Out of those options, I like twin the most.  Double doesn't convey the similarity, and an identical component would, in order to be identical, have the same part number.

 

Or perhaps 'clone'.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

If they are "exactly the same" except for part numbers, then I would call them identical components... and a mistake.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."


Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of these Forums?

I believe "Duplicate" would be the better term ... but I agree with MadMango with regard to it being a mistake.

Hang on about this 'mistake' business.

At a previous employer we had 2 similar product lines but for different government offices/desk officers.

Some of the parts were functionally common but because of the different contracts etc. covering the 2 product lines couldn't be the same number.  If the part had to be revised, then one office might not have wanted to pay for the revision to be taken up through the drawing pack/drawing list.

In this case 'equivalent' components was perhaps a better term.



(Of course there was a counter argument to this whole situation if revision really meant revision or assigning a second pn only when the parts diverged etc. but that's for another day.)

Why not just call it "Same as"?

And to KENAT's comment, yes!  In many instances, they should be the same part number, but there are many cases where they should not be.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

Hello all
 I really appriciate your prompt response to my question. Thank you all.
 Last year I was working in a Structure Design Project and at the Detailed Design Phase of it I realized that we had a lot of X components (where X=Double/Twin/Identical/Dublicate/Same As/....) due to the "Skeleton-Dress Up method" of the used CAD system (one of the two major in the market).  
  So, more or less MadMango is right. Having X components is a waste of user time, computer resources and slows down the CAD system.
  Due to this I decided to develope a method and a CAD add-on application which at the end of 'Transitional Phase Design' will eliminate any selected (or all) X components by replace them with the master one and all this without any effort from user side. Now having finished this application I'm looking for a proper name for it.

So, what is the right name for this application? Double Components Manager?/Twin Components Manager?/Dublicate Components Manager?/Same As?/...?

-GEL
  

Duplicate Dominator
Duplicate Destroyer
Un-Duplicator

Is your utility similar to http://www.3dpartfinder.com/en/Home.aspx

I'd say 'duplicate component manager' sounds best out of the options you give.

Doesn't mean there isn't a better option though.

ShapeSpace is another from http://www.shapespace.com/

In this context, I agree with the use of "duplicate" as well.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."


Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of these Forums?

"Department of Redundancy Department Manager".

Although, as a personal title, I like "Un-Duplicator".
especially if you say it with a German accent like AHHHHNOLD.

"I'll be BAAAACK to check your PAAAAAT NUMBER"

How about "similar to"?
You can call the application "Against similarity App" or in short ASA. If you want you can call it "App Against Similarity", you can work out the acronim for that.

"Application to Stop Similarity"

though similarity isn't the best word here I think.

NX 7.5
Teamcenter 8

I program to make it so all sources use only one name to describe one object?

I'd name it Tower of Babel.

The Highlander Project: there can only be one.

I have no idea, but the OP should not be using the word, "which."  The OP should be using the word, "that."

carry on. . .

f-d

¡papá gordo ain't no madre flaca!

to parse the question:

Double - can be doubled components in an assembly, hence potentially ambiguous.

Twin - not always truly identical.

Identical - would truly be the same including part number.

"Duplicate" is used in collecting circles, i.e. stamps, money, ephemera, where multiples exist of the same item perhaps with different numbers or other marks.

However, in this situation, I've seen both "revision" and "iteration" used, even though only the part number is what was iterated or revised.

Why not "equal" or "equivalent"?

Are they from the same manufacturer?  If not, one could be second sourced.

eg the NEC 7201 and Intel 8274 MPSC are the same chip functionally.  The package is the same size, the pinouts are the same.  You could say the NEC 7201 is a second source of the Intel 8274.

Reasons to have X components (where X=Double/Twin/Identical/Dublicate/Same As/Iterating/Similar/Revised....) can be:
1. Have been designed in the CAD system as two separate Parts or Assemblies by the same or different designer.
2. Due to the use of Mirror command.
3. Part of the design has been subcontracted.
....

Unintentional : Duplicate
Intentional : Equivalent or Alternative