symmetry Q

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • symmetry Q

    See attached Symmetry 0.5; I say BAD; need some backup on this one...
    Please HELP!!!

  • #2
    Originally posted by Rob_K View Post
    See attached Symmetry 0.5; I say BAD; need some backup on this one...
    Please HELP!!!
    Nothing attached?
    Bill Jarrells
    A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. - Mark Twain

    Comment


    • #3
      RE Symmetry Q

      Sorry, was to ... to be carfull
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • #4
        Not sure what "language" your drawing is talking - but - shouldn't there be a datum reference with the symmetry symbol? I see the plunger attached to 1 side, so "maybe" they want 1 side symetrical to the other??
        RFS Means Really Fussy Stuff

        When all you have is a hammer - everything looks like a nail....
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Symmetry FCF requires a Datum Ref.

          Are they trying to control all 4 notches together along a single Axis? Is that Axis a Datum (If so, what features are they using to define the Datum)?

          It looks to me like the Engineer wanted to establish a Datum using the 4 notches and report each notch symmetrical to that datum but the print section you sent does not state that. It just appears at first glance to be trying to control that.

          Tell them Symmetry Needs a Datum Ref and you cannot inspect as drawn. See what they really want to know.
          Bill Jarrells
          A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. - Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #6
            The point is, there is no Datum.
            Therefore, GDT is wrong.
            I told them all, before I posted thread and this isn't the only GDT set wrong on same drawing.
            I don't want to see what they really want trough conversation or small talk, I want clear drawing.
            Word engineer should be a good word meaninig something, but I'm seek of it.
            I'll print this responses and try to reason them, that A LOT of knowledge is needed if somebody wants to work in car industry
            Guys, go ahead, any opinion(of any kind) is wellcome

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rob_K View Post
              The point is, there is no Datum.
              Therefore, GDT is wrong.
              I told them all, before I posted thread and this isn't the only GDT set wrong on same drawing.
              I don't want to see what they really want trough conversation or small talk, I want clear drawing.
              Word engineer should be a good word meaninig something, but I'm seek of it.
              I'll print this responses and try to reason them, that A LOT of knowledge is needed if somebody wants to work in car industry
              Guys, go ahead, any opinion(of any kind) is wellcome
              Like I said, tell them that your report will say "Unmeasurable" with a note that you cannot inspect to current drawing. You will find out what they really want. I did not mean to suggest you take a verbal description. But, putting "unmeasurable" or "nonsense" on the report does get attention. I do it once in a while. Trust me.
              Bill Jarrells
              A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. - Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kbotta View Post
                Not sure what "language" your drawing is talking - but - shouldn't there be a datum reference with the symmetry symbol? I see the plunger attached to 1 side, so "maybe" they want 1 side symetrical to the other??
                I agree. I think the engineer intended one side to be the datum. The only hint is the open trinagular feature he drew at the right side of the FCF call. So i think he wants the one side to be symmetrical with the other.

                This is just bad GD&T. Wow. Just when you think you'd seen it all. You will have to ask your customer for clarification. I agree with others that this is probably not even following the standard (what standard do they claim for this print?).


                Jan.
                ***************************
                PC-DMIS/NC 2010MR3; 15 December 2010; running on 18 machine tools.
                Romer Infinite; PC-DMIS 2010 MR3; 15 December 2010.

                Comment

                Related Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X