This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
(OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtlLIllpl1w&fe...
What does the teacher indicate is GD&T? He slaps the feature control frame. As if they are the same thing. Earlier he basically says that GD&T is a subset of Y14.5, starting some 20 pages in after the definitions and rules.
This is why it's important to stamp out the 'GD&T' concept and replace it with the names given in the standard. There is no definition for it and users just make up whatever they think it means, which is not a common language, but like the fall of the Tower of Babel.
What does the teacher indicate is GD&T? He slaps the feature control frame. As if they are the same thing. Earlier he basically says that GD&T is a subset of Y14.5, starting some 20 pages in after the definitions and rules.
This is why it's important to stamp out the 'GD&T' concept and replace it with the names given in the standard. There is no definition for it and users just make up whatever they think it means, which is not a common language, but like the fall of the Tower of Babel.





RE: This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
However, do you have to rub out noses in how great your life/career is.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
There are geometric tolerances and standards of applying and interpreting them.
Geometric Dimensioning and Geometric Tolerancing is rather redundant, don't you think?
I see and hear people slightly misinterpreting the nomenclature semi-often in the real world but guess what... everyone knows what everyone is talking about, and when disagreements or confusion is introduced, there is a written standard that clarifies things and then we all move forward on the same page.
I bet you can't handle it every time someone says "ATM Machine"
_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5
RE: This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
JNieman, pretty sure there are no geometric dimensions. Good luck finding it defined in any version of Y14.5. Also good luck finding a distinguishing characteristic that separates 'geometric dimensions' from 'non-geometric dimensions' in the area of dimensioning, tolerancing, and drafting.
RE: This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
Dave, please take a look at following websites:
http://www.etinews.com/index.html - A. Krulikowski's business;
http://www.geotolmeadows.com/index.htm - J. Meadows's business;
http://www.tec-ease.com/ - D. Day's business;
https://www.geotol.com/ - A. Neumann's business;
https://www.advanceddimensionalmanagement.com/ - B. Fisher's business;
These are companies established/owned either by members of the Y14.5 subcommittee or members of the support group. The "GD&T" appears on every single home page. Are you trying to say that these guys do not really understand what they claim they are familiar with? Are you implying that "they didn't read and understand enough to be bothered by the fact that "geometric dimensioning" is not defined or described"?
I hope you at least don't think the teacher from the youtube link made that circularity mistake because he had used "GD&T" so nonchalantly
RE: This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
I don't need the word "geometry" defined for me in ASME Y14.5. Suffice to say, there are a great many words I do not need defined for me in ASME Y14.5 because my knowledge of those words is derived elsewhere. I think a generous application of such common sense would suit this topic well.
_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5
RE: This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
Would that be to much of a stretch of English language?
After all, both ISO and ASME are seeing parts being made up by features and said features have geometry - they are planes, cylinders, cones, etc., etc.
"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future
RE: This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
Regarding CH's suggestion, I agree that the "Dimensioning and tolerancing of geometrical features" can be a long way of saying "Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing". I am just wondering... Doesn't it fit to the old-fashioned D&T as well?
RE: This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
ge·o·met·ric (adjective)
of or relating to geometry, or according to its methods.
ge·om·e·try (noun)
a branch of mathematics that deals with points, lines, angles, surfaces, and solids
"Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively."
-Dalai Lama XIV
RE: This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
RE: This is what I mean by misrepresenting the subject matter.
I agree that "geometric dimensioning" is not defined in the standard and the term was probably not intended. It's dimensioning and tolerancing of geometry. In hindsight, "dimensioning and geometric tolerancing" might have been a better term.
The thing that distinguishes geometric tolerancing is the use of tolerance zones. So "zone tolerancing" would be more descriptive.
Even better, we could have had Dimensioning And Feature Tolerancing. "Did you hear that Y14.5 has released another DAFT standard?". "Take it easy, those guys are doing the best they can".
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca