I really like how the two TP callouts for the same hole use the datums in a different order.
I really like how the two TP callouts for the same hole use the datums in a different order.
Originally Posted by AndersI
Perhaps there was a dyslexic engineer involved!
You should one of the prints I just received. It can be quite interesting what they (engineers) come up with.
No thank you, I have enough engineer stupidity to deal with on my own!
For example, one I am dealing with right now.....
Imagine a flat, rectangular piece of sheet metal.... (just so you can get the impression). Now, image a flange on the 'rear', that is only 1/3 the width of the part, and it is on the 'left', now imagine a flange on the 'front' of the part, that is 2/3 the width of the part, and it is on the 'right'. Now, put a TP tolerance with MMC on the gap, front-to-back, between them. These 2 flanges do not over-lap left-to-right anywhere, yet they want a TP-MMC of the gap.
(see below, maybe it will help) Where the F=flange, N=no flange, B=base between the flanges. They want TP of the 'between'
Code:FFFFNNNNNNNNN /\ TP in this direction BBBBBBBBBBBBB | BBBBBBBBBBBBB | NNNNNFFFFFFFF \/
Oh, and how about THIS callout (same print, and this is no joke!):
More trickery
After creating two mid points for both the x and y, could you not then create a generic feature using the xmidpoint.x for its X and ymidpoint.y for its Y and then do a True position on that generic feature?
Or how about taking the average deviation from the width and height dimensions and using it for a generic circle size so you could do calculations for material condition modifiers?
Or have I jumped too far out of the box?
Yeah, But what have you done for me lately..?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks