Search results for query: *

What do you mean by "different meaning" ?

Figure 8-14 Specifying Restraint for Nonrigid Parts Is F modifier in the circularity needed in figure 8-14? I am asking this because in fig 8-13/2018 F symbol has been removed (relative to the equivalent figure 5-13 from 2009) Why F was kept in 8-14?

I was thinking about the same thing that we are making this more complicated that should be, but then based on Burunduk assumption "if the best choice functionally is plus and minus size and a tolerance of position, I would place the CF symbol near the......" maybe I am conseeding that plus...

Per ASME Y14.5.1-2019 2.3.2.3 LMC Size Limit (a) Definition. The LMC size limit describes a half-space formed by sweeping a ball having the diameter of the LMC size limit along a spine of appropriate dimension for the feature (zero-dimensional point for a sphere feature of size, one-dimensional...

2018 states on 5.8.1. (e) : Where a portion of a regular feature of size has a localized area(s) that do not contain opposed points, the actual value of an individual distance at any cross section between the unrelated AME to a point on the surface may not violate the LMC limit. See Figure 5-9...

Burunduk, By the way, fig. 8-24/2009 has profile and location control clearly defined. If you add CF to this scheme why it's not good enough and what is detrimental to the part definition? Why this scheme cannot be used and we have to invent a new one? Well, lack of education shall not be a...

Burunduk, If the size is to be controlled then why not use a classical profile and position and forget entirely about CF with position? It is a known figure in the standard (profile to control de size and form; position to control de location/orientation). And if you want you can use CF with...

3DDave, I have to disagree with you. I don't think all 3 methods are standardized. I've seen CF applied to profile, but never applied to position. And could you please explain what's the difference between 8x and 8x position versus CF and position?

Per the 2019 Math standard """"""This revision includes a new stabilization definition for irregularities on datum features specified at RMB, which provides an alternative to the candidate datum set. SC5 had moved toward the concept of a single-stable solution that minimizes the separation...

Do you kow how ISO GPS is treating this pattern RMB issue? I would even ask pmarc for the rescue ---if you are reading this discussion 🙏 I found this on ISO5459 and states ..." with objective function "MINMAX" to minimize, simultaneously and globally, the maximum distance between......" Is...

Pmarc, For the sake of discussion and learning purpose, let me ask you this question: What wold be the geometrical difference between your solution (above) and a profile with tangent plane modifier to A( datum feature "A" being the Ø4mm hole) I am thinking something similar to fig 12-15 (2018)...

I am thinkg the other way around. make the hole a datum feature and then orient the curved surface to the hole with the perpendicualrity and T modifier. I am looking to establish a relationship between the curved surface and the hole hence a slight adjustement to get this relationship is what I...

Or maybe perpendicularity works, but adding the tangent plane modifier could be something to consider...or maybe not...

I agree with you. With only one caveat: We have to understand what the theory -read "the standard"- requires (and what does not require) - before we can apply such of said theory in any sort of practical way. We are debating/ clarifying here mostly our individual understandings of the theory...

So, if "The true geometric counterparts shall expand or contract simultaneously" should NOT have mentioned in 7.12.4, then how the end user would have understood the DEFAULT condition as being "simulaneously" (simultaneity) and not being the "maximum possible contact" ? Other figures RMB...

Burunduk, For some reason I feel like you are beating around the bush and avoid giving me a straight answer about YOUR opinion Are you of an opinion that if one datum feature simulator stops expanding or contracting then THE OTHER shall stop expanding or contracting (even the second datum...

I have seen your thread, but does not solve my question about patterns at RMB.

Let me ask you a direct question: Per 2018 the default stabilization procedure has been changed from candidate datum set to a single solution that minimizes the separation between the features and the TGC. Is this new procedure more clear than the old one regarding the pattern feature at RMB? If...

Yes, I found this thread https://www.eng-tips.com/threads/inclined-datum-and-degrees-of-freedom.526559/#post-9052343 It is for the "single solution" and the " "constrained least squares"" Do you see any "other" discussions relevant to this subject? But my main question stil remains: Is it...

So you are of an opinion that if one datum feature simulator stops expanding or contracting then THE OTHER shall stop expanding or contracting (even the second datum feature simulator did not reach its full potential of maximum possible contact)? Is my understanding correct? So basically you...