propeller and curve repetition

[passer1214]

Good morning.
I have to make a cylinder island40 which has various holes along a certain distance (holes must cover at least 120mm), rotated around its surface: the peculiarity lies in the fact that the holes must be distant 11,1 and everyone must be inclined to 46° degrees compared to the next and previous.
to build it I have created two floors to place the first 2 holes is so be sure to put them at the right distance and inclination between them; after I thought of using the repetition command of the curve (never used by me until now), I created a propeller and everything worked.
Now I have a problem: going to quote the various holes, those of the repetition are packed: the 46° degrees turn out to me 47,12° and the distance instead of 11,1 becomes 12,19: going to change '' to good' (i.e. changing random values of the propeller and the repetition of the curve trying to approach me as much as possible to the desired odds) I spent a lot of time to find myself however with values with too much margin of error.
My question is: how do I understand that values put in the propeller or in the repetition of the curve? I press that in mathematics are quite poor, given my starting values are formulas that allow me to translate those odds into the functions of solidworks?
the values that I must respect are ø40 of the cylinder, the distance 11,1 of the holes and their inclination of 46° always regarding them. I have attached some files in the hope of being clearer about my quaint

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Now I'm doing some evidence.
Where did you get that 40 you put in the rep?[edit]and the passage of the propeller?

when you have modeling problems always attach files.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

doing some tests I have deduced that the most important value is the passage of the propeller. If you're wrong, you'll never be able to repeat.
then the value of the spacing of the repetition is obtained.
in the test I obtained the value of the step not through calculations, I reserve to try later, but visually by combining the propeller with the center of the second hole.
this is a step of 86.6
to obtain the spacing value to be inserted in the repetition it is enough to create another curve that has 86,6 and 11,1 height and measure the length of the curve; you will get a value of 19,52
as the repetition is given by two consecutive holes this value of 19,52 will be multiplied by 2 obtaining therefore 39,04.
as seen from the image the values, in front of a few cents, are almost correct.
further refine the values of the propeller and repetition will achieve greater precision.

happens the formula to get the passage of the propeller you can use equations to automate everything

 

[Cadinpiedi]

Forget the curves that give unexpected results.
as if you were in the workshop on the miller; you would make the first hole,
you would move 11.1 mm by turning the piece of 46°, then another 11.1 mm and 46° for the second hole and so on. to transform this concept virtually with a cad model your cylinder, then model the first drill bit in drilling position, create a circular range of 46°, then move the second tip of 11.1 mm, the third of 22.2 and so on. When you have moved the dozen bits, do a boolean subtraction between the cylinder and the tips and you're fine.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

create a circular series of 46°, then move the second tip of 11.1 mm, the third of 22.2 and so on

It seems like a far-reaching method.
with 12 holes as in this case serve 12 displacement functions and one subtraction.
if you have to change the step you have to change 12 functions
if repetitions become 20 or 30 is a problem also select the correct body
is not a parameterized method

at this point it is worth creating 12 floors and as many drilling functions, at least you can parameterize the model

 

[Cadinpiedi]

It seems like a far-reaching method.
with 12 holes as in this case serve 12 displacement functions and one subtraction.
if you have to change the step you have to change 12 functions
if repetitions become 20 or 30 is a problem also select the correct body
is not a parameterized method

at this point it is worth creating 12 floors and as many drilling functions, at least you can parameterize the model

Of course, I didn't do it with the farraginous solidworks! I took 10 minutes including the explanation, and then made the drill "transho" the tips in the basket and I have my beautiful and clean cylinder as the sun!
clearly all this with a non- Parametric that in this case demonstrates its full validity.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

sin that he must do it with the farraginous solidworks.
If you want to use this non-parameter method I hope for him that you never have to put your hands back on us and that you don't have to make such details repeatedly

 

[Cadinpiedi]

sin that he must do it with the farraginous solidworks.
If you want to use this non-parameter method I hope for him that you never have to put your hands back on us and that you don't have to make such details repeatedly

Certainly my intention was provocative, and I certainly agree on the difficulty if you remain in the parametric field. then everyone is free to choose the rope with which to hang. that of the modifications is an old story, with the non-parametric repeat the game to change the size is a question of 4-5 minutes, not forgetting then that the objective fact (method + not parametric) produces a result with accuracy of 10 to -6, thus remaining waiting for a similar result.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

4/5 minutes are not few. Moreover with bodies that are surmounted you have to be careful and do further controls.

I only agree with precision.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

without having to look for formulas to calculate the triangulation of points and then the step can be obvious in this way, hoping to be quite clear by putting my comments in red:
1 create a helical function with height/revolution method
the height will be the distance between the holes (11.1)
the revolution will be the division between the angle to get and the corner round (46/360)you can create a special equation or simply write the formula in the cell and solid will give the resultin this way you will have the exact propeller to do.
now transforming the building method from height/revolution to height/pass will have the automatic conversion of the revolution (0,1277777778) to that of the step (86,86956522mm).it can be noted that it is the same result that is obtained by dividing the height for the parameter of revolution (11.1/0,1277777778); to this point report the method of creation of the propeller to height/revolution
this deduction can serve to create a variable to parameterize the model that is the method I am explaining
This will be the support function.2 in equation tables create a global variable Step or other name of choice in which the formula will be height/revolution taking the values directly from the function

3 build the helical function for repetition with height/pass method by inserting as a step parameter the global variable

4 create a curve repetition where the length of the curve is to be inserted in the spacing parameter*2 (19.52007979*2)this data is obtained by measuring the curve. As this measure does not prove to be usable in equations you must bypass the problem in the following way4.1 open a 3d sketch and convert the support curve thus obtaining a spline.
exit the sketch and launch the quota command by selecting the spline.
so you will have the share of the usable spline to create a new global variable in which you will multiply it for 2
this function of the spline is not necessary before the repetition function
now the model is completely parametric and managing the function of the support curve according to height and angle to be repeated will change everything.

 

[IronMike87]

I've been thinking about it a bit, and I think I've been able to do it, even if I've been burned on time, I think (I'm writing and you've already answered: )

I created the propeller in this way:

• Step: (360/46)*11.1=86.6956522
• height: banally I counted the number of holes that were seen in the table and multiplied by 11.1 = 12*11.1=133.2

created the hole in the starting point

created repeat along the curve to this way:for control I also generated a dial and 3d sketch points for geometries control.
If on the corners it seems to me to have been cleared, unfortunately there are inaccuracies of some microns on the vertical distances of the holes that leave me somewhat dissatisfied.


still find everything in the attached file
Realization time: 10min

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

@ironmike87 less brainchild than my therefore more functional.
known that in the repetition you put offset of the curve instead of turning curve. known differences between the two options?

 

[Cadinpiedi]

4/5 minutes are not few. Moreover with bodies that are surmounted you have to be careful and do further controls.

I only agree with precision.

then, again in non par, further controls do not serve, perhaps in sw where you have to declare everything, but just everything.
then if you use a macro lisp found on the net designed to generate the steps of a spiral staircase, starting from scratch modeling cylinder and tool of tips the time drops to 2 min and 30 sec, I have timed
if you want to simply change the diameter of the holes, thanks to the fact that the drilling tools are shared, just change the diameter of a tip and the modification will propague on the multiples, then you do the boolean subtraction using as tool the whole group of the tips, time 12 sec.
I wonder how long it took to develop the parametric mark designed for a hypothetical future change, a couple of bears?
all reminds me of the dictates of the apocalyptic mediaeval preachers, "make penance! so you will gain the kingdom of heaven!", considering the implicit trick of the thing I prefer an epicurean "carpe diem", or "cogli l'attimo!" will advance you so much of that time to develop your creativity.

 

[IronMike87]

@ironmike87 less brainchild than my therefore more functional.
known that in the repetition you put offset of the curve instead of turning curve. known differences between the two options?

@massivonweizen sincerely I had made some evidence without noticeable appreciable differences and left the last one I had selected

with "offset curve"with "curvy shape"right for knowledge:

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

then, again in non par, further controls do not serve, perhaps in sw where you have to declare everything, but just everything.

How do you make sure that two partially overlapped bodies are moving the right one?

then, again in non par, further controls do not serve, perhaps in sw where you have to declare everything, but just everything.

if this macro exists. Otherwise you have to create it, if you can do it, or ask for it to be created and pay it

if you want to simply change the diameter of the holes

I never talked about changing only the diameter of the holes. It is obvious that if there is a repetition will command the first puncture.
I repeat, if you have to change the step what do you do? if instead of 12 holes you have 50?

I wonder how long it took to develop the parametric mark designed for a hypothetical future change, a couple of bears?

between try the idea and write about half an hour.
now I have a model that I can change in 10 seconds even if it has 100 holes. I can also create in the same file 21 with infinite variations with different steps, angles and number of holes.

I prefer to quote confused (I believe) give a fish to a man and feed him for a day; teach him to fish and feed him all his life. is not a matter of doing penance (of what? I don't understand this boutade) or who knows what else, but to exploit the program.
you use a non- parametric program and reasons in this direction, I use a parametric program and use it in this.
if I am making an evolutionary development I do not model by reasoning for now I'm okay then you'll see, ma per as the editable rendo in a simple way.if you prefer to see it simply as a style exercise in which I analyzed and studied a solution to deepen the program (which if I did not do I would not have the knowledge that I have and I could do only extrusions and cuts)
or you can see it as a way out of the vase for self-celebration

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Just to prevent you from thinking that you're making another controversy, I don't think your method is wrong or is out of context. I simply do not share it, or rather do not share its philosophy at the base.

 

[passer1214]

thank you so much to all for the answers, as soon as I have free time I make a test even with different values or parameters.
in the field of mechanics such situations I am afraid will repeat, I think especially if I have to draw or design brakes ''a curly" of considerable length and create tot floors for tot insert seats is beyond deleterious.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I attach the file to see.
to what I wrote in post #10 I added a link between the quotas of the support helix function and the quotas of the second hole that represents the step and the angle.
in this way it will be enough to vary the only values of plane hole 2 e di Extrude 3.

 

[Cadinpiedi]

Just to prevent you from thinking that you're making another controversy, I don't think your method is wrong or is out of context. I simply do not share it, or rather do not share its philosophy at the base.

then out of metaphor the horns of the diatribe between parametric and not parametric are known for a long time. one is suitable for designing machines always different from each other, while the other is valid for serially analog machines with dimensional variations. for the first case the high speed of execution is decisive, for the second one it is necessary to invest time to obtain the speed of generation of successive multiples. Can I use another allegory? to say the same thing one speaks, the other responds by singing in Gregorian... you want to wait
in Italy there is also adagia on conformism, companies for which the parametric is unsuitable, adopt it the same because they all have it.
only one clarification:
"How can you be sure that the two partially overlapped bodies are moving the right one? "
simple, activating them by name. the structure list is not drowned by the myriad of recordings of the actions occurred over time, the objects "point" are in a group created ad hoc and called to pleasure "tool".
being shared were automatically named with an index. f2,f3,f4 etc. to move them I do not have to write a "function", but just a double click on the f2, giving the command moves vertically of 11.1 mm.
the command remains in nesting for which by selecting f3 the option "returns previous shift"f3 salts of 11.1 aligning at odds with f2, clicking on the "reapp" box rises of another 11.1, only click , you see clearly the object that you move responding immediately to the command. and I recommend that you do not oppose the usual history of the lack of constraints, it is only a question of structuring rationally and hierarchically the tree of the parts. groups and subgroups move quickly without preclusions bringing everything to them compete and migrating without difficulty from drawing to drawing.
by curiosity every now and then I read the questions reported in the forum on the problems of use of the parametric, and I see comments "this cannot be done, this is not, to do this you must first make the tax return... but I said to myself " at the bottom the machines are designed the same despite", and therefore so much of hat to those who have to use parametric.
However in the wars of religion it is very rare that the factions settle, the diatribe on the cad reminds so much that now passed of fashion mac vs.win, so I stop here.
greetings

 

[+forte]

Think about it if instead of about ten there were a thousand, you were there until after tomorrow morning
I have spaceclaim and know what it means but for big and complicated projects a para saves your life
with serenity without controversy