hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 102 replies
  • Subscribers 22 subscribers
  • Views 2125 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Quick question About ISO.....

KIRBSTER269
If a Blueprint calls for ASME Y14.5 wouldn't this be the standard rules apply. How would I know if and when to apply ISO? I have yet to see anything on a blueprint stating this. The reason I bring this up is for the good old Profile callout. Before I make an argument, I want to cover all my resources. Customer already claims in an email that PC-DMIS is not capable of doing this. I and everyone on here already that's horse_S_H_I_T. But its Friday and I'm ready to P_I_S_S someone off
  • , an update for you guys to help us all understand ASME a little better. This is ASME Y14.5.1M-1994 Mathematical Definition of Dimensioning and Tolerancing Principles.
    Attached Files
  • If I have a profile callout that has been known to be a problem, I will typically turn on the graphic window in the report and sometimes also the text. This paints a pretty good picture of what's going on and what needs to be done (misload, poorly designed workholding, tool pressure, etc.). Most of my stuff is ISO and just a number representing an equally distributed deviation doesn't really tell me anything other than whether to pass or fail the part.
  • {"data-align":"none","data-size":"large","data-attachmentid":400499} , an update for you guys to help us all understand ASME a little better. This is ASME Y14.5.1M-1994 Mathematical Definition of Dimensioning and Tolerancing Principles. {"data-align":"none","data-size":"large","data-attachmentid":400500}

    Thanks . That's in a separate publication from the standard itself isn't it?
    If I understand that correctly, that is a description of how it is to be toleranced right?
    So that if it is bi-lateral, the tolerance is the sum of the positive and negative sides of the tolerance.
    If it were unilateral, the tolerance would be just the one side.
    So that's still not saying how it should be reported right? The controversy is still open to rage on... Confounded
  • Really t is like x and y. Just letters until we find the value. Clearly stating t, let's say is .020 so you replace that t to that. Then that is the sum, which in mathematical terms +. Of t+ and t-. So until you measure all you have is +.010 + -.010= .020, cause I replaced that t up there. But yes this is another book. But that's what the ASME standard book actually calls out for, is this book. But like you were asking about positions formulas, In higher post. It's in this book. Gotta buy more books, that's how they get you. Not really any controversy. Now you can buy the book for ISO cause I'm tired of buying books: Stuck out tongue closed eyes
  • in reply to Kevo_cmm
    I'll post more on unilateral from the book tomorrow. I was just showing this to help everyone on this matter. That's what the forum is for. I worked with a machinist who used to use the X2 thing. But his reasoning was since he wasn't in a temperature controlled room. This would give him worst case condition. Because of expansion of metal from hot to cold.
  • in reply to Kevo_cmm
    Like Numbers, I appreciate your sharing the Y14.5.1 standard, but like Numbers, I also have to say "I do not think that means what you think it means".

    The tolerance is +t and -t. That's pretty much indisputable. But that doesn't say "report deviation this way".

    A for effort. Slight smile
  • Actual Value. For Both unilateral and bilateral profile tolerances two actuals are necessarily calculated: one for surface variations in the positive direction and one for the negative direction. For each direction, the actual value of profile is the smallest intermediate tolerance to which the surface conforms. Note that no single actual value may be calculated for comparison to the tolerance value in the feature control frame, except in the case of unilateral profile tolerances.
  • in reply to KIRBSTER269
    I'm assuming this is a quote from 14.5.1?

    The last bit "Note that no single actual value..." is the reason that most people say x2 is definitely wrong, but that also says exactly what I said before, listing the min and max is the way to do it.

    So, in the argument of "Is PC-DMIS right or is X2 right?" the answer is, they are both wrong. As I've said before "ASME doesn't really say 'when reporting a single profile number, report max minus min (or 2x max).' ASME says the max and min are important, not some other constructed number."

    In closing, I'm still right. Slight smile

    Stuck out tongue closed eyes
  • and , have you checked out Don Days short video?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWvYH8wn5Ac
    ... if that link doesn't work go to youtube and search for "GD&T Tip - Reporting Profile" by Tec-Ease.
    I'd like to hear your reactions to his reasoning in that.
    I'm not a GD&T genius at all, I assume that the guys who teach it know it all and I just go with what they teach.
    All the teaching I've received in the Minnesota metro area (Mpls/St. Paul) has been to double the greatest deviation.
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement