The frame is created from a roll of aluminum bar that's run through a sort of die and a small cut made in three places, like a 45 degree notch so that the part can be folded to form the square, I believe. Though, the four pieces may be seperated, I'm not entirely sure.
Adding the reference...
Thanks everyone for the feedback. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the unequally disposed profile tolerance (why is U better than equal bilateral?), but this is good info and I think profile is the way to go to control size and form in this case.
Oh yeah, I know that the dims would need to be basic dims if we went with profile. I was just talking to myself I guess about the tolerance value that we would need. Circled U - Isn't that an unequally disposed tolerance zone modifier? I'll look it up.
Thanks, I had that thought too... I figured I might blow some minds if I suggested profile. In any case, this part sits in an envelope, approximately the same size and shape as this thing. I could be said that it requires a go/no-go that you could just set this thing in and measure the VC of all...
So nevermind what this says about our QA department that they've asked for a squareness tolerance on this assembly... I would however like to get some feedback regarding how best to tolerance this assembly. Please see the attached image. Below is the suggestion a senior engineer gave my drafter...
Recently, I was in Indianapolis for Solid Edge University. I took a class on 2D/3D GD&T given by the gentleman who created all of the figures in Y14.5 since the 60's... I have his email. I may email him about this, ask why the plunger was adopted and if I get an answer I will post that answer here.
In any case, it's not meant to be a tangent line (Datum A), it's meant to be the shank diameter, and so should conform to the standard for consistency sake. So I will make that change. And I think that it merely needs to be visually in line with the FoS dim, or otherwise, clearly offset...
Ugh - yeah, Datum A is located based off of the position of the pitch diameter, datum B. That doesn't make much sense does it? The thread should be a secondary datum, or the shank should not be a datum feature at all perhaps. I suppose for the purposes of inspection it doesn't matter that the...
Datum feature A is supposed to be the shank of the thread. That's a good point though, I didn't notice that... It should be positioned to indicate the FoS is the datum feature.
It is an ASME-inch part, hence my confusion about the position application.
Hello, could someone please have a look at the true position callout on the left-hand view in the attached image and let me know if this makes any sense at all? I'm thinking not, as it's placement doesn't seem to indicate that it is associated with any feature of size. I'm thinking that profile...
We were sold 40+ licenses by our reseller with the understanding that we wanted all of our licenses on a centralized license server. Come to find out, as we're setting this server up, all users need to be on the same domain! (a Siemens license requirement) Well, we have users on three domains...
If a drawing shows a hole feature, and there is no visible geometry 'behind' the hole, or within it, then it is assumed to be a thru hole, unless otherwise stated. However, I don't believe it's incorrect to say Mx THRU if it's a thru hole.
If the hole goes thru, but it's not entirely clear...
I worked in the electronics industry for 8 or 9 years working as a mech. designer, and I can tell you that GD&T is just as helpful there as it was working for a firearms manufacturer. Anytime you have a physical part, and you want to control is size/shape/orientation, you should probably be...
That's a great mental exercise to perform 3DDave, to determine whether or not a feature is an actual feature of size. I will write that one down, thanks.
