简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
John_Campbell · 2026年6月10日 07:49 UTC
Pair each projection reading with that blank's independently measured length. Otherwise there is no way to know whether two projections came from different lengths or different seating.
22分The old samples were not individually marked. I can arrange identified blanks for a new manual study with the setter and quality.
2分A study I saw used two convenient reference faces for projection, depending on who held the gauge. We almost chased the chuck over it. Agree the reference and measurement method before collecting the new rows.
17分Quality has specified one reference face and a method. The setter is defining the approved seating observations; I am not adding robot loading to that study.
2分Can you record any chips or damaged ends found too? I mean what the setter observes, not just a box saying the area was checked.
7分And record any clean-up or reseating between readings. If the second measurement follows an unrecorded intervention, you'll be back to guessing why it changed.
22分Are you retaining the blanks until quality finishes the comparison? A surprising row is much easier to investigate when its part has not joined the next batch.
18分Yes, retained by identifier. The first results show length explains only part of the projection variation. Some seating observations differ too; no single cause established.
21分Was the reference-face method used consistently in those results? Interested because that was the mundane failure in the study I mentioned, and it wasted a lot of clever discussion.
18分Quality confirmed the recorded method was consistent. They are reviewing the seating cases with the setter before defining another study. Robot sequence design remains waiting for that result.
10分Thanks for explaining the length result. I would like to know what they find in the seating cases too.
13分