hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 84 replies
  • Subscribers 223 subscribers
  • Views 808 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
  • 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.

    Just curious as to why there would be two different ways to define that an FCF is diametric? There is the diametric symbol AND there is WHERE you attach the FCF? Why the redundancy? Just curious more than anything and since I realize you didn't actually write the spec I don't expect you to have all the answers here. Still, it doesn't make sense to have redundancy like that because it will inevitably lead to ambiguity and conflict.
Reply
  • 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.

    Just curious as to why there would be two different ways to define that an FCF is diametric? There is the diametric symbol AND there is WHERE you attach the FCF? Why the redundancy? Just curious more than anything and since I realize you didn't actually write the spec I don't expect you to have all the answers here. Still, it doesn't make sense to have redundancy like that because it will inevitably lead to ambiguity and conflict.
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement