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 · 2025年11月12日 09:52 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
7 条回复
Keep it as an observation, not a repeatability result. Are the original blanks retained?
15分回复 KaiBrown0889
Retained as a mixed handful, not linked to readings. I can't reconstruct the order from memory.
14分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.
4分回复 LeahChen1191
Agreed. A tidy guessed order would make the sheet worse.
13分回复 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.
7分What measuring reference did the old sheet use? Even if the individual readings cannot be paired, that description may help explain what was observed.
4分回复 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.
7分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .