correction technological quotation

[Marco-22]

Hello I have a doubt on the following table: Are the odds of the bevels on the bigger shoulder? I tried not to insert a serial quota to size them but I'm not sure of the result
Thank you very much =

 

[falonef]

Hi.
from what I can see 2x45° seems to me to be.
or I don't understand what your doubt might be.

ps: please change the thickness of the geometry because the design is illegible. There are precise rules.

 

[Marco-22]

exact is the 2x45° : to avoid a quota in series I opted for the share of the bevel + the longitudinal quota "92" but I had doubts about the correctness of this

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

However it is a technical and non-specific problem of catia.
writing in the correct section improves the possibility of answers

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

now that I look at it better is a really bad design that breaks a lot of aspects of legislation and common sense
Lyrics height
quota allocation (there is no rule, but it turns to the eye that instead of an a0 you could have used an a1, which then for a particular long about 130mm use such a format is crazy. )
Section arrows
thickness of lines
and that it would be avoidable not to do so
more things I let you discover. . .
@falonef I don't think it's a catholic discussion, wouldn't it be the case of moving it into the student section so that others, who maybe don't read the catia section, can make their contribution? Thank you.

 

[falonef]

moved

 

[TECNOMODEL]

exact is the 2x45° : to avoid a quota in series I opted for the share of the bevel + the longitudinal quota "92" but I had doubts about the correctness of this

quota 92 is incorrect, it would be impossible to measure.
is always quoted from floor to floor in such cases, so the joke of the shoulder.
the same for quota 27.
the quotation of the seeger seat is wrong, the distance between the shoulder and the throat side where the ring works.
the upper section of the key seat makes no sense, why not dissect in the other way?
the quotation of the same is not the maximum, I would have quoted from the shouldering of the ø on which there is the seat.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

the quotation of the seeger seat is wrong, the distance between the shoulder and the throat side where the ring works.

I strongly hope that's not a place for a seeger...

 

[TECNOMODEL]

I strongly hope that's not a place for a seeger...

In fact the dimensions of the internal ø give to think.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

quota 92 is incorrect, it would be impossible to measure.

I think with a depth gauge you can measure it, then with how easy it depends on the arm of the caliber.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

I think with a depth gauge you can measure it, then with how easy it depends on the arm of the caliber.

measuring the edge of a bevel in my opinion is impossible, as well as conceptually wrong.

 

[falonef]

measuring the edge of a bevel in my opinion is impossible, as well as conceptually wrong.

I would also say quota 27

 

[TECNOMODEL]

I would also say quota 27

Exactly, I indicated it in my previous post.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

measuring the edge of a bevel in my opinion is impossible, as well as conceptually wrong.

I agree with that, but does 92 not refer to the shouldering?
edit:
you are right, I had to enlarge the page to the maximum and lose diotrie for the next 7 reincarnations, but I managed to decipher the 92 I had confused with the 82 of the shoulder.
the beauty is that we are discussing only between us 3...

 

[TECNOMODEL]

I agree with that, but does 92 not refer to the shouldering?

If I didn't take a bark, he quoted from both sides the final edge of the bevel.