HassanBrown0878 · 10 Oct 2025, 05:07 UTC
Measure the individual blank lengths and identify each sample. Exposed length alone mixes part length with how it seated against the stop.
4 pointsWhich end contacts the stop?
11 pointsAnd did anyone reload the same blank, or is every reading a different part?
15 pointsLucy, the cut end. Jack, different parts, unmarked. We need a fresh comparison.
-6 pointsUse an agreed measuring reference for the exposed length too. A new set of named samples will not help if people measure from different chuck features.
14 pointsWe did exactly that. One person used the front face, another measured from a jaw step because it was easier to reach. Both wrote stick-out. Lovely graph, meaningless comparison.
1 pointsHassan, is the cut end's condition included in the inspection?
14 pointsYes. Machining lead and inspection are defining the blank-end check and one reference. No automatic loading approved.
13 pointsLeo, would you keep the old sheet at all? I left ours in the folder with a warning and somebody still reused the chart in a presentation.
2 pointsKeep it as historical evidence with its limitations, but withdraw the chart from decision material. Deleting the sheet would also lose why the comparison was restarted.
17 pointsA warning belongs on the chart itself, not only in the folder notes
15 pointsFresh measurements show length differences between blanks and inconsistent seating of one sample. Old chart withdrawn. Both causes need review.
13 pointsDid the troublesome sample have an abnormal cut end?
14 pointsJack, yes, that would have saved our presentation problem. Thanks. We labelled the data file and forgot the exported picture had a life of its own.
19 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .