Recent content by Burunduk

pmarc, I suspect it's just not very accurate way to say he wants each pair of 2 holes aligned accurately along Y (perpendicular to datum plane B). See also in post #3: "If I use sep req with the bi-directional rectangular method, couldn't one of the paired holes move left and one move right...

pmarc, Why single directional? That would result in 2-parallel-planes tolerance zones along the X direction. Then one hole in a pair can be dislocated as far to the right and the other as far to the left as the larger zone of .125 allows. I don't think it's a good thing considering the intent to...

3DDave, The requirement was "zones perpendicular to datum B so when the assembly is mounted on the wall, the brackets are not rotated too much about the Z axis." The intent is clear; he wants each two zones kept 'vertical' (from top view perspective) which will be achieved by the rotation...

Had the purpose been controling location relative to the datum reference frame looser in one direction and tighter in another direction, then Bidirectional would be the right choice. But since the purpose as stated is "I want to loosely get the pattern located within .125 cylindrical tolerance...

The problem with the suggestion of multiple single segments with SEP REQT at the second segments - it would also make B control location in "Y" (normal to B) within the smaller zones for each pair of holes. You seem to want just the spacing controlled in "Y" which is not the same. I suggest...

As noted by mfgenggear, it's clearly an incomplete drawing. Is there a chance its is completed in some other document? I'm more inclined to think that the .003 basic distance is related to a position tolerance for the hole that is not shown here, locating the hole from datum A. Somehow I doubt...

It is the same type of datum feature as "Linear Extruded Shape". Look that up in your copy of Y14.5.

greenimi, This ISO figure more or less corresponds with my interpretation as I wrote in post #16 in this thread: "My own way to tackle this would be to simply say that the common axis should be established by two Related AMEs, which are "Related" not because of any preceding datums in the datum...

That inspires. Thank you.

Appreciate you sharing that. You don’t see a lot of young engineers these days who are that into the craft and actually take the time to keep learning. Sounds like you were one of the rare ones, and still are. Did you have any favorite books or handbooks back then? I get the feeling those used...

No, but how do you know there was an intent to relate between the basic dimension and the flatness tolerance? Maybe a picture will reveal something.

If this radius is the actual main mating interface I would set its dimension R10 as basic and control it's form (including radius value) by profile of a surface, then attach the datum feature A symbol to the profile feature control frame. In the feature control frame(s) for the hole, I would...

A single straight line as the only auxiliary element for datum establishment cannot fully orient a plane.

I would say that a datum target line alone cannot sufficiently constrain orientation to make a perpendicularity control useful.

greenimi, My opinion is that both the simultaneity of application of constraints and the "maximum possible contact" are required characteristics of a pattern of features of size (or "common datum features" of size) at RMB. These two things should not be in conflict (no reason for them to be)...