The second thing you have to keep in mind is that F360 doesn´t support equation driven curves, so most probably you will have a little interference (that´s part of not using a software that has equation driven curves: precision) however it shouldnt be enough to "clash" as you said in your email. Now that we've set those things straight, the application does the parts for you according to the DIN metric standard, it does not handle the assembly of parts for you in that regard you must have the knowledge needed. I´ve sent to your email a nice picture of a diagram. You see the distance between the "pitch line" of the tooth and the tip is equal to the module (in your case 1mm) and the distance between the "pitch line" of the tooth and the bottom is 1.25*module. If "h" refers to the tooth height, then no, "h/2" is not the right equation to use. I don´t know if your h/2 refers to the tooth height or the rack height so I´m going to tackle them both if "h" refers to the rack´s height it's simple common math knowledge that if you change that height your equation will simply not work. Yeah the thing is that you´re using the wrong equation to line them up. Currently the development of the GFGG is on hold in favor of a better design app, in that one we'll make support for both methods. Thanks. However Ewan pointed out that there's another set of equations for helical gears as shown in This doesn't mean the helical gears are wrong or don't work, they're just designed differently from what you may find in other apps. For anyone reading this, as it turns out the GFGG designs helical gears following a stepped method as shown in, this type of gear retains the same dimmensions as the spur gear. Currently the development of the GFGG is on hold in favor of a better design app, in that one we'll make support for both methods. This doesn't mean the helical gears are wrong or don't work, they're just designed differently from what you may find in other apps. However Ewan pointed out that there's another set of equations for helical gears as shown in Hopefully this will be of use for you.įor anyone reading this, as it turns out the GFGG designs helical gears following a stepped method as shown in, this type of gear retains the same dimmensions as the spur gear.
#Gear template generator code#
I've put time in reviewing the code and re-researching the gear theory on Shigley´s Mechanichal Engineering Desing and the DIN metric standard for gears and couldn't find anything that points out as to why it would be badly designed.I´ve sent to your email a PowerPoint that has all the math performed by the program and the images that represent it. Hello, I've made the gear as you said (m=2.3mm | z=24 | ha = 14deg) and found that it´s accurately designed. This design method is still in development and should not be relied on for accurate visualization or industrial level designing. If you’re planning to fabricate these gears using our designs, you have to consider they won’t reflect the “under cut” condition (for more information, visit KHK Profile Shifting ). Profile shifting is a manufacturing method for gears that are needed to fit a larger/smaller mesh space while remaining with the same specs (number of teeth, module, pressure angle, etc.). The two variants considered experimental are the ones that use profile shifting. Nonetheless, these designs are as useful as others.
The two types considered non-standard were included for 3D printing since these designs of internal gears have proven to be practical when tight tolerances are a liability.