Measurement question

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

  • Measurement question

    I hope I can explain this clearly. I am measuring a simple surface to surface measurement. Plane to plane. The issue is the planes are not parallel to each other (there is no parallel call out) but my distance between comes out good because it is taking a average. If you measure with calipers the mid section is in tolerance, top is high & the bottom is low. So am I measuring this wrong? The production manager is telling me I need to measure individual points. What is everyone's thoughts?
    MIKE OXLONG

  • #2
    I would measure points at the same location in 2 axis on each side, then report the distance between 'identical' points.
    sigpic
    Originally posted by AndersI
    I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

    Comment


    • #3
      You can measure as two planes but change the output format to report max and min and well.

      Copy the FORMAT command from near the top of your program to just above the dimension, then F9 it and tick Max/Min on.

      (To switch it off for subsequent dimensions you'll need another FORMAT command after the dimension)
      Applications Engineer
      Hexagon UK

      Comment


      • #4
        But is that the "right" way? I have measured a million plane to plane measurements. Have I been doing it wrong all these years?
        MIKE OXLONG

        Comment


        • Mike Ruff
          Mike Ruff commented
          Editing a comment
          Idk if you're an ASME or ISO guy, but in ASME Y14.5, your form error is not allowed to exceed your tolerance, so you need to look at the MIN and MAX. This is literally called "Rule #1." In ASME Y14.5-2009, look at section 2.7.1 for more info

      • #5
        Distance ? Plane 1 PERP to PLANE 2. Then report MIN / MAX ? Your going to have to " square up " to 1 or the other.

        Comment


        • #6
          When I measure plane to plane I use minindex and maxindex then make two generic planes, one at the max point and one at the min point in which ever axis you are measuring in. What the code is doing is using an assignment to find the minimum and maximum point in a plane in the specified axis. That assignment is then called in the generic plane in the specified axis and sets the plane at that point in the specified axis. It would need to be done to both planes you are measuring then dimension max to min and min to max to get the closest two points and the furthest two points.

          I do this because we import our excel reports in another program (Visual FAIR) that creates our AS9100 forms. The program (FAIR) won't read min/max from the excel, it only reads the measured so I have to force DMIS to report both individually and this is my preferred method.

          Disregard the 1.5058 in the X nominal on PLN26_MAX, it should be (and was fixed to) PLN26.X.THEO.

          Capture.JPG
          Remembering my beautiful wife Taz who's life was lost on 6-13-2020. I love you and I miss you.

          Comment


          • #7
            You could also construct a width, and dimension it with the size in FCF.
            If the dimension is L±t, you should measure a lot of distances point to point, and all should be in the tol.
            Ok, nobody does it with a cmm, but it should be the rule...

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by JEFMAN View Post
              You could also construct a width, and dimension it with the size in FCF.
              but will that tell you that in "this area" it is too thin and in 'this area' it is too thick?
              sigpic
              Originally posted by AndersI
              I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by Matthew D. Hoedeman View Post

                but will that tell you that in "this area" it is too thin and in 'this area' it is too thick?
                No... !
                I'm just trying to explain how a dimension can be interpreted, even if it shouldn't be "interpretable"...

                Comment

                Related Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X