I was wondering if there was any reason to prefer one of these to systems of units over the other. I notice that the "mmNs" setting calculates mass properties in metric tonnes (which doesn't seem convenient for designing parts smaller than, say, a bread truck). Yet it seems that this setting is more popular than the "mmKs".
Is there a good reason for using "mmNs" instead of mmKs?
-Dave Adams-
How about cgs (centimeter/gram/second) as a unit for smaller parts!?! One advantage I've noticed is that cc (cubic centimeter) equals gram or the specific gravity equivalent. One cc of water = 1 gram whereas one cc of steel equals its specific gravity in grams (being about 7.8). Another is that small plastic parts might be reasonably measured in grams but hardly ever in Kilos, Tonnes or Milligrams: most are either too large or too small to be "convenient" units, i.e. ones that do not require more numbers in zeros than integers which itself requires some kind of translation. The trick to Pro/e and its units is that there are units set up for your convenience, but no givens. You can easily make up your own, store it with an name and reuse it at will.
David Janes
David:
Thanks for your response. Your suggestion of the CGS system has a lot of technical merit. However, we are essentially locked into using mm because thats typically what our customers use. It seems to be a "hot button" issue for them too.
In our case we do have some small parts, but we do have a number that are greater than 1 Kg mass, and a number of our assemblies end up being
-Dave Adams-
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.