×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Convention for specification of quantities
3

Convention for specification of quantities

Convention for specification of quantities

(OP)
In the company where I work for we must write instructions for every operation that manufacturing performs. Assembly instructions, rework instructions, test protocols, etc. We are required to spell out the quantities of items specified and then in parentheses place the numerical equivalent as follows:

Bolt plate 'A' to bracket 'B' using four (4) #6-32....

Is there a valid reason for this?

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

Nothing wrong with it. Just clarifing the quantity. After docs have been copied, scanned, faxed, etc, a 4 could look like a 9 and a 7 looks like a 1.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

Also gives people a chance when they're dealing with authors whose handwriting is like mine.

A.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

Unfortunately, the #6-32 looks like H5-82, as well. So you should write that out in long hand, too.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

(OP)
I can sort of see the copying argument, but a fresh copy is printed when it is issued. Its not like these are written in pencil, they are Word documents.  The # was just to illustate the question. I don't use that as part of the description. I guess I am just sick to death of writing work instructions.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

For (4) me, it's easy to (2) see why one (1) could get frustrat (8) ed.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

(OP)
Thanks. That was a great reply!

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

No (0) problem.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

You may print fresh copies everytime, but someone somewhere is making copies and faxing.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

This was a convention used by the military (maybe it still is).  All aerosapce/military documentation required it.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

You're correct sreid.
I just can't find the spec right now.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

(OP)
Not in this house. The documents in question are for internal use only. Actually, the users manual (medical lasers)is done that way, so you are correct.

We, rather this company, gets carried away with procedures. I write assembly procedures before the parts are even ordered, then an electrical engineer will review and make his recomendations as how he wants it assembled. He is Project leader, so I have to defer to him. Next the Director of Engineering reviews them and makes changes. Finally manufacturing will start to work with the procedures and I make thier changes. Then the document is released. It wears me out.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

Why not do a global search and replace ? could be dangerous admittedly.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

I've always used the parentheses around quantities and I've seen it in many different industries.  I assumed it was a standardized method of indicating quantity.  If you're looking to separate how many you need from whatever part number or ID number there is, just look for the number in parentheses.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

The convention I've always seen and used is to use numerals for multi-digit numbers, but for single digit numbers use the word followed by the numeral in parenthesis.  

I think it became a somewhat standard practice because it is VERY EASY to mis-interpret, mis-read, or have a typographical error in a single digit.   Yes, errors are possible for multi-digit numbers, but I think both the likelyhood and consequences of errors are greater for single digit numbers.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

The grammar book says numbers for multi-digit numbers, words for single-digit number... nothing about adding redundant digit for single-digit number:

http://www.grammarbook.com/numbers/numbers.asp

I can imagine maybe there may be a more rigid standard applied for instructions than for general writing.  Plus, some folks are just plain anal.  There's not much you can do about it if one of them is your boss.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

(OP)
Electricpete,
Thank you, you hit the nail right on the head. The key word here is 'anal'. Also, I do see the point for the parentheses for single digits. I realise that when it comes to engineering documents the rules of grammer do not always apply. So thanks to all who replied.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

(OP)
OK everyone, here is another question. Does do any of the companies for which you work still require you to make spec control drawings for purchased standard off the shelf cataloge items?

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

This way of writing (WRITING) is just very silly (SILLY). If the issue is readability (READABILITY) after copying or faxing (by the way, have you noticed, in the year 2006 you can fax a document back and forth seven (7 (SEVEN!!)) times and still read it), why not use a larger (LARGER) font size so everything (EVERYTHING (E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G)) can still be read, not only the numbers (NUMBERS).

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

that was  t-w-o  t-h-o-u-s-a-n-d  s-i-x (just in case anybody wanted to print this thread and fax it to China)

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

epoisses,
It would have to be translated first, even worse!

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

gmarken, my company requires drawings for COTS components, but that is a topic for another thread.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Steven K. Roberts, Technomad
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

I would bet that the habit to spell out quantities has originated in the accounting/finance/banking field to prevent financial documents forging and abuse.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

And US business leaders think it's cheaper to do buisness out side the US. DUH!
We're going down!!!!

Best regards
pennpoint

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

Beware - in the field of accounting, numbers in parentheses are negative numbers. So much for there being a standard!


Slight aside: why are parentheses referred to as 'brackets' over here in the UK? Is this is case elsewhere too?

----------------------------------
  I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy it...

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

In USA:
(parentheses)  [brackets]

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

Thanks Chris. The [...] are colloquially known as 'square brackets' over here, and (...) are just known as 'brackets'. The true meaning in Britain is probably just as you suggest.

----------------------------------
  I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy it...

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

So, if the copier is not set on "lighter"

Z <> 2
I <> 1
l <> 1
I <> l
0 <> O
C <> O
C <> 0
Q <> O
0 <> Q
6 <> 8
B <> 8
b <> 6
3 <> 8
9 <> 8
7 <> 2
5 <> S

N0w y0u 5ee why.   101

   Going the Big Inch! worm
http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

If we directed all our collective frenetic energy that now goes into grammar and spelling into copying machines instead, we could have this whole problem solved before the end of this afternoon.
big smile

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

If you did that, they would jam more often!

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

If you're doing these in Word, why not use the AutoCorrect option?

If you type 'four', then Word will write "four (4)", or if you type (4), Word will write "four (4)"....

It's also a great tool to play jokes on your office mates!  When they type something common, such as the company name, you can have Word replace it with "Please call IT immediately at 555-5555"... tongue

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

re: ctopher,

As I recall...

{braces} or {curly braces} and [square brackets] versus <angle brackets>

RE: Convention for specification of quantities

Every engineer ought to be familiar with the concept of redundancy - repeating a number in digits as well as spelling it out is a good example. We all make mistakes and copiers can mis-read characters - but it's unlikely that the same mistake will be made twice.

So it's down to common sense whether you do it or not -
if it's not obvious or if it's critical, then spelling out the number is a darn good idea.

If I'm quoting for a job worth a lot of money, I always write 'our price is 4 500 000 (four million five hundred thousand)'. If I've made an error in one format, it's unlikely I'll make the identical error in the other.

(But it doesn't matter because it always costs 6 million anyway)

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources