symmetry axis and quotation

[Split]

Good morning.
I have a doubt about the quotation reported in the technical table as from image below where quotas are seen compared to x and y symmetry axes. in my opinion the quotation is not clear and leaves free will to interpretations since it does not specify which symmetry plan dsi intends to take as reference (datum mancancy).
But I would also like to see more.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I see two axes of symmetry

 

[Vittorio]

usually put the sign = = on all odds to avoid misunderstandings

 

[Split]

I see two axes of symmetry

Okay, then I'll mess up and I'll kindly ask for clarification.

we take the vertical symmetry axis, compared to this axis I have the size 192, 181+toll, 143,141, 142+toll, 47,3+toll.
what I do not understand is how it is possible to perform a dimensional control for example of the size 143 +/-0.1 (pool width) compared to the axis symmetry.
is it easy to check whether the measure is in tolerance or not but for its positioning? how can the position of the width of the tank occur compared to the total quota of 192?

 

[TECNOMODEL]

Good morning.
I have a doubt about the quotation reported in the technical table as from image below where quotas are seen compared to x and y symmetry axes.View attachment 66664in my opinion the quotation is not clear and leaves free will to interpretations since it does not specify which symmetry plan dsi intends to take as reference (datum mancancy).
But I would also like to see more.

I do not see any symmetry symbols, so the axis quotas will have tolerance over the latter, the odds of the holes will not have tolerance over the axis but only in the distance between the 2 holes.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

usually put the sign = = on all odds to avoid misunderstandings
View attachment 66667

no longer used by a life, the norm has changed.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

Okay, then I'll mess up and I'll kindly ask for clarification.

we take the vertical symmetry axis, compared to this axis I have the size 192, 181+toll, 143,141, 142+toll, 47,3+toll.
what I do not understand is how it is possible to perform a dimensional control for example of the size 143 +/-0.1 (pool width) compared to the axis symmetry.
is it easy to check whether the measure is in tolerance or not but for its positioning? how can the position of the width of the tank occur compared to the total quota of 192?

theoretically the positioning must respect the general tolerances of processing, nothing else.

 

[Vittorio]

no longer used by a life, the norm has changed.

the rules always change in worse.
Can you tell me where to recover the new legislation?

 

[Catafratto]

I also note, if I am not totally stunned today, that there is a line to interpret as a symmetry axis but the symmetric piece is not (see the quotas that lean on the axis of "symmetry" itself), then it goes of common sense and not of rigorous quotation: property on which (the common sense, I say) I would not count.

 

[Split]

I do not see any symmetry symbols, so the axis quotas will have tolerance over the latter, the odds of the holes will not have tolerance over the axis but only in the distance between the 2 holes.

thanks technomodel for the answers.

what I do not understand is from which geometric entity is generated the axis to which the quotas are attached that tolerate the positioning of the holes.
in the sense is the tank width 143, the wideness of the inner profile of the throat for oring (141)?
also because logically the seat for oring is centered on the tub since the plug to be mounted seals the tank itself.

 

[Vittorio]

I do not see any symmetry symbols, so the axis quotas will have tolerance over the latter, the odds of the holes will not have tolerance over the axis but only in the distance between the 2 holes.

according to your consideration the quota 142±0.1 could I have it translated also of 5mm on the x?

 

[TECNOMODEL]

the rules always change in worse.
Can you tell me where to recover the new legislation?

it should be the uni72261, but it could be obsolete too.
You should check on the site one, or wait for someone more updated.
If I am not mistaken in any discussion on quotations, it was indicated which was in force.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

according to your consideration the quota 142±0.1 could I have it translated also of 5mm on the x?

formally, as it is quoted that piece yes.
the symmetry was indicated or the portion of one of the holes compared to the axis.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Okay, then I'll mess up and I'll kindly ask for clarification.

we take the vertical symmetry axis, compared to this axis I have the size 192, 181+toll, 143,141, 142+toll, 47,3+toll.
what I do not understand is how it is possible to perform a dimensional control for example of the size 143 +/-0.1 (pool width) compared to the axis symmetry.
is it easy to check whether the measure is in tolerance or not but for its positioning? how can the position of the width of the tank occur compared to the total quota of 192?

this does not center anything with an understanding of the design; It is true that it sends the symmetry axis symbol (cl or even if obsolete==) but it is clear that the odds are half the axis drawn, axis that otherwise would not make sense to be drawn.
certainly the design should be clear and not deducted from the experience.
However, as I wrote the speech of dimensional control does not have to do with the clarity or not of the axis; if you want to check the 143 detect the actual size of 192 (which being bent can be also 191), draw a line in half and check the odds.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

thanks technomodel for the answers.

what I do not understand is from which geometric entity is generated the axis to which the quotas are attached that tolerate the positioning of the holes.
in the sense is the tank width 143, the wideness of the inner profile of the throat for oring (141)?
also because logically the seat for oring is centered on the tub since the plug to be mounted seals the tank itself.

Isn't that the same? both are symmetric one with the other.
However put in this way the question makes more sense than the initial one

 

[Fabietto]

Okay, then I'll mess up and I'll kindly ask for clarification.

we take the vertical symmetry axis, compared to this axis I have the size 192, 181+toll, 143,141, 142+toll, 47,3+toll.
what I do not understand is how it is possible to perform a dimensional control for example of the size 143 +/-0.1 (pool width) compared to the axis symmetry.
is it easy to check whether the measure is in tolerance or not but for its positioning? how can the position of the width of the tank occur compared to the total quota of 192?

outdoor mixes indoor tub, on one side and on the other.
the difference of 2 sizes divides /2
and that's the outside axis of the tub over the outside.
Regardless of whether the tub, or the outside, are either in tolerance. .

 

[Split]

Isn't that the same? both are symmetric one with the other.
However put in this way the question makes more sense than the initial one

ok that they are symmetries one to the other.
the doubt was to quantify the "maximum possible diameter", the physical piece produced will have errors also of symmetry.
If I quote the same piece in order with respect to a origin, it would be necessary to apply free tolerances (if not otherwise explicit) to know the relationship between one entity and another.

 

[biz]

it should be the uni72261, but it could be obsolete too.
You should check on the site one, or wait for someone more updated.
If I am not mistaken in any discussion on quotations, it was indicated which was in force.

recommend this: iso 22081

 

[Split]

In this case, therefore, we use the free symmetry provided by the iso cited to design of 0.6mm among all the elements between them right?

 

[wert]

the piece, as it is quoted can not be uniquely interpreted, therefore susceptible to disputes in case of dimensions considered non-conform. if the design in question was made by a technical office of a company that then realizes the piece inside, then all the saints help (just a phone call...). but if the design is made to go into the hands of a third party, it leaves open the possibility that, in the presence of non-form dimensions, it is not possible to assign the responsibilities to the third party. then, or you quote the piece following 22081, with all the indications imposed by the gps ( geometric tolerances), or you forget about the half-carry and quoti all the departures of the interassi from a plan that you will take as reference. the symbol = = is no longer applicable for a long time (nx, for example, does not have it in symbol library).