“Nail head” callout should read “flat end” to match verbiage in the top leftmost callout. This note could actually be removed completely since top left callout already says “flat end” and has a leader pointing at the flat end. If the intent for the verbiage “nail head” is to be preserved, the top left verbiage should be modified from “flat end” to “nail head”. I personally suspect given the poignant use of “pointy end”, that the intent of “nail head” is less authentic that “flat end”.
Top left callout does not specify which end of the hammer to use, or even to use an end. If there is additional documentation or details regarding method of hammer use. It’s impossible to know without a detail callout to such.
There’s absolutely zero reference to angle of entry other than the visual depiction, which should never be trusted alone. An indication of perpendicularity would work at the intersection of the nail in the wood, or a classic arc bound angle dimension.
‘Remove fingers’ is unnecessarily vague and may even result in loss of fingers should one verbosely follow instruction.
I’d like to see a table of suggested strikes to completion, with wood/media hardness on one axis, nail length on another axis. Bonus if it’s a 3d graph and there’s depth which acts as a function of nail diameter.
Also… call me crazy but I don’t think the top surface of the wood looks parallel to the detail title underline, and that’s fucking tragic if true.
I’m a CAD detailer, and BIM Coordinator, and a whole bunch of other things, so kinda yeah. I’m responsible for all the CAD related tasks in the company I slave for.
There’s also no material control for the entire drawing. If there’s alternative woods permitted, does that affect your nail selection. This drawing seems ripe for a Design Variations Table.
“Nail head” callout should read “flat end” to match verbiage in the top leftmost callout. This note could actually be removed completely since top left callout already says “flat end” and has a leader pointing at the flat end. If the intent for the verbiage “nail head” is to be preserved, the top left verbiage should be modified from “flat end” to “nail head”. I personally suspect given the poignant use of “pointy end”, that the intent of “nail head” is less authentic that “flat end”.
Top left callout does not specify which end of the hammer to use, or even to use an end. If there is additional documentation or details regarding method of hammer use. It’s impossible to know without a detail callout to such.
There’s absolutely zero reference to angle of entry other than the visual depiction, which should never be trusted alone. An indication of perpendicularity would work at the intersection of the nail in the wood, or a classic arc bound angle dimension.
‘Remove fingers’ is unnecessarily vague and may even result in loss of fingers should one verbosely follow instruction.
I’d like to see a table of suggested strikes to completion, with wood/media hardness on one axis, nail length on another axis. Bonus if it’s a 3d graph and there’s depth which acts as a function of nail diameter.
Also… call me crazy but I don’t think the top surface of the wood looks parallel to the detail title underline, and that’s fucking tragic if true.
Not only that, the detailed title underline isn’t a straight line. It’s unevenly curved.
That’s from being rolled up in the field, this is a scanned document
This is fantastic! You’re a drawing checker/approver aren’t you?
I’m a CAD detailer, and BIM Coordinator, and a whole bunch of other things, so kinda yeah. I’m responsible for all the CAD related tasks in the company I slave for.
See also: Engineering Drawing I, II courses
There’s also no material control for the entire drawing. If there’s alternative woods permitted, does that affect your nail selection. This drawing seems ripe for a Design Variations Table.
SHOW ME THE MATRIX