hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 27 replies
  • Subscribers 223 subscribers
  • Views 373 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Alignment of Gear part

atul01011992
Daer all,

I am new guy for this user forum, currently I am using PC-DMIS in Camio 8.3. (Nikon Make)
Recently, I found a problem with a alignment issue for my product. It is about a alignment of [A-B I C I D-E ] of part. Please refer to attached file for details. In that A & B are the circles through which we are going to construct a 3S line as a primary datum, then moving ahead C is plane as a secondary datum and lastly D & E are tooth width, from which we need to construct a line through theirs mid points. As in that I don't understand how to do alignment of this part ?
Because there are 2 lines and 1 plane. and mostly unluckily axis of 3D line and Plane is same. Its conflicts my alignment. CAMIO is not allowing to add 2 line 1 plane alignment anyway.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Thank you in advance. Slight smile

Best Regards,​​​​​​​
Atul N
Attached Files
Parents
  • I'm with Anders - I don't see a problem.


    I don't think it's technically correct in how it's drawn, but in this instance I think the intention is clear.

    I think what's maybe throwing you is it's attempting to show the combined datums (A-B and D-E) as datums in their own right - it's not necessary and just confusing (the A-B in the top left view makes sense, the A-B in the top right view is just wrong.)

    A-B is your primary - Level to this (3D line generated from A and B) and set two origins on in
    C sets the origin in the remaining direction
    Generate / Construct line D-E and rotate to that.

    I'm not clear from your post what software you're using? Is it Camio or PC-Dmis?


    Further to that, I think I understand what your issue is (and what VPT says) but if you follow the Can-May-Must way of thinking it's not a problem.


    If a datum CAN control a degree of freedom, and it MAY (i.e. that degree of freedom hasn't been controlled by a preceding datum) then it MUST.


    In the instance of Datum C, it MAY NOT control the leveling because it's been controlled by a previous datum, it CAN NOT control the rotation (because it's vector is co-linear with the primary datum). Hence it only controls what it can, which is an origin.
Reply
  • I'm with Anders - I don't see a problem.


    I don't think it's technically correct in how it's drawn, but in this instance I think the intention is clear.

    I think what's maybe throwing you is it's attempting to show the combined datums (A-B and D-E) as datums in their own right - it's not necessary and just confusing (the A-B in the top left view makes sense, the A-B in the top right view is just wrong.)

    A-B is your primary - Level to this (3D line generated from A and B) and set two origins on in
    C sets the origin in the remaining direction
    Generate / Construct line D-E and rotate to that.

    I'm not clear from your post what software you're using? Is it Camio or PC-Dmis?


    Further to that, I think I understand what your issue is (and what VPT says) but if you follow the Can-May-Must way of thinking it's not a problem.


    If a datum CAN control a degree of freedom, and it MAY (i.e. that degree of freedom hasn't been controlled by a preceding datum) then it MUST.


    In the instance of Datum C, it MAY NOT control the leveling because it's been controlled by a previous datum, it CAN NOT control the rotation (because it's vector is co-linear with the primary datum). Hence it only controls what it can, which is an origin.
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement