First, I thank the people who did help me with our discussion.
Peter,
I saw your comment in the other thread; I did not want to reply there as I didn’t want to hijack it. I must admit I have never understood why people object to the freedom of discussion of relevant issues in public forums? From what I have heard the committee meetings tend to spark the same kind of raucous discussions. Is that kind of fun only to be reserved for the elites? It must be hard putting up with us inferior minds, the Nazis had a solution for that, CH showed me they had a mobile version, too.
I would have welcomed your input since you have all the answers. Did you also bother to notice that I, myself, did not want to handle the issue in the proposed manner, but was basically handed this as a fait accompli. I was just told to vet it, “This is the way inspection wants to do it, is it legal?” typical office politics type of stuff. I have said here before how surprised I am how controversial and political things like GD&T, or going metric, really is when you are the one who is trying to implement it.
I have seen proposals for simplifying GD&T, they were going to unify in 1994 you know, what we got instead is something that looks like ISO but doesn’t pass the sniff test, I prefer to judge by the fruits!
I have long thought parallel and perpendicular were unnecessary, that concept went over here like a lead balloon. I would love to see them dump runout for just profile, now that we can officially use it with toleranced dimensions, after all we don’t believe in dictating process or inspection methods. It is not the fault of the working engineers that the committee confused the concept of concentricity (TIR) and runout. People wonder how did this issue get confused, simple, they screwed it up. First they tried to hide it by attempting to replace concentricity completely with position in 1982 at that time it became practically redundant. Then after not succeeding in erasing it from the collective memory, by trying to defining it away, telling us it is just so impractical to actually inspect no one would want to do it. Do they really think every point on a surface gets checked, too? Maybe they really aren’t as smart as they think they are?
Judging by the fruits of what we actually see in ISO, I personally thank God that foreign engineers are not OK with, “Well the center is in there somewhere” kind of thinking and want to know “how much out of round?” or “how much eccentric?”). Even when they adopted the ISO’s idea of specifying a “common zone” for a discontinuous feature they had an opportunity to actually move in the direction of harmonization what did they do, NO, they created “continuous feature”, only works with features of size!
There are too many vested special interests that get gouged when they try. Everyone has their own baggage, I have said here before: “what we in the field need is tools to get the job done”, if that means more tools so be it, if we don’t have the tools to do the job, what good is it anyway.
I hope the next one IS better, I think 2009 is better; I don’t think it is simpler.
Frank
