This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This is an area of gage making that takes something simple like a go/nogo plain plug gage and adds another feature for another check, such as hole depth.
This question would seem to be an easy one to answer but—like too many things in life—nothing is simple anymore. This is due to the absence of standardized rules on which to base the decision which will vary from one organization to another.
I have received a couple of emails from readers recently concerning what does or does not have to be calibrated within a quality system. In both cases, the companies already have a program in place to ensure their measuring equipment, masters, etc., are calibrated on a regular basis but an odd item has popped up leading to debate within the company on whether that odd item has to be included in their calibration program as well.
Fluke Calibration introduces the 5322A Electrical Tester Calibrator, a multi-device calibrator built to facilitate compliance with exacting international standards such as the United Kingdom’s BS7671 17th Edition, IEC/EN Standards, Australia and New Zealand’s AS/NZS 3000 and Chinese verification/calibration regulations for various electrical testers.
I received an email from a reader with a question about different kinds of reports and certificates dealing with calibration—a subject that I comment on from time to time.
There’s no question about this column. I accept the blame for what appears in this monthly effort for better or worse. This column is all about the standards I often refer to in my rants. I frequently encounter folks who question the information these standards contain and sometimes the question is valid but there are ways to challenge or change technical details within them.
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.