- User Since
- Jun 9 2015, 10:48 PM (218 w, 6 d)
There is a setting called outer wall wipe distance which is set to .25mm. This inserts a travel move at the end of the outer wall that might be contributing to this artifact.
I will schedule an MRB for these extrusions.
Fri, Aug 16
One example is the workmanship specifies .125 depth scratches in sheetmetal under the power coat to be acceptable in some cases, whereas the print has a 63 microinch RMS surface finish requirement. One of those is more stringent than the other and it's not clear which one the supplier should follow.
That's fine, but those ticket should go on the board for the product whose source contains the drawings for the parts, not on the Workmanship standard board. Unless the request/suggestion is to change the workmanship standard.
Yes, to some of them but not at the time of the RFQ or at the time of the PO when it counts.
Nice work on working with ultimachine to have them rev their design to allow access to the contrast adjustment knob, @oliver.
Tickets tagged with "Workmanship Standard" are for identifying issues with and making suggestions to improve the workmanship standard. For alerting production of potential quality issues, I recommend another communication platform.
Tickets tagged with "workmanship standard" are meant for identifying issues or making suggestions to improve the workmanship standard.
This is a request for a change to the prints for parts, not a change to the workmanship standard.
Tickets with the "Workmanship Standard" tag are meant for reporting issues or making suggestions to the workmanship standard, not for keeping track of fallout or posting NCMRs. We already have other systems for doing that.
This isn't a workmanship standard issue. In this case, the supplier just didn't do what the drawing called for.
Thu, Aug 15
I looked at the drawing and besides "clean, free of oil and debris" there is no surface finish requirement. In this case I don't see any grounds to reject them.
@sherylb No I don't have them. I guess they are yet-to-be-delivered.
Mon, Aug 12
@karrad I don't understand why .csv is harder to view for customers than .ods can you explain?
Thu, Aug 8
That's what I'm getting at, this isn't the same part so we would need to do some testing to qualify it. The reason it's cheaper is probably because there is less aluminum by volume used to make the part.
Looked a little more and found out this is MPN 671728 pg 363 here: https://www.tslots.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Master-Catalog-Web-compressed.pdf
I can't find a dimensioned and toleranced drawing for this part so there's nothing to inspect these to.
Wed, Aug 7
@oliver ok thanks for checking.
I am part of the way through the inspection for the cases, here is the work in progress document:
Is there any way we can use HD-BT0054 for this? It's 2mm shorter, but we already use them on redgum.
Mon, Aug 5
If you look at the spec sheet it has different spacing for the heat shrink on either side (10mm vs 5mm). Is it possible this one is installed with a flipped orientation? Otherwise, it might just be out of spec in which case it will probably need red tagged and reworked.
Fri, Aug 2
Thu, Aug 1
who is they?
Let me know if you have any other questions about this request.
I think they are asking about the files in the assembly parts directory mini-hibiscus/production_parts/assemblies/assembly_parts. They are requesting drawings for these:
There aren't any tolerances on that spec sheet.
@Steven This is ready for review.