Jump to content

MMB's.... again


Recommended Posts

Please sign in to view this quote.

You changed your ? on me. 🤣

Yes and no. You'll get the MMB from -B- but not from -C-. And the MMB calculation needs to consider both features, even though there is a datum precedence. So the fitting for -B- at MMB isn't necessarily the best for for B & C together at MMB.
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/10886-mmbs-again/#findComment-52816
Share on other sites

My thoughts :

The Best Fit applies the MMC(B) of -B- but doesn't allow any additional rotation (MMC of -C- for FFS), it just adds the MMC(B) of -C- to the tolerance.

You could try a Geometry best fit, or try using the best fit within the FFS evaluation.

Also does Calypso really handle MMB or do you mean MMC from older Y14.5 ?

Good luck !
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/10886-mmbs-again/#findComment-52818
Share on other sites

The thing is, you can‘t have the MMC on C as a feature, because it’s not a Feature of Size (the feature would have to have a surface with opposing points to be a FOS), but you can use the MMB on C as a datum, since an MMB is fixed in perfect form, location and orientation anyway.

By the way, it appears, you‘d be much better off functionally, if it wasn’t A|B|C, but B|A|C, because B is mainly functionally responsible for the orientation of the part.
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/10886-mmbs-again/#findComment-52820
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...