technical design

[calusio]

I started a 300-hour course with the region, to become a design technician with the use of autocad, during the afternoon I army myself alone at home taking drawings from the various sites like (studycadcam) , I happened this design that seemed simple to me when I was going to do everything but I am stuck in the 3 expert fittings and I can't do them because I don't understand the distance both on how to perform exercise and on how to improve the reading of the drawing? Thank you very much

 

[wert]

Bye. a question: is it a prophesiedeutic design for learning or have you found a random design and are you trying to replicate it? Besides, your attachment is small and it is not active to zoom. Before saying my I would wait for your answer and maybe a better legible attachment.

 

[calusio]

Hi, I can tell you that it goes out of the program's exercises as those I can carry out with less difficulty, this design I am trying alone, I attach files taken directly from the site, thanks to the help.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

you are asking for clarification on the realization of a drawing by autocad and do not attach to the autocad file or even its image, but only the image of the repeated exercise three times... How should you do to understand where the problem can be?

 

[wert]

Hi, I can tell you that it goes out of the program's exercises as those I can carry out with less difficulty, this design I am trying alone, I attach files taken directly from the site, thanks to the help.

this design is readable... That said, I would let him lose because he is not listed well. some odds are missing; relative to the shape you highlighted with the red circle in your first post, according to the odds you are, it is not feasible if not giving some things for granted (which, however, in the technical drawings you can not do). first: the quota that bears only the symbol of parallelism had to report a distance, like the other that is 2mm; perhaps they suspect that it is 2 mm also that? second: perhaps it is assumed that the 12 mm quota that establishes the distance of the opening greater than the left edge, is also to be considered as the tangence of radius 1 of the form that you cannot build. at least 2 odds are missing to achieve it. further confirmation that the design has been quoted with the feet comes from the fact that in the view from the top (left) lacks the width of the opening that has 3 straight walls and a beam (16-4); even here perhaps it is assumed that it is 20 mm wide, as the internal measure between the two ribs.

 

[Tristan]

I agree with you @wert . quoted so you have to go to feeling. . .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

definitely is quoted bad, but it is drawable. the fittings from 1 being fittings must be tangent, I doubt that someone may think they are not. the view is drawable except for that symbol of parallelism that I exchanged for a 1.1. It takes a little bit of reasoning but you get there.
clearly must be seen as an exercise and not as a productive design.

 

[wert]

definitely is quoted bad, but it is drawable. the fittings from 1 being fittings must be tangent, I doubt that someone may think they are not. the view is drawable except for that symbol of parallelism that I exchanged for a 1.1. It takes a little bit of reasoning but you get there.
clearly must be seen as an exercise and not as a productive design.

Boh... Are you sure you can shape/design that detail with only available odds? I do not! unless to "baptize" some size. . .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Boh... Are you sure you can shape/design that detail with only available odds? I do not! unless to "baptize" some size. . .

I drew only that view with the only uncertainty of what you call parallelism that I understood as quota 1,1.

 

[wert]

I drew only that view with the only uncertainty of what you call parallelism that I understood as quota 1,1.

Well, you say little?

 

[calusio]

Thanks for the answers, I lost an afternoon trying not to take for granted anything, next time I will take an exercise and before doing so I will make sure it is all well quoted di

 

[Marco F inox]

if you want more answers, draw bigger and more marked. I can't read anything with my glasses.

 

[DrBarde]

is designed as it says @massivonweizen, and I think it is probably an exercise that requires geometric reasoning to achieve it. probably that's the purpose of this table.

That said, surely it is a little odd quotation (to make a compliment) in a real productive environment.

 

[wert]

is designed as it says @massivonweizen, and I think it is probably an exercise that requires geometric reasoning to achieve it. probably that's the purpose of this table.

That said, surely it is a little odd quotation (to make a compliment) in a real productive environment.

I frankly don't know how to do... I will certainly be rusty... .
I would be grateful if, at a time when you have some time to devote to my request, I could describe in detail how you would proceed to obtain that form. If you really can draw with the only indications given in that design, it means that I have to stop intervening here, to avoid making barbine figures. Thank you in advance.

 

[DrBarde]

I frankly don't know how to do... I will certainly be rusty... .
I would be grateful if, at a time when you have some time to devote to my request, I could describe in detail how you would proceed to obtain that form. If you really can draw with the only indications given in that design, it means that I have to stop intervening here, to avoid making barbine figures. Thank you in advance.

I ask vein, actually trying to draw it lacks a quota to be able to define it as rightly she says. that it is the distance between the two sunbeds or at least another quota for the rays of the upper sun. unless I am losing (and can be, who knows) some very particular geometric bond.

 

[Vittorio]

I agree with you @werttaking for granted the quota 12 tangent to the r1
2 odds are missing to be able to achieve it
then being an exercise, everything is fine

 

[DrBarde]

I agree with you @werttaking for granted the quota 12 tangent to the r1
2 odds are missing to be able to achieve it
then being an exercise, everything is fine
View attachment 71410

From my point of view one of the odds is enough to get the position, since they are dependent on each other. the upper hole is bound by the tangences, the hillyness given by the "2" and the "5" from above. Therefore, considering parallelism, once fixed another center is made.

 

[Vittorio]

From my point of view one of the odds is enough to get the position, since they are dependent on each other. the upper hole is bound by the tangences, the hillyness given by the "2" and the "5" from above. Therefore, considering parallelism, once fixed another center is made.

You're perfectly right, I missed the 5th
The corner doesn't need.

 

[PIETRO2002]

Question: Are the views American?

 

[TETRASTORE]

I drew only that view with the only uncertainty of what you call parallelism that I understood as quota 1,1.

I agree, you can draw considering the tangences.