The new stabilization default for RMB datum features will have some impact, but I'm not sure how much. The logical conclusion would be that position tolerancing and the definition of true position is only allowed with basic dimensions, and any use of directly toleranced dimensions would violate the definition of position and would have no support in the standard as to how to interpret it. Instead it specifically states in 7.2 "Basic dimensions establish the true position from specified datums and between interrelated features" and only shows examples with basic dimensions. I don't believe the standard says anywhere "directly toleranced dimensions are not allowed/illegal in combination with position tolerance". Take for example the rules for position tolerancing. but no standard is perfect I guess - or at least I'll keep telling myself that). Instead it is typically more important to as clearly and specifically as possible define rules and applications for each topic (which, if we're being honest it comes up short in several areas. I could be wrong, but I don't think the standard spends much time on what is not allowed or specifically stating something as "illegal". I meant the argument between whether total runout on cones is legal or not would become moot/irrelevant. The key isn't making any particular language feature legal** or not it is providing unambiguous declarations of applicability and clear rules for the expected results of application.
0 kommentar(er)
