pianistiya Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 i think the second hatch is right . . but in the dimentions why didnt u use the raduis for the circles . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cute eng Posted November 21, 2009 Author Share Posted November 21, 2009 i think the second hatch is right . . but in the dimentions why didnt u use the raduis for the circles . . coz they put dimeater not radius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianistiya Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 yeah . .but you can but is as raduis .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Mather Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 But even if the intention was to dimension hole center to hole center, that technique is pretty poor. No, that portion of the drawing is dimensioned correctly. I see this as a casting. The edge is unmachined. Location of small holes to edge would be reference. True location should be given between machined features. In this case I would expect the large hole in the cylindrical feature to be the datum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Mather Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong I did a drawing sheet in Solidworks about Cute Eng bearing housing here it is: What standard are you referencing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Mather Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 i think about 2 soloution which one is the right ?? [ATTACH]15771[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]15772[/ATTACH] What standard are you referencing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cute eng Posted November 21, 2009 Author Share Posted November 21, 2009 What standard are you referencing? the second how about u ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Mather Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 we didnt use text book You already stated that much earlier in this thread. I'm suggesting you find a building or room at your school typically called the library and find a reference book for basic drafting standards. Apparently either your professor isn't covering the standards in class or you are not able to follow the professors instructions. In any case you need additional help. A drafting reference book from your library will show examples of how to section parts with ribs. i didnt understand what part you talk about exactly can you explain it in picture That is why you need to go to the library and find a reference book - it will have easy to understand pictures. I have most drafting reference books in my office and will probably have the same one you get from your library. Then we can communicate in general standard practices rather than me doing your assignment for you. I could have done that in the first 10-15 minutes of this thread, but that won't do you any good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Mather Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 the second how about u ? Can you please use standard written English rather than "textspeak" or whatever it is you kids call this abbreviated communication form. I don't understand it any better than you understand basic drafting techniques. But the basic drafting techniques are intended to be a universal communication "language" that follows established standards. If you can get a reference book we can both communicate using this common language getting past the communication language barrier encountered thus far in this thread. Image 15772 is mostly correct. Did you fix the top view as suggested earlier? Doesn't look like to me that you did. I would dimension cylinders in rectangular view when possible. I would have dogleg in Ø16 dimension. I would give 15772 about 75-80% correct. Let me know when you have submitted for grading and then I will fix up your dwg to the correct solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEANT Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 No, that portion of the drawing is dimensioned correctly. I see this as a casting. The edge is unmachined. Location of small holes to edge would be reference. True location should be given between machined features. In this case I would expect the large hole in the cylindrical feature to be the datum. There are certainly indications of design intent, though nothing documented unambiguously. I agree to the 40 dia. hole datum, I agree that the part would most likely be a casting, but anything beyond that become a bit of guess work. If there were some pocket or shoulder on the item this part mounts to then indexing off of the 92 mm edge (machined to appropriate tolerance) makes sense. This would also allow some clearance to the 16 dia. holes (M14 scews, perhaps, now strictly as hold downs) and follow more closely to a Minimum Constraint Design philosophy. How can one even tell if the 125 is an orthographic or aligned dimension? It is parallel to the 80 dia. dim, but the drop now becomes “Escher”esque. To be honest, however, in a situation where I was unable to get any further feedback, I would also go as you have shown. In a professional environment, though, I would not make any assumptions based upon how I "see" the design. This would definitely warrant more effort to clarify matters. This and http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41781 make me wonder if teaching students how to deal with less than perfect input is part of a Engineering/Design curriculum. Both of these assignment drawings seem to have purposely left out critical data. Could this be a multi-tier assignment where a professor gives extra credit to the students that demanded addition info? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianistiya Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 umm well can any1 tell us what is the correct solution . . cuz our midterm is tomorrow and by solving this hw we're studing . . so we need to know what is wrong with our drawings . . thanks alot s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Mather Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 To be honest, however, in a situation where I was unable to get any further feedback, I would also go as you have shown. In a professional environment,... ...assignment where a professor gives extra credit to the students that demanded addition info? I'm still wondering where the professor is in all of this discussion. Multiple students came here for help on same assignment? They don't apppear to have even basic instruction on how to create and edit geometry (70° question trimming, osnap errors). Questions get returned to us as more questions rather than as more information from student from professor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Mather Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 .. . cuz our midterm is tomorrow and by solving this hw we're studing . . Does your school have a room or building called "the library" that might have some reference books useful for study. The midterm exam is not likely to be these same two problems. You will need a general solution to solve any problem of this type. I recommend Giesecke et al Technical Drafting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianistiya Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 yes we have a library with millions of book and luckily we know how to read ,we jst wanted some1 to tell us if we have the right solution. . . anyways thanks for the Comment JD MATHER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Mather Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 but in the dimentions why didnt u use the raduis for the circles . . Full circles should be dimensioned as Ø not R (and arcs that were full circles - example a hole with a keyway). Arcs like fillets should be dimensioned as radius. All of this is related to the standard cutting tools used to cut the features. Drills, reamers and such are sized in diameters. Fillet cutting tools are sized in, well radiuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianistiya Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Full circles should be dimensioned as Ø not R (and arcs that were full circles - example a hole with a keyway). Arcs like fillets should be dimensioned as radius. All of this is related to the standard cutting tools used to cut the features. Drills, reamers and such are sized in diameters. Fillet cutting tools are sized in, well radiuses. thanks. .i've corrected that 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lulumara Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 What standard are you referencing? Hi JD Mathers, when you look at the thread on page 2 there's a cut Section A-A (middle of the bearing housing) which I did follow what the sketch shows. Didn't get your question -what standard am I referencing sorry for that can you elaborate it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lulumara Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 No, that portion of the drawing is dimensioned correctly. I see this as a casting. The edge is unmachined. Location of small holes to edge would be reference. True location should be given between machined features. In this case I would expect the large hole in the cylindrical feature to be the datum. I got you there, my referenced is at small holes to the edge as you mentioned it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Mather Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Hi JD Mathers, when you look at the thread on page 2 there's a cut Section A-A (middle of the bearing housing) which I did follow what the sketch shows. Didn't get your question -what standard am I referencing sorry for that can you elaborate it? I use ANSI/ASME standard. According to that standard the rib should not be hatched even though technically the cutting plane goes through the rib. SolidWorks can be set up to adhere to this standard to not section ribs. I am not really familiar with other standards but from the examples I have seen I think this is common practice. The OP had it almost correct except that he (she?) also showed the Ø16 hole in section when it should not be shown as this appears to be afull section. I might change to an offset section for clarity, but that is not the problem as it was given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lulumara Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Ok I'm learning everyday thanks for the information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.