"you the contractor are responsible for making it right, because you failed to flag/reject the incomplete spec(s)."
Your solution is based upon a false premise. The spec is complete. The part fully meets the requirements of the drawing. No issue -- that is, until someone starts assuming that...
"Measuring across the flats of a parallelogram prism will give you three measurements of 8 inches just like a cube."
I think you're describing a parallelepiped. smarty
Hope your parallelepiped doesn't have holes drilled perpendicular to the top, all the way through, 'caus when they check 'em...
I hope to know in a few days whether the part will be accepted by my customer. If not, we're fully prepared to make whatever adjustments they requrest and will promptly do so to maintain good relations. I will post the outcome.
I very much respect and appreciate the comments of many of the individuals here, particularly comments such as, "without the benefit of a specific standard, such as Y14.5, there is no clear cut definition of the allowables," and, "... the drawing is effectively incomplete."
That answers my...
Court cases, many times, are decided based upon whether or not a claim is reasonable to the average person (jury).
The part meets all of the dimensioned requirements of the drawing. Any reasonable person would agree. Part's good. Case closed.
bvanhiel, you said, "Otherwise your cube could be a 45 degree parallelogram and still be to print."
No it couldn't, not based on the information provided above.
It was plainly stated, more than once, the cube is dimensioned on thre views -- in three dimensions. This precludes your false...
FACT: The drawing gives dimensions for the cube in three views (three dimensions). The hole center points are dimensioned in only one view (two dimensions on one plane or surface). All of the dimensioned features are within the drawing tolerance at the points dimensioned on the drawing. The part...
Correct, KENAT. Our company contracted to make this part amongst others in a bigger job. My customer provided the drawing, and I subbed-out the machining. Inspection rejected the part at receiving inspection.
I'm exptected to respond to a Corrective Action Report (CAR), stating why the error...
fcsuper, said, "The dimensions established a relationship between the center of the hole and the part edge, period."
Your position is precisely the one for which I'm asking for some supporting evidence. You seem to be equating "center point" with "center axis". And that "edge" equates with...
Yes, I could ask for clarification. But the part has already been made. And, it was made under sub-contract to a third-party shop. I can't very well now go to them and ask that they re-make the part in accordance with some "new" standard! Fortunately, the order was for only one and not...
Personally, I think I were going to apply the "because that's the way I do it" standard, the hole pattern SHOULD be the controlling feature, with some perpendicularity constraint with regard to the mating surface.
If we were to apply the "common sense" rule, or "common practice" rule, on this...
This is a real print, and real part. The part was machined by an outside vendor. It's goes on a test fixture, not flight hardware.
There's one threaded hole on top, near one edge which distinguishes top from bottom and gives the part an orientation.
On the drawing all features appear square...
In the third from last paragraph, I should have asked, would the part have to be made .010 larger in order to make the second hole fall within tolerance. And to reiterate, the drawings sets out no standard.
:)
