Search results for query: *

Thanks axym!!! Does the Y14.45 committee need anymore people? Does one need any special qualification to join such a group? I think I would love to participate in something like this!

axym, I hope I'm not bothering you too much with these details... You mentioned Method B measured values in Y14.45 are based on concepts and definitions for actual values in the Y14.5.1 Mathematical Definition of Dimensioning and Tolerancing Principles standard. In Y14.5.1M-1994, Sec6.5...

Hi Andera, I could be wrong, but I believe there is no direct connection between Y14.43 and the typical gauge R&R study. Here is why: As I understand it, gaugeRR's only assess the consistency of data, not whether the data is "correct". Imagine a micrometer that is reading offset by 1mm. Such...

Hi axym, thanks for responding. My apologies, I was mentally thinking that non-uniform profile was an unequal bilateral profile. My initial question is garbley-gook . But your reply jogged my memory. So for an equal bilateral profile: method B is to be the growth parameter g method. And for...

Hi Everyone, A few years ago I believe someone from an ASME committee mentioned on this forum they were working on a measurement data reporting standard. I read through that draft standard that was available back then and took some mental notes. And that was that. --I didn't realize this...

Hi Burunduk, My hope is that someday Y14.5 could function in a manner that shares some key characteristics of computer programming languages. Programs are usually written and then compiled into instructions for specific computer architectures. This process is essentially hopeless if there's...

Sr GDTP Y14.5-2009 Exam Review Ch-8 Part-II Sep2021 I'm in the middle of section 8, Tolerances of Profile. As you may recall, I'm working through the Y14.5 standard in preparation for upgrading my GDTP certification from the tech level to the senior level. Here is the second set of questions...

I've been saying something similar to my colleagues for years. 95% of the drawings I see would fail to 'compile', let alone execute without some kind of runtime error. It's too easy to kick the can down the road.

@Belanger, feel free to head off on any tangent you want. @Burunduk, that makes sense. I can't have a 2D tolerance zone that is always normal to the true profile of a complex surface. It seems like "true profile" is overloaded by Y14.5 though. For example, even a line profile on an axial...

Sr GDTP Y14.5-2009 Exam Review Ch-8 Part-I Sep2021 Hi Everyone! I'm up to section 8, Tolerances of Profile. As you may recall, I'm working through the Y14.5 standard in preparation for upgrading my GDTP certification from the tech level to the senior level. Here are some questions I had from...

Thank you for posting that excellent thread, Burunduk. I have one or two profile tolerance zone questions that are related to that discussion.

I'm back. Y14.5 definitely reads as you have stated. However, I kinda felt like the extended hole axes in the the illustrations might speak to the committee's collective subconscious. I do believe you could be perfectly correct in that it was just intended to represent drawing practice though.

eh I think I've got the flu Burunduk. I'm going down.

@3DDave Forget projected tolerances --let's use the context of regular position tolerances. As far as I know, Y14.5 always depicts regular cylindrical position tolerance zones as running the length of the material. But the as-produced hole axis are always shown over extended. See Fig. 7-8...

@greenimi Interesting post, greenimi.

Yeah, I'm studying section 8 right now. I thought about bringing figure 8-24 into the present discussion, but perhaps it's best to come back to it in my next study review thread.

Back to rounded slots... So I found a copy of Y14.5.1M-1994 REAFFIRMED 2012. Section 5.6 covers position tolerancing for elongated holes at MMC. "Such tolerancing is always considered to be bidirectional in nature, even if a single tolerance is applied. Only a surface interpretation is...

@3DDave So are you in favor of this concept? In the OP's example, it does seem strange to me that feature C's tolerance zone is defined with respect to datum B's related actual mating envelope feature simulator. But feature B itself, rather than being controlled with a datum A related size of...

This is a really good thread. How is size defined for 2D and 1D features that exist in 3D space under ASME's Y14.5?

Sometimes I see design drawings with two title blocks right next to each other, one indicating ISO GD&T with 1st angle, and another indicating Y14.5 with 3rd angle.