doubt on flat grinding indication

[asblo]

often in the workshop to finish a plate or a flat piece we use the grinding to lapidello, directly from the semi-finished piece, fast and not expensive operation that allows to give a “pelata” of flatness when there is no need to put it in fresa.

do you ever have this requirement in commissioning designs to third parties? I am always in doubt about how to indicate it to drawing, because in fact it is a rectification, so I should indicate a low roughness, but I would not want it to be interpreted as a plate first to fresare (with adequate overmetal) and then rectification, much more expensive and useless operation (if not needed).

how is the correct way to indicate a flat grinding from the crude?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

What does "to finish"?
"to complete" or "to clean" or "to straighten" or other... .

 

[asblo]

when for mounting is sufficient that passage to lapidello. is not mating on the thickness and is acceptable also of the witness. . .

 

[falonef]

a simple indication on the design would not be enough?

 

[cacciatorino]

when for mounting is sufficient that passage to lapidello. is not mating on the thickness and is acceptable also of the witness. . .

we often indicate a "cleaning for zeroing", which is definitely not unified but it is understood (usually we do it on the pieces to quote by coordinates).

 

[stevie]

we often indicate a "cleaning for zeroing", which is definitely not unified but it is understood (usually we do it on the pieces to quote by coordinates).

is not a standard indication... imagine having a foreign supplier what would you understand?

rather I would simply indicate a roughness 3.2 or 6.3 ... that then is carried out with a milling or a lapidellata di sgrossatura little changes if you do not have specific needs

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

when for mounting is sufficient that passage to lapidello. is not mating on the thickness and is acceptable also of the witness. . .

"services for assembly, but it doesn't fit" what does that mean?
With the lapidello take away a few a millimeters to say so much, you can remain witness, the thickness is not important.... you are too vague in the description of your problem.
then you put a tolerance and roughness and the supplier must respect them, which starts from a thickness already drawing which is enough the lapidello peel (e.g. 15) or a larger one (e.g. 30) and should do 5 milling passes is its problem. the price should not depend on the choices of the supplier otherwise to make a d15 pin with ra3,2 use a cnc of 200€/hour starting from a bar d100.
Of course a ra6,3 do it with the manual lathe and a ra0,4 you have to use the grinding, this defines the price; if you put a ra0.8 you are defining a result to get that implies a type of processing.
If you want total control you need to draw up a working cycle and I need to know the machines of the supplier because if that does not have a 50€/hour model it will make your ra0,8 with the superfiga milling mill or with the grinding at 100€/hour.

However, the symbol of roughness can be put on specific information (cleaning, lapidello, polished, etc...)

 

[asblo]

is not a standard indication... imagine having a foreign supplier what would you understand?

rather I would simply indicate a roughness 3.2 or 6.3 ... that then is carried out with a milling or a lapidellata di sgrossatura little changes if you do not have specific needs

actually changes a lot. an account is to take a plate of 10 (for example), to perform holes and then to put it to lapidello removing maybe half a tenth to wall just to give it a flatness, another is to have a milling requirement for which they will leave choosing a plate with the greatest available thickness and putting it in the car removing maybe 1mm to wall.
I would also put a roughness greater than a 1.6 classic from fresa removal (3.2 or 6.3) I had the doubt that it was not technically correct because maybe the actual wrinkle of the lapidello is also less

 

[Mario SJPD]

I am not sure that I have understood, but in my opinion it is sufficient to indicate the wrinkle required, from what I have certainly understood low perhaps 0.8, and the right dimensional tolerances, which from what I have understood are high or generic, and of form,
a good operator will surely be able to understand you, quiet that no one performs jobs if not expressly requested.
Alternatively, you can write "sbiancare di fino" but maybe it's a bit overwritten.
In the end, however, I am unclear because you need a roughness so much on an unimportant surface, is it for an aesthetic factor? Is it your internal processing habit?
Consider that it is also a considerable increase in cost in case the supplier should in turn out the processing.

 

[asblo]

It is simply a plate that it is not necessary to put in fresa, but with a past to the lapidello removes that irregularity that could present the semi-finished raw. is not a need for finishing

 

[asblo]

the fact that there are those who said to indicate it with a high roughness, who with a low, who with textual notes out of legislation proves that it is not as obvious as it might seem

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

It is simply a plate that it is not necessary to put in fresa, but with a past to the lapidello removes that irregularity that could present the semi-finished raw. is not a need for finishing

put a tolerance of planarity/parallelism of 0.5 or 1 and a roughness of 3.2 or 6,3 and then arrange the supplier to make it of friez, lapidello, stagista with file or other.

 

[meccanicamg]

indicate tolerance on the thickness of the plate. indicate a suitable wrinkle symbol with ra0.8 indicate lapidello and any additional note. It's Nornate.
Of course you can't write thickness 10 and just...