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。
Eli_Carr · 2026年7月3日 04:05 UTC
Identify and measure each blank's length separately, then compare repeated manual seating of those same blanks under the machinist's normal procedure. Use the defined axial reference, not just a convenient visible edge.
4分The old sheet only names projection and gives no individual blank identities; we have retained new identified samples for the separate length and repeat-seating comparison
4分Have the machinist confirm what establishes axial seating in that setup and how the reference condition is checked. You need that definition before interpreting a repeated projection change as a loading fault, and the old unpaired readings should stay unpaired.
5分Were all the old entries measured from the same face, Eli? It might not be recoverable, but I'd ask. Two people measuring from different convenient edges can create variation before the blank or seating even enters the argument.
-2分Theo, we cannot establish the old reference face; Liam, the machinist has now defined the axial stop and projection face for the current manual comparison, with their condition checked before the readings
22分Then compare repeated readings within each identified blank before comparing the different blanks. Those answer different parts of your question.
3分And retain any observed seating difficulty with the measurement rather than discard it as a bad attempt. The current study should explain the work needed to establish the condition, not only the readings after somebody has made everything behave.
8分The identified samples repeat against the checked stop within our measurement tolerance, while their separate lengths explain the between-blank projection differences; all meet the stated stock limits, but the old sheet remains unexplained and automatic loading still requires its own assessed sequence
3分