Your videos have really helped me. I've been Machining for 12 years and just recently I started working in a situation where it's all GD&T. We do semiconductor, defense, & aerospace mostly so you can imagine how good we need to be. I really think companies should invest in training of it's employees on this stuff. I've never seen that. Thanks!!
Great to hear! I agree, learning this stuff is tough to do on the job. Training of some kind really helps. Feel free to send any GD&T questions my way.
Excellent stuff! I like that you are relating the inspection method to meet the GD&T call-out. MANY engineers have no clue as to how to check (inspect) what they have specified. As the department that has to make the items, if the drawing is not clear it goes right back to engineering for correction.. It is NOT supposed to be a manufacturing competition or guessing game. If we make bad parts as a result of poor drawing dimensional construction it is on Design Engineering. This is why all new engineers need to be on the shopfloor to "feel the pain" of bad design engineering. Companies need to develop engineers better. They don't understand the money that is lost concerning these issues.
Thanks! I agree. I see companies trying to save time and money in the design process, and end up with bad drawings no one understands costing more in the long run.
The explanation provided is exceptionally clear and concise. Having reviewed numerous GD&T books and resources, I confidently affirm that this is the most valuable resource available. Thank you for sharing!
These videos have helped me in my day to day job function. Thank you! Keep them coming! Maybe more videos of inspection methods? Can’t wait to see all your other videos!
If I had a cylinder whose OD is controlled by perpendicularity to datum A (a flat end of the cylinder) and whose ID is controlled by a RFS position, what would be the minimum/maximum wall thickness of the cylinder wall possible? Would perpendicularity factor into the all wall thickness at all? I know it changes the VC of the cylinder in this case.
Hey prof, i finally understand the criticality of ref A. I just assumed that was minor formality. if u inspected a hole in a plate by "dropping" the fattest pin gage. it slides down u hear it click. i might assume "pass" for perpendicularity. However, i just assumed pin fell straight(perpend...) down and landed "square, flush" to the table surface. Fail x Fail. So i would make this. A gauge pin with a perpend base or tight washer on end ( like a mushroom head). Drop in and see and feel for ,"flush n square" contact. Ofcourse, the gage base must touch the "A" side of surface.
HI! Thanks for the explanation. Is it possible for you to elaboarte on the connecting rod video? If the plane A is the face of rod, shouldnt B be made by 2 points? By being signaled as the axis of the right hole, you only get B datum when you find C, that is dependant on B because it has a pos. tolerance to A and B...
When doing the related actual mating envelope, how does the chamfer on the pin in your example come into play? It seems the RAME would be smaller when hitting the corner of the chamfer on the pin. Should the RAME be where it would hit the theoretical point of the pin, and not the chamfer?
Hi Dean, So here in the fig 14:48, rule 1 viloates as the VC envelope is great than the MMC envelope? Could you please help me to understand the case to avoid confusions
When you apply material condition such as MMC, you are adding additional tolerance and this violates rule 1. This is acceptable and he explains it in a different video.
Thanks for videos. It helps me a lot. I have a question about perpendicularity. I know the idea of the perpendicularity to two datum but how can we measure one feature's perpendicularity to two datums on cmm if both datums are perpendicular to the feautre.
I appreciated you are sharing valuable knowledge with us. Just want to share, I think you might have mistake at 4.10 stating that when parallelism applies to feature of size its apply as shown on board but actually you mean to say on the surface I believe
Hi. I can try: Basically the surface method just means the virtual condition boundary you get at MMC and LMC. At RFS, the axis method must be used, this is just finding the axis of the AME and seeing if it is in the tolerance zone. The tricky part is that you can use the axis method for MMC and LMC as well, but if the axis is really crooked, it may be okay with the axis method, but out of tolerance with the surface method, that’s why the surface method takes precedence. Also, the axis method is rebranded as the “resolved geometry” method in ASME Y14.45, this standard goes into more detail about which method is appropriate for different situations.
Hi Mr Odell, I have a question about parallelism. Can I use a micrometer, zero at 1 point then go over the entire surface to check a deviation for the parallelism?
Hi, the GD&T Explained playlist is only in chronological order of when I made the videos, no particular order of topics. I do have a tolerance stack up playlist, I would recommend that after the full lesson playlist.
These videos are great. I will say the trap beat in the background is kind of funny for a video like this :) I paused it at one point to make sure it was actually coming from the video haha -- personally I'd forego it. Mildly distracting.
Hi, thanks for the input. It’s surprisingly difficult to get the background music volume right. I use it because I fast forward through portions of the video, and it would sound awful with silence.
@@RDeanOdell That makes sense. Love the videos though--super clear and well-thought out and organized explanations of some tricky concepts. Thanks again!
Sir your teaching method is unmatchable but I am getting confused over and over I mean when my mind catches something and when I switch to your another video It becomes more complicated for me can you make a full detailed one shot video on GD&T and pls try to add some animations as well in between
Thanks! I know what you mean, some textbooks on print reading cover GD&T in one chapter. It’s basically just memorizing the geometric characteristic symbols. I think it’s more important to understand the “why” behind the symbols.
Your videos have really helped me. I've been Machining for 12 years and just recently I started working in a situation where it's all GD&T. We do semiconductor, defense, & aerospace mostly so you can imagine how good we need to be. I really think companies should invest in training of it's employees on this stuff. I've never seen that. Thanks!!
Great to hear! I agree, learning this stuff is tough to do on the job. Training of some kind really helps. Feel free to send any GD&T questions my way.
Excellent stuff! I like that you are relating the inspection method to meet the GD&T call-out. MANY engineers have no clue as to how to check (inspect) what they have specified. As the department that has to make the items, if the drawing is not clear it goes right back to engineering for correction.. It is NOT supposed to be a manufacturing competition or guessing game. If we make bad parts as a result of poor drawing dimensional construction it is on Design Engineering. This is why all new engineers need to be on the shopfloor to "feel the pain" of bad design engineering. Companies need to develop engineers better. They don't understand the money that is lost concerning these issues.
Thanks! I agree. I see companies trying to save time and money in the design process, and end up with bad drawings no one understands costing more in the long run.
Very concise teaching. Good job! If your audience forgets your instructions, they deserve to pay for the generated scrap.
Thanks so much!
The explanation provided is exceptionally clear and concise. Having reviewed numerous GD&T books and resources, I confidently affirm that this is the most valuable resource available. Thank you for sharing!
Absolutely fantastic the way you are explaining!!!
Thanks so much!
These videos have helped me in my day to day job function. Thank you! Keep them coming!
Maybe more videos of inspection methods?
Can’t wait to see all your other videos!
Fantastic content. Been trying to learn GD&T through a course but I find your videos more helpful than the course! Thank you!
That’s great to hear! Thanks so much.
If I had a cylinder whose OD is controlled by perpendicularity to datum A (a flat end of the cylinder) and whose ID is controlled by a RFS position, what would be the minimum/maximum wall thickness of the cylinder wall possible? Would perpendicularity factor into the all wall thickness at all? I know it changes the VC of the cylinder in this case.
thank you for these videos. you do a great job explaining the concept.
Thanks!
Excellent tutorial, thanks a lot, professor.
Thanks! Glad it was helpful.
Hey prof, i finally understand the criticality of ref A. I just assumed that was minor formality. if u inspected a hole in a plate by "dropping" the fattest pin gage. it slides down u hear it click. i might assume "pass" for perpendicularity. However, i just assumed pin fell straight(perpend...) down and landed "square, flush" to the table surface. Fail x Fail. So i would make this. A gauge pin with a perpend base or tight washer on end ( like a mushroom head). Drop in and see and feel for ,"flush n square" contact. Ofcourse, the gage base must touch the "A" side of surface.
HI! Thanks for the explanation. Is it possible for you to elaboarte on the connecting rod video?
If the plane A is the face of rod, shouldnt B be made by 2 points? By being signaled as the axis of the right hole, you only get B datum when you find C, that is dependant on B because it has a pos. tolerance to A and B...
When doing the related actual mating envelope, how does the chamfer on the pin in your example come into play? It seems the RAME would be smaller when hitting the corner of the chamfer on the pin. Should the RAME be where it would hit the theoretical point of the pin, and not the chamfer?
Hi Dean, So here in the fig 14:48, rule 1 viloates as the VC envelope is great than the MMC envelope? Could you please help me to understand the case to avoid confusions
I've also noticed that and don't understand
When you apply material condition such as MMC, you are adding additional tolerance and this violates rule 1. This is acceptable and he explains it in a different video.
Excellent explanation.
My question is if Datum plane is not perfect (ex .01 flatness), how we can check the parallelism in this case? Thank you.
Thanks for videos. It helps me a lot. I have a question about perpendicularity. I know the idea of the perpendicularity to two datum but how can we measure one feature's perpendicularity to two datums on cmm if both datums are perpendicular to the feautre.
Thanks so much for these videos. They're great!
Thanks for your great videos!
You’re welcome, glad you like them!
@6.33 why material conditions can not apply here?
It is because the FCF applies to a surface and not a feature of size.
I appreciated you are sharing valuable knowledge with us. Just want to share, I think you might have mistake at 4.10 stating that when parallelism applies to feature of size its apply as shown on board but actually you mean to say on the surface I believe
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Can you please help me to understand the surface interpretation concept?
Hi. I can try:
Basically the surface method just means the virtual condition boundary you get at MMC and LMC. At RFS, the axis method must be used, this is just finding the axis of the AME and seeing if it is in the tolerance zone.
The tricky part is that you can use the axis method for MMC and LMC as well, but if the axis is really crooked, it may be okay with the axis method, but out of tolerance with the surface method, that’s why the surface method takes precedence.
Also, the axis method is rebranded as the “resolved geometry” method in ASME Y14.45, this standard goes into more detail about which method is appropriate for different situations.
Hi Mr Odell, I have a question about parallelism. Can I use a micrometer, zero at 1 point then go over the entire surface to check a deviation for the parallelism?
Hi, a micrometer won’t help with form or orientation deviation, unless the majority of the part fits under the anvils. A height gage would work.
@@RDeanOdell Thank you Mr Odell !
Hi sir, I am watching your playlist. Is there any particular order for the videos after the initial GD and T lessons that I should follow?
Hi, the GD&T Explained playlist is only in chronological order of when I made the videos, no particular order of topics. I do have a tolerance stack up playlist, I would recommend that after the full lesson playlist.
@@RDeanOdell thank you very much
What about between center lines?
Thank you this video is really helpful and easy to understand.
Thanks so much!
Very well explained,,, thanks
You use first-angle projection for your tutorials, right?
These videos are great. I will say the trap beat in the background is kind of funny for a video like this :) I paused it at one point to make sure it was actually coming from the video haha -- personally I'd forego it. Mildly distracting.
Hi, thanks for the input. It’s surprisingly difficult to get the background music volume right. I use it because I fast forward through portions of the video, and it would sound awful with silence.
@@RDeanOdell That makes sense. Love the videos though--super clear and well-thought out and organized explanations of some tricky concepts. Thanks again!
thnk u so so so much💚💚💚💚💚💚
You’re so welcome! Thanks for watching.
Sir your teaching method is unmatchable but I am getting confused over and over I mean when my mind catches something and when I switch to your another video It becomes more complicated for me can you make a full detailed one shot video on GD&T and pls try to add some animations as well in between
We literally didn't know why we used to teach such in engineering class just the names and signs..Now i do
Thanks! I know what you mean, some textbooks on print reading cover GD&T in one chapter. It’s basically just memorizing the geometric characteristic symbols. I think it’s more important to understand the “why” behind the symbols.
@@RDeanOdell exactly,I never even imagined that it is such knowledge and worth knowing the core... I really appreciate your efforts....
Thanks!
"Normally would be the ground." No pun intended?
Thank u so much🙏
You are welcome! Thanks for watching.
Thank you
You are welcome! Thanks for watching.
nice
Thanks!
Welcome!