Runout Axial Vs Parallelism same result?

[[Go...]]

Hello everyone,
I have these concerns regarding how Calypso evaluates the Axial Runout and the parallelism between the same elements that were previously evaluated by the Axial Runout, for that I share the arrangement that was made to align and evaluate

I have some questions about this since there has been a debate about what is the best method to measure these runouts,

1. Is there a better way to align this piece?
2. Why does calypso evaluate this runout in the same way if elements of reference are used, for example the element called perpe and gives the same result if only primary plane B is used?
3. Is it normal for calypso to show the same result when evaluating a parallelism using the same elements that were used to evaluate the runout? in particular, I would expect a higher result in the runout than in the parallelism as it is a more complete geometric tolerance since the errors of the entire surface are considered.

Thank you for your comments.

[[Er...]]

1 If your alignmnet is stable it sounds fine. Maybe skip A as cylinder and settle for a circle.

2 Beacuse datum A really don't affect anything. It's only required because the drawing calls for runout. So you must have an axis to rotate around. A is calculated perp to to B. So even if its off center, it won't affect the run out.

3 In this case run out and parallellism is the exact same thing. But if you filp the datums, so it's A B. Then B is useless (in theory, not practically). But your result will most likely be different. This is a Parallelism callout on a specified Ø.

I hope this make sence, Im drunk, finally found my way home from the pub. Going to bed now. Over and out!