Search results for query: *

Why not use such kind of gauge which handle cross section is smaller than thread diameters?http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=928b26bb-cdfa-4b4c-b73b-f1e4dcd910c5&file=Wkg_Thrd_Plug_0.jpg

In the assembly, when you use that 4 holes pattern to locate the part, it is the case. Otherwise, when you use OD to locate the part, it is not the case.

What manufacturing sequence does this FCF suggest in this drawing?

In my opinion, powerhound was right. Because of the FCF shows only one datum feature --- A, using perpendicularity makes more sense. On the other hand, the distances among those holes should be specified with certain tolerances instead of basic dimensions, unless you define the center hole as a...

Thanks to 3DDave and powerhound. All your inputs are very good for my understanding on this problem. Hi powerhound, I read this problem from the other forum. I agree with what you said about this. My direct feeling is different resource has different background, and different language. I don't...

Hi powerhound, I love your direct explanation. My current understanding is still that the geometric tolerance is not relative to size tolerance in this case. They are individual each other. RFS = no matter what feature size is, geometric tolerance should be kept in a certain level. There are...

Because of RFS, no bonus tolerance is allowed in this case. So I don't think "the worst case" is matter with the size tolerance. There are two kinds of tolerances, size tolerance and geometric tolerance. Straightness and flatness are geometric tolerances.

Hi greenimi, I will take time to read that thread. Thank you for your help,

"The worst case" may be the most important point in my opinion, because no definition about this. Please let me take certain time to think about it. I will try my best to describe it later on.

I believe the answer is B(0.2).

Without MMC or LMC modifiers, you have to use RFS concept, to my knowledge.

Hi greenimi, you are right, the standard allows you to use both (MMC or RFS). But standard requires you use MMC when the drawing specifies it with MMC modifier.

Hi powerhound, I am really looking for help with that. Personally I believe that the first priority is to solve the problem whether or not using RFS concept in this case. Talking about partial FOS, there is not authorized standard statement on it. But most cases in Y14.5, you will see no...

Thank to 3DDave and Belanger for their explanations. Talking about FOS, how should we consider this part which is displayed as attached file as below? Should we treat the part as one that has FOS or partial FOS...

I am a new one. I have a question for you guys. Question: Is the straightness of a considered planar surface (usually no modifier indicated) used under the regardless of feature size (RFS) concept? For example, please see the Fig.5-6 Specifying a straightness of a flat surface in ASME Y14.5...