Search results for query: *

JGarcas, I'm not sure what you mean by the "solution" of Fig. 4-7. What specific information are you looking for? Evan Janeshewski Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc. www.axymetrix.ca

metrologic, We're always looking for people from industry who are knowledgeable and interested. You can email me directly at the address below. Evan Janeshewski Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc. www.axymetrix.ca

metrologic, There is a more recent version, Y14.5.1-2019. The profile section was completely rewritten, and the actual value is now a zone-based single value that can be compared to the tolerance value. The growth parameter g concept is defined, and there are several multi-feature examples...

metrologic, I'll try to clarify how the different dispositions are treated. The growth parameter g method can be used to calculate a Method B measured value for any uniform disposition (equally disposed, unequally disposed, unilateral). The A = T + 2g formula applies. For equally disposed...

metrologic, I can take this one - I'm part of the Y14.45 subcommittee. The note you referenced is in the published Y14.45-2021 - we were not able to include a definition. The Method B measured values in Y14.45 are based on concepts and definitions for actual values the Y14.5.1 Mathematical...

Hi All, It seems that the intent here for "sphericity" is to control the surface with a tolerance zone comprised of two concentric spheres. I would say that Circularity applied to a sphere would not be equivalent to this. I agree with Garland23 that the cross sections in each cutting plane...

Wushee, Interesting comment, I didn't think of the rounded triangle shape as being intentional but I suppose it could be. There are definitely situations when the shape was supposed to be round but was accidentally produced with the tri-lobe shape. The figure doesn't have to be a 3-lobed...

greenimi, I know that the circularity value in this case is 0.8 because I drew the feature that way ;^). Here is another figure showing the two concentric circles for an actual circularity zone: This analysis contains the assumption that an actual local size is a 2-point diameter. What...

SeasonLee, Here is another example of what can happen within the cross section. The Straightness tolerance cancels the Rule #1 boundary (18.4) and imposes a larger boundary instead (18.8). The actual local size can still be as small as 18.0, so the feature can be lobed more than it could with...

SeasonLee, Your question about the circularity and cylindricity error boils down to the questions of what size control means the absence of Rule #1, and what actual local size really is. These questions have been debated endlessly for many years in the standards committees and on this forum...

Hi All, I'm not a drafting expert, so I'm not sure if I've got the terminology correct here. Can someone confirm whether or not the following statements are correct: 1. The horizontal line with the double-ended arrow is a dimension line. 2. The vertical lines are extension lines. If these...

greenimi, As usual, I agree with pmarc. If C was referenced MMB, -The TGC (datum feature simulator) for C would be a tab of virtual condition (VC) size (8.0) at its basic location -The gage element for the hole pattern would be 4 VC size (7.3) pins located at their true positions -The holes...

Hi All, I would say that comparing the tolerance zones from one segment to the tolerance zones from the other segment doesn't add much (if any) value. The part features need to conform to the requirements from both segments, and each requirement can be verified on its own. We don't have to be...

3DDave, You asserted "for the lower segment only: since datum axis B is nominally perpendicular to datum plane A, then it is redundant and controls nothing". Now you're saying that no one has argued that B is not needed in the composite FCF. Most of us would take the phrase "it is redundant...

Burunduk, Your statement in bold in the last post sums it up nicely. Once I started thinking of composite FCF's in this way, then things really fell into place. Before that, I had been struggling to visualize how the datum feature simulators would have to behave in order to only constrain...

Burunduk and 3DDave, Y14.5's use of the word "separately" in 7.5.1 is another unfortunate example of loose terminology making things even more confusing. When they say that each segment in the FCF's in 7-38 and 7-39 may be verified separately, this is nothing to do with the concept of Separate...

Burunduk, OK, we might have to agree to disagree on this. It might just be a wording problem - what each of us (and Y14.5) mean by the word "constrains". Perhaps you're making a distinction between the terms "constrains clocking" and "takes part in constraining clocking" that I wasn't making...

Burunduk, I maintain that B participates in constraining the w rotation. When B is not referenced, the w rotation is constrained differently than it is when B is referenced - the diagrams show it. This means that B must take part in constraining the w rotation in some way. I don't think that...

SeasonLee and All, We really need the sketch, so here it is. This is the as-produced part that pmarc and I were describing, with the C slot that is skewed / off center relative to the B hole. The customized DRF would result in this: I don't think this is what Y14.5 intended. The FRTZF is...

Hi All, This is getting interesting ;^). Dave, it sounds like your instincts are mostly correct on this. It would make sense to use the same DRF for both segments. But pmarc is correct that A|B|C and A|C would not result in the same DRF (relationship between the actual part and the...