hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 84 replies
  • Subscribers 223 subscribers
  • Views 823 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 are right about the fact that all FOUR are needed to define the pierce point of the hole AND to define the orientation of the feature in the example I posted. Actually, only TWO are needed but since it was done in the MANNER it was done then it takes 4 dims. The problem is that it also defines a 'depth' if you will and that has no feature control frame associated with it.
    It defines the surface that the feature is in and there is not FCF for that.

    Please see this example for a distilled picture of exactly what is being defined.



    In the case of a Diametric TP the 50 BASIC is NOT part of that. It needs a seperate FCF. The same thing is created with the 4 BASIC Dims in the illustration earlier. We have a surface defined with no FCF. Calling out TP of the hole does not cover all the cases. When we do that we need to add another FCF to control the surface or the BASIC Dims are not completely controlled.

    Here is the first one again.
    Attached Files
Reply
  • You are right about the fact that all FOUR are needed to define the pierce point of the hole AND to define the orientation of the feature in the example I posted. Actually, only TWO are needed but since it was done in the MANNER it was done then it takes 4 dims. The problem is that it also defines a 'depth' if you will and that has no feature control frame associated with it.
    It defines the surface that the feature is in and there is not FCF for that.

    Please see this example for a distilled picture of exactly what is being defined.



    In the case of a Diametric TP the 50 BASIC is NOT part of that. It needs a seperate FCF. The same thing is created with the 4 BASIC Dims in the illustration earlier. We have a surface defined with no FCF. Calling out TP of the hole does not cover all the cases. When we do that we need to add another FCF to control the surface or the BASIC Dims are not completely controlled.

    Here is the first one again.
    Attached Files
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement