I'll have to watch this several times over and pause frequently to fully assimilate each of the steps but this is essentially a gold mine of practical experience. Thank you for sharing this 👍
Really useful channel, I have watched all your videos; they are short, concise, very well explained, the right mix of presentation style, content and expertise; I also love how you take the opportunity to also teach some principles of modeling with Fusion that we can use for other projects. Keep up the great work and I hope you will continue to produce more lectures. Cheers!
Ok. I figured it out. And I understand why you make the separate pieces for the intersects. And I *think* I know why you make the chamfer in those separate pieces. I was able to create and print a little sample jar with some pretty cool, chunky threads that requires only a quarter turn to close tightly. Extremely useful workflow once you get your head wrapped around it. Thank you!
Thanks for a great video, just what I needed! Even though I like the short and to the point video it maybe wouldn’t hurt to slow the pace down a little. Also, I would love a video on joints and contacts.
Thank you very much for the great constructive feedback! I will definitely try to turn down the speed a notch in the future. I hope to get to joints and contacts soon.
Watched this and your other thread videos many times. I'm still not sure why you make the two extra profiles for the threads to intersect with--or, better said, why this step is necessary (and to go one further, why your profiles are sketched the way they are for these two pieces--confusing geometry). Still trying to piece this puzzle together, but the more I watch them, the more it's starting to make sense and capable of being re-engineered.
To me its the cleanest way to have chamfers and a proper integration of the thread into the main bodies. Other ways are possible and equally valid, of course.
@@getprototyping It was the chamfer that was throwing me off, actually. I couldn’t see the purpose of it in the sketch or in the Combine/Intersect. And I’m wondering if that intersect is even necessary. I was able to replicate a version of what you’re doing with just combining the Sweeps with the Bottom and Lid Revolves, but sometimes a Split Body trim is required to remove some portions of the sweep that stick out above or below the lid.
Great tutorials with to-the-point explainations! I was looking for something like this for a pill container that I am making. I was more interested in the middle thread pattern, where the threads are actually notches , on the lid, it might actually provide some grippy traction too . Can you please share the cad files or tutorial for that pattern ?
I appreciate what you’re doing with your videos (to-the-point instruction, assuming viewers know F360), but you speak way too fast and are difficult at times to understand. Your videos don’t seem to allow for slower playback speed. Keep making videos, but please consider this feedback.
@@getprototyping slower speed wasn’t working on the playback on the app but is now. Your accent is fine. Just let your sentence breathe a little bit before moving on to the next thought to allow the previous thought (with accented English) sink in with the viewer.
Basically yes, I would do a very close to zero clearance at the faces in contact when tightened. Also, Id expect to print a second adjusted lid if it should be precise. There will always be some tolerance. The greater the pitch, the less tolerance, but also the easier the tightened lid will come loose.
There are a number of scenarios where standardized threads do not work well. Most commonly, standard clearances are generally unsuitable for 3d printed solutions. I generally like to have full control over the thread design when I print both components. Also, there is an virtually infinite number of uncommon (or even non-standardized) threads out there you might want to interface to (jars, bottles, fine threads, even sawtooth profiles, buttress, tapered threads, ...).
@@getprototyping As for clearance, sure. I just use machine screws, but scale the males to 98%, and then blend them back into the body. Tolerance is not an issue, when you know how to compensate for it. As for interfacing with existing artifacts, sure. That makes sense. But for all my work, this seems like a complete waste of time. It there is an industry standard, and it is easy to stick with, like standard m-sized screws up to medium size, it is a really, really, good practice, to follow the norms and standards of the industry. I actually consider it bad practice to use something non-standard unless there is a serious reason for it. Not too long ago, I made a duct using m115. I needed to stretch it in the z, as in altering the thread, as the default threading has way too much overhang to be printable. But since it is a stretched m115 thread, it may be reproduced by anyone at any time. For instance to support the right to repair. Also, and I sort of know this intemately, using too many repeating patterns in an assembly renders it almost unrenderable. The part itself quickly turns into a nightmare to work with. If you have never seen Fusion eat like 120GB of ram, then you sort of have not used patterns for real. You probably have never waited for 30 minutes for an assembly file to open either. But that caching, it is amazing. I still so no reason what so ever, to standardize on this technique. I see a ton of reasons, for this be considered bad practice, for most designs. Buy hey. If you need to fasten it to a non-standard thread, you sort of need to. I just never faced that need.
![[TF2] The Russian Bear Trap](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YFNSwz2_rOA/mqdefault.jpg)
I'll have to watch this several times over and pause frequently to fully assimilate each of the steps but this is essentially a gold mine of practical experience. Thank you for sharing this 👍
No annoying music, no neverending intro, straight to the point content, crystal clear information. Great work! You're the Gigachad of CAD tutorials!
Hehe, thanks for the compliments!! Trying my best to make what I myself wanted to watch more of…
This is exactly what i also felt!
I learned more in the video about threads than in ten other videos.
Thanks
Thats so nice to hear. My pleasure.
Perfect tutorial for me. Maximum transfer of knowledge on the subject without the 15 minutes of narcissism that other "tutorials" normally include
Really useful channel, I have watched all your videos; they are short, concise, very well explained, the right mix of presentation style, content and expertise; I also love how you take the opportunity to also teach some principles of modeling with Fusion that we can use for other projects. Keep up the great work and I hope you will continue to produce more lectures. Cheers!
Thank you for your feedback and support!!
Ok. I figured it out. And I understand why you make the separate pieces for the intersects. And I *think* I know why you make the chamfer in those separate pieces. I was able to create and print a little sample jar with some pretty cool, chunky threads that requires only a quarter turn to close tightly. Extremely useful workflow once you get your head wrapped around it. Thank you!
Thanks for a great video, just what I needed! Even though I like the short and to the point video it maybe wouldn’t hurt to slow the pace down a little.
Also, I would love a video on joints and contacts.
Thank you very much for the great constructive feedback! I will definitely try to turn down the speed a notch in the future. I hope to get to joints and contacts soon.
@@getprototyping A second channel for "slow" people might be a good idea. I would subscribe to that immediately :D
Nice explanation again. Greetings from argentina
Thank you, best of luck!
this is very high level I m impressed
Very nice tutorials, hope to see many more from you - any chance you covering gears😅
Great idea, thanks. 👍
your videos are top tier! you earned a new sub^^
Watched this and your other thread videos many times. I'm still not sure why you make the two extra profiles for the threads to intersect with--or, better said, why this step is necessary (and to go one further, why your profiles are sketched the way they are for these two pieces--confusing geometry). Still trying to piece this puzzle together, but the more I watch them, the more it's starting to make sense and capable of being re-engineered.
To me its the cleanest way to have chamfers and a proper integration of the thread into the main bodies. Other ways are possible and equally valid, of course.
@@getprototyping It was the chamfer that was throwing me off, actually. I couldn’t see the purpose of it in the sketch or in the Combine/Intersect. And I’m wondering if that intersect is even necessary. I was able to replicate a version of what you’re doing with just combining the Sweeps with the Bottom and Lid Revolves, but sometimes a Split Body trim is required to remove some portions of the sweep that stick out above
or below the lid.
Great tutorials with to-the-point explainations! I was looking for something like this for a pill container that I am making. I was more interested in the middle thread pattern, where the threads are actually notches , on the lid, it might actually provide some grippy traction too . Can you please share the cad files or tutorial for that pattern ?
There was a little bit of tinkering involved in the bottle. Will share more files in the future (via buymeacoffee).
Very nice video!
I understand that the pitch of the helicoil is the pitch of the thread we want, but what about diameter? Does it matter?
The diameter of the initial coil does not matter.
Very niceeee
Thanks!
I appreciate what you’re doing with your videos (to-the-point instruction, assuming viewers know F360), but you speak way too fast and are difficult at times to understand. Your videos don’t seem to allow for slower playback speed. Keep making videos, but please consider this feedback.
Thanks for the feedback, giving my best as a non-native speaker ;-)
Slower playback should be possible, but I understand it is not ideal.
@@getprototyping slower speed wasn’t working on the playback on the app but is now. Your accent is fine. Just let your sentence breathe a little bit before moving on to the next thought to allow the previous thought (with accented English) sink in with the viewer.
Can this process be used for a hexagonal object with a hexagonal lid, where all the faces (top and container) align when the lid is fully secure?
Basically yes, I would do a very close to zero clearance at the faces in contact when tightened. Also, Id expect to print a second adjusted lid if it should be precise.
There will always be some tolerance. The greater the pitch, the less tolerance, but also the easier the tightened lid will come loose.
I guess I still don't see why? The built in threads works just fine, and is standardized, so I guess I am still left with "why"?
There are a number of scenarios where standardized threads do not work well. Most commonly, standard clearances are generally unsuitable for 3d printed solutions. I generally like to have full control over the thread design when I print both components. Also, there is an virtually infinite number of uncommon (or even non-standardized) threads out there you might want to interface to (jars, bottles, fine threads, even sawtooth profiles, buttress, tapered threads, ...).
@@getprototyping As for clearance, sure. I just use machine screws, but scale the males to 98%, and then blend them back into the body. Tolerance is not an issue, when you know how to compensate for it.
As for interfacing with existing artifacts, sure. That makes sense.
But for all my work, this seems like a complete waste of time. It there is an industry standard, and it is easy to stick with, like standard m-sized screws up to medium size, it is a really, really, good practice, to follow the norms and standards of the industry.
I actually consider it bad practice to use something non-standard unless there is a serious reason for it.
Not too long ago, I made a duct using m115. I needed to stretch it in the z, as in altering the thread, as the default threading has way too much overhang to be printable. But since it is a stretched m115 thread, it may be reproduced by anyone at any time. For instance to support the right to repair.
Also, and I sort of know this intemately, using too many repeating patterns in an assembly renders it almost unrenderable. The part itself quickly turns into a nightmare to work with. If you have never seen Fusion eat like 120GB of ram, then you sort of have not used patterns for real.
You probably have never waited for 30 minutes for an assembly file to open either. But that caching, it is amazing.
I still so no reason what so ever, to standardize on this technique. I see a ton of reasons, for this be considered bad practice, for most designs.
Buy hey. If you need to fasten it to a non-standard thread, you sort of need to. I just never faced that need.
Way too fast to understand and follow along with.