Flatness of a theoretical plane + Weird Parallelism

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

  • Flatness of a theoretical plane + Weird Parallelism

    Hi guys,

    I have a constructed plane made from the two planes of a groove. The customer wants the flatness of that constructed plane.
    But the constructed plane does not constit of the single points of the two planes. Is there a way to get that flatness?

    The next issuse is about the parallelism. The part has six grooves on its outer diameter and a hole that is above one of the grooves. The datums are A (plane), B (outer diameter), and C (hole above the groove). The parallelism contains these three datums. And that is what irritates me. Two of the constructed planes are parallel to the C-datum. But the other four aren´t. So I don´t see a way to report the parallelism of all six constructed planes.

  • #2
    1 : Construct a feature set with PL1.HIT[1..PL1.NUMHITS] and PL2.HIT[1..PL2.NUMHITS] then construct another plane and dimension the flatness.
    2 : a parallelism with 3 datums ?????????? A location, ok, not a parallelism !

    Comment


    • #3
      1. When I do that I get a plane that is perpendicular and in the middle of the two planes.

      2. Right?? Thats excatly what I thought. I´ll a few days, maybe someone knows something.

      Comment


      • #4
        Flatness of a constructed plane is zero, as flatnes is a physical property.

        Combining the two planes as JEFMAN suggests assumes that the planes are directed the same way, located at the same height. The two sides of a groove are opposite, so this wouldnt work.

        The only way I can think of is collecting *exactly* opposite points on the two planes, create midpoints, and create a plane BF from the midpoints. But what would the result *mean*??

        Might be better with a CZ FORM dimension?
        AndersI
        SW support - Hexagon Metrology Nordic AB

        Comment


        • JEFMAN
          JEFMAN commented
          Editing a comment
          I thought it was two planes separated by a groove

        • AndersI
          AndersI commented
          Editing a comment
          Actually, it might be - the thought never occurred to me.

      • #5
        @Andersl is right. I mean the Two planes of the groove. Not the planes seperatet by a groove. That´s what makes it so difficult. I know how to connect two seperate planes that are on the same level.

        I am now in a conversation with the customer. He agreed to use a common zone. Can I apply that to two planes that are not on the same level?

        Comment


        • #6
          Originally posted by Stbasser91 View Post
          I am now in a conversation with the customer. He agreed to use a common zone. Can I apply that to two planes that are not on the same level?
          You can create a set of the hits of the two planes to do a FORM dimension of the groove (like a WIDTH feature). You can't get a FLATNESS dimension.

          As I said earlier:
          The only way I can think of is collecting *exactly* opposite points on the two planes, create midpoints, and create a plane BF from the midpoints. But what would the result *mean*??


          AndersI
          SW support - Hexagon Metrology Nordic AB

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by Stbasser91 View Post
            Hi guys,

            I have a constructed plane made from the two planes of a groove. The customer wants the flatness of that constructed plane.
            But the constructed plane does not constit of the single points of the two planes. Is there a way to get that flatness?

            The next issuse is about the parallelism. The part has six grooves on its outer diameter and a hole that is above one of the grooves. The datums are A (plane), B (outer diameter), and C (hole above the groove). The parallelism contains these three datums. And that is what irritates me. Two of the constructed planes are parallel to the C-datum. But the other four aren´t. So I don´t see a way to report the parallelism of all six constructed planes.
            Sounds like they really want angularity, not parallelism.

            Automettech - Automated Metrology Technology

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by Stbasser91 View Post
              Hi guys,

              I have a constructed plane made from the two planes of a groove. The customer wants the flatness of that constructed plane.
              But the constructed plane does not constit of the single points of the two planes. Is there a way to get that flatness?
              .
              The customer doesn't know that they really want Profile of a set composed of both walls.

              Originally posted by Stbasser91 View Post
              The next issuse is about the parallelism. The part has six grooves on its outer diameter and a hole that is above one of the grooves. The datums are A (plane), B (outer diameter), and C (hole above the groove). The parallelism contains these three datums. And that is what irritates me. Two of the constructed planes are parallel to the C-datum. But the other four aren´t. So I don´t see a way to report the parallelism of all six constructed planes.
              As NinjaBadger posted, they don't know that they want Angularity.

              Diplomatic but firm GD&T education of customers = required skill for CMM programming

              Comment


              • #9
                Sometimes customers will give you drawings that just don't make any sense. I know that isn't a particularly helpful comment, but it is something to consider to help put your mind at ease. Sometimes you just have to interpret what it is they actually want, measure it that way, and buy it off the best you can based on what is possible to measure.

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by UseAsIs View Post
                  ... and buy it off the best you can based on what is possible to measure.
                  User name checks out

                  Comment

                  Related Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X