Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
3DDave said:Since a tapered feature is not a feature of size, by definition, there can be no MMC/LMC allowed. It has nothing to do with different values (local size) along the feature
3DDave said:n slower words ... the variation in section is not a necessary condition to exclusion from MMC/LMC because MMC/LMC is already excluded by an explicit definition for applicability of MMC and LMC.
Are you arguing for an extension to an existing principle?
3DDave said:Burnduk - another change of subject? Really? The discussion was MMC/LMC, not Position tolerance.
Kedu said:So, then why if the full feature term <FF> is added to the conical feature's position along with draft minus or draft plus notation, the callout became invalid?
Burunduk said:For a tapered feature, there is no unique MMC/LMC,
me said:I think that the principle was already extended when it was decided to standardize the application of position tolerance to tapered features.
Dean said:Thankfully, that public review draft of Y14.8 includes a restriction that the Full Feature modifier may only be applied for tolerances specified at RFS.
Dean said:I think any feature of size that is short enough relative to its size, cannot reliably orient a UAME. ...
... We need a method of specifying the orientation of the mating envelope. It will be an orientation constrained mating envelope, with it's orientation probably best (most universally) specified with i,j,k vector components that are based on an explicitly shown coordinate system that represents the datum reference frame.