Jump to content
You are not logged in. Please click here to Sign In ×
Forum update!

True Position +MMC issues

---

By [Za...] ,
in General

 Share

Recommended Posts

---

[To...]

Posted
Posted

Please sign in to view this quote.

Yes, Calypso is labeling it "MMC" but as far as I know, Calypso has always treated it as MMB when applied to a Best Fit Bore Pattern Position.

In ASME Y14.5-1994, Maximum Material Condition (MMC) was applicable to toleranced features or datum features. It specified the datum was to be simulated in its virtual condition.

In ASME Y14.5-2009, MMC was changed to apply only to toleranced features and MMB was added and applied to datum features. It specified the datum was to be simulated at the max material boundary, not its virtual condition.

Don't forget, Calypso was developed in an ISO environment and I don't know the history of MMC/MMB in the ISO world. However, they are slowly adding ASME functionality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
---

[Me...]

Posted
Posted
They have straightness in that version of the standard which confused me for a second but that figure is explaining the Boundary of Datum D and what each Feature Control Frame adds to the the boundary based on the selected Datums. Do not confuse this figure for added "Bonus" to the tolerance of position itself. It is explaining how to properly determine the Datum's boundary.



This is the 2009 version without the straighness confusion:

Capture.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
---

[Da...]

Posted
Posted

Please sign in to view this quote.

That is your second post in a row where you are rude to people, who by the way are completely right.

You don’t seem to grasp the concept of a material boundary. Yes, there are things happening in Calypso „behind the scenes“, but when it comes to MMB, there are no simple formulas and bonus additions anymore. What happens is far more complex maths than you imagine, with calculations that don’t have a single solution, but are calculated iteratively (that means in several repeating steps to get closer and closer to the solution).

Definitely not able to show someone what happens in a PDF with two pages. Make it fifty pages and you’re coming close.

That is the thing about metrology software. You either can accept that there are parts you simply can’t double check with simple additions or go the wrong way. Your PDFs regarding this topic are the wrong way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
---

[Da...]

Posted
Posted

Please sign in to view this quote.

No, I think you insult people and claim professionalism in a rude way without being right in many (not all) cases. Who is supposed to take you seriously when you’re like that?

And that’s all I have to say about that. I’m a little tired of these discussions, to be honest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
---

[Cl...]

Posted
Posted

Please sign in to view this quote.

I hate to get involved in a conversations like this, especially when none of us are face to face.
It's also a huge waste of everyone's time. I do not intend to insult anyone, but some of your post
come across as angry, arrogant, elitist, insulting at times (correct me if I'm wrong) That's just my
perception. The "F" bomb post was one of those, so I had to comment on it. If ego's are left out,
and it's kept purely on topic without any animus, there would be fewer problems. I'll leave it right here
and comment no more. EVERYONE have a great weekend!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
---

[Ma...]

Posted
Posted
In case that both holes are made with same deviation then yes. Otherwise no.

I suspect that if it's cylinder, then deviation in axis will play role here - i wonder why only this have | A(M) | B | and others have | B | A(M) | - it's not stable for this distance and length
Link to comment
Share on other sites
---

[Da...]

Posted
Posted

Please sign in to view this quote.

The reason for that might be that in ISO the term MMB doesn‘t exist. There’s a similar term MMVC (Maximum Material Virtual Condition), as far as similar goes. Since ISO is not boundary oriented, but adheres to the independency principal, it’s unlikely to stumble across the boundary concept anywhere within the standard.

Calypso is basically ISO oriented with some tools to accommodate ASME needs, so maybe no Calypso programmer ever saw the need to change the terminology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...