Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
"Blueprinted"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ntsqd" data-source="post: 2016051" data-attributes="member: 93138"><p>I'm looking at it literally to illustrate in just how ambiguous the term is. This comes from long association with the term as applied to engines, where it is similarly ambiguous. Mostly because those "blueprints" are not easily found and if they were found they would be nearly useless to the goal of making the assembly perform better than OEM. After all, the tolerances found on those prints produced the level of performance that is objectionable. Why would you use the print(s) to try to make it work better?</p><p></p><p>Until I took the required Engineering Ethics class I did not know this, but Engineering part and assembly drawings are not just guidance, they are a legal document that is a contract. They define what the part or assembly should be and how much each dimension can vary from the designed dimension. If you give me a drawing to produce a part and I accept it I am legally obligated to produce that part within the dimensions on the drawing. If I do not produce parts within those dims then legally you're not obligated to pay me for the parts and I'm stuck with them because they're useless to you.</p><p></p><p>As an aside, "blueprint" is a name for a particular type of drawing that hasn't been used since the late 1960's to early 1970's. It seems that the ammonia used to produce that type of drawing was a health hazard. They were replaced by "Blue Line" drawings, which are also long out of date. These days they're almost always a .pdf, but no one is going to say "the action was .pdf'd". <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ntsqd, post: 2016051, member: 93138"] I'm looking at it literally to illustrate in just how ambiguous the term is. This comes from long association with the term as applied to engines, where it is similarly ambiguous. Mostly because those "blueprints" are not easily found and if they were found they would be nearly useless to the goal of making the assembly perform better than OEM. After all, the tolerances found on those prints produced the level of performance that is objectionable. Why would you use the print(s) to try to make it work better? Until I took the required Engineering Ethics class I did not know this, but Engineering part and assembly drawings are not just guidance, they are a legal document that is a contract. They define what the part or assembly should be and how much each dimension can vary from the designed dimension. If you give me a drawing to produce a part and I accept it I am legally obligated to produce that part within the dimensions on the drawing. If I do not produce parts within those dims then legally you're not obligated to pay me for the parts and I'm stuck with them because they're useless to you. As an aside, "blueprint" is a name for a particular type of drawing that hasn't been used since the late 1960's to early 1970's. It seems that the ammonia used to produce that type of drawing was a health hazard. They were replaced by "Blue Line" drawings, which are also long out of date. These days they're almost always a .pdf, but no one is going to say "the action was .pdf'd". :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
"Blueprinted"
Top