I need help. I am in the middle of a discussion where the MFG ENG group wants to add a BOM to a OSV part.
Current process is to attached the OSV supplied data sheet to the part number. We do not rev control OSV parts, as we don't control the design. But due to assembly techs not able to...
Everyone thank you for your input. While I won't be taking one of our senior engineers to HR for out processing. The end result is that there is no requirement to have centerlines unless being used to define a feature. And if the feature is already defined in another view the center mark/line...
drawoh - To be clear its not my drawing. That drawing is straight from ASME y14.24-2002, its an example of monodetail part. I referenced it as an example of where the standard shows centerlines being used.
mfgenggear - In the past I've always defaulted to my training as drafter, and to the...
drawoh - Yes centerline provide something to pull dimensions off of. What I'm asking is what requires the centerline if no dimension is being pulled off of it.
3DDave - Losing good talent because I can't prove them wrong is a ridiculous position. You would seriously fire someone because they...
I agree Tick, but does that mean if a standard allows for them to be omitted. Is it inferred they are required unless omitted for clarity?
Also no single view is used to define a part. The two random edges would be resolved by looking at the front view and seeing a circle.
I was referring to Webster as being the standard for spelling things properly. Not that Webster is called out in drawing standard.
I choose not to ignore the pile of dirty dishes in the kitchen sink. I prefer to take care of the problem, rather than pass it on for someone else to deal with.
"suggest" does not mean required, no matter how long its been suggested. Anything less than a standard that states its requirement does not work. Suggestions, opinions, and "what we've always done" are not factual arguments. The individuals position is that it doesn't help the machinist to have...
Morning everyone. I'm having difficulty finding a standard the supports the use of centerlines when NOT used for a dimension. Recently the use of centerlines in a side view was challenged, not because it made the drawing unclear but because the individual didn't want to add them and is...
ASME Y14.5-2018 4.16.1 states "When the center of the radius is not located (tangent located), [highlight #FCE94F]the arcs are tangent to the adjacent surfaces[/highlight]" Between that and our 63rms on the print, sounds like the tangent is controlled.
The tangency between the two surfaces is completely removed if an under cut is added. Which means the two surfaces that should be tangent to each other at any limit are no longer tangent and the part is not made to print.
Sorry about that, thought it was a question from jasso. This is my first thread on eng-tips. I've used the knowledge found here in past discussion and was my first thought as a place to ask for help.
No, I'm not the vendor. I'm the Drafting Supervisor, and I'm responsible for documentation control and configuration management at our business unit.
The absence of data does not mean you get to add your own. The section and image you provided does not state you are allowed to add an...
@jassco - the special requirement has been specified with the use of a tangent arc between two surfaces and diameter dimensions. I've attached a more complete image of the dimensioned view
Thank you for the laugh. Sourcing a new vendor has been recommend.
As far as standards go ASME Y14.5-2018
4.5.2.1 states "Where location of the center is unimportant, the drawing shall clearly show that the arc location is controlled by other dimensioned features such as tangent surfaces"
4.5.5...
We have a part with a cylinders that transitions to a larger diameter with a tapper at both ends of the tapper there is a transitional radius/fillet. See attached image_1
The vender recently devlivered a batch of parts with an "undercut near the smaller diameter. See attached image_2
Their...
