Angular True Position?
Angular True Position?
(OP)
I am a little stumped here. I have a part which we laser etch 3 small rectangles onto. The laser etching is called off of the centerline of the part, at 12 1/2 degrees 3 places. It has the true position box around it. The only tolerancing on the pads is a width of .120 +/- .020, and a box which gives .030 max material. How can I transfer this to an angle and find where I am?





RE: Angular True Position?
RE: Angular True Position?
When you say "True position box", you mean that there is a box around the dimension designating as Basic, right?
It sounds like your drawing is missing tolerance boxes. You can apply a true position tolerance to your boxes. Another option is profile tolerances.
Without any of this, I would regard your drawing as uninterpretable.
JHG
RE: Angular True Position?
Positional could be of the 3 holes but it must be relative to each other or to some other datums? mmmm?
Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca
RE: Angular True Position?
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Angular True Position?
Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
ctopher's blog
RE: Angular True Position?
with the "M's" being the max material symbol. A is the backside of the flange, B is the O.D. of the flange. The pads run from the I.D. of the part out and are spaced 120º apart. Having .030 + the max material, I don't see how I can figure out any radial tolerances out of this....am I wrong?
RE: Angular True Position?
Are the 120° not basic?
The length of the pads are given by the geometry of the part right, running from ID to OD?
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Angular True Position?
Can you gain read access to the underlying CAD model (assuming there is one)? If you can view it or access it you might be able to find your missing information. I have encountered drawings that had lots of information on feature tolerances etc, but nothing to tell me the basic size of the part. Instead we were to refer to the CAD model as the master for the geometry. I would have been OK with that except that we had no read access to the models in order to bring them up.
Regards,
RE: Angular True Position?
The pads run from I.D. to O.D..
RE: Angular True Position?
RE: Angular True Position?
RE: Angular True Position?
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Angular True Position?
RE: Angular True Position?
I don't think they should have used the diameter in front of the .030 in the position FCF.
I'm also a little thrown by the order the FCF are in.
I think though that essentially the position is only applied to the angular location of the pad. The width of the pads must be 'centered' at 12.5° from the 'notches' plus or minus .015".
Others will be able to clarify/point out my mistake.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Angular True Position?
That drawing is definitely not per the current Y14.5 standard.
RE: Angular True Position?
So from the information that is on this unusual print, the size of this etching is .260 min long X .100 min wide and its 3 locations are 120 degrees apart with basic dimensions giving the spacing between them .030 to .070 tolerance (dependant on size of features). The tolerance from the center axis for the innermost etching side is the .825±.040 dimension.
I am pretty sure you can hit this tolerance with the etching.
This drawing is so wrong. The only thing you can give them is what you are able to determine from this print unless you ask them to give you the numbers you need for your job. You don not need the positional tolerance.
Marcelino Vigil
GDTP T-0377
RE: Angular True Position?
RE: Angular True Position?
tricky, when looking at a drawing this confusing almost anything goes however, assuming I more or less correctly understood the intent of the drawing, their QA are full of ****. The 12.5 is basic so the block tol does not apply.
You have my sympathy, although whoever accepted the print to bid against should have asked for clarification at that time (I know in the real world this is often time consuming/not considered worth the effort though).
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Angular True Position?
I would write an ECN to change the tolerance to profile. In the mean time I would argue that the diameter symbol before the .030 is a mistake. Saying it should have not been put in there and convince the powers to be too use the .030 as if it where a profile at MMC.
Bradley
SolidWorks Premim 2007 x64 SP4.0
PDM Works, Dell XPS Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU
3.00 GHz, 5 GB RAM, Virtual memory 12577 MB, nVidia 3400
RE: Angular True Position?
Here are the issues I see with this drawing:
1.Where one pad is shown located from the center (of what?) using a toleranced dimension, that's wrong. Positionally located features are always basically related to the datums.
2. The .390+/-.070 dimension is located using position. This is also wrong as only features of size are positionally located. Profile would be a better choice for those particular features.
3. The diameter symbol in the FCF is not correct as pointed out by KENAT. There also needs to be a tertiary datum to orient the pattern. What is there is not sufficient.
Unless the 1973 standard actually allowed these kinds of things, I'd say you have a pretty bad drawing you have to deal with.
Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II
RE: Angular True Position?
There are so many areas of concern. Not necessarily in order of precedence. Mixing of Pos and Bilateral dimensions to locate the etching. Applying a material condition to the etching. (Don't understand that at all). Applying .000 mmc to a Tan PT???