Search results for query: *

That might be a good suggestion since the OP did say that we are to assume that "the entire profile bends when that surface is bent and not just that bottom surface." Or another workaround would be to use the I modifier upon the size callout.

PtoMonty, just an aside: you're not required to constrain all degrees of freedom. Only what's need for a particular callout.

Thank you belanger, pmarc, and greenimi for helping on my question. So essentially, CZ takes any callout and elevates it to a location (and orientation) control. I should have just believed Ryan when that idea first appeared above!

Belanger, yes that's the question I was trying to articulate. Since CZ (in ISO) makes the orientation and location locked among the group, it apparently becomes position in that case. Others can jump in if I'm wrong here. Still not sure that I like it, but I can live with it :)

I asked all this to see if it would be legal per ISO to use perpendicularity with CZ upon a group of features. According to the "letter of the law" in the quote you gave from ISO, it appears that that would be allowed. But it doesn't sit right with me for perpendicularity to take on the role...

Greenimi, "Where CZ is indicated in tolerance indicator all the related individual tolerance zones shall be constrained in location and in orientation amongst themselves"

Burunduk, Thanks, yes that makes sense. I was too focused on the number of digits being shown, not on the spread of the tolerance itself.

However, based on that do you think ISO should allow perp with CZ to be used on a pattern of holes? As you say, it would constrain the perp tolerance zones for orientation and location. By doing that it could replace position (assuming that it's positioning the holes among themselves, not to...

Pmarc, I claimed that perpendicularity can't be used to locate multiple surfaces to each other based on the idea that perpendicularity can't be used on a group of holes to locate them to each other (like composite position would). But I see your point that flatness CZ could logically extend to...

Burunduk, here's why I said not. If the drawing states 1.40625+/-.01111 then the designer wants that to be measured to at least the 5th decimal place (then 10% more or whatever). But if the drawing states 1.40625+/-.01000 then we only measure to at least the 2nd decimal place (well, 3rd place...

This confuses me. Is your thinking simply because the tolerance of +/- .01000 coincidentally has three zeros after that .01? What if it were 1.40625+/-.01111? Would we still say the measurement accuracy only goes to the 3rd decimal? I presume not, so why do zeros get shortchanged? I know...

I don't think perpendicularity can be used with CZ. It's true that those surfaces are only related to the given datum(s) in a perpendicular manner, but the problem is that it's trying to also locate them to each other, which is something the perpendicularity symbol can't do. In ASME the profile...

Actually, it's not the entire red stuff. A stickler might say that it controls only the one red surface that is closest to the viewer in that view.

The callout is fine, but it doesn't mean they are treated as one feature. Instead, each of those 3 surfaces is measured for angularity back to datum A. Unless there's a weird angle that we can't see, it seems to be identical with using parallelism on those 3 surfaces. If you swap parallelism...

It's technically known as an extension line. Its weight should be automatic in CAD.

Use two datum target lines, indicating each at the tangent of each arc. Then, target A1 and A2 will be understood as the plane that you are asking about. If you're not familiar with datum targets, I can post a picture from the ASME standard.

I suspect that statement in 8.3.1.1 wasn't repeated in 8.3.1.2 because that 2009 version still allowed an unequal/unilateral profile tolerance to be shown graphically with phantom lines. In that case, the leader wouldn't be "pointing to the surface."

A picture sure would help (try it from home rather than work?) but the reason I mentioned the two different standards is because you asked "what happens at the extents of the boundary". I was thinking of Fig. 11-5 in ASME, where the intersection point of two adjacent surfaces creates a tolerance...

It depends on whether you are using the ASME or ISO standards for dim/tol.

The radius still has a number of some sort. Even if the R is not followed by a number, it's intended to be a smooth curve that blends with some adjacent dimensions. So I'd say that it's a real dim that should (ideally) be measured. But I suspect it's usually overlooked. I'll await other input...