The hand-loading sheet lists different stick-out readings but no sample identities. Before our UR5e study goes further, can I learn anything from it without pretending those are repeated checks of one blank?
our blank length sheet doesn't identify the blanks
ChloeAdams0135 · 12 Nov 2025, 09:52 UTC
7 replies
Replying to ChloeAdams0135
Keep it as an observation, not a repeatability result. Are the original blanks retained?
15pointsReplying to KaiBrown0889
Retained as a mixed handful, not linked to readings. I can't reconstruct the order from memory.
14pointsReplying to ChloeAdams0135
Then don't. Label the limitation on the sheet and have inspection define a fresh identified comparison. Length, the end against the stop, and the intended seating contacts need attention; exposed length alone mixes those questions together.
4pointsReplying to LeahChen1191
Agreed. A tidy guessed order would make the sheet worse.
13pointsReplying to LeahChen1191
I've kept the old sheet with that warning. Inspector is identifying the retained blanks and asking the machinist how each was intended to contact the stop. Automatic loading remains outside this check.
7pointsReplying to ChloeAdams0135
What measuring reference did the old sheet use? Even if the individual readings cannot be paired, that description may help explain what was observed.
4pointsReplying to LeahChen1191
Chuck face to exposed end, confirmed by the person who measured it. Thanks Leah, I've added that description without inventing the missing sample links.
7pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .