reducer

[toyo10]

Hello everyone, I am a mechanical engineering student and Monday I have to deliver an exercise: topic reducer, in fact.
you are very available I have seen, also and upload images with really fantastic fixes! .
I would like to ask you two questions:

1) Is the reducer correct? if it is not where and how to correct it? (I put 2 images for greater clarity...it is always the same!)

2) I should quote and all the gear shaft with the piece pin.
on the quotas already I have made a culture on the forum and there are...but geometric tolerances just no! :
Apparently you can not put so ignoring the construction of the reducer (supports, bearings, etc.) as I was accustomed to doing for normal trees (see the picture I drew).

thanks to your availability!

For example, I think the bearings of the second tree were mounted or...

 

[meccanicamg]

my.jpg tree has wrong references to and b that go on cylindrical surfaces and not on the quota. They are simple things... that with the rules in front of you do not have to invent.

I don't understand why in these two years the teachers have set themselves up with this and that other type of reducer of the 1950s... which are a crap. you do not do so anymore neither the speakers nor the gearboxes, different bearings especially as technology and cost but we see:

#1 = wrong bearings and not properly bound. with the push in red, everything goes down. missing a joke or a wreath and the sense of the bearing is wrong.

#2 = constraints are lacking on the outside of the bearing. all the shaft axis must/can be mounted at the counter and must be all compacted and lack space to make the package, otherwise to be mounted in the case as a single piece at a time it takes force the jokes on the case of the outer ring of the bearing. I would never have used the sloping barrel bearing. I don't think forces justify it. Moreover, that type of bearings creates the need to adjust the axial game by means of a wreath.

#3 = very constituency and with load problems on the elements of the axial bearing that tends to cross. at least make a spacer as indicated in red which has more support surface.

#4a and #4b = missing the jokes on the outside you have to do some shavings with spacers very well so that it can work everything. the tree cannot dilate in those conditions and if for some reason it rises the temperature and stretches all

possible that for the gearboxes you always use too much imagination? Look how many we've done on the site and how often you don't wear axial bearings... which really are a bad thing. then the swivel seals under the bells do not see them (what they did in 1950). other thing are those ugly felt seals that are no longer used for a century and a half. Why do they not teach how to build things for how technology produces them all over the world?
I'd like to see if one day with a drawing so you get into a company that makes gearboxes..... laughs are assured. Dear teachers.....update....the world outside your classroom is different!!! ! ! !

 

[toyo10]

Thank you very much for the answer!

I can deliver the reducer along with the next tutorial, so I have all the time to learn with your precious tips!

#3: I immediately correct, definitely so it is better

#1: Is that better? (reducer my 3.jpg)

#2, #4a and #4b: can you explain yourself better by showing me correct?
about "my.jpg tree" on the chirone backincasa gives me the wicked done so!!
references are not on the quota but referred to axes when marked in this way.
Anyway in my case a and b I have to put them where the radial bearings are right?
should I also not put a cylindrical tolerance?

Thank you again!

 

[meccanicamg]

3 and 4 let it go... it was good like that.

I would say that there is a little sensible indication if it is represented. If you have to see the cylindrical cylindrical cylindriness of two cylindrical surfaces do not indicate an axis that is practically an imaginary line not measurable for really.... let's say that you also need a little brain in putting directions. the same applies as total oscillation.

However it is wrong to use the reference indication supported by a quota line....if you ever do it on extensions and not as you did. en iso 1101:2005 and check what you have to do. if it is an axis you can indicate it directly on the axis.

I attach two examples indicated in the legislation (copy well from books if it is right, do not copy from books if it is wrong)