I'm not an expert in Gage R&R yet. I know what it's for but am not very experienced in analyzing the results.

Attached is a pdf with two studies I did yesterday. I would appreciate any feedback and thoughts on the results.

Thanks!

The gage is not accurate enough for the tol.
http://www.mitutoyo.com/TerminalMerchandisingGroup.aspx?group=1381

Use a gage that has a resolution of 10 to 1 so .003 tol. would need a gage that can read to .0003.

The gage is not accurate enough for the tol.
http://www.mitutoyo.com/TerminalMerchandisingGroup.aspx?group=1381

Use a gage that has a resolution of 10 to 1 so .003 tol. would need a gage that can read to .0003.

I agree with that for the first dimension measure with the 0-6" caliper. Thanks for the validation.

But for the second dimension the a 0-1" micrometer was to .00005.

Sorry did not see the 2nd one, the operator variation is pretty high, is it a verneir mic or a indicator mic? .0003 with a mic on the same part makes me think the operator does not have the "feel" needed to use a mic. Try a two click thimble mic. You should not see that much of a range. With a thimble mic i would expect .0002 from operator to operator, more than that one of them has a bad techneic. Watch how they use the mic, same part as close to possible same place on part. Does the part have taper? If so that would induce more variation than just the gage and operator. Also note temp, and lenght of time they hold the mic and part. COE is a big factor for mics and parts.

A gr&r is a way to look at the gage and operators ability to measure a feature. At 20%, 80% of the time you are not getting a true accurate measurement.

Attached is a Minitab ANOVA analysis of your data.

The caliper may be suitable if you can address the operator to operator differences. Operators 2 & 4 measure distinctly higher than the other 3. This may be due to technique, pressure, etc.

The micrometer results are marginally acceptable but may be improved by studying the method used by Operator 5. This operator has distinctly less variation within their results. There are also distinct operator to operator differences, probably due to pressure. Did all use the thumb ratchet?

Sorry did not see the 2nd one, the operator variation is pretty high, is it a verneir mic or a indicator mic? .0003 with a mic on the same part makes me think the operator does not have the "feel" needed to use a mic. Try a two click thimble mic. You should not see that much of a range. With a thimble mic i would expect .0002 from operator to operator, more than that one of them has a bad techneic. Watch how they use the mic, same part as close to possible same place on part. Does the part have taper? If so that would induce more variation than just the gage and operator. Also note temp, and lenght of time they hold the mic and part. COE is a big factor for mics and parts.

A gr&r is a way to look at the gage and operators ability to measure a feature. At 20%, 80% of the time you are not getting a true accurate measurement.

Like so with the friction thimble:
http://www.mitutoyo.com/TerminalMerchandisingGroup.aspx?group=1092

On the part there is no taper and it's not a diameter - it's flat to flat.

I'm not doubting one or two of them need improvement on technique. I've been diddling with the data and in both cases if I remove one or two of the appraisers I get FAR better results on the AV and R&R.
So I guess that tells me who needs some work.

Thanks for the feedback. :thanx:

Attached is a Minitab ANOVA analysis of your data.

The caliper may be suitable if you can address the operator to operator differences. Operators 2 & 4 measure distinctly higher than the other 3. This may be due to technique, pressure, etc.

The micrometer results are marginally acceptable but may be improved by studying the method used by Operator 5. This operator has distinctly less variation within their results. There are also distinct operator to operator differences, probably due to pressure. Did all use the thumb ratchet?

cool, thanks!

I really need minitab.