hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 84 replies
  • Subscribers 223 subscribers
  • Views 805 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

True Position in 3 axis???

1CMM4ME
Ok, I have read the post regarding this so called argument that my boss and I got into today. He told me that you cannot measure true position in 3 axis, as I told him he was wrong. I know it depends on the way the FCF calls it out, but I tried to explain to him that it is possible to measure TP in 3 axis.
I have seen the formulas, so I know it's possible. I just wish I could get one of you gurus to reply back explaining that it is possible and why. I see the picture but he does not. I do not like to get into pissing matches with upper management, but I have learned a h**ll of alot from you guys, and I know this is possible. So if one of you fine gentleman can back me up on this, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Now I am going to get a cold beer.Smiley
Parents
  • You do not necessarily HAVE to have the feature normal to the first datum in the FCF, do you? Say you have a BASIC angle into which a hole is bored. Why is it illegal to use the BASIC angle to control the orientation or the normailty of the hole?

    I need to get the standard in my hand. See where it is called illegal. If all of this stuff is illegal then that is a mistake IMO and does not serve the community.

    Wait a minute. Page 60 of my trusty GD&T handbook Y14.M-1994 shows TP as a bi-directional control (single Axis) on ROUND features. A round feature should dictate diametric IF what you are saying is correct. I think it's OK man. It's OK to use single axis tp with round features.
    I will investigate the corner point further and may well conced it is illegal.

    I don't believe it should be illegal to have an angle for the hole like you illustrated. Never said it was. Yes you can have a non-diametric tolerance zone for a FOS but you need to place the FCF in a manner that shows this. In other words the FCF can not be attached to the FOS but rather to the dimension lines. If it is attached to the FOS it is diametric. Your page 60 and mine are much different, I am in section 5.9 also demonstrated in illustration 5-42 (my page 60 is on datums). So yes you can do a non-diametric tolerance zone but where you place the FCF dictates the legallity of it.
Reply
  • You do not necessarily HAVE to have the feature normal to the first datum in the FCF, do you? Say you have a BASIC angle into which a hole is bored. Why is it illegal to use the BASIC angle to control the orientation or the normailty of the hole?

    I need to get the standard in my hand. See where it is called illegal. If all of this stuff is illegal then that is a mistake IMO and does not serve the community.

    Wait a minute. Page 60 of my trusty GD&T handbook Y14.M-1994 shows TP as a bi-directional control (single Axis) on ROUND features. A round feature should dictate diametric IF what you are saying is correct. I think it's OK man. It's OK to use single axis tp with round features.
    I will investigate the corner point further and may well conced it is illegal.

    I don't believe it should be illegal to have an angle for the hole like you illustrated. Never said it was. Yes you can have a non-diametric tolerance zone for a FOS but you need to place the FCF in a manner that shows this. In other words the FCF can not be attached to the FOS but rather to the dimension lines. If it is attached to the FOS it is diametric. Your page 60 and mine are much different, I am in section 5.9 also demonstrated in illustration 5-42 (my page 60 is on datums). So yes you can do a non-diametric tolerance zone but where you place the FCF dictates the legallity of it.
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement