A layer of coating

[Anonymous]

I'm having trouble removing a layer of coating from all of my design.
Example: I receive customer-specs and I draw say, an m&m. Now I have to make the chocolate base in order to put the sugar-coating on. I want to make a drawing (and a model) for my cocolate base and I know the thickness of my sugar-coating.
Now, I would like to draw up the complete m&m, and peel off the sugar-coating-layer. I tried to use the offset-feature, but I'm having trouble selecting the entire part.
best regards,

Stegen

[Anonymous]

stegen,

Your example sounds do delicious that it deserves a response...

Option 1
1/ Derive chocolate base into a new .ipt file and scale it up to the
outside dimensions you require for the sugar coating.

2/ Fire up an .iam file and place in it the chocolate base and sugar
coating blob. Constrain together x to x y to y axis.

3/ open a .ipt file and derive in the .iam file. Use the subtract
option to cut the sugar blob to form the shell.

4/ open a new .iam file and bring in the chocolate base and the file
created in part 3 to create your assy.

Option 2 (quickest)
1/ Derive chocolate base into a new file and scale it as 1:1. Shell
this part to the sugar wall thickness with the outside as the offset
direction. This is the sugar coating.

2/ open a new .iam file and bring in the chocolate base and the file
created in part 1 to create your assy.

Option 3
that will do for now......

Can I have some when you are done?
Much prefer scorched almonds though.

[Anonymous]

Kent:

Is scaling up the chocolate base going to give a constant coating thickness?

If the length of the base is 10 mm and the thickness is 5 mm, scaling it
up 10% will give finished dimensions of 11 and 5.5 mm respectively. The
coating will be 0.5 mm in the length direction and 0.25 mm in the
thickness direction.

Richard

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your quick reply Kent! But Richard (see reply below) is right. I can't use the scale-function because you don't get a consistent layer of coating off a part.
Second problem is that I receive only the outer dimensions as specs for my parts, so I receive drawings with the complete m&m, including the sugar-coating.
Now I have to make the chocolate filling and coat it to finally get the whole m&m my customers ask for.
Please keep in mind the m&m-example was for me the only way to explane my problem, but in fact, my parts are a bit more complicated (not symmetric) and that's why scaling isn't an option.
So, I receive a part-file or 2D drawing and with coating-included measurements. I now want to 'peel off' the coating-layer to get my 'to produce' measurements.

It's difficult for me to explane, but even more difficult to find a solution.

Appreciate the suggestions!

Best Regards,

Stegen

[jtrain]

Did you try offsetting each part surface individually and then using the replace face command?

[Anonymous]

If you want to remove the coating, refer to Option 2:
Derive the whole part into a new part and shell to the inside by the
coating thickness. This will result in the candy shell.
Assemble the derived part and the original part into an new assembly
Derive the assembly into a new part, subtracting the derived part from
the original.

The part derived by doing a boolean subtract from the assembly will be
the uncoated candy.

stegen wrote:

> Thanks for your quick reply Kent! But Richard (see reply below) is
> right. I can't use the scale-function because you don't get a
> consistent layer of coating off a part.
> Second problem is that I receive only the outer dimensions as specs
> for my parts, so I receive drawings with the complete m&m, including
> the sugar-coating.
> Now I have to make the chocolate filling and coat it to finally get
> the whole m&m my customers ask for.
> Please keep in mind the m&m-example was for me the only way to explane
> my problem, but in fact, my parts are a bit more complicated (not
> symmetric) and that's why scaling isn't an option.
> So, I receive a part-file or 2D drawing and with coating-included
> measurements. I now want to 'peel off' the coating-layer to get my 'to
> produce' measurements.
>
> It's difficult for me to explane, but even more difficult to find a
> solution.
>
> Appreciate the suggestions!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Stegen
>

[Anonymous]

Yes, I tried. The offset-feature works very well, and seemed to be the easiest way out. But; I have trouble selecting the whole part. When I select the faces manually, the offset-feature works well and my problem is solved, but when the parts get more complicated, it's virtually impossible to select all faces of the part manually (easy to forget one).
Second big problem with the offset-feature is when I make an IDW of the part, the part-parameters are those of the original part without the offset so my dimensions on my IDW don't contain my offset which for me, is a serious problem.
Best Regards,

Stegen

[Anonymous]

I'm still having trouble removing the layer as described from my part. The suggestions mentioned above don't provide me with the result I need.
Does anyone have a suggestion? (It would really help me graduate from university, because it's part of my final paper... so, please, can anyone help me?)

[Anonymous]

Do you have a part in iCF?

That way we can take a look.

Rui

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"stegen" <
href="mailto:s.j.c.gensen@student.tue.nl">s.j.c.gensen@student.tue.nl>
wrote in message
href="news:f186355.7@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f186355.7@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

I'm
still having trouble removing the layer as described from my part. The
suggestions mentioned above don't provide me with the result I need.
Does
anyone have a suggestion? (It would really help me graduate from university,
because it's part of my final paper... so, please, can anyone help
me?)

[Anonymous]

If you receive the dimensions of whole m&m from your customer, why not model that as a part? Then remove one small face from it and use Thicken-command to extrude it inwards. That may be troublesome if your m&m is very complicated but if it works, you should have your sugar coating as a result. Then derive away to get rest of the m&m.

regards, Tero

[Anonymous]

Perhaps I'm missing something but can't you just create the model of the base, shell it outwards to create the shell (save it as a separate part) and then assemble the shell to the original base?

[Anonymous]

Charles solution is probably the best... See Inventor Customer Files
for a Non-Derived example. Posted today..... File name is MM.Zip (natch!)

Dennis

Charles Bliss wrote:

> If you want to remove the coating, refer to Option 2:
> Derive the whole part into a new part and shell to the inside by the
> coating thickness. This will result in the candy shell.
> Assemble the derived part and the original part into an new assembly
> Derive the assembly into a new part, subtracting the derived part from
> the original.
>
> The part derived by doing a boolean subtract from the assembly will be
> the uncoated candy.
>
> stegen wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your quick reply Kent! But Richard (see reply below) is
>> right. I can't use the scale-function because you don't get a
>> consistent layer of coating off a part.
>> Second problem is that I receive only the outer dimensions as specs
>> for my parts, so I receive drawings with the complete m&m, including
>> the sugar-coating.
>> Now I have to make the chocolate filling and coat it to finally get
>> the whole m&m my customers ask for.
>> Please keep in mind the m&m-example was for me the only way to
>> explane my problem, but in fact, my parts are a bit more complicated
>> (not symmetric) and that's why scaling isn't an option.
>> So, I receive a part-file or 2D drawing and with coating-included
>> measurements. I now want to 'peel off' the coating-layer to get my
>> 'to produce' measurements.
>>
>> It's difficult for me to explane, but even more difficult to find a
>> solution.
>>
>> Appreciate the suggestions!
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Stegen
>>
>

--
Dennis Jeffrey
Autodesk Product Consulting and Training
Center for Design Excellence
http://www.design-excellence.com
260-459-1311 ext 221 or 800-550-6070 ext 221

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your reply!

No, we can't model the base. Well, we can do that of course, but then the whole automation-advantage is gone.
We create coated products. Our customers send us designs and sketches and provide us with say, a complete m&m. Then, we have to draw up the m&m, with in mind that we also have to coat it later. The chocolate filling of the m&m has to be manufactured in our factory. Then, our coating-department puts a layer of coating on our chocolate-base, resulting in the part with the dimensions our customers ask for. If we would draw-up the base, we have to recalculate manually all of the dimensions our customers give us. We want Inventor to do this job for us. You can imagine, that the parts we make are a bit more complicated than a round m&m.

[jbellric]

Draw coated part, derive coated part into new part and shell (selecting no faces) to coating thickness (say .00025"), then derive in both finished part and coating, subtract coating solid.  creates a very adaptive solid - the coat.

[mcgyvr]

---

@jbellric wrote:

Draw coated part, derive coated part into new part and shell (selecting no faces) to coating thickness (say .00025"), then derive in both finished part and coating, subtract coating solid.  creates a very adaptive solid - the coat.

---

This post is 10 years old.. Please don't start digging up old posts.. There are plenty of "fresh" questions to answer if you want to contribute