Search results for query: *

chez311 The following isn't the exact application, but it's close enough. Imagine a cabinet with a bunch of drawer and door fronts, with no frames separating the fronts. If the corners of adjacent fronts don't align (due to twist), they look horrible (aesthetically). A slight bulge (in or...

Thanks pmarc, I'll have a look.

pmarc, What would you put as the datum reference in the feature control frame?

pmarc, I kinda thought that was what I was doing? Are you saying change the point to a small surface?

chez, I'll amend my comments about the datum reference as well, and prefer the datum methodology A1,2,3[A] you've shown.

chez, I appreciate the response. I've found multiple sources (textbook and online tutorials) that suggest utilization of (3) datum targets to define a single datum is an acceptable practice. One of these textbooks is used to teach all aspects of technical drawing to engineering students...

chez, Per all the documentation I've consulted, identifying the datum (A), and more specifically the 3 datum targets (A1, A2, & A3) that define datum (A) is perfectly legitimate. Also see here: Link If the profile tolerance was OK to use for a point, it would suit my needs perfectly for...

Based on what 3DDave mentioned...this is sorta where I arrived...I do however feel like I'm butchering the surface profile definition by attempting to restrict it to a measurement point. Is there a better way of doing this?

Thank you guys! I was thinking I was missing something simple, but it's starting to sound like this issue is somewhat unique. ...and I realize GD&T wasn't intended to cover all geometry conditions simply. I'm wondering if it just makes sense for me to define some sort of work instruction or...

Thanks for your reply dgallup. My first thought was flatness as well, and maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but recognizing and checking for flatness in it's most idealistic definition might get parts rejected that wouldn't be a problem. For instance, let's say I call out a flatness of...

Hello all, I'm hoping you can help me determine a reasonable strategy to control the amount of allowable twist in a rectangular prismatic shape? If you look at the following picture, I sometimes deal with the types of parts that can have twist induced by various means of manufacturing. This is...

So is your point there is no standard defining welding aluminum for weldments that are not structural?

I appreciate the help...errrr, yeah.

Gents, I have an aluminum weldment that isn't structural per my definition of structural...it doesn't hold anything up or have a way of failing catestrophically, etc. So that said, is there something other than AWS D1.2 I should refer to? I'm struggling to find something while googling...

Thanks again KENAT...ANSI Y14.5.

Thanks for the response! What if both angles measure 91 degrees? Obviously the dimension at B would be larger in this senario. Don't I get all (3) of the tolerances to work with? -Mike

The attached image represents a generic question relative to dimensioning and measuring a part. Given a "U" shaped part, where the width between the two vertical legs of the "U" is dimensioned, and each leg of the "U" has an angular tolerance where is it appropriate to measure the dimension...

We will update the ANSI spec...but this is more about the MIL specs. If I understand you guys correctly, there isn't a non-MIL spec for the print yet? This is a purchased part. -Mike

Find the attached to see what I'm refering to. I'm wondering if there would be a better specification for the printing than a MIL spec. -Mikehttp://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=a666af49-5a67-452e-85d2-fb86a4d93f9f&file=decal.JPG

Does anyone use MIL specficiations anymore? Thanks, Mike