Measuring line profile and basic dimensions

[Rob J]

One of our suppliers reported back a line profile that indicated the part was good. However on further measurement I found one edge was wrong. That edge has a bunch of angled faces with multiple radii. So I did not add any basic dimensions as it would have really clutter the drawing. The metrology lab from the supplier stated they only measure the basics for the line profile and report back whether all the basic dimensions meet the tolerance defined in the line profile.

From my understanding:
"Profile of a line is measured using a gauge that is referenced to the true profile at the given specific cross-section. Because there are an infinite amount of 2D cross-sections of any part, the number or locations of measurement points can be specified on the drawing."

The part that gets me is the second part which states the number or locations of measurement points can be specified. But is doesn't state that the basic dimensions are those defined points.

Do you have to put any basic dimensions on a view where a line profile is called out?
Can you just put points along the profile of where you want them to measure but not actually put basic dimensions?

What is the correct way to ensure the supplier understands that a line profile is the entire profile and not just the few basic dimensions on the print? And I do have the circle on the line to indicate all the way around.

Any insights and opinions would be greatly appreciated.

 

[3DDave]

Education isn't part of the contract. The supplier has already lied about their ability to fulfill the contract and there are teaching teams they can hire if they want to fix their lack of understanding.

Current relationship - working with liars. How much education is required to overcome that? Questions are before the signatures are placed, not after. Shame on whoever approved them as a supplier; consider replacing them as well.

If there is an ASME Appleseed who wants to go door to door planting the seeds of Y14.5 that's great. Let the Y14.5 Committee members get right on that. So far they paywall access to that education, so that's not going to happen.

 

[Burunduk]

If there is an ASME Appleseed who wants to go door to door planting the seeds of Y14.5 that's great. Let the Y14.5 Committee members get right on that. So far they paywall access to that education, so that's not going to happen.

Just like with any field of knowledge, if you want to get that knowledge, you have to pay for it with time, money, blood, sweat and tears. There will be no communist campaign for free ASME dimensioning and tolerancing education.

 

[3DDave]

If you are losing blood studying Y14.5, if you are sweating or crying? That's just sad, and it should not oblige others to suffer the same.

ASME has an office on Park Avenue in New York City, the most expensive commercial real estate in the USA. Their publications are based on efforts by self-interested volunteers, many who make a living explaining this garbled mess they produce. While cost of distribution has neared zero, the cost of their product has skyrocketed - again, not because the ASME is passing on the cost of development, they have no cost of development and only a small cost in page layout, which isn't particularly good considering.

Cry me a river over the personal suffering a White Knight goes through.

 

[Garland23]

I'm still relatively new here, but I detect a pattern when these two guys get into a discussion. And it ain't brotherly love.

 

[BiPolarMoment]

You're not wrong...

 

[Burunduk]

3D,
"garbled mess"?
So you paid for training by a committee member that was not worth the money.
That's the most probable explanation for your frustration with Y14.5 as well as those who write it and teach it.
Better read the source. Y14.5 is written in your native language, is absolutely readable, and is much cheaper than training courses.
 
 

 

[3DDave]

I recall you started here with what was seeming to be an endless number of questions about it. Kind of communist to not pay for that training. Was it not clearly readable then? The people coming here with questions about it indicates it is not readable to them. As a fellow communist you appear quite happy to help them for free, even if it is mainly copying and pasting for free from a book that you seem to believe should cost more.

I do find it quite readable and full of gaps and holes and some contradictions. Perhaps a closer reading on your part will find them as well, but for that you would have to notice. "Never expect a person to notice what their pride depends on them ignoring." As a native speaker those problems are hard to miss.

I once posed a question to a member of the committee about the ASME on-line "Are you ready" quiz; the committee response was to take the quiz off the website. All I did was look at what the tolerances allowed, something the committee had not done. Perhaps it wasn't so readable to them either.

It seems not right to have to pay for explanations that should be part of the document. If that way of creating a standard gives a person a sense of superiority over co-workers and strangers on the internet, I can understand that person becoming very vocal in defense when that basis is challenged.

 

[Burunduk]

My questions about Y14.5 were usually pointing out the true gaps, unlike your typical pettiness or misunderstandings. Those questions drove discussions. I never claimed the standard is perfect or doesn't have any gaps, but a "garbled mess"? Far from it. If you think it is that bad, how are you a "D&T" consultant? Maybe you refer to GOST standards? It's very communist to constantly complain about how those you aren't fond of act out of greedy motives.