Hello Dean, Thanks for making the video. It seems like not many people who have this kind of knowledge ( designing, inspecting…) dare to demonstrate this kind of GD&T in both ways, on a whiteboard and on a surface plate or even on a CMM. You’re one of the best instructors 👍
Thank you so much for your instructional videos. They have helped me with part inspection immensely. I work for a CNC shop and am the night time inspector. Would it be possible for you to make a video that demonstrates the different ways and applications for using Jack stands during bench inspection? I'm told they can be helpful with flatness and some profile call outs.
Hi Dean, this is fantastic! Thank you for clearly explaining the table work with the gd&t controls. I've had a difficult time finding resources that explain this. I've gone through the Y14.5-2009 standard and the resources from James Meadows. Do you have any resource recommendations for the information you're covering? I'm looking forward to digging through your videos... Thanks again!
Hi Dean, Good Day! Thank you so much for your explanation. Understood very nicely.. In that drawing, used total run-out on flat surface with respect to datum A.. So I have two queries here please clarify me.. 1. Can we use total run-out on flat surface? 2. If we use perpendicularity here with respect to datum A instead of total run-out, what will be the difference? Thank you in advance, Best regards, Nakul Shindhe Infosys, India
Hi, Great question! I hope to make a video about it soon. Basically, perpendicularity and total runout mean the same thing in the application. Both require a tolerance zone that consists of parallel planes that are perpendicular to the datum axis. The planes move toward the surface until the smallest distance is found, this will be the reported value with either tolerance. The "Total Indicator Reading" is the distance between these two imaginary tolerance zone planes. Total runout can only be used on a flat surface that is perpendicular to the datum axis.
Excellent video Dean, it's great to watch you simplify what initially appears to be a complex control. Out of curiosity, why are you doubling your max deviation from nominal to obtain your measured value for profile of a surface? Are you doing this specifically to comply with the actual value definition given in Y14.5.1-2019 or are you doing this to comply with what I believe to be traditional ISO requirements? The actual value definition given in Y14.5.1-1994 required two actual values for profile of a surface, namely the max deviation in each direction from nominal (no single actual value was allowed for a bilateral profile tolerance), and I believe Y14.5-2018 references Y14.5.1-1994.
Hi, Thanks for the very informed comment. I'm using the Y14.5.1-2019 version of the math standard that specifies the single value for profile. I'm using the new measurement data reporting standard for this video, as well as a few future videos. It's tough that the new math standard came out after the latest Y14.5. I'd take a guess that most people haven't heard of the math standard or the measurement data reporting standard. I checked the precedence of standards in 2018 and didn't see the math standard, even though the 2009 version did mention the math standard. Perhaps they were "future proofing" for these kinds of situations, or maybe I missed it somewhere else in the text. In any case, thankyou for the input and moving the conversation in an interesting direction.
