quotation advice

[rctimelines]

Now it's clear.

My complete sentence was:

"the other observations I made do not know if they are reported in the legislation, in any case I specified that they were my comments of common sense, so nothing I have to mention. "

and however I have verified that the total sum summary is not an option but is provided by the norm... for an absolutely non-exhaustive overview of only Italian regulations (uni) relating to technical design and quotation. .
http://www.annibalepinotti.it/galleria-di-disegno/normeuni/normeuni.htmlIt should be noted that German (din), English (bs), French (nf), grouped in European (en) and international American (iso) laws are well precedent and much wider... for which there is sufficient information material to quote the design.. without leaving much room to opinions and to allow a judgement on the quality of the work performed.



sent by my nexus 5 using tapatalk

 

[exxon]

@ rctimelinessee, we are in a forum and everyone is free to expose their beliefs, accepting others' criticism (always that you do not confuse in revisionism... ).

but if you put as a hat to your intervention the fact that you must always follow the norms, and then say a set of rules that have little to do with the norms or, as in the case we see, go against the same, the speech changes, and you have to wait for appropriate comments.

you wrote:

In general, we should always quote a whole line (perimeter or section) and bring out the overall measures up to the total sum.

That's not true. It is not written in norms and also contrasts with the point (also mentioned a few lines before) which requires not to quote useless dimensions.

Let's see a typical case.
this is a plate with carving for a fastening screw. the quotation (and the consequent insertion of tolerances) is carried out considering the function of the piece. goes without saying that the quota that refers to the axis of the carving could have as reference the opposite edge, but also the axis of the piece; depends on the function.

If we followed your "rules", we would have something like this
that not only does not give all the necessary information, but at the time of inserting the tolerances would turn into a difficult to interpret.

being "creative" with rules, always leads to these results.

 

[rctimelines]

@exxonI do not want to go further with these controversies, I also frequent other forums and know the types of users. It seems to me that here we want to wield in the polemic by eavesdropping and manipulating every expression. The question must be addressed to the op, if you have it personally with me it does not make sense to continue. Let's see some things clear, I said:

- in order not to give false expectations to the op it must be borne in mind that the quotations of that design are not great.

- to the fact that the op has searched without finding answers in many texts I have simply pointed out that there are a large number of specific technical norms, so all that is needed and that is requested by his prof finds it.. Perhaps the didactic aspect will be precisely in these terms as they will make corrections.

Finally, I have not given creative interpretations of the norms, but only exposed some general rules (other than in contradiction with the norms) that can be followed and to which I personally tend to give order and logic to the quotation.

ps: in the specific case then I would not enter, because it is evidently provocative and in bad faith. I've never said that they don't need unnecessary quotas, but that they shouldn't be rounded up, which is different. the second quotation you made for me is more correct than the first, regarding tolerances, this aspect in fact had been excluded. if they generate chaos well a different method is used.
Finally you have even explained what particular it is about while you first said that the design had to be alien from what it represents (among other things that I think correct).

the fact of being a forum and maybe following self-taught advice does not exclude the existence of rules systems shared in every part of the world. Today, precisely with globalization, it is good to stick to what the rules universally shared and therefore document with the appropriate tools.

I don't understand the meaning of this flame.



sent by my nexus 5 using tapatalk

 

[exxon]

Look, I don't have it with you. I have no reason. what is important is to be precise in what is exposed, so as to make it simple for anyone to verify the reliability of the assertions.

in order not to give false expectations to the op it must be borne in mind that the quotations of that design are not great.

No, you see this need: this is your own evaluation. very personal and in contrast to others (including mine).

if then, about the two examples in #22 write

the second quotation you made for me is more correct than the first

This is enough and advances to frame the situation. That's what I said.

a last statement about your statement

Finally you have even explained what particular it is about while you first said that the design had to be alien from what it represents (among other things that I think correct).

you should read more carefully what I write: I wrote that the quotation should not consider the method of manufacture, but must reflect the functionality of the particular. Does that sound like the same?

and I conclude by pointing out that this is not a "flame", it is necessary to specify to avoid that a student receives incorrect information (see comparison of the two quotations in #22), or to be disincentive for a qualitatively distinct job like that in #1.

 

[rctimelines]

Look, I don't have it with you. I have no reason. ...

strange, I had the impression of it since at least in the last 5 posts you have done nothing but reply punctually to what I said.

I don't know you but you don't even know me, I made drawings that went practically on every continent and now I have to feel the comments because I made comments and gave advice on listing a third-media design? (I'm not joking, those things I drew, obviously in pencil, about 40 years ago)

Adios



sent by my nexus 5 using tapatalk

 

[exxon]

It's a discussion. statements and replicas, are made like this.

I did not allow myself and would never allow me to comment on your profession, the number of years of experience you have, your degree in engineering or the number of continents in which you sent your designs. I don't have any elements to do that and it wouldn't be of any use for the op.

If instead of the indications I think wrong, I point out. I don't want you to change your mind or give me reason: I don't care. what is important is those who read it clearly that things may not be like you have painted them, making them pass through normative dictates.

if you noticed, when you said that per te the second quotation in #22 is better than the first (which I believe the correct one), I answered you "just enough". you have affirmed your position, I mine, both more or less justified. If the op or anyone else has doubts, he will ask explanations about it.

If you want to pass your statements as excerpts of the norm or claim that they have their intrinsic value permeated by your cited experience or other similar amenities, you will have punctual my reply.

 

[welcome to the machine]

exxon didn't make it to you just not to write "greatness" at the end! I learned to know you and appreciate you but he has times, allow me to tell you, your absolute frankness without compromises presents some corners that not everyone can.... exceed compensation. the belief in their ideas is a force, not a defect, especially if the experience of life and work has returned to you confirmation that those ideas work.
I bet instead that rctimelines, if it doesn't really say adios to this community, will find a way to appreciate your expertise and availability, also because I don't want to miss the opportunity to learn something from its obvious experience.
I don't agree with either of them, but this is another story... I apologize to the op, to which all this won't hurt him!

 

[exxon]

I am very much interested in the fact that on the way to quote you do not agree with either.
How would you do that? Why? Can you highlight it on the designs in #21? pliiiiiis....

p.s. I don't think the @rctmelines adios was addressed to the forum, but to me, or to the maximum thread. I see no reason otherwise.

 

[welcome to the machine]

I should like to thank the rapporteur for his work.
As regards quotation, mine is only an observation of principle rather than method, in fact I would have quoted accurately in the way indicated at the first point of the #22, this because I always tend to identify myself in the operator of the machine and to provide the indications that need him in the most direct way possible, compatibly with the "cleaning " of the design. If I'm interested in the needle axis being at a certain distance from the top edge of the piece, I'm quoting exactly like this, without making any case more than that if the quota lines cross or not.
In general, and here I have found a difference with what seemed to me to understand also in other your posts on the subject, in the quotation I tend to favour more the execution of the piece, therefore also taking into account the machine tool or the procedure with which it will be realized, that not the possibility then to carry out control measures after production. Sometimes these two instances coincide, sometimes not.
and in any case if your example's enchantment should be made by loading the data in the car and not by the cam, I would have quoted otherwise. but I have no certainty of being on the side of reason. probably this approach comes from the fact that I usually come down to the workshop to see... what happens and I worry about doing as much as possible ex ante to make the pieces look good. Moreover, what I have to build hardly requires very accurate dimensional controls before assembly and, in general, we have decided for a long time to "jump" the preliminary quality control and accept to realize any non-compliance only to the assembly or even to the commissioning. adopt this not method for...the rotor of a helicopter, it would perhaps be unwise.

I believe, in the end, that very much depends on the type of pieces, their function and the production process that we want to adopt. He thinks that sometimes, on pieces that require many stages and more shooting, I put myself to make drawings with quotas also, precisely, of the various phases, starting from the rough....

 

[exxon]

I start with...
Note: if you put the question in these terms, a profitable discussion arises, regardless of whether you think it like me or otherwise. If you had written that quoti differently because you know how to do tortellini well or work on cnc since 1492... I would have responded differently.

Let's go to the technical part. In the meantime, I'm glad you would have quoted as in #22/1. It is important to give the op of clear indications, right in one of the few points of his design that requires a revision.

on the next question, in recent days I thought precisely about the quotations aimed at production and their or less reason to exist. Since your notes are essentially about this topic, I take my thoughts back.

1) the first is a question: How many of you go to the shop with the client's design and use it as a reference? how many instead from the design of the customer get their own executive (or their own executives) with which to get the piece?

the question connects to your phrase "... pieces that require many stages and more shooting...". when a piece also requires only two placements, I am accustomed to making two designs, or at least a drawing with the two views. on the design I want indicated the zero-piece, the material with our p/n, the table with the critical odds to check with the piece still in the machine, the tool list, the file name nc, our design review number (!!!), etc. etc. I really can't imagine how you can work without all (or at least many) this information. Sure, you can swab on a copy of the original design, but... it doesn't seem like the right way.

2) if a piece is intended to be produced in large series, we say a sintered, first a small series of machine will be produced, then the mold will be made. the client will certainly not supply two designs, but the quotation for the two achievements (and also the size of the same quotas!) will be different for the two productions. need more designs than only those who will realize the part can produce. what matters is that the design of the client carries the quotas and functional tolerances, will then be the workshop to realize the executives with all the information to reach (in any case) the prefixed finish.

same considerations can be made in the case of mergers (in which case it serves overmetal), or molding (more stations), etc. etc. more and more drawings will be quoted to make the specific task easier for which they were made.

3) the design of the client is a "contract", is not a support to production. is a bilateral agreement between the client and commission, written in the language of the technical design. does not matter if tolerances are wide or narrow, if the piece is single or a series production.

4) the client's design says what he wants, not how it should be done. Perhaps it already indicates that it is a resumption of machine fusion, but it should not (or should not) indicate how much overmetal to use, as will certainly not indicate shapes and sizes of the slaughterhouses or casting channels.

different situation is for drawing, or executive drawings. always in the case of the fusion, there will be a drawing for the crude (which will contain the appropriate dimensions and tolerances for the piece before the recovery, and a drawing for the processing in the machine, with completely different directions.

♪

to all the fanfare above you can answer "but I only make simple pieces...". I think there should be no difference: simple pieces will have simple designs, perhaps with wide tolerances. However, the methodology should always be the same.

Note on the above: a technical office in which the executives are drawings of the various clients will have a folder with dozens of different templates, different cards, non-congruent numbers, positions of different views, and so on. How much confusion does it result? how long do you lose in looking on different-looking designs the usual information?

another technical office in which the drawings of the clients are together with contracts and offers, while at each piece to produce correspond one or more drawings, all with the same format, with the information tabled in an identical and immediately recognizable way, etc. etc. How long does it save? and above all, how many mistakes do you avoid? all this in a era in which the import of a design is made in electronic format in a few minutes.

By addressing this in these terms, perhaps you can understand why with such an approach it is much more important to have the originals with the quotas aimed at control and not to production.

 

[welcome to the machine]

a few years ago I went to visit an Austrian company that had to build small series of machines we designed. I don't think I break any rules by indicating the site http://www.kostwein.at These gentlemen redesigned all the pieces, as far as we had tried to make them "beautiful " to make our own figure with the Austrians...and they did it exactly for the reasons indicated by exxon: the operators of the machines (some hundred...) received only absolutely homogeneous drawings in the "format" , with all the indications with which they were familiar written in the same way and in the same place of all. with a huge impact on error reduction and the ability to accurately program production in all its steps, even those involving multiple machine tools.

the drawings, but here we are at an unthinkable level for medium-small companies, they were also diffused to the workers of the tool warehouse (about 54,000 pieces already mounted on the cones, if I remember well) that carried out for time the presetting of all the tools associated with the work indicated in the drawings and made them jit to the machine tools ...I manco I have the presetting .
I leave what happened in the control room: I don't think they ever had the need to go back to the cad and ask to add a share of control over the drawings.. .

"to all the fanfare above " I reply that he is right exxon and it would be nice to always adhere to these criteria when drawing. The less you have to believe with conviction.

 

[Lettore espatriato]

@ rctimelinessee, we are in a forum and everyone is free to expose their beliefs, accepting others' criticism (always that you do not confuse in revisionism... ).

but if you put as a hat to your intervention the fact that you must always follow the norms, and then say a set of rules that have little to do with the norms or, as in the case we see, go against the same, the speech changes, and you have to wait for appropriate comments.

you wrote:


That's not true. It is not written in norms and also contrasts with the point (also mentioned a few lines before) which requires not to quote useless dimensions.

Let's see a typical case.
View attachment 52871this is a plate with carving for a fastening screw. the quotation (and the consequent insertion of tolerances) is carried out considering the function of the piece. goes without saying that the quota that refers to the axis of the carving could have as reference the opposite edge, but also the axis of the piece; depends on the function.

If we followed your "rules", we would have something like this
View attachment 52872that not only does not give all the necessary information, but at the time of inserting the tolerances would turn into a difficult to interpret.

being "creative" with rules, always leads to these results.

Apart from a formal error on 80 (and tolerances, as if the 2nd was the poor relative of the 1st...) I think that, without knowing the use, the type of processing and the type of testing, both quotations on that side should enjoy the same consideration.

 

[welcome to the machine]

Can you be clearer? How do you think you should have quoted that piece? to me it seemed only a simplified example (where are the other odds?) useful to understand a concept.

 

[exxon]

a few years ago I went to visit an Austrian company that...

that it is a case that he is the owner and administrator of a company that is based in... austria? ? ?
Maybe it's more than a coincidence... and from Italian I say it with a certain regret.

 

[welcome to the machine]

In fact, at the time I was impressed by the organization not end to itself, so that I could say "look at us as we are ordered " but dictated only by the efficiency of production. in the assembly department, organized for islands chained together, they arrived in sequence very different machines from each other, but around there were always all the necessary pieces, ready on mobile shelves. I noticed boxes for the pieces a little strange, not the usual plastic boxes and they showed me that they were all mounted on scales and, under stock, launched directly (wifi) production orders... "See, we have no secretaries here." I have not asked questions anymore.. .
Excuse me if I went

 

[antonio_sc]

in an old text that I had the opportunity to browse, some time ago, the possibility of even more tables related to the same object (with the odds arranged in a different way, depending on the final recipient to whom the design was addressed): functional, technological (designed to the operator on the machine) and control (for the metrology department). I have never seen anything similar to today in the various realities I have visited. However, as long as functional and technological quotation coincide there are no problems. if this does not happen I have always seen "demandate" to the operator the search for a method that transforms the functional quotas in technological quotas and give priority to the first ones in the design. I am interested however to the discussion and I have noticed that not all adopt the same approach (perhaps also according to the type of company/structure organizational, if the workshop is external / inside etc.).

small anecdote on the Austrians: in my former company, the Austrian branch sent in Italy, together with other components, vans loaded with screws (count!!!) class 10.9 for the machines that were assembled here, because in the past it had happened that on some of these were put vines with classes of random resistance (as said of someone " according to the distance of the arm of the editor from the various shelves...

 

[welcome to the machine]

I'm sure it's a real story and I'm telling you something that I should just tell you in private: it's gonna be a case that to be surprised at that precision, it's you and I who are a little terrified, and that, instead, my friend exxon, pure pious race, doesn't beat any of this? :
p.s. I am joking, be clear to all friends of all latitudes.

 

[exxon]

in an old text that I had the opportunity to browse, some time ago, the possibility of even more tables related to the same object was reported. . .

That's exactly what I was talking about. from us is the technical office that decides how many and what boards to perform for every detail to be realized.

First of all the technical office performs a check on the customer's design, since any errors must be detected even before the production planning. if there are errors, you can not know how long the customer will use to correct them, and the company cannot block other jobs remaining waiting.

if there are no errors or inconsistencies, the file is opened, determined the feasibility and the method of realization (if not already agreed with the customer), and following these operations the production costs and the time of realization for the offer to the customer are determined.

to the confirmation from the customer, the technical office receives the order to execute the executions for the departments, which can be only one table, but also many more (one for cutting the rough from bar, one for turning, one for milling, one for metrological controls, etc.).

what follows does not need further description.

It should be emphasized that this method of work is independent from the company dimension to the precision of the details realized. can also be implemented by the individual craftsman who performs all operations in person. It is not true that operating in this way requires more time or entails greater costs, indeed: most times, structured planning brings benefits even in lower-sized realities.

the real problem is that these things are not taught in schools and, on the contrary, it increasingly takes on an attitude aimed at minimizing immediate work, without any interest in planning. an example is the design made by drawing models from the network and used without any verification or control; or the use of online sizing tools made available by forums, unknown users or small companies without any guarantee of the correctness of the results obtained; or still the use of "opensource" software pieces for the realization of control systems that result then unpredictable operation.

on the screws, I can also tell an anecdote about the realization of a particular plastic of large size, obtained by injection molding, with the insertion of a large number of thread inserts. These inserts are "proved" one by one before their use (with a small machine specially made). this because it would be impossible to replace a defective insert, which would lead to the discard of the finished product at the time of assembly by the customer. Obviously unacceptable.

often a particular irrisorial cost (vite) can compromise the quality of an important product. planning also the risks and criticalities of a production can reach the solution that is beneficial to supply the screws to the assembler, or test them one by one before their use.

p.s. _ Do you have the title of that "old text" you're talking about?

 

[TECNOMODEL]

That's exactly what I was talking about. from us is the technical office that decides how many and what boards to perform for every detail to be realized.

First of all the technical office performs a check on the customer's design, since any errors must be detected even before the production planning. if there are errors, you can not know how long the customer will use to correct them, and the company cannot block other jobs remaining waiting.

if there are no errors or inconsistencies, the file is opened, determined the feasibility and the method of realization (if not already agreed with the customer), and following these operations the production costs and the time of realization for the offer to the customer are determined.

to the confirmation from the customer, the technical office receives the order to execute the executions for the departments, which can be only one table, but also many more (one for cutting the rough from bar, one for turning, one for milling, one for metrological controls, etc.).

what follows does not need further description.

It should be emphasized that this method of work is independent from the company dimension to the precision of the details realized. can also be implemented by the individual craftsman who performs all operations in person. It is not true that operating in this way requires more time or entails greater costs, indeed: most times, structured planning brings benefits even in lower-sized realities.

the real problem is that these things are not taught in schools and, on the contrary, it increasingly takes on an attitude aimed at minimizing immediate work, without any interest in planning. an example is the design made by drawing models from the network and used without any verification or control; or the use of online sizing tools made available by forums, unknown users or small companies without any guarantee of the correctness of the results obtained; or still the use of "opensource" software pieces for the realization of control systems that result then unpredictable operation.

on the screws, I can also tell an anecdote about the realization of a particular plastic of large size, obtained by injection molding, with the insertion of a large number of thread inserts. These inserts are "proved" one by one before their use (with a small machine specially made). this because it would be impossible to replace a defective insert, which would lead to the discard of the finished product at the time of assembly by the customer. Obviously unacceptable.

often a particular irrisorial cost (vite) can compromise the quality of an important product. planning also the risks and criticalities of a production can reach the solution that is beneficial to supply the screws to the assembler, or test them one by one before their use.

p.s. _ Do you have the title of that "old text" you're talking about?

all true what you say, a little less than it is applicable in each company regardless of the size of it.
Unfortunately, in small companies the amount of work related to staff hardly allows the development of a similar method.
putting everything up would involve delays in the work in place, which is not acceptable by the customer to whom no matter what you supplier want to change working method.
or would require a large increase in staff, something not possible for obvious reasons.

 

[exxon]

... will it be a case that to wonder about such precision is me and you that we are a little terron ? and that instead the friend exxon, pure pious race, does not beat any eye on it?

Look, I don't agree. here in the "north-east background" we had for half a century "entrepreneurs" who stood at six o'clock in the morning, drank a coffee, descended the stairs leading from the house to the upstairs floor, down in the workshop downstairs, and turned on the frieze only extinguished at ten o'clock in the evening, when they went to bed woven for sixteen hours of work interrupted for a few minutes for lunch and dinner. They worked "Chinese."

Today there are no more, phagocytes from a world that they have never known, cut off from the world because the only languages they knew were Italian (male) and local dialect (madrelingua). Let us not forget about work planning, quality system, or other similar destroyers.. .

the real problem of these lands is that we have not succeeded in replacing a manufacturing structure based on soma work with an equivalently motivated, but based on entrepreneurial culture.

And this is our fault.