MechMate CNC Router Forum

Go Back   MechMate CNC Router Forum > General - MM Build
Register Options Profile Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old Fri 25 November 2005, 10:20
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Drawing problems and revisions required, considered and intended . . . . .

This thread is the only list of changes needed to the drawings. When I sit down to do drawing revisions, this is the sole source of input.

I have each drawing sheet in a separate file, and the file names are my gospel. Sometimes I do loose concentration and forget to fix the title blocks, etc.

But let me know what else appears odd and I'll either fix or explain it.

This thread was archived 28 June 2008 link At that point all the changes were included in a new drawing set, and this thread was reset for comments against the latest drawing set.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Tue 01 July 2008, 02:52
Alan_c
Just call me: Alan (#11)
 
Grabouw (Western Cape)
South Africa
Send a message via Skype™ to Alan_c
Had a quick look through the drawings and they are impressive as usual, I like all the "refinements".

The only error I could find was the last page of Part1 (10 20 450 WA) needs to be deleted - wrong section and redundant.

The Y car assembly drawings (part 3, pg 1 & 2) does not show the added tab for the switch box.

minor points I know, but the rest of it is so good...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Tue 01 July 2008, 03:28
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Those are major points! - I cringed when I spotted them last night

Another snag is that the page sequence is incorrect in some places. (The index shows the correct sequence). It is a schlep to combine 153 .pdf files into 5 .pdf files and still get them in the right sequence. Especially when you have a cold, the PC is new and the pdfcombine program wasn't installed yet.

I'll wait for some more reports before I fix those glitches.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Tue 01 July 2008, 03:35
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
PS. The lip not showing on the assembly drawing is not a big one for me. At one stage I had it not showing on the bending drawing, and your comment made me think I had done it again!

For most of the revisions I don't reflect the changes all the way through to the assembly level. I only change the higher levels when there is a real risk that this thread will be filled up.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Thu 03 July 2008, 00:30
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
1010247DA - the 46.4 dimension needs changing to 46 mm (not critical to one decimal)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Thu 03 July 2008, 00:42
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
1010302DA & 1010123DA - That hole spacing pitch of 350 to 400 [14-16"] is maybe a bit too wide. Checked this week that our existing two tables are just under 300mm [12"] spacing. There isn't much point in making this spacing closer than the spread between the cross supports indicated at the top of 1010123DA, and there I am comfortable with the 300-400 [14-16"] interval.

The spacing very much depends on the strength of the table surface, and the resistance to the bolt heads tearing out,.....and how you are going to abuse the table by trying to pull curved stuff down flat.

The outer perimeter of our tables take strain with the G-clamping we do. Maybe we should only increase the number of screws on the perimeter?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Thu 03 July 2008, 23:47
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
1040432D: The approximate hole spacing of 132[5.2"] is incorrect. Actually quite a bit wider. Nearer to 139 for those with 100mm slide plates and 5.54" for those with 4" slide plates. The lasered "wings" near the middle rollers need spreading in next revision.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Fri 04 July 2008, 01:02
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
M120220T: Remove the big bevel from the part . . . . the seals of the Superior V-rollers are slightly recessed and there is no chance that this part will rub against the seal. The bevel is not required.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Sat 05 July 2008, 10:03
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Change sequence of spider processes to reflect method in thread:
http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=878
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Fri 01 August 2008, 23:09
William McGuire
Just call me: Bill
 
Weiser, Idaho
United States of America
Gerald...
I may have found an error in drawing 10 10 247. You have listed [0.25"] inch rack under your rail drawing. I found it while looking for the distance between the 0.50 inch rack and the mail beam...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Fri 01 August 2008, 23:40
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Bill, drawing 10 10 247 only shows a Drilling process, nothing more. It is indicated by the D in the "Process" block on bottom right. Thus you must read any information on that sheet as it relates to Drilling. . . .


I think the above area is where you got the impression of "1/4 rack". My poor choice of words . . .

What I should have said there, is that the dimension for the drilling, when using 1/2" rack, is 1/4" from the edge.

For the 15mm rack, the dimension is 7.5mm.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Fri 01 August 2008, 23:47
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Quote:
Originally Posted by William McGuire View Post
. . . while looking for the distance between the 0.50 inch rack and the rail beam...
The racks are flush with the outside of the rail, to get the pinion gears as far onto the motor/gearbox shafts as possible.

The inch rack guys could have a space of around 1/4" between the rack and the beams. . . . . depends how straight your beams are
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Sat 02 August 2008, 09:51
William McGuire
Just call me: Bill
 
Weiser, Idaho
United States of America
Thanks much, Gerald...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Sat 02 August 2008, 12:33
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
No need to blush Bill. I need to do more to make the drawings clearer, and inputs like yours tells me where the potential problems are. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Sun 10 August 2008, 03:36
Kobus_Joubert
Just call me: Kobus #6
 
Dalview
South Africa
Send a message via Yahoo to Kobus_Joubert Send a message via Skype™ to Kobus_Joubert
Ok, one more thing, Now that I see your Y-Car with the cable chain bracket....make sure you either have a halfnut on the bottom, or countersink it from the bottom and put the nut on the top. In my build the nut on the bottom caught on the nut from the V-Wheel if I remember correctly..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old Sun 10 August 2008, 06:16
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Maybe I need to move that screw hole a bit . . . .
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Thu 14 August 2008, 08:43
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Gerald,
In the last set of profiles and bends, 1020456 is supplied as revA for cutting (dxf) but the bend pdf lists the drawing as a rev B. Should the cut file be a rev B?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Thu 14 August 2008, 10:03
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
10 20 456 P A is the latest revision of the Profile cut drawing for that part
10 20 456 B B is the latest revision of the Bend drawing for that part

The reason for the Bend drawing having a higher revision than the Profile drawing is stated at the top of the title block: "Corrected error caused by scale view". That error only appeared on the Bend drawing - there was no need to make any changes to the Profile drawing for that part.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Thu 14 August 2008, 11:13
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Gerald,
Sorry for the confusion, I thought the revs would track.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Thu 14 August 2008, 11:23
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
It is plain coincidence that most of the MM drawings have the revs of the P and B drawings tracking each other. The rev only gets changed when the older drawing can cause a mistake. For example, if a hole is added to a profile drawing, there is normally no need to formally revise the bend drawing - in my "day job" I most often see the P drawings with higher revisions than the B drawings.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Fri 22 August 2008, 14:15
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Gerald,
A small thing, in the options schedule, part 10 40 434, the description says x motor plate lug. Shouldnt this read Z Motor plate lug? In the actual drawings, it is only described as Motor Plate Lug.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Sat 23 August 2008, 01:23
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Tue 16 September 2008, 18:00
PEU
Just call me: Pablo
 
Buenos Aires
Argentina
Minor details in drawings

While converting bends DXF's (June30/2008 set) to Solidworks I found these small details, not sure if they are errors or are intended to be this way, just in case here they go:

in 10.60.315 sheet tickness is specified at 4mm but in inches it says 3/16". IMHO 3/16" is closer to 5mm (IE. in 10.40.432 3/16" is specified as 5mm)

this also happens in 1030455PB

in 10.4.387 the hole in the bend and the bending mark are included in the dimensions layer, so if you remove this layer for any reason these features are lost.

There are some outlines that needed minor corrections, for example open outlines, not sure if this is an importing problem or with the native files.

So far these are the only details I found


Pablo
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Wed 26 November 2008, 06:02
hutchcj
Just call me: Colin
 
Sydney
Australia
Converting DXF to Solidworks

1030455PB.DXF - Open contour, on small step, upper right (on inside edge). Horizontal needs extending.
1040432PF.DXF - Contours overlap, both sides, lower squigly side cuts.
M610116PB.DXF - Open contour, very bottom line on the right, just where there is a small fillet.

These are small errors, less that 0.5mm

If you need more info (or a picture) let me know.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Wed 26 November 2008, 06:19
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Thanks hutchcj

I don't find the first one (my AutoCad draws hatch or boundary happily)

Second one has 0.56mm overlaps

Last one has 0.14 gap
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old Thu 18 December 2008, 17:06
riesvantwisk
Just call me: Ries #46
 
Quito
Ecuador
Send a message via MSN to riesvantwisk Send a message via Skype™ to riesvantwisk
@all,

I am preparing the sheets and a USB stick for laser cutting my parts.
According to the DXF the spinder plate (10 40 432 ) should be 5mm thick. Yet the XLS document suggested a preferred thickness of 4mm. Which one is right?

Looking at the XLS part 10 30 455 also suggests 4mm, but part 10 20 451/452 suggest 5mm so I couldn't make a decision yet... Reading the above thread suggest 4mm is bare minimum, so best is 5mm steel. Would that be correct and teh XLS is wrong??

Regards,
Ries van Twisk
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old Thu 18 December 2008, 19:52
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Ries,
I think the excel sheet did NOT get updated with the last updates to the plans. I would go with the 5mm as called for in the current drawing set.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old Thu 18 December 2008, 20:27
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
5mm is better. I must change the xls sheet.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old Tue 23 December 2008, 14:01
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
From a PM received:

Hi, on drawings 1030422BD and 1030422PD the higher drawing number must be 1030's not 1020's.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old Thu 08 January 2009, 13:45
jeffa
Just call me: Jeff
 
Iowa
United States of America
Drawing problems and revisions required, considered and intended . . . . .

We're getting close to welding up the gantry and we have assembled (bolted) correctly (I think) the Near Gantry End Sub-weldment and the Far Gantry End Sub-weldment. However, drawings 10 20 451WA and 10 20 452WA have us scratching our heads just a little. Is it possible that the Right side views of these parts in both drawings are actually the Left side views placed on the right side of the Front view? If this is the case, we've got everything placed correctly and we can weld away, if not, we've got some more head scratching to do.

Thanks for your help,

Jeff and Erick

Jeff and Erick, you spotted some errors there. ....452W's right view can only be correct if it is a section cut. (Similar on 400W). Looking from middle out.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Register Options Profile Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:33.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.