If I drag and drop a configured roller bearing virtual part from toolbox into an assembly, will I drop a rigid part, or a flexible sub assembly incorporating mates, or something else?
Of course I can move and rotate whatever I drop in the assembly space.
But if I drag the outer race, will the other components come with it, and is that because:-
a) It is a merged multibody part, or
b) It is an assembly with mates, or
c) something else?
Would a SW model downloaded from the bearing manufacturer behave differently to the Toolbox bearing?
John wrote: Thanks guys, Of course I can move and rotate whatever I drop in the assembly space. But if I drag the outer race, will the other components come with it, and is that because:-a) It is a merged multibody part, orb) It is an assembly with mates, orc) something else? If I assemble and animate a gearset, will I see the bearing elements roll, or will the races skid at whichever interface I have not constrained? Would a SW model downloaded from the bearing manufacturer behave differently to the Toolbox bearing?
Now if I can ask, what is your particular requirement you need so. If you looking at animating a roller bearing the same way it rotates in real life, I'll not recommend that. There is no fun in doing what is not required.
Thanks Deepak for bringing me down to earth.
I am learning that just because I can imagine an animated mechanism, does not mean that I can simulate it with SW productivity tools. It seems I must model a roller bearing assembly myself and confront the issues with configured flexible sub assemblies.
If I choose not to model an all singing all dancing constantly meshed gearset with visually rolling element bearings, I want to understand why I am making a sub optimal choice.
Suppose I make my own model roller bearing with some SW productivity tools other than Toolbox.
I could model the rollers as a multi (non intersecting) body part without any cage, and they would remain grouped as they were moved/rotated in document space, but I think they would not be able to individually rotate about their own axes.
I could alternatively model one roller and pattern it, and the rollers would remain grouped as above, but I don't know whether individual rollers would be able to rotate about their own axes.
Then I could model one roller as a part, insert multiple instances into an assembly, apply mates to hold the rollers in position without a cage, yet allowing them the freedom to rotate about their axes. I am not confident that all the mates would work when the assembly was inserted as a flexible sub assembly into a top assembly.
I realise that 3D contact and friction will be required to make the elements roll on the race, but a supercomputer in the cloud will solve that issue. (ROFL)
How do you see it?
Retrieving data ...