Search results for query: *

Ah yes, forgot to delete the E off of the FCF on the Ø.018 holes. Thanks for all of the inputs

I like the idea of having Datum D be represented by the two holes, I think I would do a composite tolerance there to control orientation tighter than location. My only hesitation with this method would be someone (vendor) making the part mis-interpreting it to be that Datum D is the one hole...

If D was a datum of the two holes, how exactly does that get inspected? Checker, what would be the point of doing a|b-c vs just a|b|c?

A connector first interfaces with the .118 holes which align it and then there are solder pins that fit into the smaller holes.

Meaning the planes defined by B and C are oriented to the planes defined by D and E. In other words right now if you draw a line between B and C and another line between D and E the angle between the lines is 0. In real life that won't be the case, right?

I'm making my head hurt because I think i'm making something harder than it needs to be. I have a Circuit board that interfaces with a heatsink through two pins (part of the heatsink) with a hole (Datum B) and slot (Datum C defined by the width). There is a pattern of holes (two Ø.118 and 4...

I understand how simultaneous requirements would keep the holes and pocket together during inspection but I don't see how a composite tolerance would allow me to tighten the relationship between the holes and pocket while keeping the relationship back to DEF somewhat "looser". Unless you guys...

What if on that same angled face (with the holes) I had a pocket which I wanted to control back to A B C but also control a little tighter with respect to the holes. What's my best route here? Do I setup another set of datums with the holes and then profile the pocket to...

Jim, Thanks for the feedback, I felt kinda odd dimensioning holes from a non normal view (with respect to the holes).

Forgot View A, added to make it a little easier to see the entire picturehttp://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=a208cc9c-34d1-45b8-a19b-89cb60882ff9&file=combined2.JPG

Good idea... See attached. Datum B is a hole Datum C is the width of the slot http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=6f94cd82-2497-4e9b-9fd0-e8cbab89db9a&file=combined.JPG

View C http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=3c9c32c1-ab0b-46f9-82ad-41278efe3de8&file=View_C.JPG

What do you guys think about this method? http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=aba54d86-5c25-4b28-80cc-4f868e7cf0ba&file=main_view.JPG

Thanks for the feed back guys. Datum c is meant to be the short dimension of the slot The box bolts down on datum a and is aligned to the mounting surface by two pins which go into the hole and slot datum b and c respectively I was trying to stay away from adding more datums but i see your point

View B attached: Sorry if there is a better way to do this...http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=dc181664-bbff-43c0-8bfb-a263842ed066&file=ViewB.JPG

View A attachedhttp://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=55adf10b-f3c4-49e4-8f6d-f7f775cffe4e&file=viewA.JPG

Guys, I'm trying to think of the best way to dimension from holes which sit on an angled surface to my A|B|C datums. I've attached my first shot, which I think is correct up to the part where I label the edge of my angles surface 0,0. How can I cleanly ordinate dimension the holes...

ah, it does look to be that way... Definitely could use some clarification like you guys say. Do you think "continuous feature" is common enough that you won't scare away people quoting for machine shops... Being able to accomplish something in multiple ways one has to wonder which is the...

fcsuper, Don't think "continuous feature" applies because that surface isn't a feature of size.

drawoh, yep i've done it that way too. If you only have the one "0" dimension you would still need some GD&T relationship between A and B for the implied 0° basic dimension to apply.