I get the idea that more companies are getting away from the integration of the part number format into the document number format. For example, in older, best-practice companies, 123456 is the document number and 123456-03 is the part number designation. (Tabulated part-number methodology...
SAE J2197 generically calls out "0.500-16-ACME-2G-RH-EXT" but I don't find anything in that Standard with respect to an SAE ACME threadform Standard. I am assuming that they are trying to specify "0.500-16-ACME-2G per ASME B1.5-XXXX". Do others agree? If so, doesn't it seem odd that SAE would be...
In another thread, Jim said "... inspection software doesn't follow the standard in most cases." I also heard this from an instructor and another individual who leads 'Quality' for a large medical instrument company. They both agreed that one brand of software does the best job meeting ASME...
Perhaps some of us come to GD&T with too much baggage. I am hoping that ASME Y14.5-Next will take away some of the redundant symbology and hand out datums only when simultanaity is insufficient. Less is often better, in my opinion. A thread 100 posts long with many very capable minds in turmoil...
Has anyone seen such a thing in print anywhere? I can imagine that anyone attempting such a feat would immediately solicit controversy, but it seems as though a good one could be very helpful. If it is out there somewhere, I would like to study it.
Peter Truitt
Minnesota
A supplier is proposing that they ship us quantities of parts in boxes with (among other information) the quantity and a significant "Serial Number" using a code for date, shift, and machine number. They are not stating a specific number of parts per box. I guess I always associate a serial...
In a future version of Y14.5, it seems as though 'Profile of a Line' could be defined as a circular tolerance zone that follows and path, be it 1-D, 2-D, or 3-D. (Maybe not 4-D, though.) I attached an illustration. I like the 'sphere following a path' idea that I heard in that other endless...
I am interested in using statistical tolerancing on upcoming projects, but I am not sure what the Cpk will be based on if the 'size' nominal is not the same as the 'form' nominal if I use bonus tolerance. Is there a formula that averages the two or weighs them? Is it correct to say that 'form'...
ASME Y 14.100 is a fine Standard, but it does not give the reader an understanding as to how, at a very high level, design documentation guides an organization in critical ways. It also does not get into efficient design document control methods very deeply. The best book, in my opinion, that...
I want to use the Y14.5-2009 4.24.6 "Movable Datum Target Symbol" and the Y14.8-2009 3.14.2 "All Over This Side of the Parting Line" symbol with my 2009 version of Solidworks. I guess I could create a block, but maybe there is a better way. Does anyone know if this is doable? If so, please...
Consider simultaneous requirements Vs SEP REQT in the case of a part that a machine shop could make in it's sleep. (An ultra-process-capable part.) If simultaneous requirements are presented, maybe just one checking fixture or one CMM setup would result. But what if the SEPT REQT callout caught...
I expect to back off an approach to tolerancing that I am taking which is understandably unpopular with a valued supplier. But here's what keeps going thru my head: When it comes to rather small, uniform injection molded or die-cast parts, tolerances are more based on inch/inch or mm/mm than...
I am frustrated by folks who think that doc-control/CM solutions come automatically when a company installs a PDM system. In my experience, this wishful thinking has had the opposite effect. Basic best practices for engineering document control is nearly impossible to achieve because the PDM...
I would appreciate your opinion. I would also like to know if you work for a small or large company. And I would also like to know if your company is highly regulated (such as medical or aviation) or not. (I am wondering if size or business focus affects the definition a company might have...
These two authors recommend different approaches to document and part numbering. One of them speaks of structuring bills of materials such that multiple top levels contain unique parts and minimal additional levels containing parts common to all of the parents. So each level might or might not...
