Do These Prints Make Sense?

The .920 dim could be hard to hold. If length comes out 1.248 and .250 counterbore comes out.252 deep you end up with .996 then if .080 dim comes out .082 your .920 dim comes out .914 . that would put the .920 length out of print.
jimsehr
 
@kd4gij

That's the type of stuff I remember from I was little, Fusion 360 only has 2 standard templates that you can't change ASME (what i'm using) and an ISO one. I can remember my dad getting super aggravated, because the prints he got had both imperial and metric dimensions and when he would compare them across multiple sheets the dimensions wouldn't jive when he did the conversion.

Jimsehr said:
The .920 dim could be hard to hold. If length comes out 1.248 and .250 counterbore comes out.252 deep you end up with .996 then if .080 dim comes out .082 your .920 dim comes out .914 . that would put the .920 length out of print.
jimsehr
Click to expand...
good point, the 0.920 isn't even really relevant, or the 1.170 for that matter, I'll pull them both out.


Thanks Bob, that will give me some good bedtime viewing tonight.
 
Dan_S said:
Would that be something i just listed in the Title section? "Material: 6061-t6" or something like that?


Will do!


How do you list surface finish? Do you call out an Ra number, is there some other standard for that?



To locate The holes, would i just give a linear dimension from the center of the part, to the center of the hole?

I haven't done any official studying. I can remember some stuff my dad taught me as a kid when I would watch him, review bluprints from work he brought home. Everything else I've learned from the fusion 360 documentation, and tidbits i could gleam form my copy of Machinery's Handbook. I've tried to review some ASME documents I've found online, but every time I start, my eyes start glazing over.
Click to expand...

A linear dimension from the center of the part would work.

This from the external links in the Wikipedia article looks useful: http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/gdt/introduction.cfm . There's lots of other stuff online. The principles of GD&T make good sense but I see no reason to get bogged down in all the arcane complexity of the standards documents.
 
Good on you for trying to do it correctly. I tend to put some chicken scratch on a piece of graph paper and start cutting metal. But then, I am the only one I am drawing it up for, so it doesn't matter. I took two years of drafting/mechanical drawing in high school and was an architecture/engineering student in college, so I kinda know how to do it correctly, at least on vellum. CAD is completely foreign to me...
 
Looks great, easy to read an mostly unambiguous.


The chamfer is more easily dimensioned and produced (on a manual lathe for instance) as an angle with a dimension in one plane, for example .031" X 45° from the theoretical sharp corner in either the Z or X axes.

Measuring the length of the flat surface would be very difficult given the tolerances.
 
I remember when dimensions and tolerances were spelled out on the print itself. Then the symbols started showing up on prints. I can remember explaining to some old timers what the symbols meant. They would look at me and say " Why didn't they just say that? "
 
They are readable for CAD drawings, better than most. You need to show at least one hole position in your dimensions and how to locate the others from that one. Not bad at all,first CAD drawings I have looked at that I did not have to spend my entire morning coffee time reading them to see what was there. Kudos.

"Billy G"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top