OP you asked one question and you got a few answers to different questions. One is how to assign a part number. Two is how to model such a case in CAD.
The part-numbering question really hinges on how your org handles things and at what level of scope you and/or your company works. For me, for...
Here are my thoughts:
1. I understand what your requirements are on the drawing. I think you're right that in the standard there is no "shorthand" notation for assigning unique datums to multiple single features and then referencing each one of those datums to a respective local feature...
I agree with pmarc about pattern representation - you want the nX or some other 1.3.42 notation to indicate a pattern. If I was interpreting the drawing I would interpret multiple leaders sans nX as the same as multiple individual callouts.
As to cases 6+, it seems like the notation...
On a similar thread of thought, I really dislike the -2009 slot callout suggestion for a "2X R" with no dimension after the "R" (Fig. 1-29, p. 15). That is currently my highest "shops are calling because I missed a dimension" instance; lately I've decided to leave off the 2X R and rely on...
Understanding that it isn't supported by the standard, I draw parts assuming implied tangency and haven't had any issue. I suppose I should add a note to my drawing format since it isn't in the standard. It's just as you say; without implied tangency, even not-particularly-complicated geometry...
Well that seems a little crazy, frankly; the standard does have "holes", it doesn't cover all cases, and there are often many ways to arrange a tolerance scheme that can accomplish functionally the same thing. If you are drawing parts and inspecting them in-house, wouldn't it be an...
While I thank you for your input, John, it would be more helpful if you could specifically cite in the standard where it says
Because my copy of the standard (Y14.5-2009) says, in the definition of irregular feature size, that it is directly toleranced (1.3.32.2). Furthermore, scanning through...
I disagree. My interpretation is such that an FOS can be dimensioned by size even though it may be irregular. It is still an FOS; just because you can't use a standard caliper for a two-point size doesn't mean you can't establish a size control, although it may be undesirable if you are limited...
My interpretation is that features of the part don't come into play. Surface profile all-around controls a continuous "true" profile, not a feature or collection of features, or even a surface. So I would say from original post, the non-visible surface is not controlled by the all-around...
The core of my own confusion about UNTOLERANCED DIMENSIONS ARE BASIC is what is an "untoleranced" dimension? If your drawing has a tolerance block, aren't all the dimensions toleranced by the block unless specifically noted otherwise? That's what's ambiguous to me; the issue with the OP's...
This note, in my interpretation, doesn't make any sense if you have a tolerance block that is giving a tolerance based on, say, number of decimal places shown. We had this note on the block, and we also had a tolerance block. The thing is, the tolerance block is for the stated purpose of of...
Howdy! I'm designing a part with some curvature-matching and I'd like to produce a spherical indentation in a piece of Nitronic 60 SS. I am wondering if I can expect the surface profile to be reasonable in a cutting operation with a center-cutting ball end mill. If I'd like the indentation...
Looking through Y14.35, it definitely does not exclude the use of revision blocks on each sheet. For the "All Sheets the Same Revision Level" method, section 7.3.2 says "Additional Revision History blocks may be added when required in accordance with Y14.1(M)" and "When Revision History blocks...
I definitely see where you are coming from, but I don't see how a fully-constrained DRF could possibly be more prone to error in measurement than a floating DRF. If I have a fully constrained DRF and don't "need" it for an orientation control, I wouldn't think that it could possibly hurt in the...
Are "overconstrained" DRFs a problem for orientation? I do it pretty regularly myself - I've seen the overconstraint interpreted as "adding stability" to the DRF/DFS; like instead of theoretically allowing the part to float along the axial translation allowed by only having datum A in the...
To the OP: You don't get bonus tolerance from MMB in the formal sense. You're right that the DFS for the pattern @ MMB allows the plate to shift and skew so your two-hole pattern's actual tolerance is based on the manufactured condition of the 4-hole pattern. 3DDave is saying you can't just add...
The datum simulator for the 8-hole pattern applied RMB will be 8 cylindrical "posts", located at the pattern's basic dimensions, oriented to any higher-order datums in the callout, and which expand from hole-MMC-size to hole-LMC-size (all 8 posts simultaneously expand) or until the simulator...
I have used huge configured files and still do. I have one file, it has pretty much all possible 18-8 metric socket screws. Socket-head, button-head, flat-head, low-head. All thread sizes from M1.6 to M40 or something. The file is ~5MB. The original part with no configs is ~400KB. Once you're...
CheckerHater's comment about uncontrolled angles was misleading. Angles of surfaces in a feature of size are controlled within the boundaries of a size tolerance zone per Rule #1, they can't just skew freely. The animation on that page isn't necessarily incorrect, but it's absolutely possible to...
As yet no responses but I was thinking about the issue and I think I can answer my own question. Paragraph 4.11.6.1 states how to properly determine the size of the MMB of a referenced datum and depending on precedence, will include the location tolerance. I was thinking that MMB pretty much...
