Search results for query: *

I think you want cylindrical zones for the final (2) hole pattern for the mating holes in a bracket relative to datum "A", or "D"? (#8 Clearance holes for mounting to brackets) Frank

Is there a note somewhere stating these dimensions are basic??

I think some European? practices (ISO??) prefer holes called out in sections? Frank

J-P, Thank you, for the clarification. Frank

J-P, What am I missing here, in my 2018 version, para 5.2 only goes up to (c)?? The same figure is in 2009 (fig 4-13) I can't help but think as they extend the limit on what are "features of size" (1982 did NOT say "OPPOSED") and move toward MBD the centerplane derived from basic dimensions has...

J-P, Thank you, I was just looking at that and saying to myself something is wrong with that. Chez, Interesting observation on the centerplane derived datum, I think I would agree, meanwhile under the 2009-2018 standard can datum "B" be modified "MMB" to capture the whole part? Frank

I thought that the size tolerance was "independent" from form under ISO, specifically there has been no statement that the "E" was invoked? The bearing tolerances like those mentioned here, that I see, are generally from catalogs in ISO countries What grade of bearing are you looking at? Frank

The note "ALL FEATURES ARE NOMINAL" is taken from ASME14.41-2012 Digital Product Definition Data Practices ,which I am surprised we have not seem more discussion on here, it is a RADICAL change to the way things have been done. Section 1.4 "REFERENCE TO THIS STANDARD When data sets are based on...

I was very intrigued when I first saw that use of parallelism in the ISO. I thought it would be perfect for an issue I was dealing with very similar to the issue CH had showed as the acceptable version,above. When I finally had a chance to study the ISO based books on this I realized it was...

Thank you racookpe1978, This was an error of communication on our drawings. We are asking for a part made from another part previously made internally. They made a screw of 440A SST and it looks like a standard "#2-56 fillister head machine screw but 1.75 " long. The tolerances turned out to be...

Our drawing specified a special length (extra long) slotted fillister head screw and the vendor sent a slotted pan head style screw. They are special length so they are not stock. Frank

Can all of the heads in the ASME B18.6.3 be used interchangeably for the same loading requirements? Providing identical material properties and identical thread specification? Frank

I do not want to get caught up in advocating for it, I just want a check with others who may remember a particular passage in the standard I have forgotten. The application is (2) dowel pins, so I agree with the RFS as the final tolerance (lower). I believe the upper was just trying to say it is...

Is it legal to use a ,say, MMC modifier in the upper portion of a composite tolerance and a RFS in the lower section of the TOLERANCE section. I know the Datum modifiers can not change per ASME. What say you all, or is there a statement in the standards on it? Thanks, Frank

I think it has to, It is a completely different framework established each time, is it not? Frank

I got mine last week and have been anxiously awaiting its arrival on the board, I am interested also in what people think. Concentricity and symmetry gone, plus and minus for location almost gone, and a new dynamic profile? Frank Thanks again pmarc

Thank you pmarc

See ASME Y14.5-2009 for just such an example: Fig 7-55 Frank

3DDave, I assume you meant the "G" in option 1? Option 2 seems clear to me. Frank

To your your original question. I have always thought this type of thing might apply for two dowel pin holes with individual concentric features (like, pre-drilled steps) where the dowels are then used as a secondary in a framework for all other features. I see nothing conceptually wrong with...