Alibre- Lets Make a GD&T Drawing |JOKO ENGINEERING|
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 мар 2023
- Download this part:
grabcad.com/library/alibre-gd...
I missed positions on the 4 holes and there should be a 2X on the 45 degrees. Probably another MMC on the second composite position. The bottom hole should have a center mark on it too. What can I say? My infant has been keeping me up.
AFFILIATE LINKS:
Get 5% off Alibre Products for U.S. Customers and Support The Channel With My Affialiate Link!
www.alibre.com/jokohelp/?aff=...
Kaiweets- Take 10% Off!!
kaiweets.com?sca_ref=2395368.wlMPzkNLkZ
coupon code- JL15
Kaiweets Crimping Tools Set for only $26.00
Product link: www.gearberry.com/products/ka...
Discount code: GB10OFF
local warehouse & free shipping
SNDWAY Laser Rangefinder for only $48.60
Product link: www.gearberry.com/products/sn...
Discount code: GB20OFF
Free shipping!
Idea for a video?
jokoengineeringhelp@gmail.com
If there is music in this video, it is legally used.
Yes, a GDT video would be great!
While ASME and ISO share symbols there is a fundamental difference in philosophy between the two systems, and it is how part envelopes are interpreted. This is a nice tutorial on the potential of adding GD&T to Alibre drawings. A warning to anyone who doesn't understand GD&T, there are numerous syntax errors in the feature control frames. Please don't blindly copy.
Yes, you are totally correct - he did say though it was just a demonstration of the tools. However, the correct stipulation /application of GTD or even good detailing takes quite some time to learn. It's very difficult to specify accurately if you've never actually machined anything and fundamentally, the 'designer' has to 'sign off' all the detail drawings imv. In companies that actually manufacture , outside of the 'Design or R&D dept. there's the the Methods , Jig and tool and QA (Quality assurance) departments that all have tolerance / part manufacturing say so - ultimately they decide the veracity of the part specification. Be prepared to justify that tolerance!
@@TAH1712 I understand it is a demonstration of the tool. In my experience, and I was guilty myself of this in my career as well, tolerancing parts is an afterthought to the design process, and the education of tolerancing is poor in general. Alot of copying from past designs or going out and finding tolerancing schemes that look good are then applied to the part. If you are a designer, take the time to learn GD&T. Not only that, spend time with people in other disciplines, mfg, quality, etc. and learn from them. It will make you a much better engineer.
@@christopherbrosz5003 I'm with you all the way - I did a technology apprenticeship spending 6/ 8 months each in Methods, Inspection and Q&A, Design / drawing office and about a 1 1/2 years in the manufacturing area - an essential grounding and a lifelong appreciation of the importance of what all the little 'cogs' do in manufacturing. I would write myself a different apprenticeship though.
Comments like these are particularly poignant for creators. The quote concerning ASME rule #1 and the 90% similarity between ISO and ASME actually from a statement from Ed McCarthy, ASME co-chair. Yes, the differences are in envelopes, but that shouldn’t have needed to be clarified since it was explicitly stated that this is not for people who don’t already know. Errors were already talked through on the video as well as in the description. This video was about how to use the tools within the program, and receiving comments like these that address exactly what the video isn’t about and on points that have already been addressed is a particular point of frustration for content makers. In other words, as far as I can tell, this is the only video on RUclips so far that goes through how to use these tools on Alibre- and trying to get useful information that can help people that otherwise wouldn’t be available out there to be met with comments like this is discouraging and makes it more difficult to get information out.
@@JokoEngineeringhelp I stated I liked the tutorial in the use of the tools. This information is extremely valuable. My indictment is not against you, but against the engineering community that sees little value in educating engineers in the practice of tolerancing. We all had to learn it either the hard way or were fortunate enough to get into a company that trained us. What happens though, and I see it when I check their work, is they copy what they find that they think makes sense. I am just as guilty of it in my younger days. I am a huge advocate of engineers getting educated on the use of these systems and not copying what they see in use. There is much bad GD&T out there and I will be the first to admit my share of bad drawings.
There are a few videos on how to use the pro version for beginners.
Yes I would like more explanations on GDT.
Go get a book - then you'll know all the 'theory' which is necessary to learn.
I always try to keep GDT to a minimum and as basic as possible - although, loosely specifying all features with stacked feature references to AIBIC ( in that order)and MMC , and this and that RFS, should make the part 100% defined and not add cost ( when understood) etc, but I am always reminded and guided by KISS or Keep it Simple it Stupid. When you think of all the CNC parts made on 3 ~5 axis machines, it's not that easy to see how the manufacturer has taken account of the defined / specified GDT ( to 3 planes mixed with mmc) in their m/c'ing program. sure, they will structure their programs with doing key relations ships with the same cutter, slower feeds etc. Of course the GDT defines the finished part - It doesn't automatically mean every stated features has to be verified / monitored all the time. However, if you smother the part drawing with unnecessary GDT, even if it defines a loose , low tolerance part - it is impossible for me to see how that can lead to lower manufacturing quotes in most cases... surely the manufacturers position would be - you state it, don't I have to check it...I'm gonna need either in process gauging or a cmm for that ! Edit: I suppose the designer / purchasers answer to that would be, 'no, you don't have to check it...but you do have to ensure it and assure me as well!
I hope this is OK. . . . .
I just posted this on the Alibre forum. Hope I'm not breaking any rules.
I tried Freecad and it works but the interface and workflow were "alien" to me.
Joko Engineering was doing tutorials on Freecad and I watched a few. He kept going on about Alibre but a quick Google showed I would need to pay for it. :confused:
In the end I watched a couple of his videos and the "WOW" factor kicked in. I bought Atom but not really used it much due to lack of time with a house move & major building works. (And a puppy)
I joined this forum and checked the specs for "Expert". I will purchase this within the next few weeks.
I feel it is a great product and a fair price. Ideal for hobbyists or like me: (semi retired) and even full time professionals.
I've seen on here that the workflow and interface is different between Atom & Expert so not using Atom very much as I don't want to confuse myself (easily done).
The things I have done so far with it I'm very impressed.;)
Jim
Thanks so much for this comment- I'm glad you've enjoyed your experience. Alibre is my favorite company for sure- they take a lot of care to make the platform accessible to the average Joe.
You can make any alibre video and I'd watch it. If not for your tutorials I wouldn't be as good as I am in alibe
Thank you!
Hello, I wanted to ask you, are you aware that the RUclips app (the free app, not the premium one) allows downloading your videos for offline use, and are you okay with that?
Good question. I think I have to agree with RUclips's policies so no problem! Please keep it to personal use, especially since the music at the end is licensed.
@@JokoEngineeringhelp sure, thank you