Nice video with tons of good information. The giant ad banner is a real distraction. Text only would be less distracting and still communicate the sponsors. Regards, Oxtools
The question about out of calibration quality checks raises an interesting observation. If your quality system records the measurement results for each part, rather than merely pass/fail, then you can use the revised calibration of the damaged instrument and project bounds for the tested parts. If the recorded measurement is within tolerance for both the adjusted and the recorded measurements you may not have to recall the part, but if you merely have a pass/fail recorded, you usually have to recall all the work since the damge event (after using sampling to locate the event). In either case you probably need to do indepth sampling after the first detected damage event, as the instrument may have sustained more than one damage event in which case a projection may be invalid.
Unless EVERY ball is made so that as DIAMETER changes so does the depth of the bore in the ball so the contact point relative to the lever remains constant to keep the contact at the same point in "space", changing balls will absolutely affect the "accuracy" of the measurement. Increasing the diameter and radius and putting the "center" of the ball further out or closer in on the stem is going to have exactly the same effect as changing the length OF the stem.
Nice video with tons of good information. The giant ad banner is a real distraction. Text only would be less distracting and still communicate the sponsors.
Regards,
Oxtools
this feels a whole lot like a '90s infomercial
The question about out of calibration quality checks raises an interesting observation. If your quality system records the measurement results for each part, rather than merely pass/fail, then you can use the revised calibration of the damaged instrument and project bounds for the tested parts. If the recorded measurement is within tolerance for both the adjusted and the recorded measurements you may not have to recall the part, but if you merely have a pass/fail recorded, you usually have to recall all the work since the damge event (after using sampling to locate the event).
In either case you probably need to do indepth sampling after the first detected damage event, as the instrument may have sustained more than one damage event in which case a projection may be invalid.
Unless EVERY ball is made so that as DIAMETER changes so does the depth of the bore in the ball so the contact point relative to the lever remains constant to keep the contact at the same point in "space", changing balls will absolutely affect the "accuracy" of the measurement. Increasing the diameter and radius and putting the "center" of the ball further out or closer in on the stem is going to have exactly the same effect as changing the length OF the stem.
thank you for the great video
Great information, thank you for sharing.
wish you would remove the advertisement as it blocks some of the video.
Hi. Why in 2014 do you still use potatocam?
The dude is so thick unbelievable