>I've been reading drawings for the best part of 4 decades and I'm well
>acquainted with what they are, but always wondered:
>
>why these are so named and also why isn't there a 'Second Angle'
>projection?
I had it explained to me many years ago, maybe around 1980 and I fully
understood what was said. Time has however destroyed any details. All
I can remember from 1980 is who the prime minister was and I'd much
rather forget that :)
When I looked at a drawing recently that clearly said one system I had
convinced myself it was the exact opposite. Luckily there was an
isometric view otherwise I'd have made it upside down and inside out.
--
> why these are so named and also why isn't there a 'Second Angle'
> projection?
Conventionally, angle is measured anticlockwise from the horizontal.
Consider the horizontal plane and the vertical plane containing y & z
axes. The 'first angle' is in the first quadrant, top right. Projections
of an object suspended in this quadrant, the plan projected downwards,
and the left elevation to the right, are 'first angle'. The 'third
angle' is in the lower left quadrant, from 180 to 270 degrees.
Projections onto the planes of an object placed there, are upwards and
to the right. As far as I can see, you could perfectly well have second
or fourth angle projections, but, being unconventional, they would
probably be rather confusing.

Signature
Charles Lamont
paulwilliams - 16 Apr 2009 11:48 GMT
These explain it:
http://www.technologystudent.com/designpro/ortho1.htm
and:
http://www.technologystudent.com/designpro/ortho2.htm
Pau
--
paulwilliam
Charles Lamont - 16 Apr 2009 20:29 GMT
> These explain it:
>
> http://www.technologystudent.com/designpro/ortho1.htm
> http://www.technologystudent.com/designpro/ortho2.htm
No, they do not answer the questions asked.

Signature
Charles Lamont
Richard Shute - 17 Apr 2009 10:31 GMT
>These explain it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Paul
Thanks Paul, that explains _what_ they are, which I already know. I
was more on the 'why and how', but I'll forward the links to a freind
who prompted the query in the first place.
Richard
Richard Shute - 17 Apr 2009 10:20 GMT
>> why these are so named and also why isn't there a 'Second Angle'
>> projection?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>or fourth angle projections, but, being unconventional, they would
>probably be rather confusing.
Thanks Charles, that clears some of the mist. It haddn't occured to me
to think in terms of the quadrants in that manner, though I'm aware of
the a-c/w convention.
However, I still can't see that the result of 1st and 3rd projections
as you describe would result in the layout we all use.
Taking your scheme for 1st angle so that the projection of the right
hand end is projected onto the Y-Z plane on the left, then yes OK,
that's 1AP.
But, in the lower left quadrant, you would project the left hand face
onto the Y-Z plane to the right - that's still a 1AP - Or are you
suggesting the view is always as seen from the positive X direction
(for projection onto the Y-Z plane obviously)? That would work, I
think.
Rgds
Richard
Charles Lamont - 17 Apr 2009 11:51 GMT
> Or are you suggesting the view is always as seen from the positive X
> direction (for projection onto the Y-Z plane obviously)? That would
> work, I think.
Equally, it seems one is always looking down. I have not found an
exposition of this bit that seems complete either.

Signature
Charles Lamont