So what do the ISO drawings standards say...? :-)
Gerry
"pete" <petefaasdas2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2cqdnWOas_EZxJvanZ2dnUVZ8s-qnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ISO9000 does not give that statement, neither does it imply that
> statement.
>
> In essence, all ISO9000 does, is the verify that you do things a
> particular way, and will always do things that way, until you rewrite
your
> way of doing those things!
>
> If I said, I will put my drawings on blue paper with pink spots, it will
> meet ISO9000 standards, as long as I continue to do that.
>
> I think he is talking about ISO drawing standards, which is different
> altogether.
>
> I feel for both of you, myself having to do both jobs, lol
>
>
>
>
>
> "Gerard Farrell" <gerard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:jrydnZLlNajvzJvanZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Thanks for the replies. In the scenario below, depending on the scale
of
>> the change, we would either save the part as a new revision (ge;
>> 100-01-B) or as a new part (eg; 100-02). Drawings that had used the rev
>> 100-01-A part would remain unchanged and new projects could use either
>> part as required as they would be uniquely identified.
>>
>> What I'm trying to get my engineer away from is calling a part
>> "ProjectA-100-01-A" and then on the next project calling the same part
>> "ProjectB-100-01-A" because I feel that this means we can't tell from
the
>> part name whether the 2 are really identical. What I want him to do is
>> simply call the part "100-01-A" and on the drawing refer to it as such.
>> Identification of the project should be a separate unrelated entity on
>> the drawing template.
>>
>> He however insists that ISO9000 explicitly states the the name of the
>> part should contain the project reference. We're not actually ISO9000
>> registered but do want and try to follow the guidelines where we can.
>>
>> Gerry
>>
>>
>>
>> "Steve Reinisch" <stever@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:6d93e$47064686$d1d94462$3075@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>I don't know what ISO 9000 says but here is my theory:
>>>
>>> We have a low volume product that sometimes uses parts that are the
same
>>> as in another product but we refrain from re-using the same part
number
>>> across projects. The reasoning for this is what if the part has to be
>>> revised at design or in the future, this now changes the part for all
>>> jobs it was used in. There is a specification for defining when a part
>>> gets a new number but I feel it is just to dangerous and prone to
>>> errors, ie: someone not realising where else the part is used and
>>> changing it. So we just do a save as and give the part a new number
for
>>> the new job.
>>>
>>> For comman parts ie; nuts screws etc we have a system similer to the
>>> previous poster.
>>>
>>> Again we produce low volumes so this makes sense for us it may not for
a
>>> different situation.
>>>
>>> Steve R
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Cliff" <Clhuprich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:14sag3h19jngv209l4sm2jdme1ltigvssr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:39:35 +0100, "Gerard Farrell"
>>>> <gerard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a general question about devising a numbering system for CAD
>>>>>drawings. My engineer insists that every project we work on must have
a
>>>>>set
>>>>>of unique drawing numbers, even if the drawing is one from a pool of
>>>>>standard components. To me this seems counter-intuitive; if a drawing
>>>>>is of
>>>>>a standard part (albeit one that we get manufactured) then it would
>>>>>make
>>>>>sense to me to leave the number unchanged. Otherwise we have 2
drawings
>>>>>of
>>>>>the same part that have different drawing numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does ISO9000 state absolutely that drawing numbers must be unique, or
>>>>>is my
>>>>>engineer over-interpreting things?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>Gerry
>>>>
>>>> If you had a standard bolt used many places on many projects
>>>> would you get them from diferent suppliers & from different
>>>> boxes?
>>>> --
>>>> Cliff
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
