More Profile Stuff

[DrBudman]

Just wondering how you would measure the inside profile call out in the attached drawing (profile applies to the 5.5610 dia, .5906 and .3937 radii and 60 degree angle).

I know how to align it, I'm talking about how would YOU measure it. Right now I don't know the correct way, I just measure a series of circles about .05" apart and report on the diameter with a tolerance of +/-.0005" and also report on roundness with a tolerance of .001". I know its not the proper way but I know it will give me the info needed to make the part work.

Thanks

Dan

PS: The "see note 3" just says tolerance applies to basic dimensions, don't know why they put that there but they did.

[kbotta]

Is there any reason why they haev [B] as a surface, or point and not the diameter??

[kbotta]

Need more info on that part
[c] is same as [B]...not a dia (which it looks like from this view, [C] would 'fight' [B] if they were dia's)...

[DrBudman]

Datum -A- is the surface that the 110 degree angle is called off of and Datum -B- is the 7.7559 diameter (center). -A- and -B- are the only datums called for in the profile. Since its round and on center does not need a rotation.

[kbotta]

Not according to your drawing it is not. It needs to be associated with the size dimension to be the Dia. It is not 'inline' with the leader line here. Maybe it is just a technical mistake by the drafter- And I don't see [C] being ref. w/ [B] - so maybe that gets used in another way, or FCF w/o the [B] feature.
Do you have cad on this??
Seems like there are some basic dims missing...

[kbotta]

What kind of industry are you in?
You have a primary datum feature referenced as [-A-] (1982 standard) and then your [B] and [C] are referenced as 1994 symbols. Whats up w/ that?

Looks like you could check the one fcf by the [C] symbol, by figureing out the offsets, and you could check the the other one, by using polar points as well, but only at the bottom portion of the drawing. The drawing does not say to check the whole view does it (like between point 'x' and 'z' ?)
Looks to me like it only applies to the one small area....
kb

[kbotta]

I don't think you have enough info on your drawing (at least what is showed) to inspect everything you mentioned in your original post.
0.02
kb

[Paul Sarrach]

Check it with Surface Points and tolerance the T Values.

[John Riggins]

I agree with mugman. You need more information in order to report. Like the tangent points of the radii. You could report the form, but the location is another issue.
Do you have CAD?

[DrBudman]

Your correct on not enough information, I'm using the model for my circle nominals (I guess I should have mentioned that). They give you radii size, angle and diameter, but no Z location for everything, I guess in never payed attention because I have the model. Wtih measuring circles at given intervals from the model, I'm getting the proper info, but it could not be made with just the dimensions given.

I level to -A-, Z zero to -A- and XY zero to -B-.

The -A- [B] thing is something that goes awry when I save a solidworks file saved as a cad (dwg) file.

I'll try the surface point method next and the T value.

Thanks

[John Riggins]

Ok, having the CAD makes it easier. Is the CAD authority or the drawing?

[kbotta]

You have the cad file?! DOH!

[DrBudman]

You have the cad file?! DOH!

I'm not as dumb as I sound (or look).. lol I knew when I posted that reply and mentioned the cad I was like "Duhh"

Yes cad is authority....

My brain hurts today.... was a liquid Wednesday c[_]

[Schrocknroll]

I would measure the Radii as circles selected from the CAD model. You can call out a profile tolerance on the circles with form and location using plus and minus .0005. You can create a cone from the CAD model as well and do the same profile callout on it.

Otherwise you can create alot of vector points as selected from the CAD model. Create feature sets based on the different profile callouts and dimension them the same as above. Or you could report the T value for each point individually, but that takes up a lot of room and for parts like you have it's not usually necessary.

[DrBudman]

Thats a good suggestion, was going with the points and reporting, but that is one heck of a lot of information. I like creating the feature sets as it seems to be easier to digest.

Thanks for the help.