Search results for query: *

CWB1 thanks for you input, I do not create the print we manufacture the parts to the print. Its we are having a dispute on the visual inspection with our customer. There are burrs on the parts which are genuinely so small you cannot see them with the naked eye, however under the microscope...

Hi ctopher There is notes on the prints stating remove all burrs and sharp edges. However burrs that are not visible to the naked eye could be picked up in 20x magnification microscope. So if a customer says we are rejecting components due to burrs which can only be seen under a microscope...

Hi I wondering if anyone has had any past experience with problems with visual inspection of their components. We manufacture components to ASME Y 14.5 drawings. Does anyone know with keeping to the standard what is deemed standard practice for visual inspection. For example if you had a...

Chez311 I think from your advice, it will be best changing the ordering of the Datums, I then will add the perpendicularity of the cylinder to the Datum plane. The plane on the far left I feel would be much simpler just changing to parallelism to the Datum Plane. Thanks

Alex I am meaning the plane furthest left on the sketch. Could we have a callout which was that plane perpendicular to A B feature control frame. Thanks Ross

Hi all Thanks for your advice and replies. I am in complete agreement that Datum A is far two small for a Primary Datum. I should be allowed to change the order to have the Plane as Datum A and the Cylinder as Datum B. This I believe will resemble the functionality of the part as well, I do...

Hi Please see attached sketch. This is rough sketch of a perpendicular callout. In principle the perpendicular call out here is ok. The issue with measuring purposes although no sizes giving is the length of Datum A axis. Can anyone explain why you cannot measure the plane perpendicular to...

Hi all, Thanks for all the help and advice. My issue was i actually had components with a two point measurement either with a micrometer or my CMM was just under bottom limit. Taking planes on the CMM, average ( Least squared plane ) at each side the part was in spec and was well within spec...

[img https://res.cloudinary.com/engineering-com/image/upload/v1599235780/tips/Plane_Measurment_fiurpp.jpg Chez 311 + greenimi ASME is the standard we are working to. My main question is where exactly do your report the 50mm width from. Would it be the extremes high points of both planes ...

Hi all, If you have 2 planes features which create a mid plane Datum B. If the print asks for the planes to be for example 50mm width ± 0.02. Where do you take the measurement for the 50mm width ? These planes are perpendicular to my Datum A. So I thought I would have two simulators...

Hi guys, See attached picture. I am looking for how profile tolerance application differs from a feature of size to a single surface ? If i looked at the attached sketch I always assumed, whilst the part was constrained with datum features A + B + C we would have a theoretical Ø60 cylinder...

Axym Datum feature C is referenced RMB, like all our drawings there is never any Datum feature referenced MMB. The component itself is located to the mating part using the Ø3 dowel holes on the top face. These 4 counter bores are crucial in aligning another part to this however. So they are...

3ddave I will have a look the the standard again could not see anything 1st time round, I didn't know how that would work checking the part manually or accurately with CMM software. My thinking for the DRf is using the 2x 3dowel holes on the top plane to locate and orientate, Then the...

Tarator I do not think the Datum selection is not accurate, I was wondering if 4 side holes / counter bores as a group could even be a tertiary Datum ? See attached print, the 4 highlighted counter bores are Datum C, Thanks R

Belanger, Exactly, A group of 4 holes especially 4 side holes, I have no idea how this would only constrain the final degree of freedom. I could see setting up the DRF slightly different then controlling these 4 holes back to the DRF. I will put a picture up soon with more details for you...

Hi guys, I have a print with 4 dowel holes that are equally spaced around a cylinder. Not on the top face face, holes that are breaking through the the external shaft itself. So at the moment the DFR is as follows, Datum A ( Plane ) Datum B ( Internal Cylinder ) Datum C ( 4x side dowel...

drawoh There are a lot of features on the part which will be position to the 3 dowel holes, This part is a shaft, so i have 2x Ø25 external diameters which are position now to Datum A B C rather than A B-C . There are also two angled mechanical stops on this part and thread holes on the...

Chez311 Thanks for the help much appreciated. R

Chez311, If this is the route the customer went down regrading the print, does datum C have no place in a feature control frame along side Datum A and B ? A being a plane ( 3 degrees of freedom ) B being 2x hole pattern ( 3 degrees of freedom ) Thanks R

Hi guys, Looking back to a previous thread of mine. I had 3 holes equally spaced on a PCD. This consisted of 2x Ø4 and 1x Ø3 dowel holes. The DRF that fitted best after some discussion on this forum was the plane perpendicular to the dowel hole was Datum A, 2x Ø4 was Datum B and 1x Ø3 was...