Difference between revisions of "Best-Fit Alignment Versus Hard-Point Alignment"

From ATTWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Best-Fit Alignment versus Hard-Point Alignment)
(About Best-Fit Alignment)
Line 33: Line 33:
 
This is why best-fit methods are superior to hard-point methods in tube shape qualification.  Both methods are iterative and rotate the tube in space to find the smallest deviation possible.  However, unlike hard-point methods, best-fit methods use more sophisticated averages throughout the entire tube shape – and can even “weight” sections of the tube (like A End and B End) if appropriate.
 
This is why best-fit methods are superior to hard-point methods in tube shape qualification.  Both methods are iterative and rotate the tube in space to find the smallest deviation possible.  However, unlike hard-point methods, best-fit methods use more sophisticated averages throughout the entire tube shape – and can even “weight” sections of the tube (like A End and B End) if appropriate.
 
<br><br>
 
<br><br>
Best-fit alignment can be thought of as a simulation of a real gauge in which the tube is dropped for fit check.  However, the similarity ends if a tube must be forced-fit into the physical gauge.  When a tube is force-fit into a gauge, it may appear to qualify - but only ¬¬¬through changing the shape.  Changing the form of a tube is never allowed in VTube-LASER alignments.  Therefore, qualifying tube shapes using VTube-LASER ensures that deflection of the tube can’t be a factor in simulations of the gauge.
+
Best-fit alignment can be thought of as a simulation of a real gauge in which the tube is dropped for fit check.  However, the similarity ends if a tube must be forced-fit into the physical gauge.  When a tube is force-fit into a gauge, it may appear to qualify - but only through changing the shape.  Changing the form of a tube is never allowed in VTube-LASER alignments.  Therefore, qualifying tube shapes using VTube-LASER ensures that deflection of the tube can’t be a factor in simulations of the gauge.

Revision as of 23:51, 9 April 2012

Vtube-laser logo.jpg



Vtube-laser screen 1 54.jpg




Best-Fit Alignment versus Hard-Point Alignment

The goal in designing a qualification system for a tube shape is to designate the appropriate tolerance in each portion of the tube along the straights, then determine if the tube shape fabricated fits within that system of tolerances. In the tube fabrication world, tolerances generally imply an allowance for deviation in all parts of the tube simultaneously. In most cases, the issue is not if there is a tolerance - but it is how much of a tolerance is reasonable in each part of the tube.

The tolerances are assigned per straight section. They can be reduced at certain sections to ensure that the tube passes through or into tight sections properly. But it’s rare, and usually not helpful, to attempt to fabricate a tube that has zero tolerance.

Alignment methods that work best with this understanding of tube tolerances are those methods that take into account the entire tube shape during alignment.


About Best-Fit Alignment

This is why best-fit methods are superior to hard-point methods in tube shape qualification. Both methods are iterative and rotate the tube in space to find the smallest deviation possible. However, unlike hard-point methods, best-fit methods use more sophisticated averages throughout the entire tube shape – and can even “weight” sections of the tube (like A End and B End) if appropriate.

Best-fit alignment can be thought of as a simulation of a real gauge in which the tube is dropped for fit check. However, the similarity ends if a tube must be forced-fit into the physical gauge. When a tube is force-fit into a gauge, it may appear to qualify - but only through changing the shape. Changing the form of a tube is never allowed in VTube-LASER alignments. Therefore, qualifying tube shapes using VTube-LASER ensures that deflection of the tube can’t be a factor in simulations of the gauge.