Yes I should. But I don't have a copy of Y14.1M and am trying to get away without buying one. Or more accurately, trying to talk the higher ups into the fact that they need to buy one.
Yes. They do sometimes take a while to unfold. But now we are getting to the meat of the discussion.
RMB, MMB, and LMB do not enter the standard till 2009 so I'd say it definitely does matter which version the drawing is intended to comply with.
As for the feature of size issue I can see it...
more questions for clarification please:
Should a feature controlled by a profile tolerance and referenced in a fcf be considered RFS in that fcf unless otherwise modified with MMC or LMC?
Can RFS, MMC, or LMC even apply if the cylinder is controlled by a profile tolerance...
Per the 1994 standard
A cylinder is perpendicular to datum B. It is controlled by a profile requirement to B. Can that feature be used as a datum in other fcf's ?
The 1994 standard has basically the same fundamental rule that Dingy quoted from the 2009 standard. 1994 1.4(l) "All dimensions and tolerances apply in the freestate condition......." The exceptions to the freestate rule in the the 1994 standard leave a little more room for interpretation than...
"Why would one use profile of a surface tolerance over a linear tolerance?" Because it more clearly defines the drawing. If there was a datum surface designated and a profile of a surface tolerance on the dimension in question if fig 2-5 this whole discussion/debate would not have happened.
I agree with JP re: the dimension origin symbol.
Jim, I get your point re: irregular features of size and a normal rule 1 check in a case such as you suggest. In this case it would be convenient if IFoS were included in 2.7.1. Then the dimension in question could be checked as Dave describes...
2 cents
I believe that the example in question meets the definition of a Irregular Feature of Size as defined by 1.3.32.2. But Rule #1 still would not apply because 2.7.1 refers solely to Regular Features of Size. Why Irregular Features of Size are not included in 2.7.1 I can't figure out...
There is no z axis deviation. The calculation would be based on the devaition in x and the deviation in y, (at more than one height,z, if the hole is tipped).
Per paragraph 1.4m "Unless otherwise specified all geometric tolerances apply for the full depth, length, and width of a feature." So you need to verifiy the position of the hole at the top, bottom, and everywhere in-between. If the hole is tipped in relation to the primary datum you will end up...
