On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 11:27 +0100, Andy Pugh wrote: ... snip > Who was at fault? I argued that the wider tolerances elsewhere in the > geometry were specifically so that they could get the flexure right, > they said "You always work to mid-tolerance, and the drawing should > assume that"
Without taking the time to study this further, I think your drawing may be at fault, because it may not have adequately described the shape, or rather the shape envelope of the feature. Playing with tolerances of other features, in my view, is not a valid way to communicate the intent of the considered feature. When I left my drafting job, we were just learning about geometric tolerancing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_dimensioning_and_tolerancing which I think is to proper way to describe part shapes, but takes considerable effort to use properly. I haven't had an economic reason to become proficient with geometric tolerancing, so I'm not a expert. -- Kirk Wallace http://www.wallacecompany.com/machine_shop/ http://www.wallacecompany.com/E45/index.html California, USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
