Greenimi,
I'm not sure why you've turned such a simple question into such an ordeal. You're extrapolating an opinion based on a single section view while making a conscious effort to ignore the context I provided. This is an internet forum, not court of law; if you want proof, print out the...
I think we're arguing in circles over two different things, so let me ask this:
1. Is the measurement valid? (I.e. can it be measured as currently defined on the print?)
2. If valid, what is the physical setup to measure it?
I'm not talking about removing/modifying "hard" measurements for sake of convenience, I'm referencing items that I physically cannot measure as defined, e.g. the parallelism call-out that this thread is about. In those instances, the print needs to be updated to either fix the incorrect...
I'm not sure I understand: If a requirement cannot be measured as defined, why would it be on the drawing in the first place?
My obligation as the supplier is to provide finished goods that meet all specifications outlined on the print; if something cannot be measured, it needs to be removed...
No idea. This is a customer-supplied print, so that's a question for their quality group. For other similar parts, there's typically a direct measurement of the rib/energy director height.
Burunduk,
Thank you for the info/reference, I think this supports my argument that parallelism cannot be measured as currently defined on the print, as there isn't a defined plane for the feature to be parallel to; am I interpreting that correctly?
3DDave,
That's another odd one I've asked...
Hello all, long time reader, first time poster...
I have a customer-supplied print that calls out a Parallelism inspection against Datum D. However, the feature they have defined as Datum D is a non-planar complex surface (it looks flat on the print, but it's not). I have been arguing that we...
