Tangent Bearings

ryan_thiessen999

Perhaps this is an easier question than my previous one, as well as being better described.

Again on my camera mount:
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/f5e8fcbad57136b903546cf6/w/f040dc06b25df32d39bb5f4d/e/62cc5d76096fe96e5592a60e

When I try to make a tangent mate between the lower bearing that rides on the pin slot and the bottom of the end flange I get an overdefined error in all my tangent mates, even though I am simply trying to define where the pin and bearing should sit vertically.

Would it help if I imposed some limits? Is it looking out to the furthest reaches of the tangent mate and seeing a problem?

philip_thomas

Ryan - you posted a public link and your reward is that it got fixed!

There are 10 ways to build most things in CAD and there is nothing 'wrong' that you did.
That said, here are some comments/suggestions

1) I was able to reduce the number of mates used considerably by using 'mate group'. Whenever two or more components do not move relative to one another, you should always use mate group.

2) When we added tangent mate, there was one person here that ran around playing chicken little that users would use them when they were not needed. Lets call him 'Joe'. @joe_dunnewas right - way too many tangent mates! In general whenever you can mate using fewer degrees of freedom you should. There are many technical reasons why this is true, but my fingers do not feel like cooperating right now. In your case, i created a mate connector in space at the common axis of the carriage assembly and used a revolute mate to create the desired motion.

3) Only 1 tangent mate is needed - the roller at the other end is kept in line with a slider mate. Again, limit your use of tangent mates

4) Slider1 needed limits added to the mate to restrain the range of motion.

Otherwise you're doing pretty good  - keep it up!

https://cad.onshape.com/documents/56d8c505e4b0a5e7b6f81034/w/146c55af830e48fa3fd70d15/e/4fedcfe4a2f54c34b4dec741



 

ryan_thiessen999

Update:

I recreated my end flanges so that the curve was not tangent beyond my intended scope and I still had issues with adding a tangent mate to the lower bearing that was constrained by a pin slot mate.

philip_thomas

Ryan - you posted a public link and your reward is that it got fixed!

There are 10 ways to build most things in CAD and there is nothing 'wrong' that you did.
That said, here are some comments/suggestions

1) I was able to reduce the number of mates used considerably by using 'mate group'. Whenever two or more components do not move relative to one another, you should always use mate group.

2) When we added tangent mate, there was one person here that ran around playing chicken little that users would use them when they were not needed. Lets call him 'Joe'. @joe_dunnewas right - way too many tangent mates! In general whenever you can mate using fewer degrees of freedom you should. There are many technical reasons why this is true, but my fingers do not feel like cooperating right now. In your case, i created a mate connector in space at the common axis of the carriage assembly and used a revolute mate to create the desired motion.

3) Only 1 tangent mate is needed - the roller at the other end is kept in line with a slider mate. Again, limit your use of tangent mates

4) Slider1 needed limits added to the mate to restrain the range of motion.

Otherwise you're doing pretty good  - keep it up!

https://cad.onshape.com/documents/56d8c505e4b0a5e7b6f81034/w/146c55af830e48fa3fd70d15/e/4fedcfe4a2f54c34b4dec741



 

ryan_thiessen999

philip_thomas said:

Ryan - you posted a public link and your reward is that it got fixed!

There are 10 ways to build most things in CAD and there is nothing 'wrong' that you did.
That said, here are some comments/suggestions

1) I was able to reduce the number of mates used considerably by using 'mate group'. Whenever two or more components do not move relative to one another, you should always use mate group.

2) When we added tangent mate, there was one person here that ran around playing chicken little that users would use them when they were not needed. Lets call him 'Joe'. @joe_dunnewas right - way too many tangent mates! In general whenever you can mate using fewer degrees of freedom you should. There are many technical reasons why this is true, but my fingers do not feel like cooperating right now. In your case, i created a mate connector in space at the common axis of the carriage assembly and used a revolute mate to create the desired motion.

3) Only 1 tangent mate is needed - the roller at the other end is kept in line with a slider mate. Again, limit your use of tangent mates

4) Slider1 needed limits added to the mate to restrain the range of motion.

Otherwise you're doing pretty good  - keep it up!

https://cad.onshape.com/documents/56d8c505e4b0a5e7b6f81034/w/146c55af830e48fa3fd70d15/e/4fedcfe4a2f54c34b4dec741



 

Thanks so much!

I've only been playing with the program for a week now and I am quite impressed with the interface.  I started using Lagoa yesterday as well and the models have turned out amazing with rendering.

Your explanation above, not only solved my problem but taught me a bit more about using mates so once again, thank you very much for your time.
Ryan

philip_thomas

ryan_thiessen999 said:

Your explanation above, not only solved my problem but taught me a bit more about using mates so once again, thank you very much for your time.
Ryan

Thank YOU for your support of Onshape