TOLERANCE!

I just bougt some 3mm * 3mm * 25mm angle (1/8 *1/8 * 1").
It is 2.5mm *
2.5mm * 25mmm. I rang and checked, and the stockist said
that was within tolerance, and that they had had a previous enquiry
and had checked with their supplier.
Boy! 16% and it's _within_ tolerance.
Bet it never goes _over_
Wouldn't want to use it in tension situations! I would even have to be
careful in any other situation.
*
*************************************************** sorry
.........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Spike....Spike? Hello?
Reply to
Old Nick
Loading thread data ...
It probably was 3mm at one time. Then they improved the steel, and could get the same strength with 2.5mm
Reply to
Ian Stirling
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:47:56 GMT, Ian Stirling vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
I really, really wish I believed that!
For one thing, this is angle. When was the last time they improved _that_
**************************************************** sorry
.........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Spike....Spike? Hello?
Reply to
Old Nick
Angle is a hot rolled product, tolerances are really sloppy. We had a project that used 3"x4"x3/8" angle. After we set things up to use a robot to weld the 4" leg, we discovered that the material we were getting varied from 3.900" to 4.100" on the long leg. The manual weld process was not a problem, humans adapt nicely. The robot make a real mess of things! (Ever get a truck load of rejects?)
Old Nick wrote:
Reply to
Roy J
Hmmm, sounds like wood measurements. The guy who first started shaving the 2x4 should have been taken out and shot!
Oh, but if you're measuring in mm, maybe you don't have the wood measurement mess we have in the US.
Jon
Reply to
Jon Elson
They have 50x100mm beams just as we have 2x4s. ;)
Tim
-- "I have misplaced my pants." - Homer Simpson | Electronics, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --+ Metalcasting and Games:
formatting link

Reply to
Tim Williams
"Tim Williams" wrote in news:104c9cmr5qf17c9 @corp.supernews.com:
yeah, but they are (usually) 50x100 not 38x89
Reply to
Jeff
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:47:10 -0600, Roy J vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
Tha must have been a piss-off. As you say, humans adapt, but auto-jigged work makes certain assumptions. **************************************************** sorry
.........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Spike....Spike? Hello?
Reply to
Old Nick
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:34:58 -0600, "Tim Williams" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
Yeah. They are 40X90mm
**************************************************** sorry
.........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Spike....Spike? Hello?
Reply to
Old Nick
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:40:29 -0600, Jon Elson vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
There seems more of an excuse with wood, although why a 2x4 should be NOT 2x4 I cannot understand...HELLO!...Start with bigger wood! I suppose it could be tied in with the building trades and other lumber users.
What really P's me O with wood is _these_ days, even the uindersized stuff has saw marks on it half the time. They appear to be _sawing_ to the dressed size! Such minimalisation heads toward ripoff. **************************************************** sorry
.........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Spike....Spike? Hello?
Reply to
Old Nick
You should look up its intended uses. The steel mill should have information about this - especially if it's actually supposed to be used for structural applications. Not only that, but you can probably find info on safety factors and dealing with off-sized stock.
You _can_ buy stock that's very close to size (drill rod and stock for swiss-type lathes, for instance) but you're going to pay for it.
Regards,
Robin
Reply to
Robin S.
That was our first major robot welded project. We got a LOT smarter later on! But having a frame set down hard on the floor and hearing parts fall off is real disconcerting. The long pieces we generally caught the first time, we would get torch faults when the torch head bumped the work. The short ones would have a nice bead on the base metal, nothing on the angle.
It was sort of funny. We got the robot in and running after much consternation in the weld department. Then the fab department got in trouble because the parts weren't uniform enough. Then the production schedulers got in trouble because the robot welder sucked down parts like a hungry baby bird and management didn't like the robot idle. And so it went. The whole place ran tighter after a year or two.
Old Nick wrote:
Reply to
Roy J
But surely you would expect to pay for the kerf rather than expecting the lumber mill to foot the bill!
Mark Rand RTFM
Reply to
Mark Rand
Seems to me that I can remember a time not too many eons ago that we could go to the lumberyard and buy 2 X 4's either in the rough, at 2" X 4", or planed lumber at 1 7/8" X 3 7/8". Of course they only stocked the rough, and if you wanted the planed, you waited while they ran it through the planer.
(Damn! Am I really that old?)
Reply to
Lennie the Lurker
Naturally, the lumber mill would never foot the bill (unless they're running a deficit). You pay one way or the other.
Regards,
Robin
Reply to
Robin S.
Probably. I was often found tagging along with grampa when I was a kid. We never had to wait for the planer, but we did go run other errands and return for our lumber a bit later. And the shit was straight, without cracks! Minimal knots too.
I'm not near as old as you, Lennie. But that was a couple years ago.
michael
Reply to
michael
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:47:02 +0000, Mark Rand vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
I already pay for the original wood, the kerf, _and_ the shavings
I guess I could say I get value for money. I can _see_ the blade marks of the sawing I padi for!
**************************************************** sorry
.........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Spike....Spike? Hello?
Reply to
Old Nick
You must be. I can remember when they were 1-5/8 (1950s?), and I've seen a lot of old 1-3/4, but 1-7/8? When was that?
John Martin
Reply to
JMartin957

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.