overall interpretation "cutting tool"

[ValveFloyd]

As a general advice, I think it's better not to tie up with the views... trying to stay in the smallest sheet format possible is a legacy of the past, when drawing to the tecnigraph. now with the cad the views come out in a second, so try to provide all the possible geometric information, to avoid misunderstandings. rather reduce the scale. in the base for example, I would add a view projected to the left, to show well the shape of the exhaust milling that is below and a view projected above to show that the milling 51.5 is completely passing (or not). In support I find both a forcing the view from b... there for there I thought of an American overturn. . only after I saw the arrow b. use a larger sheet and make normal projection if you can. the holes at 120° better if you put the coordinate quotas. Finally missing the general ruogosita, which usually puts on the cartilage.

perfectly in agreement. in the drawings I published I sought a solution that was didactically correct, but that at the same time required the least number of views. this partly because I was taught this way, and partly because to the written test, especially for reasons of time, you must try to perform a complete solution with the minimum effort. I fully agree with the fact that it is an incorrect approach. I myself often find myself in difficulty interpreting overall (including what started the discussion), that although correct, for a beginner eye like mine, they are ostic without a large number of views. For example, recentmete I have realized the putting into the table of the body of this compressor, and to me it turns out that both interpretations I have made are correct (geometrially, then it is clear that one is more stupid than the other). What do you think?
for the rest, roughness, etc... I've noticed everything, and thank you very much.

p.s.
even here there are wrinkles and even a tide of fittings. I know that I should correct them before I publish them, but having little time I prefer to start something new so as to train even in reading, rather than revising all the drawings I did. Obviously if I have to load other jobs I will try to cure them as much as possible.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

For example, recentmete I have realized the putting into the table of the body of this compressor, and to me it turns out that both interpretations I have made are correct (geometrially, then it is clear that one is more stupid than the other). What do you think?

They're practically identical. What would you do? You have to explain it and motivate it, we don't have to guess

I know that I should correct them before I publish them, but having little time I prefer to start something new so as to train even in reading, rather than revising all the drawings I did.

so perpetrate errors on all drawings.

looking at the last drawing you posted (which is to be reviewed) I realized something; in the previous post I wrote to you to redesign the pdf in autocad, useful to learn how to analyze their designs, but this method has a limit that is what certain geometries and dimensions are known by memory and therefore there is no aseptic reading of the design; It would be even better for you to agree with colleagues and make the drawings of others so that by not knowing anything about the detail at the first missing or dubious quota you would block and signal the problem to the colleague.

 

[PIETRO2002]

As already mentioned in previous interventions, it's better not to linse on the views, abounding is better than to defy, logically with good sense, if you have to quote a washer maybe just enough the section of the same and you understand everything.
with cad 3d views and sections are free, unlike when using the tecnigraph!
You can get over with the views, but you can only quote once a dimension.
often to better understand in piece add a couple of assonometric views, which are always aggratis, helps!
when you make a drawing, you have to remove the designer's hat and you have to put that of the lather / miller / alestore.. Is it like you had to make that piece, there's all the views? Is that clear? are there all quotas with their tolerances (only where necessary )? Is there material with its treatments? etc. etc.
even here it is worth the speech, if the designer has basics, or better knows the working methods, the game is easy.. If the student never turned a piece and never saw a lathe, he won't be able to invent the turner's hat!

 

[meccanicamg]

perfectly in agreement. in the drawings I published I sought a solution that was didactically correct, but that at the same time required the least number of views. this partly because I was taught this way, and partly because to the written test, especially for reasons of time, you must try to perform a complete solution with the minimum effort. I fully agree with the fact that it is an incorrect approach. I myself often find myself in difficulty interpreting overall (including what started the discussion), that although correct, for a beginner eye like mine, they are ostic without a large number of views. For example, recentmete I have realized the putting into the table of the body of this compressor, and to me it turns out that both interpretations I have made are correct (geometrially, then it is clear that one is more stupid than the other). What do you think?
for the rest, roughness, etc... I've noticed everything, and thank you very much.

p.s.
even here there are wrinkles and even a tide of fittings. I know that I should correct them before I publish them, but having little time I prefer to start something new so as to train even in reading, rather than revising all the drawings I did. Obviously if I have to load other jobs I will try to cure them as much as possible.

one thing you can't see on the drawings, American heritage is to write ±,10...I looked at a glance and I said: like a 20 mm plan from the center with a tolerance of 10 mm?
Please don't be afraid to write ±0,10.

the odds possibly out of the inner holes and with the arrows that look out and not the inside....you prefer that dot opposite to the processing face so it is more immediate to understand what it refers to.

do not make on the same alignment a quota of a hole diameter and the note of the 3 threads because the arrows are stacked and you do not understand to whom it refers.

the legislation of the current roughness previews that it writes ra0,8 under the "manic" of the "carriola". see notes on the forum in other discussions.

thickness contour drawings 0.5mm and fine lines 0.25mm not all equal.

 

[ValveFloyd]

Strange, it's one of the basics of technical design.
take pdf and redesign them in autocad and should be immediately clear to you the concept of hidden lines. Moreover you will serve as an analysis exercise I had already mentioned before.

I will. about hidden lines, I know what it is, simply, forgive me, but I did not understand the meaning of this phrase:

hidden lines are not used on very complex designs and only where they make reading complicated!

said that, I fixed some of the files I had shared. Obviously there are no geometric tolerances and, as I had already mentioned, those dimensional ones are potentially incorrect for my lack of knowledge.

They're practically identical. What would you do? You have to explain it and motivate it, we don't have to guess

as seen from the total in the area where the head of the compressor is to be mounted the body assumes a section "adu" and, always from the total, it is realized that the zone is flattened and lower than the generator of the body is 42 mm wide. from those two views in my opinion but it can not be obtained geometrically with certainty if (dis.1) the width of the section to u is 38, that is that of the head (choice more logically

 

[ValveFloyd]

looking at the last drawing you posted (which is to be reviewed) I realized something; in the previous post I wrote to you to redesign the pdf in autocad, useful to learn how to analyze their designs, but this method has a limit that is what certain geometries and dimensions are known by memory and therefore there is no aseptic reading of the design; It would be even better for you to agree with colleagues and make the drawings of others so that by not knowing anything about the detail at the first missing or dubious quota you would block and signal the problem to the colleague.

It is certainly a good exercise, unfortunately I have not yet many relationships and knowledge, so it will be rather difficult to apply it immediately, but I will certainly try to keep it in mind.

 

[ValveFloyd]

As already mentioned in previous interventions, it's better not to linse on the views, abounding is better than to defy, logically with good sense, if you have to quote a washer maybe just enough the section of the same and you understand everything.
with cad 3d views and sections are free, unlike when using the tecnigraph!
You can get over with the views, but you can only quote once a dimension.
often to better understand in piece add a couple of assonometric views, which are always aggratis, helps!
when you make a drawing, you have to remove the designer's hat and you have to put that of the lather / miller / alestore.. Is it like you had to make that piece, there's all the views? Is that clear? are there all quotas with their tolerances (only where necessary )? Is there material with its treatments? etc. etc.
even here it is worth the speech, if the designer has basics, or better knows the working methods, the game is easy.. If the student never turned a piece and never saw a lathe, he won't be able to invent the turner's hat!

I fully agree with the number of views, as I have already said, and I will certainly strive to keep this advice in mind as much as possible. for educational reasons we were accustomed to using the least possible views and I myself have developed a certain capacity during the analysis of an overall in trying to identify immediately for each particular section plans more overwhelmed to maybe avoid a view from the right, etc. It is also true, I must admit, that in reality it is not expressly forbidden the addition of "auxiliary" views, but we say that in the examination I would prefer to avoid defending the addition of something, that although "gratis" anyway a little time steals it, when I know that by doing the strict necessary I will have the life easier from every point of view. then clear, if that drawing had to end up in the hand of a turning machine. . .
On the other hand, I have to admit, I have very little knowledge about this. the only odds I can give more or less sensibly are those on pieces made for turning. the greatest difficulties I have surely on the pieces obtained by casting and molding. I hope in the future that, you want the tm course, you want some work experience help me fill these gaps.

 

[ValveFloyd]

one thing you can't see on the drawings, American heritage is to write ±,10...I looked at a glance and I said: like a 20 mm plan from the center with a tolerance of 10 mm?
Please don't be afraid to write ±0,10.

Yes, I apologize, but it was one of the first absolute table masses that I realized and I was not familiar with the software yet, also it was a design that I had made more than anything to study the geometry of the object. now I should have corrected anyway, as I think it is also seen from pdf base and support

the odds possibly out of the inner holes and with the arrows that look out and not the inside....you prefer that dot opposite to the processing face so it is more immediate to understand what it refers to.

as in the annex?

do not make on the same alignment a quota of a hole diameter and the note of the 3 threads because the arrows are stacked and you do not understand to whom it refers.

the legislation of the current roughness previews that it writes ra0,8 under the "manic" of the "carriola". see notes on the forum in other discussions.

Clear, thank you.

thickness contour drawings 0.5mm and fine lines 0.25mm not all equal.

0.18 and 0.35 aren't good? or is there a particular reason why it is necessary to use 0.25 and 0.5? more than anything for small diameters I am afraid that threaded holes are represented little clearly.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I will. about hidden lines, I know what it is, simply, forgive me, but I did not understand the meaning of this phrase:
[

hidden lines are not used on very complex designs and only where they make reading complicated!

means that the omission of hidden lines finds meaning only in complex designs, for example very large assemblies, details with geometric shapes that have many variations in depth; otherwise the design views must be represented with hidden lines.

Unfortunately I have not yet many relationships and knowledge, so it will be rather difficult to apply it immediately

You mean you don't know anyone in your class? No one else is doing this?

as seen from the total in the area where the head of the compressor is to be mounted the body assumes a section "adu" and, always from the total, it is realized that the zone is flattened and lower than the generator of the body is 42 mm wide. from those two views in my opinion but it can not be obtained geometrically with certainty if (dis.1) the width of the section to u is 38, that is that of the head (choice more logically

to me it seems clear the design of the overall. Perhaps my confusion arises from the fact that you have attached a design with the unregistered b-b section and therefore equal to that of the other design.
(note in margin, the b-b section made in that way only creates confusion; does not make sense to unline the section line only to show a threaded hole. that the quoti in plant writing m4x6)
I do not see where you can see a 38 wide frised if on both the overall view there is nothing that can indicate it; the headboard rests on the cut and is centered on the hole ø29h7.

 

[ValveFloyd]

means that the omission of hidden lines finds meaning only in complex designs, for example very large assemblies, details with geometric shapes that have many variations in depth; otherwise the design views must be represented with hidden lines.

Okay, thank you. I'm clear.

You mean you don't know anyone in your class? No one else is doing this?

Unfortunately, yes, for various reasons.

to me it seems clear the design of the overall. Perhaps my confusion arises from the fact that you have attached a design with the unregistered b-b section and therefore equal to that of the other design.
(note in margin, the b-b section made in that way only creates confusion; does not make sense to unline the section line only to show a threaded hole. that the quoti in plant writing m4x6)
I do not see where you can see a 38 wide frised if on both the overall view there is nothing that can indicate it; the headboard rests on the cut and is centered on the hole ø29h7.

Maybe I felt bad. I try to correct myself. I was actually referring to the length, I noticed now loading the attachments. Yes, I definitely felt very bad.

 

[ValveFloyd]

as in the annex?

forgotten attachment.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Maybe I felt bad. I try to correct myself. I was actually referring to the length, I noticed now loading the attachments. Yes, I definitely felt very bad.

I figured out what you were talking about. but that step from where you get it? the cylinder (position 1) is wide on the section a_a 48 while on the section b-b if it is wide 42 you will have the fresata as in the drawing comp2, if it is wide 38 you will have the fresata as in the drawing comp2, but closer.
rather there are other errors to correct

 

[meccanicamg]

Yes, I apologize, but it was one of the first absolute table masses that I realized and I was not familiar with the software yet, also it was a design that I had made more than anything to study the geometry of the object. now I should have corrected anyway, as I think it is also seen from pdf base and support

as in the annex?

Clear, thank you.

0.18 and 0.35 aren't good? or is there a particular reason why it is necessary to use 0.25 and 0.5? more than anything for small diameters I am afraid that threaded holes are represented little clearly.

the thickness range 0.18/0,35 can also be good. However, the rule provides that the thickness of the thin half of the large of the standard.much better the later representations you did.

 

[wert]

I will. about hidden lines, I know what it is, simply, forgive me, but I did not understand the meaning of this phrase:


said that, I fixed some of the files I had shared. Obviously there are no geometric tolerances and, as I had already mentioned, those dimensional ones are potentially incorrect for my lack of knowledge.

as seen from the total in the area where the head of the compressor is to be mounted the body assumes a section "adu" and, always from the total, it is realized that the zone is flattened and lower than the generator of the body is 42 mm wide. from those two views in my opinion but it can not be obtained geometrically with certainty if (dis.1) the width of the section to u is 38, that is that of the head (choice more logically

consistent with my previous post, I keep stressing you with the need to provide unique information. I have seen that you have not entered the views showing the deposit of the flange holes (m5 nr.6 and m3 nr.4); provided that I would add the views, you can also do as you did but in listing the holes you have to add a note. or put "nr. tot holes at tot degrees" or "nr.tot holes equidistant". the thing is not discounted and you have to think that, in case you address an external supplier, the design is official document that regulates the conditions of supply. If you get the piece that instead of having nr.6 holes at 60° you get with nr.6 holes of random scatters on the flange plane, it becomes difficult to contest the thing to the supplier. p.s. the holes of m3 did not indicate the intersection... that should be indicated with the symbol "ø" (in 58 is missing). m4 holes are not fixed in space... You just put the whole thing on, but no leaving. the diameter of the hole between the ø38 and the discharge ø 34, which has wrinkles 0.8, so I guess it is accurate. always with the aim of providing the greater number of information and avoiding the operator to go to scatabellare tables, with the possibility that it is wrong, in the tolerances also add the values.

 

[ValveFloyd]

consistent with my previous post, I keep stressing you with the need to provide unique information. I have seen that you have not entered the views showing the deposit of the flange holes (m5 nr.6 and m3 nr.4); provided that I would add the views, you can also do as you did but in listing the holes you have to add a note. or put "nr. tot holes at tot degrees" or "nr.tot holes equidistant". the thing is not discounted and you have to think that, in case you address an external supplier, the design is official document that regulates the conditions of supply. If you get the piece that instead of having nr.6 holes at 60° you get with nr.6 holes of random scatters on the flange plane, it becomes difficult to contest the thing to the supplier. p.s. the holes of m3 did not indicate the intersection... that should be indicated with the symbol "ø" (in 58 is missing). m4 holes are not fixed in space... You just put the whole thing on, but no leaving. the diameter of the hole between the ø38 and the discharge ø 34, which has wrinkles 0.8, so I guess it is accurate. always with the aim of providing the greater number of information and avoiding the operator to go to scatabellare tables, with the possibility that it is wrong, in the tolerances also add the values.

Thank you, now slowly revision everything. the only doubt I would have on the hole between the ø38 and the discharge. Since it is the same diameter and tolerance of the ø32 h7 hole as both seat of the same type of bearing, can I omit the quota or at least somehow indicate that it is the same hole without duplicating the quota?

 

[ValveFloyd]

that step cannot be obtained, and yet the shared solution is precisely the realization of that "grade". to the comp1 solution you come to me thinking about the fact that the base of the head is 48x38 (measured by the total), so the section to u is clearly carried out wide 48, like the diameter of the body, and 38 long, like the header. then a 42 wide milling is carried out, as is evident from the space that remains on the sides of the head, and deep enough to lower the body to the height of the "u".
I hope I've been clear and I haven't said chestnuts.

 

[wert]

Thank you, now slowly revision everything. the only doubt I would have on the hole between the ø38 and the discharge. Since it is the same diameter and tolerance of the ø32 h7 hole as both seat of the same type of bearing, can I omit the quota or at least somehow indicate that it is the same hole without duplicating the quota?

No... In that case, no. It is acceptable not to quote twice a hole interrupted by a seeger seat but not in that case. However it is curious despite that he told you several times to be as clear as possible, instead you dare to save toner of the printer... But put the odds on her! Of course, they don't have to be double or redundant, but what they need... you must not leave anything to the interpretation of the operator. a design should not be interpreted, you must read!

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

then a 42 wide milling is carried out, as is evident from the space that remains on the sides of the head, and deep enough to lower the body to the height of the "u".

apart from that it makes no sense to make a 38 wide milling to support the cylinder and then make another 42 working that does not serve anything, from what you say you would have the processing from 38 of a depth and one from 42 of a different depth? on the overall is not so. attaches an isometric view that we try to understand

 

[ValveFloyd]

apart from that it makes no sense to make a 38 wide milling to support the cylinder and then make another 42 working that does not serve anything, from what you say you would have the processing from 38 of a depth and one from 42 of a different depth? on the overall is not so. attaches an isometric view that we try to understand

in the first photo attached the section to "u" exit, I imagine from the foundry, size 48(body diameter)x42. then a processing is simply carried out to make that floor suitable for the support of the headboard. or, if the initial precision is not enough, a workmanship is also carried out to ensure that the plane has height 20 (and due to tolerances) compared to the horizontal diameter of the body.
in the second photo you see instead the piece that is produced with section to u 48x38 (remember that the base of the headboard measures 48x38). in this case the cut to lower the section to the desired height will always be 42 and will also affect a part of body, giving rise to that "grade" in the view in the plant. width of the step which depends on the milling depth clearly.

 

[ValveFloyd]

No... In that case, no. It is acceptable not to quote twice a hole interrupted by a seeger seat but not in that case. However it is curious despite that he told you several times to be as clear as possible, instead you dare to save toner of the printer... But put the odds on her! Of course, they don't have to be double or redundant, but what they need... you must not leave anything to the interpretation of the operator. a design should not be interpreted, you must read!

I have created another couple of drawings in the meantime, much simpler in terms of quantity of elements and complexity of the object, but still meaningful to me as they present elements that I have never quoted/analized. the third file is the total departure.
I hope I have at least partially reduced the errors. And anyway, yes, you did center, I'm just relapsed apparently.