I’ve commented on this subject from time to time but thought I’d have another go at it since the questions never seem to go away. I’m referring to the language used in our day-to-day work in measurement and calibration.
You’ve made the threaded parts and are confident they are okay because you’ve checked them with your gages. Then you get the call from the customer advising you that their gages have rejected the parts and they are demanding re-work or replacements ASAP.
The need for nondestructive evaluation on large quantity production components is becoming more achievable with CT technology due to the advances in machine hardware and processing techniques over the past few years.
In recent columns I’ve commented on information requests accompanying calibration orders. Some of these are common and effective but some are not. Occasionally, they are brought about due to their inclusion in one standard or another but are misrepresented. In some cases, the standard they are from relates to in-house systems rather than calibration activities by outside parties.
I took a cursory look at this subject in a recent column but with the increasing number of companies expecting their calibration sources to make such decisions on their behalf, I thought a little more detail was in order.
Fluke Calibration expands its line of pressure modules with the new PM500 Pressure Measurement Modules, a set of 46 modules ranging from low differential pressures up to 20 MPa (3000 psi).
A few customers are requesting that reports show the actual lab humidity during calibration of their equipment. I realize that this can be a critical consideration for some types of calibration but when it comes to fixed limit gages, I have never heard the rationale for such a request other than it’s what their customer expects.