[To...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. When I was reviewing Dan's posting of the ISO pics, I was also thinking the 25 long zone starting at 7 from A was bogus. However, I could see this with a position callout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[An...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 It gets better and better. Here's an example of the combination of: 1.) Perpendicularity 2.) Reference length (P) 3.) Maximum-Material-ConditionContribution_27_04_2020_1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. Are you kidding me you just Said Totally Bogus to the ISO 1101 Standard. I know you think that your a expert but Sad to say you are not. It is the ISO standard can't be bogus it is the standard. Get some training. Thanks DanCapture.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. Once again the ISO 1101 standard get some training fast before you get more your miss information out there.Capture.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 MMC is always on threaded features. This applies for both ISO and ASME. This is the problem that happens with Inspectors that don't have training and never have read the standards even once. Take some time and read the standard from cover to cover. There is the standards I never quote anything but the standards. If you don't know the standards then take some time and learn them. Then don't act like you understand it better then the team that created the standard everything in both standards are agued over for years before it is released. They have thought about it and the reason it is in there is it has a purpose. I am ASME certified and still get confessed by some of the callouts and why they are there but when we get in to those meeting there is always justified reasons for the creation of the call out. I don't have access to my ASME Y14.5 2009 Right at this sec but I will get you the MMC for thread holes. For ASME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[To...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Referring the "BOGUS" drawing, a perpendicularity to B with P = 32-7, would get the same result, if it was P = 132-107, or P = 25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[An...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. I fully agree! A standard should never be bogus. Unfortunately the reality tells another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[To...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. What's the point of having MMC on a threaded hole unless you are actually checking the pitch diameter? Bonus tolerance on the minor or major diameter does almost nothing with regard to how a fastener is located. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. I thought the same thing at one time it has to do with gauging. With out MMC you can't use hard Gauging for measurement. But there is a Explanation in ASME 14.5 -2009 that I really like that talks about that threaded features negate bonus tolerances because it is a self centering feature. I will find the standard so I am quoting as it is written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. This is talking about Projection it can be applied other GD&T callouts. It is not saying that it only applies only to Perpendicularity it can also applied to True Position. Just an example of how it is used and what defines the callout of (P). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Er...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Lots of pie throwing here, I love it! 😃 Please sign in to view this quote. Sounds like you are making a wild guess... Thats not true. Well the arguing, you got that one. For years?! Nah, I know a guy who used to be in the ISO comittee, and from what he say, everyone screams to get their will printed, apperently the french guys are the worst of them all. Like babies in kindergarten.. Anyhow, some of the ISO standard doesnt make perfect sense... You can't really argue against that, if you truely understand everything in the ISO GPS. I quote my self: "Yeah I can do that 😱 , but why?" 😎 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. And I am not making a wild guess I am on the ASME Group and have been to the ISO group. Don't use hearsay. But It is the standard if applied wrong engineers fault not mine. I do what the print is controlled by the standard and the standard is the controlling document. So you can ague all you want if it is write wrong but still the controlling doc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Er...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Nah don't be silly. No one fully follow the ISO standard 🙂 Or you are lack knowlage of what Calypso actually do sometimes. Oh, what subcommittee are you in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. 😕 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ia...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. Is this what you're looking for? This is from ASME Y14.5-2018 Edit, just realized Tom posted this exact figure on page 1. Whoops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Yes that was it ThanksCapture.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[SH...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 What is happening here??? Is it President Trump debate??? 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[An...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. Here is a short summery of my work during the season 2019/2020. Every file shown points out a severe fault in the standard. Sorry to say that.Summery_1.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. Are they Faults? or do you not understand why it was used that way? Don't always think that things you disagree with are faults. This is not a Fault it is explaining Projection maybe a bad choose of GD&T callout for this example. But the projection standard is still correct and how to use the (P). The definition is correct and it is clear how to apply it to a feature. This is not a fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[An...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. No!Contribution_27_04_2020_2.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. You are the Problem Get Training Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. This happens if the Feature length is long but through plate is thin like sheet metal. You can allow for large Angularity and function will not be affected. Can this be checked in other ways? the answer is yes but it doesn't disqualify its use. Like every call-out there is another that can be used instead. This does not make the P of Perp bogus just a design intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[An...] Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. From real geometries and virtual geometries. See attached.Contribution_28_04_2020_2.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[To...] Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. Please show me an example where the design intent affects the "location" of the evaluation range of a projected tolerance zone on a perpendicularity matters. Yes, it matters for a position callout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Br...] Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 Older revisions of Y14.5 placed the projected tolerance zone symbol below the FCF like that. The way you fellas are used to seeing it was first added in the 1994 revision of Y14.5. This could be an older drawing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in