overall interpretation "cutting tool"

[MassiVonWeizen]

But why don't you cut 42 by? at the end what remains of the diameter you go to work, 1,2mm material? What do you need to do that fried?
By the way, you can't get the processing that you've represented at a live edge, but it must have the radius of the cutter that will be at least 5mm, making the processing useless.
edit added image

 

[ValveFloyd]

But why don't you cut 42 by? at the end what remains of the diameter you go to work, 1,2mm material? What do you need to do that fried?
By the way, you can't get the processing that you've represented at a live edge, but it must have the radius of the cutter that will be at least 5mm, making the processing useless.

I really forgive myself, but I don't understand. the fresata is passing. I imagined it like this:

this in both cases.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

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.

keep throwing meat on fire instead of making treasures of what you were told.
I make the last two comments is for me just enough that for me the forum should not replace the school and do corrections, but stimulate reasoning and criticism.
design biella:
What is that thing you see on the left?
1h9??? ? Why? so much to put a tolerance that no one can ever control?
support design:
When I saw the position of the hole 20 they started bleeding my eyes.
on both designs: the tolerated quotas are wrong, puts the value, tolerance and scaling (solidworks does it automatically and correctly, I have no idea what settings you are using)

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I really forgive myself, but I don't understand. the fresata is passing. I imagined it like this:

this in both cases.

I forgot to put in the image. I edited the post

 

[wert]

But why don't you cut 42 by? at the end what remains of the diameter you go to work, 1,2mm material? What do you need to do that fried?
By the way, you can't get the processing that you've represented at a live edge, but it must have the radius of the cutter that will be at least 5mm, making the processing useless.
edit added imageView attachment 66193

I frankly see nothing wrong with the representation of the frigate. Where's radius five? If you make the head of a candle cutter work, the living edge comes out quietly.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I frankly see nothing wrong with the representation of the frigate. Where's radius five? If you make the head of a candle cutter work, the living edge comes out quietly.

see picture of post #41: ray 5 would be that of a hypothetical candle fried who works the 42 pocket.

 

[ValveFloyd]

keep throwing meat on fire instead of making treasures of what you were told.
I make the last two comments is for me just enough that for me the forum should not replace the school and do corrections, but stimulate reasoning and criticism.
design biella:
What is that thing you see on the left?
1h9??? ? Why? so much to put a tolerance that no one can ever control?
support design:
When I saw the position of the hole 20 they started bleeding my eyes.
on both designs: the tolerated quotas are wrong, puts the value, tolerance and scaling (solidworks does it automatically and correctly, I have no idea what settings you are using)

in the drawing of the biella on the left I had created a tilt section (command section removed), I do not know why the track of the section plan has disappeared; My fault, I should have checked the pdf before I shared it.
1h9 share by reasoning back is probably incorrect as you rightly notice. there for there I thought that the hole ø1, being aligned to the hole of the bronzine, needed tolerance, and in particular I thought it was necessary to realize it greater or equal of the nominal diameter, so that it did not prevent the minimum flow of lubricant. I was wrong not to think about the fact that actually tolerance is to be verified and that, specifically, it was not very easy to verify it; and also to greatly overestimate the impact of tolerance on hole functionality.
I have no particular settings on the software. they have also bothered me sincerely and I have tried to find a solution, but not having succeeded I preferred to indicate it in this way as suggested state, rather than without numerically explicit displacement.
Forgive me the 20th, it's a mistake I don't know how it came out. I would have to go back and quote the diameter of the circumference on which the holes stand in the view on the right.

 

[wert]

see picture of post #41: ray 5 would be that of a hypothetical candle fried who works the 42 pocket.

in fact to that post I had answered... Either way, you or I are taking a bark, because I keep thinking that there is nothing wrong with that representation.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

in fact to that post I had answered... Either way, you or I are taking a bark, because I keep thinking that there is nothing wrong with that representation.

Surely there is misunderstanding. I think that making that pocket makes 42 leaving that witness, which can only spoil itself to the minimum contact creating problems, which I indicated with the arrow is useless for various reasons:
if you make the width 38 to make the pocket 42 doesn't make sense
do extra workmanship with higher cost

then as you can work on the head, then with the axis of the cut parallel to that of the cylinder, I struggle to imagine it unless the mill is suspended in the air, and anyway somewhere the radius must be there.

Finally if it were as you say on the a-a section you should see the projection of the steps.
besides if the processing 38, as wide as the head, not being tolerated is made 37,9 you can not mount absolutely nothing.

 

[Fabietto]

Mah... According to me before correctly modeling with rays etc. etc. that particular, you have to do the work cycle of that particular.
and then I have to decide the production processes that I intend to do, and after its setup:
I'm leaving from a cube. Do I do everything in a hurry?
I'm leaving a cylinder, and I'm gonna go back and then I'm done with it?
I'm making a fuse, and I'm just picking up what I need?
decided this the correct form of the piece vien out alone.

 

[wert]

Surely there is misunderstanding. I think that making that pocket makes 42 leaving that witness, which can only spoil itself to the minimum contact creating problems, which I indicated with the arrow is useless for various reasons:
if you make the width 38 to make the pocket 42 doesn't make sense
do extra workmanship with higher cost

then as you can work on the head, then with the axis of the cut parallel to that of the cylinder, I struggle to imagine it unless the mill is suspended in the air, and anyway somewhere the radius must be there.

Finally if it were as you say on the a-a section you should see the projection of the steps.
besides if the processing 38, as wide as the head, not being tolerated is made 37,9 you can not mount absolutely nothing.

look that 38 is the width of the male rising (extrusion), not of the pocket. The pocket is 42... the candle cutter has the perpendicular axis on the plane you want to get.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

look that 38 is the width of the male rising (extrusion), not of the pocket. The pocket is 42... the candle cutter has the perpendicular axis on the plane you want to get.

Unfortunately we can't figure it out and I'm not good at explaining.

 

[ValveFloyd]

if it can help make clarity, I attach the sldprt files of the two modeled variants. I'm sorry I lifted this dust. my doubt was born when, having to analyze the overall, I took a glare about the representation in the plant. from those two views that are given to us the representation that I was natural to realize was similar to that represented in image 1 (extrusion 42). Then, peeking the solution (which I hope to find so that I can share it), I understood that the correct representation provided an extrusion of 38 (picture 2) and a clearing of width 42 that therefore as seen goes to partially affect the body. studying the solution I have convinced myself for various reasons that to realize an extrusion from 38 is the correct road, however it remains in me the doubt that without a view in plant in total can not be known from a purely geometric and representative point of view, therefore not technological, which of the two is the correct representation.

 

[ValveFloyd]

besides if the processing 38, as wide as the head, not being tolerated is made 37,9 you can not mount absolutely nothing.

the fresata 42 I imagine is realized just to avoid this

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I looked at the 3d and I'm doing mea culpa.
looking at the isometric image of the previous posts I had seen a staircase in correspondence of the red lines; so I insisted on something that was only in my mind and therefore no one could understand.considering the particular shape the design is unclear because it is not clear how the protrusion to u. would serve a front view, or, even better, an isometric view.

However, it remains in me the doubt that without a view in the plant in total one cannot know from a purely geometric and representative point of view, therefore not technological, which of the two is the correct representation.

You must consider that the assembly serves the editor to correctly combine the various components and not to build them, so for installation those views are sufficient.
I renew my apologies

 

[ValveFloyd]

I looked at the 3d and I'm doing mea culpa.
looking at the isometric image of the previous posts I had seen a staircase in correspondence of the red lines; so I insisted on something that was only in my mind and therefore no one could understand.View attachment 66199considering the particular shape the design is unclear because it is not clear how the protrusion to u. would serve a front view, or, even better, an isometric view.

You must consider that the assembly serves the editor to correctly combine the various components and not to build them, so for installation those views are sufficient.
I renew my apologies

It can happen, I too was wrong not to attach more images, but having seen that total tens of times, I gave for granted many things.
Sorry if it seemed that I looked for a "school" correction of my drawings, I actually passed the drawing exam at the beginning of the week (although, with all probability, dimly) and therefore my last questions were due more than anything else to curiosity.

Anyway I wanted to thank the whole forum for the help I received. I learned a lot and, above all, I was taught a less didactic approach and more practical to design, which I totally missed.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I recommend, as well as watching videos about the various mechanical processing, the dispenses you find in this discussion quotations of particular so even if you have never used a lathe or a milling machine, you have a vague idea of how they work, the tools used and how they are chosen according to what you have to get. Also spraying the sandvik site, leader in tool production, is useful to store information.
it must always be considered that the more precise the finish is the higher the cost resulting; even if today 1,6 roughness is obtained with milled and lathe without having to resort to rectification, it is not necessary to put it where it is not necessary (see support design)

 

[PIETRO2002]

It can happen, I too was wrong not to attach more images, but having seen that total tens of times, I gave for granted many things.
Sorry if it seemed that I looked for a "school" correction of my drawings, I actually passed the drawing exam at the beginning of the week (although, with all probability, dimly) and therefore my last questions were due more than anything else to curiosity.

Anyway I wanted to thank the whole forum for the help I received. I learned a lot and, above all, I was taught a less didactic approach and more practical to design, which I totally missed.

go quietly, you have shown interest, collaboration and education! things not discounted! with this posture comes everywhere! :

 

[talia.serafini03@outlook.]

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.

do you also have the particular 1 (carter) done?