Constraining oriented features

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Constraining oriented features

    Ok, I've been working on a paper, or file if you will - and would like some feedback. The topic is datum features of size, and how you orient them. I've spent a good deal of time with a friend on editing this, and no it is not perfect, but I believe illustrates my point quite effectively.
    I welcome all feedback.
    Thanks,
    Kevin
    RFS Means Really Fussy Stuff

    When all you have is a hammer - everything looks like a nail....
    sigpic

  • #2
    Cool, the uploading works!

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the increase in file size!
      Kevin
      RFS Means Really Fussy Stuff

      When all you have is a hammer - everything looks like a nail....
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        Anybody? bueller...bueller...
        RFS Means Really Fussy Stuff

        When all you have is a hammer - everything looks like a nail....
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          some thoughts

          Kevin,
          I looked over your paper. It should be part of CMM 101. Or maybe even inspection 101 as the ideas apply to surface plate work too. Can I ask why you wrote the paper and what you plan to do with it when you are happy with it?
          From what I have seen most experienced CMM programmers understand these concepts fairly well. But how many design engineers do? I often see FCFs that do not list datums in the order I know they should be in to ensure a functional part.
          The biggest question is how much data is enough? If you have a hole .5" in dia and 2" deep, how many hits on how many levels are necessary? This is a judgement call on the part of the CMM programmer.
          If I think of anything else to say about your paper I will post it here. I am adding your paper to my collection of notes. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
          I found one typo on page 7, just below the scenario #2 sketch the word "gas" should be "has". HTH
          sigpic"Hated by Many, Loved by Few" _ A.B. - Stone brewery

          Comment


          • #6
            Kevin,
            I printed your paper but haven't had time to read it. The little bit I did read made sense. I let you know when I finish reading it.
            When in doubt, post code. A second set of eyes might see something you missed.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Matt, would you care to give Kevin some feedback on this please?
              <internet bumper sticker goes here>

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi John!!!
                sigpicYou're just jealous the voices talk to me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Kevin,

                  Keep in mind that Y14.5 is written specifically for hard set ups on granite. It is not written for CMMs. The reason ASME has not addressed this is that there is no common aggreement on standard algorithms for geometric shapes between CMM software manufacturers. The German PTB (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt) certification is a step in this direction and will hopefully lead to CMM specific document like Y14.5. You can find more info on at wilcoxassoc.com
                  v2010 CAD ++ Global Image 121510

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DaddyBluto View Post
                    Hi John!!!

                    When in doubt, post code. A second set of eyes might see something you missed.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hook, line, and sinker.............
                      <internet bumper sticker goes here>

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        OK Kev, my .02.

                        #1 is the most often used technique but would not correlate perfectly with a hard gage.

                        #2 is lazy and just plain incorrect, it is also very often used.

                        #3 if the cylinder is an OD, would correlate perfectly with a hard gage. As a side note, I'd probably pull the individual points from the feature and project them to the plane rather than the scan. I think it would accomplish the same result. I'm just not that experienced with scanning so I tend to stick with what I know.

                        Thanks for the food for thought,

                        TK
                        sigpicHave a homebrew

                        Comment

                        Related Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X