Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: doubling resolution strategy # 2

Hi,

Thanks to everyone for the ideas. I don't yet have the machine together
enough to make parts as a couple of you suggest but, while I had thought of
this myself as a possible way of checking things, I realised that all it
will do really is add in another whole set of errors. For example, how would
you know what is tool deflection, inaccuracies in the diameter of a tool,
offset errors etc. ? I know this is probably going a bit over the top but I
am, after all, hoping to make some quite accurate bits for wrist watches on
my little mill when its done. I am fairly happy that the problems I have are
with measuring rather than the machine itself but, with the amount of talk
on the resolution of machines on the list - accuracies to better than
1/10thou etc., I thought perhaps people were actually working to such
tolerances and verifying that their machines actually did what they assume
they are capable of. Perhaps not.
Thanks,

Ian
--
Ian W. Wright
Sheffield UK
www.iw63.freeserve.co.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: <ballendo@...>
> The simple answer is:
>
> With something KNOWN to be more accurate than what you are checking.

> P.P.S. You could also design some "parts" which can be tested for
> size/geometry/location. Based on the metrology of the parts, you will
> know what your machine can, and can't do. The trick here is in the
> design of suitable "test" parts... But really, if the machine makes
> the parts YOU need to make, to the tolerances that YOU are capable of
> checking, isn't that enough?
>