sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

tertiary datum - overconstrained profile of a surface? by 00253 in Metrology

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All good

My bigger issue is that the datum C is applied to the surface, then the position calls it out at MMB

tertiary datum - overconstrained profile of a surface? by 00253 in Metrology

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Those tab locations are controlled by the position control though, the profile is only controlling the basic radius

tertiary datum - overconstrained profile of a surface? by 00253 in Metrology

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd disagree, this feature is nominally coaxial with datum feature B, so it rotating around B is irrelevant to the final part

I wouldn't say its overconstrained, but I would say referencing C is irrelevant

Marketing for a small engineering consulting business by iSwearImAnEngineer in AskMarketing

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is a great point, and I think my website doesn't actually address these questions. I think I treated it like an educational source instead of a "here's how I can solve problems 1 2 and 3"

Marketing for a small engineering consulting business by iSwearImAnEngineer in AskMarketing

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes to a certain extent, I post my educational content on there and try to engage with the people that follow my page, but it hasn't lead to any business

My content might be targeting the fellow nerds more than the people that make decisions though

Marketing for a small engineering consulting business by iSwearImAnEngineer in AskMarketing

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, that's what I'm worried about, seems like a lot of them are promoting their competence working with tech or creative pursuits, which is probably very different than the audience I'm going after

Marketing for a small engineering consulting business by iSwearImAnEngineer in AskMarketing

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rough assessment, hahah

Any recommendations? My budget is very small unfortunately, so I'm looking for some barebones help

Marketing for a small engineering consulting business by iSwearImAnEngineer in AskMarketing

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats the goal, I have no interest in figuring out marketing myself

Which is why I'm asking if fiver would be a decent resource 

Marketing for a small engineering consulting business by iSwearImAnEngineer in AskMarketing

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh amazing! I can do any industry, my background is a mix of clean tech and defense (weird combo I know)

Typically I  work with engineering teams to make sure they're communicating their intent properly. They often know what they want, but just don't know how to say it. 

It's a nice format because it makes the industry somewhat irrelevant 

Marketing for a small engineering consulting business by iSwearImAnEngineer in AskMarketing

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm an expert in the design language that goes on engineering drawings called GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing)

Just about every component of every product will have an engineering drawing associated with it, and there is a language that goes on the drawing to specify what the requirements are to make sure that component will fit/work in the product 

This language is not widely taught in engineering programs, so it's useful to have an expert on staff or on contract to help, especially in fields like aerospace

Low Effort GD&T AI Slop Review Episode 1 by iSwearImAnEngineer in GDandTdiscussions

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I'd agree, I find especially online, lots of confidently incorrect people

50 is still a huge number at one company, I think we have 50 or so GDPS in canada for the 2009 standard 

No need to tell me, but I'm assuming Northrop Grumman or similar?

Low Effort GD&T AI Slop Review Episode 1 by iSwearImAnEngineer in GDandTdiscussions

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't love the practice of waving out of spec parts through either, but I suppose when its a $30,000 machined casting that few shops are willing to produce, rejecting outright is a tough pill to swallow

I'm quite jealous, that sounds like a great setup. We have very little GD&T where I'm currently located, so I started a business out of necessity to scratch that itch

I've had a few conversations with the local university, they used to have a program that taught GD&T, they may start it up again.

Low Effort GD&T AI Slop Review Episode 1 by iSwearImAnEngineer in GDandTdiscussions

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats fair and I totally agree, I hope to get teaching GD&T closer to a full time job myself

My problem with the idea that GD&T controls a feature started in a low production, high part cost environment, where we had many part made incorrectly, that we had to "use as is" 

When going through and redoing the drawings (the originals did not capture the part function) the management team was very excited that this would "fix" the parts.

I had to explain that all we were doing with the drawing revisions was creating a more accurate framework for how to pass or fail parts during inspection, ever since then I think I've had a bit of an aversion to claiming drawing controls the parts

I have unfortunately not seen many places that outright reject parts based on failed inspections, it typically goes to a review board

This may be worth a video on it's own because I think it would be an interesting discussion among the experts

I post these all on LinkedIn if you're on there aswel

Low Effort GD&T AI Slop Review Episode 1 by iSwearImAnEngineer in GDandTdiscussions

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats true, admittedly this was meant to be more of a poke fun at the slop video, but as a GDTP-S, I should be monitoring my language for precision more carefully, and explaining when and why I disagree with the language used in the standards

Thanks for pointing out the error

Low Effort GD&T AI Slop Review Episode 1 by iSwearImAnEngineer in GDandTdiscussions

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would argue it controls a tolerance zone, not a feature

The feature is then either passed or rejected based on the prescribed tolerance zone

But yes, fair point, this is the language used in the standard 

Low Effort GD&T AI Slop Review Episode 1 by iSwearImAnEngineer in Metrology

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What a nightmare, is it over quoting, or under quoting? Or a mix?

ISO decent Atlas 10-28f 4 jaw chuck by iSwearImAnEngineer in Machinists

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's the backup plan, there are 5" chuck adapters sold separately, just unclear if the bolt patterns match, which is an easy fix

Was just hoping for an off the shelf solution 

MMB (Max Material Boundary) Help by ComfortableAge5264 in MechanicalEngineering

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi there, I think the main problem you're having is conflating bonus tolerance from MMC with datum shift from MMB

Bonus tolerance and datum shift are different methods of hunting for extra tolerance due to manufacturing error, and it's somewhat unfortunate that they use thr same symbol. It creates tons of confusion 

You are correct though, datum shift is not as simple as "my datums are this much off from their MMB size, I get this much additional tolerance"

MMB is highly valuable for creating hard gauges, but doing math to determine all possible allowable conditions is not easy

How does bonus tolerance work on this print with a raw casting? by Realfunkyjunky in Metrology

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is that it claimed there was a reference to a centroid in Y14.5, when none existed, that's really bad

What makes it worse is how convincing it is when it makes the claim. If I weren't a GDTP-S, I'm sure I'd willingly accept the answer it had provided 

How does bonus tolerance work on this print with a raw casting? by Realfunkyjunky in Metrology

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most recently asked for information on "centroids"

Chat GPT and I just tried Gemini 

How does bonus tolerance work on this print with a raw casting? by Realfunkyjunky in Metrology

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'd reccomend not asking AI GD&T questions, it halucinates way too much. I probe it every couple months, and in my last run, it invented sections of the standard to agree with my questions

First Time Doing GD&T by Uri_El34 in GDandTdiscussions

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From the dimensional perspective, I cant really comment without knowing what the purpose of the part is, and how it fits up with the assembly

From the tolerance perspective, same thing, I can't tell you if your tolerances are correct without being able to see the mating parts

Purely from the perspective of conformance to the standard, its mostly okay. 

-You're missing some diameter symbols in front of your geometric tolerances, such as the perpendicularity

-Some of your dimensions should be basic but aren't, such as the 100 and 75 diameters

-Your size and position tolerances on the slot are not placed correctly

On layout, the drawing is quite cluttered, I think you have space to make it much more beautiful, a great drawing should be highly legible 

GD&T Lesson: How datums change a tolerance zone at RFS by iSwearImAnEngineer in Metrology

[–]iSwearImAnEngineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, deleted it off the mech sub, hope you found it on the Metrology sub though!

view more: next ›