Search results for query: *

Hi pylfrm, yes Y14.5-2009 is the applicable standard - I should have stated that. Thanks! I may be just overthinking this. I'll take a look at it with a fresh set of eyes this morning. Thanks!

Is it acceptable to apply a position tolerance to a basic feature? The form (and orientation) is already controlled by the profile tolerance, however I need to hold tighter control on certain parts of a the profile as they approach LMC. Something like the image below, using position of the...

Runout or true pos would be the obvious choices. Just clutters up the drawing having multiple callouts like that. C'est la vie! I'll probably go with true-pos @ 0 for this part. That tends to lend itself well to functional attribute gaging, which would be adequate for this part. Runout...

Another solution if you don't want to edit title blocks is to specify in notes the surface finish requirement does not apply. @Kevin - I think you may be misinterpreting that section. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not a certified GDTP or anything, but I've always understood it to...

@CheckerHater - I'm always open to a better way of doing something! What do you suggest? Profile of a surface? True pos of 0 at MMC?

Hi, I have a question with regards to clarifying intent using <CF> when there are multiple surfaces of the same size. I've marked up what I want to say, and was looking for help on what would be the best (clearest, least ambiguous, lowest chance for misinterpretation) way to specify this...

Hmmm. Good information - thank you both! I'll have to convey that about the temperature to the chief engineering here. I know I asked about pressure dropping on a hydrostatic leak test once and was told it was likely due to temperature (forcing the hydrualic fluid through the pump orifice...

Couple of good suggestions. @EdStainless - we did test with air at ≈100 psi (110-120 typical shop air here) and the castings which did leak oil at 10,000 psi did not leak air. This test was done by sealing the cylinder and attaching a digital pressure gauge. We then monitored the gauge for...

Hello, I'm having trouble specifying non-destructive examination for inspecting castings (which are used to manufacture high-pressure hydraulic cylinders) prior to machining. I have a casting that has four cylinders machined into it - cylinder is about 2" in diameter by 4.5" deep, and each...

@3DDave - Good points. This is a legacy design we're working with, so not even sure what type of allowance they have for that. The manufacturing process just runs the same program, rotating the part orientation in fixture (so all three sides are machined same way). I know on some of the more...

Thank you gentlemen! Reflecting upon my own intepretation I have to say, I think I was really considering the graphic depiction (section view) to imply the drill was to go to bore and not beyond. I think I was attributing this to the dimension when looking for a way to explain my...

So I have this blind hole which runs into another through hole. We are doing root-cause analysis on why a drill went too deep (into the back side of part, almost through) and it wasn't caught. I observed there was nothing in the inspection plan that required any verification of the depth of...

Hi all, I greatly appreciate the input. I like the idea of supplementing the depiction with the notes, so I will add that. To answer some questions: The example shown is just a representation to describe the situation, not the actual drawing I'm working with - the actual drawing, and the...

Is there an acceptable practice to control runout (axial location) of a feature-set separately from the form of the feature-set (which is controlled on another print)? On this print, essentially, what I want to convey is: THE FORM OF ALL FEATURES FROM POINT X TO POINT Y IS CONTROLLED BY...

@edstainless Yes, lube typically helps, but when the CoF of the substrate is actually less than that of the lubricant - does it still help then? (I've never ran into that scenario before now, and I can't imagine it's very common) Aslo, excellent point in testing at low loads vs application at...

@tmoose I wish I never would have mentioned the nut and bolt, simply because it keeps leading astray from the core of the inquiry: Which is what affect adding a lubricant to an already extremely lubricious (in fact more lubricious than the lubricant) surface would have? Although in the...

@Tmoose, I'm paraphrasing, but it seems the only advice I've received is to do empirical testing. If you look at my original question, the advice I was looking for was how to estimate without testing. It seems that this is not possible, however I find it fascinating that there's no way to...

@tbulena, this CVD coating is new - I'm not aware of anyone else in the industry using this coating. Im disappointed that no one can offer any suggestions towards rough estimation. I realize that empirical testing will be required to obtain any modicum of accuracy, but as I stated in the...

@kingnero I don't have parts to test - I need to determine the numbers theoretically for a calculation. I have not done any empirical testing myself; the steel CoF number provided was just for reference. Most of the resources I looked at listed the static CoF of plain (dry) steel on plain...

I'm running myself in circles trying to solve my own problem. Looking for some smarter minds than mind to slap me straight. I have a nut made of stainless steel. I have a bolt made of alloy steel which has been completely coated in a CVD coating which has a .05 CoF. If I apply...