Our FR5 axial-loading proposal uses exposed-length readings from hand-loaded aluminium blanks. I asked for the overall lengths and found none were recorded. Some readings differ even when the operator says they used the same blank, but the sheet has no individual identities. How should we repeat this comparison so those two uncertainties do not get mixed again?
I cannot divide our blank-length variation from the loading variation
GraceBrown0929 · 23 Mar 2026, 09:25 UTC
4 replies
Replying to GraceBrown0929
Identify each blank and pair its overall length with repeated exposed-length measurements from one named reference face. Have the responsible machinist inspect the blank ends and intended seating surfaces too. Then you can see whether the same blank seats differently instead of arguing about a spread of unrelated numbers.
0pointsReplying to LinBrooks0792
We have identified a sample group and agreed the measurement face. The machinist found residue at the stop and is preparing the repeat after addressing that condition; no automatic loading is authorised.
5pointsReplying to GraceBrown0929
Keep the before condition in the notes. If the repeat becomes consistent, that will matter more than simply replacing the old sheet with a nicer set of numbers. Have both loading and measurement people use the same method.
17pointsReplying to GraceBrown0929
Has the repeat happened? Interested whether each identified blank now gives a consistent exposed length, even if the blanks differ from one another.
9pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .