Find numbers in drawing notes

[TWJR]

Hello,

This is my first post, although I've "trolled" for a while and have learned a lot from this forum.

My question is this: I do the drawing checking around here (among other things). Consider a "normal" assembly drawing with an integral BOM table and balloons calling out parts on the field of the drawing. Our CM manager claims that if a drawing note speaks about a find number of a part already called out via a balloon, it has to be in parenthesis, since under this circumstance it must be considered reference (due to the fact that it's already been called out via a balloon). Such as, "Bond (FN 1) with FN 10 per manufacturer's instructions". If a find number 1 balloon exists in the field of the drawing, he says it must be in parenthesis in the note. I've never heard of such a thing, and in my mind, the note is not "calling out" the find number, but simply applying an instruction to it. This seems (and looks) silly to me, and I've not found anything like this in ASME or any other standard. Can anyone comment on this?

 

[ctopher]

I think only if the number is ballooned more than once it has parenthesis. In a note, no.
I may be wrong, but that is how I remember it.

Chris
SolidWorks 11
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[drawoh]

TWJR,

I am less concerned about the official procedure than I am about someone updating the drawing and not screwing up the information. A lot of drafting rules were worked out on drafting boards. I am presently on SolidWorks.

[ol]
[li]Do not type item numbers and part numbers in your drawing notes. If the model that controls this information changes, your notes will not update. In notes, I refer to parts by copying whatever description is used on the BOM. This is less likely to change, and may still be meaningful if changed.[/li]
[li]Whenever possible, if your CAD software allows you to attach model information to your notes, do it that way. These should update reliably.[/li]
[li]With 3D[ ]CAD, consider attaching your notes to the relevant drawing view. This gives you more opportunity to capture information from the CAD[ ]model in an automatic updating state.[/li]
[/ol]

Putting part and item numbers in brackets sounds like a good idea, except that this is a standard for dimensions. If I saw a note like this, I would not be sure of how to interpret the brackets. If the CAD[ ]model changes and the note does not, the drawing user will be just as confused.

--
JHG

 

[TWJR]

That's good advice, drawoh, about trying to keep data parametric. I did so as much as I could when I was making drawings, but these days I'm not making drawings very often. Talk about confusing, you should see some of the notes where someone (by this in-house standard that is not written anywhere) puts the first instance of a find number of, say, an adhesive NOT in parentheses, but then every instance thereafter is in parentheses to indicate reference. So there's actually a mix on some drawings. I could be wrong, but as I said, my take on this is notes are instructions on what to do with parts, not actually part callouts. The part callouts are the balloons in the field of the drawing. I can find a number of drawings that were done here in years past that did not put find number callouts in parentheses, despite a balloon for this same item being in the field of the drawing. Of course, its a manager who says we need to do this, and showing up a manager is sometimes not a good thing, so I'm hesitant to take one to him and say "see?". I get how duplicated dimensions are to be put in parentheses to indicate reference, but never have seen this done before with find numbers in notes.

 

[KENAT]

I never bought into the idea of putting balloons etc. in parenthesis. We had similar arguments and never found direction in the Y14.100 standards.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[TWJR]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, KENAT, I'm talking about find numbers in notes that have already been called out on the field of drawing via balloon. Such as:

NOTES:

1. BOND (FN1) TO (FN6) WITH FN 10.

Where find number 1 and find number 6 have already been designated in a view with a balloon.

 

[KENAT]

You were entirely clear, my point was I never bought into the idea of using parenthesis in your specific case or even generally if balloons are replicated - but that I never found anything in the standards explicitly stating one way or the other.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ewh]

The only time I have used parenthesis when referring to items in the general notes is after I name the item, i.e. "SCREW (FN6)".

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[drawoh]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, KENAT, I'm talking about find numbers in notes that have already been called out on the field of drawing via balloon. Such as:

NOTES:

1. BOND (FN1) TO (FN6) WITH FN 10.

...

This is a perfect example of something that should be attached to a drawing view. I do not how your CAD works. In SolidWorks, I would go to the view, and attach item balloons to the parts. Then, I would attach a note to the parts, click on the item balloons, and type in my text. I would then delete the original item balloons.

At this point, you would see a part ballooned as FM1. You would see a second part with a note attached to it, calling it FN6, and stating that it is to be retained with, oh, how about THERMAL EPOXY. I place adhesives and other chemicals at the bottom of my BOMs. There would be something on the BOM that obviously is thermal epoxy.

--
JHG

 

[TWJR]

Thanks all for your replies. I guess the answer is, it's not supported by standards, although maybe not prohibited either. I just wish if it were "officially" an in-house standard, then it would be stated somewhere in our procedures, instead of "so-and-so says". I want to check drawings based on standards, not "so-and-so says". It's looking like this is something I'll just have to bite my lip and accept. Any wonder where the Dilbert cartoons come from?

 

[ewh]

Ah, tribal knowledge without formal documentation can be difficult to overcome.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV