quotation to correct?

[biz]

how would you quote the detail here (that I did not finish quotating)? I speak specifically of the quoted line angularly...it is correct to insert an auxiliary quota "(135,77)"(as in my opinion it is subtent that the line is tangent to the radius circle 53,5)?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I think it's okay, though:
I'll take those decimals.
I would put the quota as non-auxiliary
I would share the opposite angle as if I had to start from the summit and get to tangence.
I would put the height on the bribe as an auxiliary (188.5)
this because, not knowing how the particular will be executed, it seems more useful to me the angle from 5° than that from 95°.

 

[biz]

In your opinion this is preferable @massivonweizen ...

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

No, I've probably explained wrong.
the quota 135 should be indicated (136 rounded) and the 5th should be put horizontally and not vertically, therefore from the summit of 136 (later I put a sketch)
thinking about it above, it is even better to quote the height to the tangence and the angle putting the 136 as an auxiliary dimension; in practice as if you were to perform the piece on a milling machine that from the highest point (138,5) drops tilted to 5° to the lower one (136).
so the difference is only on who to put as an auxiliary fee.
without knowing how the piece is executed both methods are fine: the first is fine if you have to trace the shape for a plasma cut, the second, preferable, if you run on mu.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

going a little further and assuming that it is an unimportant and not necessarily worked inclination, perhaps only reasons of encumbrance due to a rotation of the particular, I would quota as from attached image and that is the dimension to tangence, however necessary to know how big the body is, and the acute angle while the quota 136, different from what said in my first post, put as an auxiliary or omitted (depends from the function of the particular).
this because, if as a supplier, I had to draw it to give the dxf to laser cutting or other operator would certainly be better to use whole size as the 138.5 and the 5th rather than a non-full size like the 135.77 that rounded would be 136; same speech applies to a possible tracker.
I am certainly a bit of my mental fixes, but as I wrote in another discussion in a generic design, which does not have a known method of production, I think we should give all the necessary information both that we should redesign it in dxf or 3d that give it directly in the workshop.

 

[biz]

clear,thank you for your opinion...only one thing...I didn't understand how you would quote the 5th....however is a piece that will be produced to laser cutting.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I didn't understand how you'd share the 5th

I forgot the picture... that I'm pissing

 

[biz]

ok, the 138,5 put as a nominal quota indicates that the sum 85+r53,5 is not enough to make it clear that the line is tangent to the semicircle, because if so it wasn't 138,5 I could have it for example to 137,5 and maybe you wouldn't understand (the incidence)...I don't know if I explained...I guess the tangence is not to be considered actually discounted....
As for the angular quota, well, you're referring to a fictional line... I think I understand that it's possible so... I wanted to do it in reality but I thought it wasn't exactly correct.
It is a few years that I have to deal with technical drawings and honestly you see of all colors...justly it is not a mathematical matter for which the result is unique...ever then uses the various methods of quotation that put together do not lead to a unique result. ..this is the beauty of the work... you compare it... then it depends a lot on the production process...do you give priority to the technological or functional quotation?(well here in the office from us there is no doubt....functional)....I often use the method of quotation gd&t....ecc etc....va well you could write pages....I threw some thought there. ..divagating a little and without explaining so much....it does not seem appropriate...it should open a discussion only on this.
Meanwhile thank you for your thought.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

ok, the 138,5 put as a nominal quota indicates that the sum 85+r53,5 is not enough to make it understand that the line is tangent to the semicircle, because if so it was not 138,5 I could have it for example to 137,5 and perhaps it would not understand (the incidence)...I do not know if I explained...I guess the tangence is not to be considered actually discounted

I think 138,5 should be put because the encumbrance should always be indicated. then depends on the context if to put them as nominal or auxiliary.
as to whether the radius and the tilted line are tangent any designer and operator simply deducts it by looking at the design; But as I said if I had to redesign it to give the dxf to the thiefist I prefer to have on 138.5 rather than 135.77.
the 5th is quoted on a theoretical line that cannot be measured, but to know if it is to be considered valid you should know the function of the inclination; if it has to be controlled then is correct that 95° that you put at the beginning.
priority must always be the functionality of the particular.
so to say, knowing that it is a particular laser cutting product and that the dxf you supply half of those odds do not even serve and you could only put those processing of the particular welded and those of control.

 

[biz]

I think 138,5 should be put because the encumbrance should always be indicated. then depends on the context if to put them as nominal or auxiliary.
as to whether the radius and the tilted line are tangent any designer and operator simply deducts it by looking at the design; But as I said if I had to redesign it to give the dxf to the thiefist I prefer to have on 138.5 rather than 135.77.
the 5th is quoted on a theoretical line that cannot be measured, but to know if it is to be considered valid you should know the function of the inclination; if it has to be controlled then is correct that 95° that you put at the beginning.
priority must always be the functionality of the particular.
so to say, knowing that it is a particular laser cutting product and that the dxf you supply half of those odds do not even serve and you could only put those processing of the particular welded and those of control.

tangency is visible in theory, but if tagency is apparent (almost tangent) it is better to indicate it with the appropriate quotas. ..however the encumbrance always indicated ok... as an auxiliary because if the tangence is given by defeat I already have the ray quota and the one from 85