I do not see in Y14.5 2009 where the AME concept is used for any geometric control other than position tolerance and form controls.
Could anyone direct me to the standard references of AME for a profile control ?
Dont know what Y14.5 version is used for this example however, if the intended DOF contraints for Datum "B" was to constrain "y" rotation,
then the use of 2009 custom DRF could be used to identify that intent. In that were the case, a single Datum Target point (for Datum "C") might be used to...
Greenimi
Geometrically a circle has a center, however in the context of Y14.5 Positional Tolerancing the control applies to a 3D Feature Of Size.
(geometric circles have center points, cylindrical feature's have an axis)
For a cylindrical feature (round hole for "shop talk") would still be...
Looking at the 2nd TecEase example from the front view for x, y, z orientation;
Datum A constrains; y translation and x & z rotation
Datum B constrains; z translation (restricted to allowable datum shift)
Datum C constrains; x translation and y rotation
A DRF defined by 3 mutually...
3DDave
Nice...
Gee...guess I forgot to mention the cone was an internal conical feature that was being viewed down on in my picture.
So I suppose people have a lot of trouble eating ice cream from a cone in your world.. pretty messy with the cone apex pointing up
3DDave
1) I believe you will find 2.13 CONICAL TAPERS excludes most if not all of your examples as complying with the accepted definition for conical features in Y14.5 2009.
2) You are saying Fig 8-24's internal feature does not have "directly toleranced dimensions" because the dimensions are...
None of "solid geometry’s” defined shapes have any particular size until values are assigned to its generic geometric definition nor is it’s location and orientation in 3D space defined until dimensions are used to position and orient.
To argue that a conical feature doesn’t have size when...
3DDave
A cone with a specific base diameter (maximum size by tolerance) is overlaid by and positioned to another cone with a specific base diameter (minimum size by tolerance),
both have the same perfect surface angle (perfect as defined by Y14.5 via gage tolerances), and both have the same...
If written text cannot be discussed relying on the premise that the words of the text are based on accepted definitions (dictionaries) for a particular language (in the case of ASME Y14.5 – English) then it is futile to attempt any meaningful discussion.
As in another referenced thread where...
pylfrm,
Threads go can back and forth so much and then off at times to tangent discussions which are raised; it is helpful to be clear regarding subject.
Personally, I am a huge advocate regarding being clear about the "context" because of its great importance and relevance to questions or...
plyfrm
How does a constant within your posted equation for cone definition within a Cartesian coordinate system, compare with defining a conical feature per solid geometry definition of a cone which includes base, height, angle and axis?
Applying specific values to base, height and angle to...
Babu
I would like to retract one of my 1st post’s statements. I cannot. So, I will clarify that I was considering a considered feature’s AME and not the modified datum's AME when I posted:
Based on the premise that a minimum number of DRFs should be defined in part definition and that the...
Babu
Because your post uses MMC and not MMB I would believe that you are referencing Y14.5 1994 or earlier, which actually does not affect an answer to your question. (Just an observation)
My 1st thought is "no”. Should not be considered for a tolerance stack.
The reason is that Datum Shift /...
3DDave
The below is truly serious. I am not "playing" or attempting to ruin your point.
If you believe asking sincere questions is an "argument style", yes I am guilty.
If you believe that people can read your mind... I am one that cannot.
If you believe that your statement was taken as a...
3DDave
Accusatory assertions have no value for legitimate discussion of Y14.5
I have no idea of what your point is, that's why I asked the question for clarity.
What could that possibly mean ?
"linear dimesions add to the same value"
Burunduk,
Interesting post of a plus/minus defined conical feature.
What is your point ? Just to affirm that it is not required to use geometric controls ?
One of the benefits for applying GDT geometric controls is to remove at least some ambiguity that
plus/minus dimensioning leads to.
How...
Do you mean "Each has a linear dimension that equal the same value" ?
Would like to discuss solid geometry in respect to size regarding rectangular prisms and cones ?
If so, within the definitions of solid geometry it would be useful to compare examples of both.
Hopefully you realize the...
Chez311
Thank you Chez, didn’t realize Norm had posts in EngTips.
Read the thread.
Don’t see any new argument from Axym’s posts which would disprove that a conical feature is an FOS (irregular).
His actually tend to prove that a conical feature is a FOS irregular.
Just seems that he...
