ISO 14405-2 Annex A like pictures

[greenimi]

I am trying to convince some folks around here that dimensioning with ± is a high risk definition (not a robust definition) when not applied for feature of size. I have (from some other discussions here/ threads) a picture from ISO 14405-2 (Annex A). THANK YOU pmarc!

The question or request I have, there are some other examples/pictures available somewhere in the GD and T literature showing the above issue (not very robust product definition). I really would like to have more ammunition for by battle.
Annex A says: “The first in this annex shows several possible interpretations and associated explanations. The other examples only show where the use of ± tolerances causes ambiguity”

Basically I am looking for “ the other examples”
Thank you for your help

 

[CheckerHater]

Not as scary as Fig. A.1 though.

 

[fsincox]

Thanks, CH & pmarc
Frank

 

[CheckerHater]

Fsincox,

There are more "scary pictures" in Henrik S. Nielsen's book, pages 49-52.

You have one, right?

 

[greenimi]

CH,

""scary pictures" in Henrik S. Nielsen's book, pages 49-52"

Can you post them? I would like to get as many as I can.
Anyone who has those "GD and T related" pictures, I am interested to get them.

I am preparing myself for Halloween.

Again, the purpose is : "I really would like to have more ammunition for by battle"

 

[CheckerHater]

@greenimi:
I am not sure posting several pages would qualify exactly as “fair use”. Also, the book is in color and our scanner is B&W and “fax quality”.

But you can find more ammo on Nielsen’s web site:

http://www.hn-metrology.com/gpscauses.htm

And in the included free brochure: