rinato
Guest
save everyone, as I come from a week dedicated to fulfilling the responsible quality of a good customer, I would like to have advice from who, perhaps, has already passed. You'll forgive me if I'm a little long. and if to explain myself I will use some less technical and more practical term.
in the specific case: we obtained from the customer the commission for 3 molds for components quite caz..ti (since a renowned competitor had thrown the sponge, while we of the analog pieces have already been able to do ).
We are not engineers, but the reading of the technical drawing had not created us patemi whatsoever. he thought of the client to change some quotas on the street...:frown:
the customer has introduced for a couple of years a procedure, I suppose previewed in some anfract of the iso9000, to physically store 5 samples with relative documentation "methrological" .
with these sample pieces, then, we are scorning with the cq's resp. interpretation of drawings, because they also make text for the metrology report.
the design was drafted (in their foreign office by a person we have learned to be at least inexperienced with the production process), completing the automatic quotations of pro-e (or something affine). to "complete" I mean to insert dimensional, geometric and position tolerances, because I suppose a cad can't do it.
I can't post the pdf for obvious reasons, but they make us look for the "center" of an imbuted tray (with a little deformed) by resting the meter on the outer edge of the sheet that describes the edge of this tray. and using the smallest spherical tastat (d1 or d2 mm). from this "center" I must then measure the position of the holes on the bottom, to identify the absolute position (on which to check the dimensional tolerances) and the relative interassis (if to verify the tolerance of position).first critical point: tastare a sheet edge imbuted with a sphere. to us it is logical to avoid it a priori and to rest the sphere at a fixed height from the bottom, but sufficiently far from the edge, since this can not be homogeneous, and therefore to tanger the sphere on different "paralleles".second critical point: defined in some way the "center", having to verify that of the 4 holes present, those to ne and if they are to x200 +/-0,15 and y+30 +/-0,15 and y-30 +/-0,15. while the other 2 take the one to no (at -200/+30) and use it as reference for the 3 relative intera on which to apply the tolerance of position d0,8 (on x there is a 400, on y a 60). Here, according to us, the designer wanted the point to be taken in particular as a reference from which to measure the interassis, on which to apply the position toll. In fact it is the only point with a clear absolute quota, from which to be able to start with the interassis.
the cq tells me: 1st no, I want you to buttons with a tiny sphere on the sheet edge, because the bulking lines of the bulk quotas are pulled from there.
2nd the square of the position toll is on the hole to no, and from there mix the interassis. It doesn't matter if, p.e. that hole did not respect the linear tolerances that have holes instead and whether.
My pieces are however part of tolerances, even if placed by beasts and read on the reverse, but there is no way to obtain that the design is read with common sense and that a metrological protocol is applied that eliminates some instrumental errors. because, in practice, it can happen that if 'the ball touches right on the equator and left on a 'tropic', the machine calculates a medium point moved right, etc. while I always place on a parallel (any , but always the same ) I get a safer average.
At this point, yes, I ask you: is a cq response normally so obtuse?
(to be noted that on the business card there is also the "six sigma", in addition to a plethora of acronyms in English, which is almost imaginative. . . )
the same degree (commercial or r&d designers) of the same place, give me right in voice, but recommend to put the mule where the mule wants (act: not where the master wants, but the mule...).
I am small and black, but it seems impossible that you cannot make a person like that reason.
who has passed, or who is a cq response: how can you try to solve technical issues by bringing man back to the planet earth?
If there is no answer, take this mine as a healthy mechanical expert vent that must fight against engineers who no longer remember Euclidean geometry.
Good night, reborn.
in the specific case: we obtained from the customer the commission for 3 molds for components quite caz..ti (since a renowned competitor had thrown the sponge, while we of the analog pieces have already been able to do ).
We are not engineers, but the reading of the technical drawing had not created us patemi whatsoever. he thought of the client to change some quotas on the street...:frown:
the customer has introduced for a couple of years a procedure, I suppose previewed in some anfract of the iso9000, to physically store 5 samples with relative documentation "methrological" .
with these sample pieces, then, we are scorning with the cq's resp. interpretation of drawings, because they also make text for the metrology report.
the design was drafted (in their foreign office by a person we have learned to be at least inexperienced with the production process), completing the automatic quotations of pro-e (or something affine). to "complete" I mean to insert dimensional, geometric and position tolerances, because I suppose a cad can't do it.
I can't post the pdf for obvious reasons, but they make us look for the "center" of an imbuted tray (with a little deformed) by resting the meter on the outer edge of the sheet that describes the edge of this tray. and using the smallest spherical tastat (d1 or d2 mm). from this "center" I must then measure the position of the holes on the bottom, to identify the absolute position (on which to check the dimensional tolerances) and the relative interassis (if to verify the tolerance of position).first critical point: tastare a sheet edge imbuted with a sphere. to us it is logical to avoid it a priori and to rest the sphere at a fixed height from the bottom, but sufficiently far from the edge, since this can not be homogeneous, and therefore to tanger the sphere on different "paralleles".second critical point: defined in some way the "center", having to verify that of the 4 holes present, those to ne and if they are to x200 +/-0,15 and y+30 +/-0,15 and y-30 +/-0,15. while the other 2 take the one to no (at -200/+30) and use it as reference for the 3 relative intera on which to apply the tolerance of position d0,8 (on x there is a 400, on y a 60). Here, according to us, the designer wanted the point to be taken in particular as a reference from which to measure the interassis, on which to apply the position toll. In fact it is the only point with a clear absolute quota, from which to be able to start with the interassis.
the cq tells me: 1st no, I want you to buttons with a tiny sphere on the sheet edge, because the bulking lines of the bulk quotas are pulled from there.
2nd the square of the position toll is on the hole to no, and from there mix the interassis. It doesn't matter if, p.e. that hole did not respect the linear tolerances that have holes instead and whether.
My pieces are however part of tolerances, even if placed by beasts and read on the reverse, but there is no way to obtain that the design is read with common sense and that a metrological protocol is applied that eliminates some instrumental errors. because, in practice, it can happen that if 'the ball touches right on the equator and left on a 'tropic', the machine calculates a medium point moved right, etc. while I always place on a parallel (any , but always the same ) I get a safer average.
At this point, yes, I ask you: is a cq response normally so obtuse?
(to be noted that on the business card there is also the "six sigma", in addition to a plethora of acronyms in English, which is almost imaginative. . . )
the same degree (commercial or r&d designers) of the same place, give me right in voice, but recommend to put the mule where the mule wants (act: not where the master wants, but the mule...).
I am small and black, but it seems impossible that you cannot make a person like that reason.
who has passed, or who is a cq response: how can you try to solve technical issues by bringing man back to the planet earth?
If there is no answer, take this mine as a healthy mechanical expert vent that must fight against engineers who no longer remember Euclidean geometry.
Good night, reborn.