Search results for query: *

dgallup thanks for replying, First to answer your question, "How often do these screws get turned?" These screws are not adjusted all that much when compared to a typical environment. However they do get adjustments when calibrating the optical sensor and the challenge for us is our sensors...

Hi, Background: We have bushings and "extremely fine" (M3 x 0.2 mm pitch) adjuster-set screws used in kinematic mirror mounts for some of or optical systems. The bushings are made of brass and the adjuster screws are made of 303 stainless steel. We have some design concerns and one of them is...

Viktor, That's what I was looking for. I just need some baseline numbers to put into my trade table and as I delve deeper into my research I will adjust those numbers accordingly. Cost is usually a big factor, but not for what I'm working right now. I'm working on an extremely complex and...

Viktor, Q: "Can I achieve +/-1um [.00004"] bore size, and +/-5um [.0002"] coaxially from one bore to the next inline, using a milling machine?" A&Q: My guess is that you cannot, but can you get there, or close, using some type of lathe. Radially symmetric features can generally be made more...

Great. Thanks everyone! Thanks, Sean

ornerynorsk, Last question; I will also do what you recommended earlier. Can I achieve +/-1um [.00004"] bore size, and +/-5um [.0002"] coaxially from one bore to the next inline, using a milling machine? Thanks, Sean

Thanks Thanks, Sean

ornerynorsk, Would you have any, general, tolerance numbers for diameters that range between 10 mm and 50 mm? How much more precision can I get with a lathe over CNC milling? Thanks, Sean

Hi, I'm investigating the difference in precision between standard lathes and standard CNC milling machines, with respect to diametrical size tolerances and coaxial tolerances. What are, typically, the tightest tolerances for each? I'm an opto-mechanical designer and I'm currently designing...

As I understand it, the ISO 1101 Geometric Tolerancing standards do not recodnize Rule #1. How doe this approach work? I'ts hard for me understand since Rule #1 is such an important concept when using the ASME standard. There is no such thing as perfect form at MMC? All envelopes are to be...

Season, Yes thank you for that link. That's pretty much it... Thanks, Sean

As I understand it, a FOS must satisfy all of the following: Contains opposing elements or surfaces (regular or irregular shapes). Can be used to establish an axis, median plane, or a center point. Is associated with a size dimension. Then you hear about the "Caliper Rule", where you should...

Ahh okay, thanks for the tip pmarc, I was not aware of this. I will review the 2009 standard on this topic! Thanks, Sean

Yes that's right, non-rigid parts subject to free-state, as shown in CheckerHater's link, is another case... I was really focusing on geometric characters, more than anything, and the fact that there is only one that applies and even that has to be specifically relative to a FOS dimension...

As I understand it, the only time rule #1 is overridden is by the following: 1) Special note stating such override 2) Stock material is not applicable 3) Straightness control on a FOS dimension So in terms of geometric characters, there is only the one way. That's why it's curious to me. But...

Why was the ability to override Rule #1, with straighness on a FOS dimension, created in the first place? I'm curious to hear other people's opinions. Thanks, Sean

See that's my problem with the word 'avoid', it does mean never, much like “avoiding the plague”, or “avoid at all cost”. As I said earlier, "I do realize that when changing the order of the datum references that also means that's a new set up for inspection”. I just think words should be...

So the reason I asked is someone here is telling me to "Avoid creating multiple datum systems (A-B-C, D-E-F…)". This is not the school of thought that I was originally trained to think. I think it's entirely design intent specific, and if my hole or hole pattern does not warrant a simultaneous...

In most cases, that I've seen, when referencing datums for a hole (for example), typically the datum perpendicular to the hole is the first datum referenced in the FCF, then the subsequent datums. Is there a particular reason or benefit in doing this? Thanks, Sean

J-P Thanks, this is a nice link to reference. Still a bit confusing to transfer this concept to a single axis feature, something I need to think on. I'm beginning to study seriously for the senior exam, and clearly I have a lot to learn still. I find myself questioning a lot of detail...