×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question
4

Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

I would not dimension that way. Using A as primary I would dimension to the place the axes intersect that feature and show the angle with respect to that surface. In the sketch it is implied that the angled surface plays some part in locating those axes, but that isn't a surface that is referenced.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

(OP)
If I want those holes normal to the surface (which I do) then isn't right to say that surface plays a part in positioning them?

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

If you want the angled surface to be the orientation control it needs to be the primary reference.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

R1chJC,

Yes, it is legitimate, just not necessarily the best dimensioning scheme. Fixturing it to hit your Ø0.1mm positional tolerance will be a challenge. As the designer, I would be looking for a way to open that up.

I am not going to propose a dimensioning scheme because I do not know how your part works. If perpendicularity to the angled face matters, you need to specify a datum, and call it up on the block. You can add a second line to your feature control frame with the additional datum.

--
JHG

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Since "X" is at an angle to [B], then depending on how far away from [D] that measurement is made the part can always be correct or almost always be wrong. The dimension should be to the intersection of [D] and [B].

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

I would second 3DDave's conclusion - your x-dimension is dangling and is not fixed so it will change depending on where along B it is taken. It should be dimensioned from the origin created by the intersection of your datums.

See attached for an example, the figure is closer to the A|B|C DRF in your original post/attachment but can obviously be extrapolated to your modified D|B|C DRF.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Quote (R1chJC)

So how about the attached. Green or Red Basic Dimension setup though? Both go back to Datum's so I'm struggling to decide.

You can't have a linear dimension between two lines that aren't parallel, so your red scheme isn't going to work. Your green scheme is valid, although perhaps somewhat unusual.

pylfrm

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

I think the green version does not work because the hole location depends on the intersection between the axis and an uncontrolled, unrelated surface.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

3DDave,

The surface is not unrelated anymore. It's the primary datum feature.

pylfrm

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

pylfrm,

You're right - I think I disliked the way that [D] is potentially backdriven in orientation from [B] using the angle dimension on the holes and misinterpreted that dislike.

A dimension parallel to [D] and to the intersection of [B] with [D] avoids the ambiguity.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Hi All,

Keep in mind that the arrangement of the basic dimensions does not affect the tolerance specification in any way. The only thing that matters is the datum feature referencing.

If the drawing referenced the CAD model and dimensions X, Y and Z were omitted, then the tolerance specification would still be the same. Each hole axis has a theoretically exact orientation and location relationship to the datum reference frame, and it doesn't matter how those theoretically exact relationships are dimensioned (or at all). The basic distance and angle dimensions would not be measured on the actual part - they are only used to lay out the position zones.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Evan,

That's a great point and is also an unrelated 'what if' because this is not a CAD model where a programmer has taken some other dimensional input and predigested it for the user.

In this case, the holes are dimensioned to be both nominally perpendicular to [D] and at an angle of Y degrees to [B]. This has the effect of saying the nominal angle between [B] and [D} is determined by the dimension that locates the holes. Dimensioning to the intersection of [B] and {D] eliminates that back-driving for the person who has to do the layout.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

In the latest post from SeasonLee with the "Before" and "After" sketches shown, may I ask you why the "After" method is the preferred one?
Does anyone can offer the relevant verbiage from the book? What would be the justification in the textbook?

I am trying to learn something here.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

@greenimi
Its a snapshot from Paul J. Drake "Dimensioning and Tolerancing Handbook" page 5-117/118.



Season

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

SeasonLee,

Your "after" drawing is very much more inspectable, but can you bend the sheet metal accurately enough for the Ø0.010" positional tolerance? One of the benefits of good drafting is that it highlights bad design.

--
JHG

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

I am not disagreeing....Well sort of.....

Just to stir the pot a bit: Fig 4-7 -2009 has a 150 basic dimension shown from something that is not a datum feature.
Also 7-55 has a 200 basic dimension to the point where the hole's "true position" (I don't like this term, but I am paraphrasing the book) axis intersects the surrounding face.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Hi All,

I would maintain that the two Before and After dimensioning schemes are equally valid. I disagree with the textbook's description of the "error" in the Before figure - the presence (or absence) of basic dimensions does not affect what the datum features are or how the true position is established. I don't see it as an example of an implied datum.

The basic dimensions only apply to the theoretically exact geometry, and could be described as dimensions of the model. The basic dimensions need to define the theoretically exact relationship between the datum features and the toleranced features, which then defines the relationship between the datum feature simulators and the tolerance zones. The datum feature references determine how the actual part gets lined up to the datum feature simulators - and hence how the datum reference frame and tolerance zones are established on the actual part.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

The point of axis intersecting a surface is not a feature.

That's what makes "before" example meaningless and "after" acceptable. In fact, "after" will work even if you don't know where the surface in question is. That's what makes it robust.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Quote (R1chJC)

Picking up on the points made, how about the attached scheme?

You need to define the basic angular relationship between datum features B and D, or between datum feature B and a hole axis.

Do you have some objection to dimensioning the distance between a hole axis and the intersection of datum features D and B? I realize there are limitless possibilities here, but that option certainly certainly has advantages.

If there is a mating part with a corresponding hole pattern, it could be helpful to make the dimensioning schemes match. Also, it might be a good idea to choose a scheme that doesn't involve non-terminating decimal dimensions which require rounding for display.


Regarding 2018-05-04_111730.jpg posted by SeasonLee:

The problem with the "Before" scheme is that the basic relationship between the hole axes and the datum features is not fully defined. The hole axes are dimensioned based on their intersections with the angled surface, but the basic relationship between that surface and the datum features is not fully defined, so the chain falls apart.

The "After" scheme solves this problem quite thoroughly by eliminating the position tolerance altogether.

pylfrm

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Quote (pylfrm)

The "After" scheme solves this problem quite thoroughly by eliminating the position tolerance altogether.

That is NOT TRUE! Look in the original book and see that the position callout is still there. Not sure why SeasonLee removed it (position callout) intentionally or unintentionally.

SeasonLee,
Please, do not play tricks with us, as people are trying to justify your altered scheme as being valid or justify something that is not correct in the first place.



RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

@gabimot
The book I bought from Amazon is really dirty and old, so I can't snapshot the whole page and I did removed the dirty covered area intentionally, but forgot to add the position callout manually.

Sorry for any inconveniences caused.

Season

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Season,
No problem. Now you have at least one clean page in your book (my attachment above)bigsmile

Interesting enough, how people are trying to rationalize the "altered" content and pass it as a recommended approach. Probably we, as a “common users” are trusting too much the books (written by SME’s, committee members, etc.), we are putting too much faith that what someone wrote is entirely correct and unambiguous. Maybe a “grain of salt” does not hurt here and there. glasses

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

greenimi,

Way to stir the muck ;^). I agree with your observations on the Y14.5 figures. They show that basic dimensions can be applied to any feature (even features that are not the considered feature or one of the datum features for that FCF) or even to things that are not features (imaginary intersection points out in space as in Fig. 4-7). This does not cause any issue because the basic dimensions are not applied directly to the actual part geometry.

CH,

I agree that the intersection point of an axis and a surface is not a feature. But it doesn't matter in this case - the basic dimensions don't need to apply to features (see above). So I would maintain that the Before dimensioning scheme, and the After scheme is not necessarily better. Another advantage of basic dimensions is that if you don't like the ones that were annotated on the drawing, then you can calculate others and use those instead. As long as the relationship between the considered feature(s) and the datum feature(s) is fully defined (which I don't think it is in either the Before or After scheme), then you can use a different scheme and it doesn't change anything (except possibly rounding-related inaccuracy as pylfrm mentioned).

gabimot,

A while ago (coincidentally, after I started attending the committee meetings) I learned not to blindly trust books written by committee members - they don't all agree, so they can't all be correct. I don't even trust everything in the standard itself ;^).

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

The problem with the 'common error' in the example is that as the length of the vertical portion changes the horizontal component of the angled surface changes, so the intersection of the axis with that surface moves horizontally leaving the location of the axes unfixed relative to [A|B|C].

In the 'one correct method' version, the location of the axes is fixed within the [A|B|C] without regard to intermediate geometry.

It seems like a driving principle of true position is that its location is fixed to a DRF.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Evan,
There is all the difference in the world there.
"Before" example controls neither location or orientation of the holes.
So, you need 2 more coordinates to locate the points, 2 to 4 more angles to orient the axes, or make inclined surface datum, specify holes perpendicularity to the inclined surface, all to get to the clumsy, ambiguous equivalent of "After" set-up.
Ambiguous because it is not clear if intersection points are randomly hanging in space or belong to inclined surface. If they belong, then you don't need basic angle, as surface is already drawn thru 2 points, etc., etc.
And you still insist that "before" is actually equivalent or even better?

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

I apologize for the lengthy response - I've been following this thread pretty closely and theres a lot to process here.

I really think that what this really boils down to is what is most clear and concise way of communicating all the important dimensions and design intent while providing a proper dimensioning scheme and datum reference frame so it can be inspected. I think we can all agree that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and some of us may prefer one way or another but I think its hard to argue that one way is truly right or wrong - as Evan has pointed out as long as all of the proper basic dimensions are there to fully define each feature then technically it may be acceptable no matter how convoluted.

Quote (CheckerHater)

Ambiguous because it is not clear if intersection points are randomly hanging in space or belong to inclined surface.
Convoluted or requiring additional dimensions to define something does not equal ambiguous. When I look at that drawing I see dimensions to points clearly at the intersection of the surface not hanging out in space - see my attachment, a dimension to a point like this is required for the "after" method if the datum is also an axis. I agree that the drawing shown by Drake is incompletely dimensioned (as is my example) however even with the "after" method presented as correct that surface is still floating even if the axis of the hole is fully defined - I think the assumption would have to be that any additional basic dimensions to define that axis would be added.

THAT BEING SAID - I think my gut reaction is to side with the "after" method presented by Drake as has been posted here multiple times (and I actually initially posted much earlier in the thread) as I agree that it is more robust. This is because it relies on fewer dimensions to fully define the location of that axis in space. Any time there is an opportunity to present dimensions more clearly and concisely is typically good - take the example of a flange with 12 bolt flange. Those 12 bolts could all be basically dimensioned with 24 x/y positions, the same result that could be accomplished with 2 dimensions (1 angle and 1 bolt circle diameter). Is each technically correct? Yes but one results in a huge reduction of the number of dimensions as well as the difficulty of interpreting the drawing. Now there could be other situations where the x/y positions would be preferred - say if some or all of the holes are not evenly distributed in the radial or angular directions around a bolt circle . Ultimately it would be up to the designer to decide which scheme, or combination of schemes, is best.

However not to add another variable into the mix but if you take a look at Figure 7-36 in the Y14.5 standard it actually presents another method to provide the dimension where the hole axis intersects the datum axis. See attached for my comparison between the methods presented by Drake and this method.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

chez311,
Your comparison is not valid.
Your "after" sketch is not equivalent of Drake's "after" sketch.
I am not planning to start lengthy discussion, but Y14.5 has certain rules on how to dimension feature of size and the way dimension is attached to the round hole (FOS) is incorrect.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Hi All,

It seems that each of us is focusing on different details and their importance, but I think that we're generally in agreement.

CH,

OK I think I see it now. The Before scheme does not provide enough dimensions to fully define the required geometry, and the After scheme does. With only a Y coordinate for one endpoint of each axis, we don't know where the axes are in the X direction. If we wanted to build a gage to check the position tolerance, we couldn't do it using the dimensions in the Before drawing But we could build a gage using the After drawing. So I agree that from a completeness standpoint, the Before scheme is insufficient and the After scheme is sufficient. Sorry for not seeing that earlier - 3DDave pointed it out as well.

As far as what type of basic dimensions can be used, I would still maintain that the essential thing is that the relationship between the toleranced feature(s) and the datum feature(s) is fully defined. Many different arrangements of basic dimensions could accomplish this. But I would also agree that certain arrangements would be more direct and clear to the typical reader, and other arrangments would be less direct, unclear, and convoluted.

Here is an example. I've added extra dimensions to the Before scheme to make it complete (please forgive the poor drafting technique - I'm not an expert on drawing layout and drafting).


I would say that this dimensioning scheme is adequate, but perhaps somewhat indirect. The dimensions involve the left-hand end surface that is not a considered feature or a datum feature for the position tolerance, and this may be distracting or confusing to many readers. But including dimensions to this surface does not cause any fundamental issues or make the scheme meaningless, because the dimensions are all basic anyway. It doesn't mean that we have to line up on the left-hand end surface on the real part.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

CheckerHater - not with the intent of dragging you into a lengthy discussion but for my own edification, could you at least point out what exactly is wrong with it so I can look into it further myself? You are referring to the basic dimension, not the size dimension correct? I'm not sure why the "before" sketch would be okay but the "after" would not as it is just its inverse. Or are they both invalid?

I am still learning and I would like to not make the same mistakes in the future.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

I am saying exactly the opposite - "before" does not look OK to me

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Quote (CheckerHater)

Your "after" sketch is not equivalent of Drake's "after" sketch.
I am not planning to start lengthy discussion, but Y14.5 has certain rules on how to dimension feature of size and the way dimension is attached to the round hole (FOS) is incorrect.

I understand you did not agree with the "before" sketch, in your response to me it seemed like you drew issue with how I applied dimensions in my "after" sketch and I was trying to clarify why.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Quote (axym)

With only a Y coordinate for one endpoint of each axis, we don't know where the axes are in the X direction.


For my understanding, the basic dimension on the X-axis is implied zero, so I will think the features already fully defined, its not necessary to add extra dimensions.

I am always learning here, please let me know if I am wrong.

Season

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

SeasonLee - i think he was just talking about the x and y in the side view that he added the dimensions to, his 1.xxx, 1.yyy, and 1.zzz are all in the x direction he was referring to.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Season Lee,

If the basic dimensions locate the X and Y of the intersections with the nominal 30 degree surface, don't they also set the slope of that same surface in a redundant manner? It would be better to pick some random locations on the axes that are far from the surface to establish their location. If the dimension was to the projected intersection with [A] then only the Y value would be required.

(Spelling or typing. Sigh.)

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

(OP)
If the intent is imply the intersection point of the angled face and the holes, wouldn't it make sense to use that as a primary datum? Otherwise I would think that the full 'x/y' co-ordinates and angle are needed to determine the true hole axis as per SeasonLee's picture above.

I often wonder what difference it makes discussing the nuances of things like this. In my humble experience, if I ask 3 engineers I get 3 different answers. If I ask the Manufacturing Engineers or Inspectors I get another different set of interpretations. I seems that even the Standard is not clear at times.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

This domino effect of interpretations is exactly what I meant when considered "before" more ambiguous than "after".

Quote (3DDave)

It would be better to pick some random locations on the axes that are far from the surface to establish their location
But maybe they are away from the surface? And that's why we need the basic angle? Too many things are left to be implied.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Quote (3DDave)

If the basic dimensions locate the X and Y of the intersections with the nominal 30 degree surface, don't they also set the slope of that same surface in a redundant manner?

Thats a good point - I would think probably either fully define the surface first and then give just the y-dimension for the holes or define the surface fully with the x/y dimension for both holes. However if you have more than two holes you would have to only give the x-dimension for 2 of them to prevent redundancy. Regardless I wouldn't go with that method anyway if I didn't have to.

Quote (3DDave)

If the dimension was to the projected intersection with [A] then only the Y value would be required

Is what you're describing similar to the below snapshot from my attachment in a previous comment? This is the method that I found in the Y14.5 standard Figure 7-36.

CH has pointed out that I may have made an error in the way I applied dimensions in at least one of my examples, so take the below with a grain of salt - however he didn't point out exactly what the issue was so I'm not sure if it applies to the portion I have a snapshot of below, if it does and invalidates what I'm saying I apologize. I kindof quickly drew it up but at least I thought it communicated the point I was trying to make - maybe not.

EDIT: I think I figured out the issue he had with my dimensions. I see that everything (size dim/position tol/basic dims) were applied on a side view with construction/hidden lines instead of either a section view or at least the size dimension on a projected view normal to the top face. I don't think that invalidates my point but I can re-upload a sketch if necessary.. I am obviously still learning and it is good to get this kind of feedback so I don't keep making the same mistakes.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Quote (R1chJC)

I often wonder what difference it makes discussing the nuances of things like this. In my humble experience, if I ask 3 engineers I get 3 different answers. If I ask the Manufacturing Engineers or Inspectors I get another different set of interpretations. I seems that even the Standard is not clear at times.

I'm not sure if some people here will agree with me, but I think it mainly comes down to trying to figure out the best way to communicate the dimensions/constraints in a drawing with the least likelihood of them being misinterpreted. I agree with Evan in that I don't think most of the methods presented are outright wrong, as long as enough dimensions are provided to fully constrain/define the features it should not matter however there are certain methods over others that lead to less confusion and less effort to discern the important information - ie: where exactly a hole axis lies in relation to the DRF.

I would wholeheartedly agree - there are many times in which the standard is unclear or ambiguous which is what leads to discussions like these. I don't know that the standard is ambiguous in this case though, so much as doesn't explicitly state or show an example that defines the "before" method as wrong and the "after" method as correct as Drake claims.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

3
R1chJC,

Read at your own risk:

I have found a basic reason and a larger number of subtle reasons for the problem of disagreement.

The basic reason is that application of dimensioning and FCFs is effectively writing a program which is intended to predict/restrict a range of outputs. Understanding how to get a single answer out is tough enough, but there aren't many computer functions the typical person deals with that return sets of answers. In ordinary programming a programmer turns over the interpretation of the program to a computer and the computer does its thing and doesn't really have an opinion. Either the results are as expected or the user changes their program.

Within the limits of computational machinery, any computer given the same program will produce the same outputs. People aren't built that way. They bring a bunch of preconceptions and misunderstandings and when you give a bunch of them the same inputs they are likely to produce different outputs.

This is made worse because the interpretation training that people get, unlike the photo-masks that Intel and AMD and others use for their CPUs and the carefully built compilers and OS's, is done person-to-person. If you've experienced the 'Telephone Game,' where a story is whispered from one person to another, you can see the flaws can gather really rapidly. The ideal would be to go back to the standard, Y14.5 for example, but that standard is not written to educate via examples of correct and incorrect applications; it contains flat statements that aren't easily extensible.

Most of the subtleties come in via that 'Telephone Game' training. Certainly someone misheard something back when they were exposed to the -1982 version and have not only applied it ever since, but taught a couple of generations the same wrong thing. And some of those who have tried to reconcile with the writing and get rebuked for their effort.

The best answer for training I have come across was using VSA software which generated programming code to represent the effects of the FCFs and ran it through a random number generator to create compliant, varied results just like a factory would; however it depended on the pre-digestion of the dimensioning scheme to produce the nominal geometry. Since dimensioning schemes are used to communicate between humans more than being necessary for computation, this problem will be subject to human interpretation problems. When I write best I mean, because I didn't pay for it. In fact I got paid very well to spend most of a year doing nothing but using it; to the point that I learned that most problems in dimensioning and tolerancing are from the 'Telephone Game' training and a healthy dose of wishful thinking, not some underlying mystery of how to use trigonometry.

I have found the schemes I like best (note the word 'like') are ones where the values are easily recognized on one part as matching the dimensions on mating features on mating parts. The more difficult it is to verify that parts nominally fit together, the more likely the chance they won't. Such schemes sometimes require trigonometry to convert to the use of tools such as height gages, so inspectors often weigh in with their preferences based on the tools they have. Without a mating part then I fall back to liking the shortest path to the referenced datums; there are usually several equivalent schemes and choosing is a matter of previous (often unhappy) experience and avoiding a repeat.

One engineer decided that all holes in a beam (about 500 inches overall) should be baseline dimensioned, even though there were multiple patterns of holes. Of the ten patterns, he misplaced holes in five or six of them. Had they been dimensioned locally with a dimension from the baseline to the center of each pattern the mismatched holes would be instantly noticeable. Since there were hundreds of holes, it cost a large amount of time to go hole-by-hole to find the ones that didn't match.

Getting back to the software concept. Most programming could be done with binary switches loading individual instructions. Programming languages were developed in order to make what is supposed to happen more obvious to other programmers; the computers don't care. And even in programming, there are plenty of programmers who write working programs that are convoluted and excessively complex and hide or lose track of the fundamental method being expressed and produce undesirable results. It's small wonder the same happens on drawings.

Best of luck.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

chez311 - what version of Y14.5 is that figure 7.36 from? Did I miss a recent release? I have 1994 and 2009 and don't see that figure.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

3DDave - I did not mean to say that was the actual figure, thats why I said "per Y14.5 Fig 7-36" as in trying to dimension it with the same method.

See attached for the actual figure from the standard. Sorry if that created any confusion, that was not my intent.

RE: Another Angled Hole Positional Tolerance Question

Also 3DDave I have to commend you on that explanation, that was a very well thought out response and included everything and so much more that I was trying to communicate (albeit poorly) in my previous posts - the computer/programming analogy works very well in contrast to the the myriad of issues that arise when humans create and interpret drawings.

Ultimately there will always be issues and misinterpretations, however it is good to strive towards methods of reducing the possibilities of these issues. Now if only we could agree on what those methods are.... haha!

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close