dgallup >
Got the handbook and could come up with the numbers if I actually knew what class the parts were made to. Given the unsualness of this thing I don't want to assume it's "preferred"
Got the gauge here:
http://www.starrett.com/metrology/product-detail?k=156M
chckerhater >
Thanks. I...
Not exotic, but a wafer grinder is fairly precise in the adjustments.
I didn't do the measurement, and form angle wasn't brought up. If it was other than 60 I'm sure it would be mentioned but I'll verify that. I don't see how that would effect the pitch though. Unless there's a standard M10x1.1...
It's a screw for fine adjustment of a grinding table. We took the part for inspection on an optical comparator. Inspected at 1.10mm pitch and the shop had a the gauge to verify it. We went and bought our own gauge - Starrett #156M. We were surprised that it was readily available.
Not 28 TPI. The thread is in good condition and I have more than one example of it. I don't have a 1.12 gauge to compare it with, but we do have 1.10 gauge that fits it. It's not a big surprise that this Japanese equipment mfg. would create parts like this.
Standard or not, doesn't change the part I'm reverse engineering that has a 10mm thread with a pitch that fits a 1.10 thread gauge perfectly.
In the meantime I did find a trial version of software that accepted a 1.10 pitch variable. Don't know how to verify the results though...
No annoyance here! I think I got my consensus evidence for my needs. Any other discussion is enlightening, or at the very least entertaining. I seem to stir up this kind of stuff on the rare occasion that I post here.
And for drawoh, actually I'm the inspector too. Real small operation here...
To redirect the conversation away from a "what constitutes a feature of size" debate. The question at hand is more to the use of the basic dimension rather than leaving just a +/- dimension like the other ones involved. The function of these scallops/divots/notches is easily met with using the...
See attached drawing for reference. (assume this is in a drawing with title block tolerance and all other features properly defined)
A colleague asserts that this is acceptable, making the angle basic and nothing else. Plus no FCF controlling location. I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this...
I'm not sure what's involved with loading fonts and line types, but here's a sample of some of the lisp routines I'm loading:
(defun c:o () (command "offset"))
(defun c:pe () (command "pedit"))
(defun c:pl () (command "pline"))
(defun c:po () (command "polygon"))
(defun c:r () (command...
In response to closed thread559-107337 by brrian, a possible solution.
I was trying to solve this same issue and the vague helpfile wasn't much help. After reading the above closed thread I tried the following and it's working.
Create a text file call dwgeditor.lsp and put it in your...
ctopher, Thanks for the suggestion. I happen to have a copy of the standard right here on my bookshelf. Or is it keeping the conference table from wobbling? ;)
No matter. I've looked it over several times since posting this to review the references of others.
My original question was more of...
I have 14.5 and I just read 2.7.3.
Fine, this works for me too:
Still, how does one verify perfect coaxiality without a datum? Same question applied to the T.I.R.
