Prev: CSWP exam sample test
Next: Toolbox problem!
From: Brian on 19 Jan 2006 18:16
Basically the equation I gave stripped off the integer value for rotations
>1. A rotation >1 would give an angle >360 and SW does not like that. So,
for example, if it took 4.3 rotations to achieve your distance, the equation
would only return the .3 ... or 108 degrees. You may need to do something
similar unless your rotation angles never exceed 360 degrees.
--
Brian Hokanson
Starting Line Products

"Josh" <j_mayes(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1137706956.170030.36740(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Well, I first tried using mates, with no luck (probably a way to make
> this method work, but I gave up early and moved on). Next, I tried
> using an equation and it seems to work well now.
>
> I didn't quite understand your (Brian's) example equation above (maybe
> because I didn't have experience using SW equations until now), but
> using the following equation I achieved satisfactory results...
>
> "D1(a)Angle1"=("D1(a)Distance1"/"D4(a)Helix/Spiral1(a)bag_stop_movable.Part")*360+.0001
>
> or more generically speaking...
>
> ROTATION ANGLE = (AXIAL TRAVEL DISTANCE/PITCH)*360
>
> NOTE: "D4(a)Helix/Spiral1(a)bag_stop_movable.Part" is a direct reference to
> my pitch dimension in one of the parts, which should hopefully allow me
> to change the pitch downstream, without messing up my mates (the pitch
> is something that I plan to fine tune later, so wanted this
> parametrically linked).
>
> ALSO NOTE: One puzzling thing was, without the "+.0001" at the end of
> the equation, my result in the default configuration set the angle to
> zero, since the distance was zero, which the equation editor did not
> like. The following error was displayed: "This equation evaluates to a
> value that lies outside the modeler resolution", so I just added .0001
> to the end result since this slight angle shift wouldn't really be
> noticed in my assembly.
>
> Any idea why this was a problem, since SolidWorks normally allows
> angles to be set to zero, right?
>
> Thanks again for your help!
>
> -JOSH
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Tin Man on 19 Jan 2006 22:32
Why not use a design table with the above mentioned equations in it?
Excel is much easier to use. All you need is a value for how many turns
into the material the thread is engaged (in a decimal value). From that
you should be able to figure out the Distance Mate value and the Angle
Mate value....Obvously you'd also need a cell to enter in the
threads/distance.

Ken

From: Josh on 21 Jan 2006 11:23
Brian,

My assembly (in this case) should actually not ever exceed 360 degrees
of rotation, however I am still interested in your method for this and
other cases, since it seems to be better math. Can you please explain
it to me once more, with an example. Sorry I'm not getting it exactly
from your previous descriptions.

Much thanks,

-JOSH

Tin Man,

Thanks for the tip. I haven't tried design tables in a while, but I
can see where this may be helpful.

-JOSH

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: CSWP exam sample test
Next: Toolbox problem!