Diskussion:Corn mill

Part number 1.1 -- Dietrich-reviewer (Diskussion) 17:04, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

the distance from the holes to the beginning or end of frame 2 is missing

Part number 2.4 -- Dietrich-reviewer (Diskussion) 17:19, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

plan is missing

Part number 2.3 -- Dietrich-reviewer (Diskussion) 17:25, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

there is a wrong plan witout meausres

Re: Part number 2.3 -- Djaeger (Diskussion) 18:01, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

I changed the wrong plan for the right plan

Part number 3.1 -- Dietrich-reviewer (Diskussion) 17:27, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

this plan is showing the assemby of the whole Pulley Disc >>> sorry, I checked it again, tha plan is right

Re: Part number 3.1 -- Djaeger (Diskussion) 18:02, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

ok, perfect

Part number 3.8 -- Dietrich-reviewer (Diskussion) 17:37, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

I think it is easier and cheaper to buy this part insteaad producing it, did you try to buy it?

Re: Part number 3.8 -- Djaeger (Diskussion) 18:04, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

I tried but i did not find what I need

Re: Re: Part number 3.8 -- Dietrich-reviewer (Diskussion) 18:05, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

I tried to find it, I think this can fit: https://www.ebay.de/itm/Keilriemen-scheibe-2-rillig-Riemenscheibe-Welle-20-00-mm/273642320244 - what do you think?

Part number 4.9 -- Dietrich-reviewer (Diskussion) 17:48, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

plan is missing

Re: Part number 4.9 -- Djaeger (Diskussion) 18:07, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

sorry but this is wrong, I will check too where to get ...

Part number 5 -- Dietrich-reviewer (Diskussion) 17:51, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

I found this: https://de.rs-online.com/web/p/scharniere/2702758

is it ok?

Re: Part number 5 -- Djaeger (Diskussion) 18:08, 1. Mai 2020 (CEST)

sorry but this is wrong, I will check too where to get ...

Part number 1.1 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 09:04, 3. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

Specification of the material is missing

Re: Part number 1.1 -- Martin (Diskussion) 18:58, 8. Jul. 2020 (CEST)

TsDC COM-MAN says: mandatory if necessary for the technical design. From my perspective, its not very necessary here to define the material any finer than 'construction steel'

Part number 1.2 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 09:08, 3. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

symmetry lines and material is missing

Part number 0 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 09:12, 3. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

3D explosion view is not allowed for assembly drawing, it can be additional though

Re: Part number 0 -- Lukas (Diskussion) 12:22, 3. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

Where does it say so? Can you maybe add an example of what is needed.

Re: Re: Part number 0 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 17:56, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

here are three of the common methods described: https://www.hs-anhalt.de/fileadmin/Dateien/FB6/personen/voigt_st/Lehrunterlagen/05_CAD/03_techZeich_Darstellungen.pdf

most common in mechanical engineering is Projektionsmethode 1

Part number 0 -- Lukas (Diskussion) 12:21, 3. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

The screws are missing in the drawing.

Part number 1.1 -- Lukas (Diskussion) 12:28, 3. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

In the drawing of part number 1 this part has only two holes. The symetric lines is missing if the part is symetric in both directions.

Re: Part number 1.1 -- Martin (Diskussion) 18:59, 8. Jul. 2020 (CEST)

doesn't seem to be symmetric; from my perspective just the measurements for the hole positions are missing

Part number 1.3 -- Lukas (Diskussion) 12:32, 3. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

Where is that part used?

Re: Part number 1.3 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 18:47, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

yes, it is not shown in the assembly drawing...

Part number 2.4 -- Lukas (Diskussion) 12:34, 3. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

The symetric line in one direction is missing.

Part number 1 -- Lukas (Diskussion) 12:40, 3. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

This drawing does not show the tubes, 1.2 and 1.3. And how are the parts linked? By welding?

Part number 2 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 18:55, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

3D explosion view is not good, better use Projektionsmethode 1

Part number 3 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 18:59, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

3D explosion view is not good, better use Projektionsmethode 1

Part number 3.1 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 19:02, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

the inner diameter is missing as well as the material

Part number 3.2 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 19:04, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

material?

Part number 3.3 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 19:05, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

Material?

Part number 3.3 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 19:12, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

tolerances for the diameter like 11h7 would be usefull, to ensure that it fits tight on the disk (No. 2)

Part number 3.2 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 19:16, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

tolerances for the diameter like 11K7 would be usefull, to ensure that it fits tight on (No. 3)

Part number 3 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 19:19, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

the shaft (3.7) is not shown in the drawing

Part number 3 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 19:20, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

the destribution of forces between 1 and 2 is not clear

Part number 4 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 19:27, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

it is not clear e.g. how 5 is connected to 4 -> projektionsmethode 1 and add measures

-- Bjoern (Diskussion) 19:30, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

Materials of all parts are missing

Part number 4.4 -- Bjoern (Diskussion) 19:31, 11. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

symmetry line