anyone here able to read engineering drawings? i need help sketching

>>1091628
It's radially patterned. This is a cutaway drawing. The four holes will be 90 degrees apart, at the same radius from the center.

>>1091628
>do my homework
no fuck you. get herpes

>>1091633
that's what i thought too, but the inner diameter is just 44, not 4X 44

>>1091634
i'm desperate, my teacher doesn't answer emails regarding assignments, i asked classmates and they said they don't know, i've asked people in second year but they didnt know, i'm kinda fucked

>>1091628
Bro... do you even flange?

File: 282734e9e5e8a16e9bfdef7a52ad0519.jpg (131KB, 852x600px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 852x600px

>>1091628

Honestly dude, maybe engineering isn't for you. You should have been able to figure this out with a little searching. Did you even read your textbook? I'm sure it covered cutaways and flanges.

File: 24A45031-6E8A-42A7-935A-BBF247FBAE9A-9639-00000F2C35BB7234_tmp.gif (8KB, 607x255px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 607x255px

>>1091636
>>1091640
i don't think you understand what i'm asking or maybe i don't understand what you're getting at.

the dimension i'm given is a diameter of 68 (directly under "D", but not D). There are 4 of "something" regarding that diameter, meaning there could be 4x "pillars" or sections, of this shape, that are 24mm thick (based on the inner diameter of 44). this is it not true because there is only one 44mm diameter given implying there are no breaks in the inner circle.

the other meaning it could be is that there are 4 other dimensions that share a diameter of 68 which is simply not the case.

imagine ID2 in this image said 4x in front of it... that's what i'm trying to deal with right now.

like i said maybe i didn't understand how it relates to flanges or maybe you're not understanding my question, but i've asked classmates and people from second year and nobody knew.

Looks like the 68 dia is just the OD of the thread relief. The 4x is probably a misprint.

Looks like a circular part with an outer diameter of 156 and a hex head top. Not sure what to make of the cutaway part of it.

>>1091628
4 radial flats at 68mm ?

File: diagram.png (8KB, 483x384px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 483x384px

>>1091694
this would make sense...
so from a top down view, you mean something like this?

we never did radial flats before in class so that would explain why I don't get it.

>>1091633
its 6 holes
am i wrong?

>>1093014

You're right. 6 holes equal spaced on a 120mm diameter (typically this is measured from center of hole).

2mm deep counter bore 20 mm in diameter, the other hole is 11mm diameter through.

>>1091628
Is it possible that it is a dimension? a distance of 4mm from thread (M76x4-7e) to the flange? That dimension isn't mentioned anywhere else and the part would be under defined.

>>1091694
Seconding this, looks like 4 slots. See the hidden vertical line below it.

>>1093032
No, the "4X" indicates that the 68 dia feature appears four times.

Source: mechanical engineerfag

>>1093032
>Is it possible that it is a dimension? a distance of 4mm from thread (M76x4-7e) to the flange?
that is correct

>>1093043
>No, the "4X" indicates that the 68 dia feature appears four times.
it is also used to specify the width of a groove

t. mech. engineer

>>1093043
>the "4X" indicates that the 68 dia feature appears four times.

Agree. Would be formated 4 x 68 if it was a distance. Would call customer and ask WTF you want here and why we should take them serious.

Source: QC Manager

>>1093054
>Would be formated 4 x 68 if it was a distance
people fuck it up all the time

>Would call customer and ask WTF you want here
fuck you and all those other cocky subcontractors that can't think on their own
and delay production every single time something is technically not correct but blatantly obvious what it's supposed to be

>why we should take them serious
because they are paying you

>>1093045

>it is also used to specify the width of a groove

I've never heard or seen this (and can't find any mention of it in my reference books) but yours is the only suggestion that makes sense. Without a width for the groove the part is not fully dimensioned (we have no idea how tall the M76 section is)

A square edge based on a 68mm DIA is a cute idea but it's a nonsensical way of displaying a measurement (you would give the dimension as AF in this instance)

So, my vote is for a 68mm diameter circular undercut that is 4mm deep,

>>1093057
Sub Cunt Tractor is right though. An engineers job when creating a drawing is to clearly and concisely describe what is required beyond all doubt.

The drawing in this example is a terrible example because it is too convoluted and/or has a mistake/nonstandard abbreviation

>>1093057
>because they are paying you
Yes they are. To get it right. You didn't. I need a CA, 5why format, cuz it always ends with "we fucked up"

>>1093059
What bothers me is the dashed line. This can only mark a hidden edge. For example: groove for bearing lock washer. And 4mm could be the width of that vertical groove? But then the part is still underdefined.

>>1093066
the dashed line indicates the M76x4 thread

>>1091628
it is a retaining ring. 4mm x 68mm

>>1093066
!

It's 4 half circle cuts, like half a cylinder going up and down.

>>1093068
Idk. According to ISO standard thread is always displayed as thin solid line. Maybe this is some different standard? OP should tell what standard are they using to begin with.
And if you look closely you can see that dashed line is directly below the "groove", while on the other side (crossection) the line that indicates the thread is not directly below the "groove".

>>1093068
>>1093078
Again, good points regarding how ISO defines a thread. Unfortuantely this drawing fails quite a lot of ISO requirements. The point about the thread seems right to me, because there is another line in the section view on the right where the M42 thread is. Because this is a section view it cannot be anything else.

Likewise with the M20 thread at the top

File: 1473512694867.png (57KB, 625x656px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x656px

>>1091635
>i'm desperate, my teacher doesn't answer emails regarding assignments

Tell ya' what OP, lets see the questions.

File: quickanddirty.png (852KB, 2720x1680px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 2720x1680px

Quick and dirty mockup. All the dimensions are there if you assume the engineer is an idiot...

Everything is fully defined with no guesswork

>>1093113
With the exception of the cuts across the hexes, but I assumed 30° taper from 70mm AF out & down. The original drawing looks filleted rather than chamfered in the un-cut section though

>>1093075
>. 4mm x 68mm

THIS!

>>1093075
THIS!

The groove width is 4mm and the dia of the bottom of the groove is 68mm.

This is a odd way to call that out.

>>1093633
It isnt just an odd way, it's a wrong way. But it does appear that's what they're trying to call out

The thread relief has a diameter of 68 and is 4 wide.

>>1093113
Out of interest, how did you interpret 6x O11 etc into those holes? is it assumed they are equally spaced unless otherwise defined?

>>1093113
EE here. Could you please explain what part of this drawing is the 4X dia68?
Does the 4X mean it's present only four times as others have been saying? Or is it something else?

>>1093731
if you look at the top right, it says
>EQL SP ON [diameter]120

>>1093741
Makes sense, thank you.

>>1091628

Technical drawer here, if it's really about the o68, it's just saying that it's 4 wide. You won't see it in topview.

It's a shitty drawing tho.

>>1093731
>>1093741
Yep, as this guy said.

It's a messy drawing, really does not convey things clearly enough.

>>1093841
Definitely. Someone tried to cram as many dimensions into this drawing as possible. I would make it an obcective to try to confuse the poor workshop mechanic as little as possible, so maybe at least two drawings would be appropriate, one side view and one half-section. Also, what is missing is the radius of the hex to the flange, and the chamfer of the beginning of the threaded parts. Also, why is the counterbore just 2mm? Serves no purpose if you can't make the bolt heads disappear.

>>1094562
Yes, as an objective exercise in reading drawings it forces you to think but if a colleague brought this to me I'd send it straight back. As you say, another view would make this a thousand times clearer. Add a plan view and a section and you remove all doubt.

Working form basic principles, the radius between the hex and flange, and on the edge of the flange are all 3mm because they aren't specifically called out as being different from the internal one but it's not clear.

Presumably the shallow counterbore is just a clearance issue - you wouldn't want to go too deep into the 12mm flange for fear of removing too much material. Equally, they could be for top-hat type inserts that don't protrude.

>>1093740
the two theories are
a) the 68 dia appears 4 times
b) the 68 dia is 4mm thick (gap between the flange and the external thread is 4mm to fit a retaining ring)

I'm again saying it means it appears 4 times, because that's what a capital "X" means next to a number, as it is for the 6X dia 11 holes around the outside. A lowercase "x" can be used in a thread size, like M42 x 3-6G. There's also the vertical hidden line right below it. However, the height is not defined (should appear like the 12, 30 and 70 dimensions), nor is there any clue as to the width of the slots, if that's what they are, but this is just one section view.

No one should ever give you one view of something this complicated and say "make this shape."

>>1091628
It'll just look like a ring from the top you idiot

>>1096014
Kek
Not sure if troll, or..