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。
HassanBrown0878 · 2025年10月10日 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分Which end contacts the stop?
11分And did anyone reload the same blank, or is every reading a different part?
15分Lucy, the cut end. Jack, different parts, unmarked. We need a fresh comparison.
-6分Use 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分We 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分Hassan, is the cut end's condition included in the inspection?
14分Yes. Machining lead and inspection are defining the blank-end check and one reference. No automatic loading approved.
13分Leo, 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分Keep 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分A warning belongs on the chart itself, not only in the folder notes
15分Fresh measurements show length differences between blanks and inconsistent seating of one sample. Old chart withdrawn. Both causes need review.
13分Did the troublesome sample have an abnormal cut end?
14分Jack, 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分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .