Composite Profile?

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

  • Composite Profile?

    Hello Folks,

    I am running version 3.7mr3 on a B&S mistral.

    Programming an injection molded car door handle.

    Cannot post print. Datum B is a through hole that the handle would pivot along.

    Datum A is on the face at one end of the "B" hole. Datum C is a point along the handle at which the rotation would stop.

    Here's the hilarious part. Along part of the handle there is a composite profile tolerance. The first part is profile of 4.0mm|A|B|C|, then just below is a secondary callout, profile of 0.2mm|A|B|.

    Similarly, on another part of the drawing, upper callout, profile 0.5mm|A|B|C|, and just below it, profile 0.1mm|B|C|.

    I have no difficulties in setting up and reporting to |A|B|C|.

    However, I just don't get it as to how I would set up and report to either |A|B|, or the other |B|C|.

    My head wants to keep using primary (3 points), secondary (2 points) and tertiary (1 point).

    Not only that, what are these people that draw up prints thinking. profile callout on a plastic injection molded part to 0.1mm (plus or minus 0.050).
    Who are they kidding????

    I look forward to your assistance in this matter. There is a great deal of expertise out there in this forum, and I truly appreciate you help.

    Lost in London,
    Blessings,
    ZydecoPete
    sigpic

  • #2
    Do they want the points to "float" to bestfit the data to the profile? Without a snapshot of the drawing it is difficult to say.
    Links to my utilities for PCDMIS

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, I don't have any assistance for you, but I am sure that JAN would tell you to go to V4.2 and use the profile tolerancing there and he will tell you that it CAN report to the 2 datums specified.

      How about this one (keep in mind this is an automotive die construction shop) that a customer wants me to check (this is a cross-section of a big ring):



      I have told him I have no way to check that, especially to that tolerance. 0.010" high surface with a 45 degere angle and they want to know what the diameter of the 'cone'/plane intersection is. Also keep in mind that the SPECS for this machine are 0.0007" and that much POSSIBLE error over that little distance, well, I just don't see any good coming of it.
      Last edited by Matthew D. Hoedeman; 10-29-2007, 01:10 PM.
      sigpic
      Originally posted by AndersI
      I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

      Comment


      • #4
        These are perfectly legal calls, see page 176/177 of ASME Y14.5M-1994 for examples. I am not sure that you can properly analyze them using your version of PC-DMIS though.

        I tried something very similar in V4.1 and found clear bugs in the reporting. I reported these and was told that they are going to be fixed in V4.2.



        Jan.
        ***************************
        PC-DMIS/NC 2010MR3; 15 December 2010; running on 18 machine tools.
        Romer Infinite; PC-DMIS 2010 MR3; 15 December 2010.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Matthew D. Hoedeman View Post
          Well, I don't have any assistance for you, but I am sure that JAN would tell you to go to V4.2 and use the profile tolerancing there and he will tell you that it CAN report to the 2 datums specified.
          Boy, you're good....
          ***************************
          PC-DMIS/NC 2010MR3; 15 December 2010; running on 18 machine tools.
          Romer Infinite; PC-DMIS 2010 MR3; 15 December 2010.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jan d. View Post
            Boy, you're good....
            Well, you are the leading 4-head on the site. That's your answer to everthing, go to V4.2, go to V4.2, go to V4.2!
            sigpic
            Originally posted by AndersI
            I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yep, I am easy to figure out.

              Go 4-heads!!!!!!!!!

              Originally posted by Matthew D. Hoedeman View Post
              Well, you are the leading 4-head on the site. That's your answer to everthing, go to V4.2, go to V4.2, go to V4.2!
              ***************************
              PC-DMIS/NC 2010MR3; 15 December 2010; running on 18 machine tools.
              Romer Infinite; PC-DMIS 2010 MR3; 15 December 2010.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jan d. View Post

                Go 4-heads!!!!!!!!!
                DOH!
                Say it ain't so.....
                RFS Means Really Fussy Stuff

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Matthew D. Hoedeman View Post
                  Well, you are the leading 4-head on the site. That's your answer to everthing, go to V4.2, go to V4.2, go to V4.2!
                  4.2 can handle that. Or do what I used to do... Create a separate alignment just for that particlular feature control frame. Using best fit or hard datums is up to you.


                  G
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Get to the Point...

                    Originally posted by Jan d. View Post
                    Yep, I am easy to figure out.

                    Go 4-Skins!!!!!!!!!




                    4.2
                    Rock me hexagon,
                    hexagon, hexagon,
                    http://mud.mm-a3.yimg.com/image/2659749318
                    sigpic

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X