How to set limit to Planar movement

[Reinier94]

Hello guys,

Before I start I'd like to say thank you for taking the time to read through my problem and if you need any more information I'd be happy to oblige.

I've made a manual-powered desk fan in Inventor 2017 (my early work looks like this: https://grabcad.com/library/hybrid-powered-angular-mill-1) and since I wanted to make the U-joint really useful, I've decided to revolve the housing and place a roll bearing in this revolve feature. That way the fan can be adjusted in a certain degree.

Now everything seems to be working well, but I want to disable the planar movement until a certain extent, but my problem is that the boxes are disabled/unable to be written in and I'm wondering what I'm doing wrong. I provided some images to give you an idea of what I want.

Thank you in advance for helping me!

[Reinier94]

Hello guys,

Before I start I'd like to say thank you for taking the time to read through my problem and if you need any more information I'd be happy to oblige.

I've made a manual-powered desk fan in Inventor 2017 (my early work looks like this: https://grabcad.com/library/hybrid-powered-angular-mill-1) and since I wanted to make the U-joint really useful, I've decided to revolve the housing and place a roll bearing in this revolve feature. That way the fan can be adjusted in a certain degree.

Now everything seems to be working well, but I want to disable the planar movement until a certain extent, but my problem is that the boxes are disabled/unable to be written in and I'm wondering what I'm doing wrong. I provided some images to give you an idea of what I want.

Thank you in advance for helping me!

[JDMather · Accepted solution]

---

@Reinier94 wrote:

.... if you need any more information I'd be happy to oblige....

---

Attach your assembly here.

I would use a

Contact Set

or

a Mate with Limits

or

a 2D Contact Joint

or

a 3D Contact Joint.

[JDMather · Accepted solution]

---

@Reinier94 wrote:

.... if you need any more information I'd be happy to oblige....

---

Attach your assembly here.

I would use a

Contact Set

or

a Mate with Limits

or

a 2D Contact Joint

or

a 3D Contact Joint.

[Reinier94]

I've attached the Pack n go as a .zip file. Thank you in advance

[Reinier94]

I've attached the Pack n go as a .zip file. Thank you in advance

[JDMather]

For future reference:

The Design Date Folder

the OldVersions Folder

and 

the Templates Folder 

were not needed.

This cut the zip file size to one third.  4.7 Meg rather than 12.3 Meg

[JDMather]

For future reference:

The Design Date Folder

the OldVersions Folder

and 

the Templates Folder 

were not needed.

This cut the zip file size to one third.  4.7 Meg rather than 12.3 Meg

[JDMather]

As I start to diagnose the design intent - 

the first thing I notice is a Hole feature of Ø8mm for an M8 fastener.

What will happen if you attempt to push an M8 fastener into an Ø8mm hole without turning the fastener?

What is the correct tap drill size for an M8 hole?

[JDMather]

As I start to diagnose the design intent - 

the first thing I notice is a Hole feature of Ø8mm for an M8 fastener.

What will happen if you attempt to push an M8 fastener into an Ø8mm hole without turning the fastener?

What is the correct tap drill size for an M8 hole?

[Reinier94]

Yes that's not so smart. The drill bit should be 7.1mm for an M8 thread. Thank you for suggesting the contact set, it's all fixed now.

The only problem I have now, that if I turn the crankaxle, the (golden) mill-axle will go everywhere, instead of being in a fixed position.

What I'm doing now, is locking the planar joint when turning the mill in a certain angle, then unlocking the planar joint, readjusting the angle and lock it again.

How can I make it possible, so that the bearing house will stay in place when turning the crankaxle without locking the planar joint?

Thank you for your time.

[Reinier94]

Yes that's not so smart. The drill bit should be 7.1mm for an M8 thread. Thank you for suggesting the contact set, it's all fixed now.

The only problem I have now, that if I turn the crankaxle, the (golden) mill-axle will go everywhere, instead of being in a fixed position.

What I'm doing now, is locking the planar joint when turning the mill in a certain angle, then unlocking the planar joint, readjusting the angle and lock it again.

How can I make it possible, so that the bearing house will stay in place when turning the crankaxle without locking the planar joint?

Thank you for your time.

[JDMather]

I took a look at this and realized that I would have to start over from scratch.

I don't really have the time - perhaps someone else will jump in here and pick up the ball.

[JDMather]

I took a look at this and realized that I would have to start over from scratch.

I don't really have the time - perhaps someone else will jump in here and pick up the ball.

[Reinier94]

That's not a problem. I made this assembly as a (free-design) assignment, but the old assembly has a 45 degree angle hole where the ball gearing is placed in.

I have been playing around with this design to further broaden my knowledge and ease of use with the program. I think you will be right that it will take me less work if I redesign the parts, than fix it the way it is now. Thank you once again for your time, you've done more than enough to help me!

[Reinier94]

That's not a problem. I made this assembly as a (free-design) assignment, but the old assembly has a 45 degree angle hole where the ball gearing is placed in.

I have been playing around with this design to further broaden my knowledge and ease of use with the program. I think you will be right that it will take me less work if I redesign the parts, than fix it the way it is now. Thank you once again for your time, you've done more than enough to help me!

[JDMather]

---

@Reinier94 wrote:
.. I think you will be right that it will take me less work if I redesign the parts, 

---

Use symmetry about the origin planes with all of your parts for this assembly.

For example - do not Extrude in one direction, instead Extrude mid-plane (symmetrical) about sketch plane.

Also, I give assembly joints a try from time to time and always go back to using assembly constraints.

This statement should not be confused with Dynamic Simulation Environement Joints - which is where I would have liked to have taken this project with you if I had time. Motion control in Environments>Dynamic Simulation has much more functionality.  You might give it a look.

[JDMather]

---

@Reinier94 wrote:
.. I think you will be right that it will take me less work if I redesign the parts, 

---

Use symmetry about the origin planes with all of your parts for this assembly.

For example - do not Extrude in one direction, instead Extrude mid-plane (symmetrical) about sketch plane.

Also, I give assembly joints a try from time to time and always go back to using assembly constraints.

This statement should not be confused with Dynamic Simulation Environement Joints - which is where I would have liked to have taken this project with you if I had time. Motion control in Environments>Dynamic Simulation has much more functionality.  You might give it a look.

[Reinier94]

Good points, that's probably why I always need to readjust a lot of features and dimensions if I change another. I will take your advice and use it in my next assemblies. Consider this question solved, I see I have to learn a lot more and this will certainly help me.

Do you mean that it's better to use constraints, in case it gives the same result as a joint?

[Reinier94]

Good points, that's probably why I always need to readjust a lot of features and dimensions if I change another. I will take your advice and use it in my next assemblies. Consider this question solved, I see I have to learn a lot more and this will certainly help me.

Do you mean that it's better to use constraints, in case it gives the same result as a joint?

[JDMather]

---

@Reinier94 wrote:
Do you mean that it's better to use constraints, in case it gives the same result as a joint?

---

Because I normally would take an assembly like this into Environments>Dynamic Simulation I am interested in how the Assembly Constraints will be converted to DS Joints.

The behavior is entirely predictable.

Assembly Joints - well I've just never really figured them out... ...always seemed more suited to VAR dog-and-pony shows...

[JDMather]

---

@Reinier94 wrote:
Do you mean that it's better to use constraints, in case it gives the same result as a joint?

---

Because I normally would take an assembly like this into Environments>Dynamic Simulation I am interested in how the Assembly Constraints will be converted to DS Joints.

The behavior is entirely predictable.

Assembly Joints - well I've just never really figured them out... ...always seemed more suited to VAR dog-and-pony shows...