:smile:[cut]

..sometimes it seems to respond without reading all previous posts:smile::biggrin:

apart from what is said as a hunter, that note, although very clear for one with the dirty hands of oil, tell me from what legislation is allowed?

Remember that a piece designed badly and made well, even if not from problems to the production chain, will never pass a university exam!

all, of course, with irony and without controversy! :finger:

 

[Fulvio Romano]

But why, for example, is there only one examination of drawing and to say one, three of mathematics?

because the design is easier than math, and just one exam (in two if I put the cad) to fully understand it, instead for mathematics it takes more time.

I imagine that a plausible motivation could be this.. .

 

[cacciatorino]

I have difficulties in technical design, but I'd like to fill them. ..however as you say, the technical design in such a faculty is very important, but why for example to the threesome there is only one drawing examination and to say one, 3 of mathematics?

It seems that more than forming designers, we want to form applied mathematicians. ..but as perhaps it is very truthful, often an occupational outlet for a mechanical ing, presupposes a fairly detailed knowledge of the technical design. . .

Bachelor's problems! In fact in three years you cannot expect to learn the same things that in five.

relative to mathematics, I agree with michele81, the difference between the peritum and the engineer is in the ability of the engineer to know how to describe with mathematical models the real problems, and understand what are the parameters of the model on which to act, and those that can be neglected.

In theory, and underlined in theory, the engineer should develop calculations and conceptual ideas, while the part of technical design and industrialization should be assigned to the experts. Besides, it's completely uneconomical to teach a boy science of construction and rational mechanics, and then put him to indicate signs of wrinkle on the tables of details. from this they start at the university: the engineer should at the limit understand the technical design, but certainly not put to it.
then we know that things in companies work differently, you want for the poor corporate culture of small and medium Italian companies, you want for the poor preparation of some graduates.