One would hope that once a calibration laboratory has been accredited by a recognized agency, you could take the uncertainties shown on their scope of calibration at face value. 

Conversations around quality in metal additive manufacturing often focus on the flashy application of high-frequency, in situ, real-time monitoring systems and the neural networks or machine learning required for map-reduction of the mountains of data generated. There is, however, an often-overlooked aspect of consistently making high-quality parts: calibration.

I often take shots at those companies with great quality systems that get their calibration reports, scan them for red flags and then file them away if none are present. 

There’s an old saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Throughout the years, that expression has been adapted to fit different situations, including a “team is only as strong as its weakest player” or “your brand is only as strong as your weakest link.” 

In my last column I mentioned the Market Research Study: United States Testing Laboratories done by the Consulting Group at Virginia Tech with Rachel Trebour as the project manager.

About twenty years ago I was asked to make a presentation on calibration to a meeting of a local chapter of the National Conference of Standards Laboratories. 

I was chatting with a colleague recently, a well-known supplier of precision measuring instruments. I noted, sarcastically, that his company was promoting a half-day training seminar on calibration and best of all—it was free! 

East Coast Metrology LLC. (ECM – Global Measurement Solutions) announced the opening of a new training, service, calibration and retrofit facility in Wixom, MI.

Typical answers include: cheaper, faster, most accurate, none of which would pass a technical smell test. On reflection, many might say they want calibration to tell them if the item to be calibrated is any good or not while not defining what ‘good’ means from a technical point of view.

With more people than ever beginning to read what’s actually printed on calibration reports these days, what was supposed to bring clarity to measurements seems to be providing more discussions and arguments.