Talk:Engineering drawing

Improvement drive

Graphics is currently nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you want to contribute.--Fenice 20:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC) You have placed in a link to American standards but no to British? Is there a reason for this? Would be helpful if we could see helpful relevent links to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.240.244 (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

the symbols for projection

First Angle Projection First Angle Projection Symbol

Third Angle Projection Third Angle Projection Symbol

These first(or third) angle projection symbols are respectively derived by projecting a (hollow) truncated cone placed in the first (or third) quadrant, in first(or third) angle projection as described by the glass box method and then flattening the vertical projection planes to lie in the horizontal plane.

Due to the symmetry of the cone only one of the side views needs to be generated. The double circles represent the top view of the cone and the trapezoid the side view of the cone.

[TO DO - insert suitable image here showing generation of views.]

Samiran cj 05:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Engineering Drawing

I think there needs to be a history section for engineering drawing. Several years ago I read that the invention of drawing that accurately represented the device lead to the "renaissance" more than anything. In the past everything was drawn flat and without Perspective (graphical) and could not be successfully built in most cases. Septagram (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

please i am from Nig and i want know the origin of engineering drawing and it's important to civil engineers pls help me out bcos i need it now. (Preceding unsigned comment from unknown user relocated from above contents box to this section by CheMechanical (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

Example of Eng Drawing

The figure in this section of the article is wrong. The section arrow should point in the opposite direction, and the section A-A note should be below the section view. Iepeulas (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right! Section Views go BEHIND the arrows. The line indicates the 'cutting plane' and the arrows indicate the direction the 'observer' is looking from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.141.42 (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New images

We have gone through an overhaul of images on this page, converting from raster to vector. The mechanical drawing is still to be completed. If you have any comments or suggestions for improvement of these images please post them at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Engineering drawing. Thanks. Dhatfield (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WESLEY A HARTMAN

--66.228.109.8 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

BS 8888 in US/Canada?

"Third angle projection is primarily used in the United States and Canada, where it is the default projection system according to BS 8888:2006...."

Unless I'm very much mistaken, BS 8888 cannot be the reason for the default use of the third angle projection system in the US and Canada. BS stands for British Standard, so doesn't apply to those working outside of Great Britain.

I'd change this sentence myself but I have no idea of the actual reason behind this default system in the US and Canada so I'll leave it to someone that has a better idea.

--Mothball (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, also we are told that first angle is used in Europe which could imply that the UK uses first angle contrary to the British Standard.

All the UK engineering drawings I have seen have been third angle.Bruern Crossing (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Darrylh08 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC): Yes, in Canada we were taught ANSI (American Standard) third angle projection method, without even referring to e.g. Y 14.3 or Y 14.5. But if I need to interpret European drawings, I refer to my ISO 128-1982, which explains both common projection methods. We should remember that the British may not necessarily consider themselves European, and our North American standards may have 'come over on the Mayflower'. I suspect BS 8888:2008 "Technical Product Specification" is a recent consolidation, is correct, and explains best practices, but is not a historical reference. Also, I notice Wikipedia article "Multiview orthographic projection" explains better. Maybe we should cut this shorter and link refer to that article?Darrylh08 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

question

if a line is inclined to both HP and VP and one of its end lies in HP and other in VP then how to draw the projections?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.82.232 (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration

• In this edit text was copy/paste from here. -- Mdd (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbose

Wow, this article is verbose. There is a lot of good essay writing, but much of the verbage is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'll take a swipe or two at individual sections when I have the time, but any one of headings can prolly be reduced for a few concise sentences and still retain the same information. Help in this regard is welcome. Also, SOURCES!!!! — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 03:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Borders and zones, or, frames and grids

The conventional parts of an engineering drawing are all enclosed in a frame. The frame was originally intended to ensure that the information inside it would not become lost or damaged. Damage could be caused by the paper being ripped and information being obscured by repeated use of the pins used to attach the drawing to the drawing board. The dimensions of the frame are specified in the standards. The frame is not currently mentioned in the article.

Another feature not mentioned is the grid, a sub-dividing of the area inside the frame, usually by horizontal letters and vertical numbers. The grid reference would be used in the notes to facilitate the location of features on a large, crowded, drawing. AnnaComnemna (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The grid is already discussed under the heading Zones, but you are right that the word "grid" was not mentioned there. I added it. As for the border/frame, interesting that standards specify its size. I never knew that! Thanks for sharing. — ¾-10 00:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sectiion, Sectional view differentiation

It seems to me that section 2.2.6 currently entitled “Section views” does not discriminate between :-

1. 1 A section, which is a view which shows only the configuration of the solid material in the plane at which the section is taken.

1. 2 A sectional view, which shows the appearance of the part when looking from the plane where the sectional view is taken, in the direction indicated on the drawing.

See, for example, Textbook of Machine drawing. KC John, page 68. Whether this is significant for Wikipedia purposes I do not know. AnnaComnemna (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Paper Sizes

Where did the table of US paper sizes come from? I've never seen a sheet of paper a non-power-of-two fraction of an inch like 8.2", and this also doesn't match other articles on paper size. The drawing sizes I'm familiar with are A= 8½"×11" (Letter size), B=11"×17", C would be 22"×17" but I've never actually seen one, and D is 22"×34" which is standard for construction drawings. Did somebody do a conversion from metric for the article and round badly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5600:857D:BD6C:B271:90C1:5CFA (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You were right, the ANSI numbers were BS, whether by vandalism or accident. No sense forking the content here anyway, because ANSI/ASME Y14.1 covers it entirely. I fixed the section so it now has a diagram and a link to ANSI/ASME Y14.1. For anyone interested, French & Vierck 1953 pp. 489-490 has more info on ASA precursor info. Mostly the same as Y14.1. — ¾-10 02:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

contested deletions

I undid [1] a large set of deletions that were described as spam [2], removing content because of a lack of citations [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] or with with no stated reason [9]. While some of the material may be questionable, some of these edits are definitely not appropriate. The definition of the term "engineering drawing" is clearly not spam [10], and this edit removed [11] a useful paragraph. It's a bit overstated, but certainly I see no issue with the "Engineering drawing uses an extensive set of conventions to convey information very precisely, with very little ambiguity" part. Meters (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)