biz
Guest
I wonder if the diameter of the piece on which the zigrination will be engraved should be quoted as a nominal diameter or as a rolling diameter.
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
Since the zigrination is due to external deformation, the nominal diameter must be quoted.
for the zigrination instead is used the norms un 149
for the zigrination instead is used the norms un 149
biz
Guest
the norm I know her, only that, as you know, does not indicate if the design is listed the nominal diameter or the roller
biz
Guest
Anyway, thank you.
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
It is not that I can know what you know and what not; however I have specified that the legislation serves to indicate the zigrination, but it is not excluded that in the norm, that I do not possess, it is also specified as to quote the diameter.
with regard to the diameter I correct myself because by nominal diameter the outer diameter of the zignrinatra is indicated while with a roller diameter the starting diameter; Therefore, always according to me, the diameter of rolling must be quoted that according to the type of zigrination, in relief or incavated, can also be the same as the nominal one.
the fact that the roller diameter depends on the nominal diameter, the type of zigrination means that it must be dimensioned a priori and therefore indicated to those who will have to prepare the piece.
a couple of interesting pdfs. . I believehttps://www.galvagni.eu/public/img/sotto_pagine/2016413_122808_xuk1tl.pdf
biz
Guest
In short, I indicate the diameter of rolling.
But disillusioned with the fact that the diameter of rolling could be equal to the nominal one...in this the norm seems clear to me:different nominal diameter the final diameter, after the processing....dicesi diameter of rolling the initial diameter. ..before the cheek.
the doubt remains, because if I indicate the initial diameter of certain help the builder, but does not reflect the finished piece, while if I indicate the final diameter I do not help the lathe (even if in my opinion the lather should districately between these regulations).
so boh... I look at the pdf you have attached.
Thank you.
But disillusioned with the fact that the diameter of rolling could be equal to the nominal one...in this the norm seems clear to me:different nominal diameter the final diameter, after the processing....dicesi diameter of rolling the initial diameter. ..before the cheek.
the doubt remains, because if I indicate the initial diameter of certain help the builder, but does not reflect the finished piece, while if I indicate the final diameter I do not help the lathe (even if in my opinion the lather should districately between these regulations).
so boh... I look at the pdf you have attached.
Thank you.
biz
Guest
Yes, I do. @ pietro2002 even if I understand that @massivonweizen non sia d'accordo
PIETRO2002
Guest
If you know who's gonna build your pieces, you can ask the supplier for the starting fee. but if then for reasons change supplier, what do you do a design review for each third party? I don't think that's the right way. You're pointing out what you need, maybe whoever does it, invented a new technology and gives it to you!
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
if you have a knuckle in fact the outer diameter is the same; perhaps it would be more correct to define it ridge diameter (though I do not know how it is possible to measure it in this case)
on this is I who dissent because it would require the lather that should be to dispel the norm and make calculations to define the preworked diameter; the workshop is not always so environmentally suitable for making calculations, moreover I think it is rare that on board macchna are available the regulations between which to draw. in my opinion it is the task of the designer to give all the information to perform the piece without obliging the operator to make calculations or browse manuals. Also you may need to know before starting all the processing of which diameter it is to optimize the turning sequence.
Yes, I did, I blamed him.
the rest of the idea that should be indicated also that of rolling.
biz
Guest
@massivonweizen if you have a knuckled the initial diameter and the final one by force of things can not be equal, since the plastic deformation induced by the tool leads to a variation of the diameter however, even if of an exigeous entity
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
attached an image of a pdf that I cannot attach
TORNIO: ZIGRINATURA O GODRONATURA - Meccanica Tecnica
È l’operazione mediante la quale si ottengono delle striature regolari, parallele, spinate ecc.. sulla superficie esterna di pezzi cilindrici
meccanicatecnica.altervista.org
Attachments
PIETRO2002
Guest
I do not like to make the figure of the professor, I speak for experience, I have seen some pieces made on multi-mandrino lathes with rulled threads with heads of the firm slices, I assure you that to find the right diameter of pre-rolling we had to do some tests, and when changing the material, the story repeated, then the theoretical formulas give you a base of departure, but then you have to check them on the field. It's right that a designer knows the work, but you can't expect him to know all the tricks of who magic the lathe from morning to night!attached an image of a pdf that I cannot attachTORNIO: ZIGRINATURA O GODRONATURA - Meccanica Tecnica
È l’operazione mediante la quale si ottengono delle striature regolari, parallele, spinate ecc.. sulla superficie esterna di pezzi cilindrici
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
It does not seem to me that it is to make the figure of the professor to say his opinion or to corroborate his thesis.
I believe that the generic design, understood as a design that does not have a specific supplier or reference performer, must have beyond the constructive and functional information also the additional ones to facilitate development; therefore I do not like to indicate the norms that define the exhaust gorges, tips from center, seeger...., but I prefer to draw and dimension; Of course, I invest in time, but I take it away from those who will later take the design into their hands with the risk that they can make a mistake*.
this also because I have worked on machine tools for a decade and I know that the situation rarely allows you to open a vademecum or catalog to see how much the seeger gorge for a 35 tree, information that the designer could give in 5 minutes.
Unfortunately the years as a turner are far away and that voting enjoyment I have made few, so the memory makes me fault and I have made it look easier than it is.
*at every step you make the risk of error increases; If, for example, instead of directly giving a fle step to the supplier gives a pdf to an external technical office that will make us a dxf that will then turn in turn to a supplier to which however it needs a 3d and then it will have to remodel all these steps can bring small distraction errors that added make a disaster (a little the logic of the wireless phone that you made as children); This is an extreme example of course, but it was to explain my thesis.
I believe that the generic design, understood as a design that does not have a specific supplier or reference performer, must have beyond the constructive and functional information also the additional ones to facilitate development; therefore I do not like to indicate the norms that define the exhaust gorges, tips from center, seeger...., but I prefer to draw and dimension; Of course, I invest in time, but I take it away from those who will later take the design into their hands with the risk that they can make a mistake*.
this also because I have worked on machine tools for a decade and I know that the situation rarely allows you to open a vademecum or catalog to see how much the seeger gorge for a 35 tree, information that the designer could give in 5 minutes.
Unfortunately the years as a turner are far away and that voting enjoyment I have made few, so the memory makes me fault and I have made it look easier than it is.
*at every step you make the risk of error increases; If, for example, instead of directly giving a fle step to the supplier gives a pdf to an external technical office that will make us a dxf that will then turn in turn to a supplier to which however it needs a 3d and then it will have to remodel all these steps can bring small distraction errors that added make a disaster (a little the logic of the wireless phone that you made as children); This is an extreme example of course, but it was to explain my thesis.
PIETRO2002
Guest
I agree with you that you have to put the operator in the best conditions to perform your job. but some things make her the operator according to her experience and equipment/machines. otherwise in addition to the design you should give him all the working cycle, with all the stages etc. etc. this is done in structured companies where you have work at home and where there is a dedicated office!
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
is like when you make sheet metal to fold; is indicated in radius and puts the radiant dimension, but then the development uses the radius of its bending machine and corrects development. However, this information must be given.
remaining on the enjoyed piece I would put the diameter of rolling, perhaps as an auxiliary, then the supplier will correct it according to his knowledge.
remaining on the enjoyed piece I would put the diameter of rolling, perhaps as an auxiliary, then the supplier will correct it according to his knowledge.
D2012
Guest
as he said pietro2002, the nominal diameter should be indicated and the type of zigrination "zigrinatura uni 149 - and 0,8", or only "uni 149 - and 0.8" should be indicated if it is represented with the conventional representation on the design.
will be the care of the turner (or his office to which he is boss) starting from the correct diameter to reach the final result.
the case of bending is not a good example. If you want to look for an example, I would prefer threading: the starting diameter should not be indicated in the design, but only the final result should be indicated.
will be the care of the turner (or his office to which he is boss) starting from the correct diameter to reach the final result.
the case of bending is not a good example. If you want to look for an example, I would prefer threading: the starting diameter should not be indicated in the design, but only the final result should be indicated.
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
apart from that to the first message a greeting and a short presentation would not be wrong,
I ask you why of this statement?
TECNOMODEL
Guest
Usually a zigrination is made in details that must be handled manually, such as anti-slip handle or similar, in my opinion the final ø is very little important and is hardly controlled.
when I worked in the workshop it turned back to the ø7 indicated on the design and it was zigrinava, without worrying more than much of the increase in size.
when I worked in the workshop it turned back to the ø7 indicated on the design and it was zigrinava, without worrying more than much of the increase in size.
TETRASTORE
Guest
given the particular function of enjoyment, I have never found myself in the situation of having to test the final diameter.
I agree with the indication of the only finished diameter by flapping the two quotes above, also because the enjoyment (or recalc zigrination) is carried out in the machine after turning and, generally, by the same supplier. the variables in play (type of material, step, etc.) determine a widening of the diameter whose values are indicated by the tool manufacturer in the indications of use (in addition to the documents indicated by @massivonweizen see also this example) so I think it superfluous, from the designer, to report also the starting diameter to define which should always and anyway consult a specific supplier to know tools and operating modes adopted.