MattTaylor
Military
- Sep 27, 2006
- 1
I'm a fairly new user on CETOL 6sigma tolerance analysis and looking for some other users to discuss specific modelling techniques, problems and rules of thumb. CETOL is really powerful and well integrated with PRO/E but like FEA or CFD analysis packages it requires some good decisions to get good output.
Does anyone know of an existing group like this?
If not, are there other CETOL users out there who would be interested in joining/contributing to a user's forum where we could all learn a bit from each other? We may even be able to get some of the Sigmetrix gurus to contribute to the discussion.
For instance, I'm doing an analysis of alignment angle between two parts that are pinned together. The pin holes are located with true position callouts. In CETOL there's a "translation/rotation envelope" setting for the TP gtol that significantly impacts my results. Also the location of the assembly joint along the pin significantly impacts the results. I wonder how others think thru these modelling decisions. I've talked to a good machinist who says that the angular rotation of the pressed-in pins is very slight. Does this mean I could reasonably ignore the rotational component?
Does anyone know of an existing group like this?
If not, are there other CETOL users out there who would be interested in joining/contributing to a user's forum where we could all learn a bit from each other? We may even be able to get some of the Sigmetrix gurus to contribute to the discussion.
For instance, I'm doing an analysis of alignment angle between two parts that are pinned together. The pin holes are located with true position callouts. In CETOL there's a "translation/rotation envelope" setting for the TP gtol that significantly impacts my results. Also the location of the assembly joint along the pin significantly impacts the results. I wonder how others think thru these modelling decisions. I've talked to a good machinist who says that the angular rotation of the pressed-in pins is very slight. Does this mean I could reasonably ignore the rotational component?
