My picture is not good at at all but I would suggest that you apply a projected tolerance from the datum plane. I think that should work. It would also be helpful in determining the best method to know the mating part.
ASME Y14.5 'tends' to differentiate between bolts and nuts in the Fixed and Floating fastener formula section.
Is there a consensus amongst engineers/designers/cad operators as to the technical correctness of the definition of bolts verses screws?
Thank you Kenat.
Im with you and your answer assures that I am not totally bonkers perhaps but still looking for the lost spec. I do believe it existed at one time. Thanks again.
Let me try again.
I am not suggesting that the dimensions need not be controlled to 3 or more decimal places....
I am looking for OLD information that I thought directed us AWAY from decimal equivalents to fractions as much as possible. Such as .3125 when most likely .3 would do the job...
ONCE UPON A A TIME,
I believe there existed a standard/spec which recommended the appliication of decimal/inch dimensioning for designs where allowed, verses fractional/inch dimensioning as much as possible.
That is to say for example, use 6.20 X 4.80 for the sheet size instead of 6.25 X...
My recollection is that there was an attempt to direct drafters and designers to use decimal/inch for new design unless driven by standard sizes such and screws and bolts etc. This was some 40 to 50 years previously and no one knows or cares or even tries. Consequently a dim that could easily...
When used in conjunction with positional tolerance, does the positional tolerance have any influence on the number of decimal places?
Supposing 6 holes at 60 degrees, with a positional tol of .005 dia. Is the angle required to have 3 trailing zeroes? Again by the Standard?
Using Y14.5 and decimal inch on drawing, how should an angle of say 25.000 (basic) degrees be expressed. How many decimal places are required?
The Standard seems to be a little vague or again I am overlooking.
Interesting enough. Difficult for me to see an application for it.
If I am seeing it correctly this is like limniting the area for the datum feature and also for the related parallel surface. Strange.
I do not know if it has been stated anywhere within the Standard, but it is my opinion that RFS works well with limited production and CMMs. Whereas MMC works well (Better) for larger production quanties and the functional gages.
This is not to say that either is exclusive.
Opinions?
