Their philosophy is rather simple: define the drawing and send it out for the quotes for multiple suppliers. Now, if we are going to ask each supplier which way they “would like to see” our drawing defined, then we will be in a never-ending cycle of permanently and constantly changing drawings...
Burunduk,
So in your opinion, you would use 8x size (Ø.500±.015) and 8x position AND CF symbol? I am thinking that because of what you posted
"The number of surfaces "n" that are included in the CF, such as “n SURFACES,” may be added beside the “CF” symbol."
or you would NOT use 8x for...
If would be up to each supplier then we will use only plus minus. No other controls. And beside of that each supplier has its own QA and their interests and vastly opposed. I have only drawing and not 5 or more -one for each supplier-
Yes, it is true. Runout is is not feasible due to the...
Will those 3 proposed solutions provide the same mathematical definition ?
If not, what would be the differences between them?
Is it really a good idea to ask each supplier which method they would prefer? (we are sending those parts for quotes/ be made by differnt suppliers)
I might get...
I am confident that the actual function, design intent and the datum reference frame are adequately covered. The question I have, at this time, is how to define in ASME the pattern of those arcs? What would be the best / standardized method?
3DDave,
Runout option has been explored before, but since this feature it is not easy accessible (nor can rotate due to other features involved) this runout option fall by the wayside.
So which option would you prefer:
CF + position on the phantom circle
OR
8x .500±.015 + 8x position to main...
I have a faucet plastic component which has gaps/ interruptions along the circumference of an outside diameter. I cannot share the entire part, but something which is very similar is shown below. The outside diameter has 8 gaps around the 360° degrees which creates 8 arcs.
How can I define those...
Couple of questions:
1.) If drawing shows ASME Y14.100 only, should I understand that rule#1 is enforced? Or only if ASME Y14.5 invoked directly (shown on the face of the drawing) implies envelope principle being in charge?
2.) How to interpret what tolerances are applicable to the dimensions...
ISO 16792:2021 it is for MBD, but my question is not really related with it even it is invoked in the TDP (Technical Data Package).
1. If a pattern has 5 holes and only one hole is detailed, then what is the best way to show that are actually 5 holes?
5x under the detailed view or 5x for the...
Probably instead of saying "it is Ok" you should have asked "it is clear for the reader of this drawing", otherwise stated does the drawing specify clearly and unambiguously the requirements?
Try
https://tdp360.com/
Bryan R. Fischer is an up-to-date expert on ISO, member of ISO committees for US.
Note: I am not affiliated with any companies.
Is this ISO or ASME drawing?
Because in ISO "A-B" (where "A" is a planar surface and "B" is a cylindrical surface) DOES make sense and it is valid.
However "A" SECONDARY and "B" TERTIARY are pushing the line of absurdity.
Do you think movable datum target could be used on flexible parts - subject to free state variation?
Or maybe the standard's intent has always been to use it for rigid parts only?
Any examples, books, training materials to support this approach.
Looks like there is still room for (more) arguments and ISO is not crystal clear on this aspect.
Does not look like I have enough support from the standards and its theory to go back to the designer to have the print corrected.
Should I understand that this subject is not clearly defined by the ISO standards?
Or offer multiple legal interpretation?
What is a standard industry practice?
