How many angles are in a circular pattern? 6

[cwdaniel]

See attached drawing.

Is fig. A or B correct?

 

[weavedreamer]

From reading cwdaniel's postings, it does not appear that any standard had been invoked.

Without a standard, it appears much more difficult to determine if something is in compliance with the unidentified.

This should be the century mark, btrueblood.

 

[btrueblood]

ewh, "It's fig. 1-56 in the 1994 version, and it is refered to from para's 1.9.5.1 and 1.9.5.2 which only address the proper use of "X" ("...the required number of spaces and an X, followed by...")."

Fair enuff, but it's still a complete enough description of the hole pattern, showing that you dimension all the holes and all the angles...later on in the same spec. should be a similar pattern dimensioned with GDT (position and basic dim's.), and again showing 8x angles for an 8x hole pattern...

No, the actual question (how many angles must be dimensioned) never gets addressed directly. Never thought it needed to be, until this thread came up.

Weavedreamer, you win the prize.

 

[ewh]

"The figures in this standard are intended only as illustrations to aid the user in understanding the principles and methods of dimensioning and toleranceing described in the text."

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[KENAT]

Fig 1-56 also doesn't address tolerance which is my point of contention and the point I was making in my 10 Jul 08 14:00 post.

However I'll get you a drink anyway as this post is something like 4X (or is that 5X) as long as it needs to be by now, I should slap myself for posting on it again.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[btrueblood]

"The figures in this standard are intended only as illustrations to aid the user in understanding the principles and methods of dimensioning and toleranceing described in the text."

So, the standard deliberately shows incomplete tolerancing, that I understand, the figures are intended to supplement and illustrate. But, you are saying that they show deliberately misleading examples, such as showing 8x angles for 8x holes in a circle?

What is your take on this, ewh, how should we grunts grinding out drawings dimension our hole patterns; should it be 4x or 5x?

Given that the purpose of the standard is to allow generation of a graphical communication tool (dimensioned drawings), for the std. to make the above statement pretty much renders the whole damn thing nearly meaningless. Most of us can, do, and will continue, to look at the pictures to provide clarity and examples. Otherwise, what else have you to go by?

 

[KENAT]

The text?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[ringman]

Im voting with weavedreamer on this one.

 

[ewh]

I agree with KENAT - use "4X" with +/- toleranceing and either 4X or 5X with GD&T. My reasoning is that there are tolerancing issues involved with a strict reading of the standard. Don't get me wrong, many here have made valid arguments for using "5X", but those are based on differing interpretations of the standard. Since there is ambiguity to the issue, I would not use a chain dimensioning scheme if hole location was critical and not defined using GD&T.
As for the illustrations, again per a strict reading of the standard, they are only relative to the text which refers to them, and practices other than that based on them is assumption only. The text rules and the figures only illustrate the text.
As far as making "the whole damn thing nearly meaningless", I think you are exagerating a bit.

All of this is a moot subject since the standard is not being invoked.



Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[btrueblood]

Only a bit.