[Ia...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Let's say there is .001 profile call of out w/ no DRF to 5 planar features that would nominally have the same Z value. Without Freeform, could you just measure them as a single plane and report the flatness? Why or why not? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[SH...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 I have faced same problem two month ago for our new project, I talk to my customer what should I do. I was ordered to maintain the distance, in this case your Z axis distance within half of the profile tolerance. I strongly believe it is not flatness control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ja...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 I think flatness of a single plane with points from all five planes would be the way to go if there is no DRF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Er...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 No its not the same. Simple reason, profile of surface is biggest deviation (max or min)*2, flatness is min to max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. The profile characteristic can be used if the considered feature is also the datum reference set to minimum feature without constraints. This will also be the same result a flatness characteristic would produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Er...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. That is if the callout is for flatness as you say. But it will not give correct reult for a profile callout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[An...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. This would require a Gaussian fit. Is the way of points-fit defined in any standard when it comes to Profile of a plane? (without datum) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Er...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Darn dang crap, I did some math and Keller is correct. Since all planes are parallell its correct to even it out with minimum zone. 😃 Andreas: I dont know straight up, Im at home so I cant really check either. But maybe you could, if you have nother better to do? 😃 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. And coplanar.... 😉 If the surfaces were offset, then you'll need to get creative with point modifications or use FreeForm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Er...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 I finally understand the saying, even the sun have its dark spots... 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Still waiting to be a friend of benny..... 😎 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Er...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Yeah, apperently Im also senile 🙂 How can i reach you, I have inactivated the pm function. Got to annoying, and that also prevent me from sending pm's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 You can get the same result but it requires some manipulation of calypso. There is no option for No Datum Reference Frame in profile without Freeform that I can find. I'm thinking it should be flatness if there are on the same plane.Capture1.JPGCapture.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ia...] Posted April 29, 2020 Author Share Posted April 29, 2020 Thanks for the replies everyone. Glad we can all agree on something (for once 🤣 ) Separate question and completely off topic. Does anyone know if the figure below was applicable in Y14.5-1982 standard? Or was it different back then? Figure is taken from 2018 standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. FriendOfBenny@protonmail.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[An...] Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. Thank you, you saved my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. It was different back then there was no MMB But that standard was before my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ia...] Posted April 30, 2020 Author Share Posted April 30, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. I have a drawing that uses the 1982 standard, and it is applying MMB. Are you saying that's impossible? I need to find the 82 standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[An...] Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 "That's one small step for man,one giant leap for mankind!Contribution_30_04_2020_1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Da...] Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. Not impossible the term MMB was add in the 1997 standard if I remember right. The calculation should be the same but it would have been called MMC. Don't quote me on that but there has been a lot of changes over the years. 1982 is like 38 years ago. They didn't even have iPhones back then. I think people lived in caves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[An...] Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 Thoughts about Fig. 7-18. Adieu!Contribution_01_05_2019_.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Mi...] Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 I've been dealing with the 'profile with no DRF' thing on several jobs. I figured with no datum reference, it would be the measurement from the lowest to the highest points. Basically meaning that the nominal would be centered so the high and low would be equal. I wonder if Form would work in this situation? 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