Conservative. Idaho. Software engineer. Historian. Trying to prevent Idiocracy from becoming a documentary.
Email complaints/requests about copyright infringement to clayton @ claytoncramer.com. Reminder: the last copyright troll that bothered me went bankrupt.
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." -- Rom. 8:28
This is what I need either cast in aluminum or printed.
There are no holes in this because this basic item gets turned into a total of six different products depending whether it fits the Vixen HAL-110, HAl-130, and two different caster stems.
Your measurements appear to be incomplete and incorrect. In the front view, the top element is described as 3" tall. In the side view, the top element is described as 2.2" tall. The measurement should be the same. Furthermore, in the bottom view, the only measurement is .48". Is the .48 measurement for the depth of the top piece or of the legs? If it's for the top, what is the depth of the legs? If the .48" is for the legs, what is the depth of the top piece? Where are the legs placed on the top piece (the legs do not seem to be aligned with an edge, so you need to describe how far from the edge the legs should be located). What is the distance between the two legs (or, alternatively, what is the width of the top piece in the front view)? In addition, in the front view, the legs do not appear to align with the sides of the top element, whereas in the bottom view, the legs do appear to align with the sides of the top element.
I'm working on it, but I need to know the offsets for the legs. How high up from the base and how far in from the sides. If you need holes, tell me where and how big, I'll print them in.
A glaring omission is that your dimensions do not have a starting point. A proper drafting sketch or blueprint must have a reference position that all distances/locations must refer to. You would be surprised how badly a machinist could screw up a part, and still be within the drawing numbers as they appear.
Also, you should specify what tolerances the dimensions require to work as intended. Note, the tighter the spec, the more you get charged, usually. With CNC, plus/minus .005" is normal, and they can hold much better in most cases.
You should also specify a surface finish, especially if you want consistent appearance from part to part. Part of this spec would be deciding what alloy it needs to be, as sometimes the alloy can affect what sort of finish is feasible, as long as it meets the functional requirements of the part. Along with surface spec would be a decision on whether to have it coated, such as anodizing. That is available in a number of different types, and colors, beyond clear. Hard coat is a nice option if it has anything moving against it.
Sometimes you can get away with a sketch dimensioned as this one is, if working closely with someone familiar with the job. But, the first time someone else has to use it, all bets are off! Best to do it right the first time, as it WILL save you grief at some point.
Cast? Why not machined? it looks like it would be a fairly straightforward set of cuts. Aluminum is not difficult to work with.
ReplyDeleteYour measurements appear to be incomplete and incorrect. In the front view, the top element is described as 3" tall. In the side view, the top element is described as 2.2" tall. The measurement should be the same. Furthermore, in the bottom view, the only measurement is .48". Is the .48 measurement for the depth of the top piece or of the legs? If it's for the top, what is the depth of the legs? If the .48" is for the legs, what is the depth of the top piece? Where are the legs placed on the top piece (the legs do not seem to be aligned with an edge, so you need to describe how far from the edge the legs should be located). What is the distance between the two legs (or, alternatively, what is the width of the top piece in the front view)? In addition, in the front view, the legs do not appear to align with the sides of the top element, whereas in the bottom view, the legs do appear to align with the sides of the top element.
ReplyDeleteI'm working on it, but I need to know the offsets for the legs. How high up from the base and how far in from the sides.
ReplyDeleteIf you need holes, tell me where and how big, I'll print them in.
Thanks to all. Clearly I don't produce drawings like this often. wORSE, AFTER i EXPORTED THE DRAWING AS A jpg, i FORGOT TO SAVE THE DRAWING.
ReplyDeleteA glaring omission is that your dimensions do not have a starting point. A proper drafting sketch or blueprint must have a reference position that all distances/locations must refer to. You would be surprised how badly a machinist could screw up a part, and still be within the drawing numbers as they appear.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you should specify what tolerances the dimensions require to work as intended. Note, the tighter the spec, the more you get charged, usually. With CNC, plus/minus .005" is normal, and they can hold much better in most cases.
You should also specify a surface finish, especially if you want consistent appearance from part to part. Part of this spec would be deciding what alloy it needs to be, as sometimes the alloy can affect what sort of finish is feasible, as long as it meets the functional requirements of the part. Along with surface spec would be a decision on whether to have it coated, such as anodizing. That is available in a number of different types, and colors, beyond clear. Hard coat is a nice option if it has anything moving against it.
Sometimes you can get away with a sketch dimensioned as this one is, if working closely with someone familiar with the job. But, the first time someone else has to use it, all bets are off! Best to do it right the first time, as it WILL save you grief at some point.