Our company has recently reworked our cal procedure for dial gauges. We have based our new verification procedure on ANSI/ASME B89.1.10M-2001, because it is the only pre-establised documented procedure we could find. This has resulted in a moronically long verification process that basically involves checking the dial in 4 locations per revolution, then a whole extra process for repeatability. The problem is, a dial indicator either works correctly or not. Two trips to the top will tell you that, but our accreditation body needs more info than that, understandably. Anyone know of any other sneeky tidbits snuck into an ASHTO or ASTM, that we could use to maybe tone this procedure down.

Thanks,
STUK KALIBRATING DIALS TIL MIDNITE :bonk:

Dear Stuck calibrating dial gauges until midnight. What is there better to do in Texas on a Friday Night? I mean, if there ain't Football, there ain't life!!:lol::lmao:

Welcome to the Cove! I'm here in Arlington, so it sure is good to have you here. :agree:

What kind of dial indicator are you talking about anyway-temperature, pressure, other? Is your organization 17025 accredited?

It sounds like you know what you're doing. Why did they change the procedure on you? Was the other one not working? Were there problems with the other one? Are you in a regulated industry?

Just trying to get some background on where you are coming from.

Look forward to having you around.

What kind of dial indicator are you talking about anyway-temperature, pressure, other?
Have a look at the photos on the bottom of this page (http://www.mini-lathe.org.uk/dial_indicators.shtml).

Dang thing wont let me quote yall because I have not been here long enuf.


The one on the left is closer to what we generally do. What they actually measure is essentially a distance. The dials usually have a 1 inch or .5 inch "TI" or total inches with a certain amount of divisions and revolutions to reach that "TI" We are accredited by A2LA, and they recently did an audit of our cal procedure and said it was insufficient. It was a procedure based on professional experience more than on industry standard. Thats why they didn't like it. God forbid a technician with 30 years of experience "my boss" comes up with a easier way to do the same friggin thing. Anywho, thats the story.

This might be a dirty trick if it works, But the only reason for this reply is to move the topic back to the top of the thread list.

This might be a dirty trick if it works, But the only reason for this reply is to move the topic back to the top of the thread list. Nothing wrong with giving the thread a bump. It's not only the weekend, when things are normally slow around here, but a holiday weekend. Be patient and I'm sure you'll get some help.

Dang thing wont let me quote yall because I have not been here long enuf.


You should have no problem quoting someone, using the quote button. If you get a chance, check out this thread below:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=19144

The one on the left is closer to what we generally do. What they actually measure is essentially a distance. The dials usually have a 1 inch or .5 inch "TI" or total inches with a certain amount of divisions and revolutions to reach that "TI" We are accredited by A2LA, and they recently did an audit of our cal procedure and said it was insufficient. It was a procedure based on professional experience more than on industry standard. Thats why they didn't like it. God forbid a technician with 30 years of experience "my boss" comes up with a easier way to do the same friggin thing. Anywho, thats the story.

Interesting. Did you not perform validation on your current procedure and document that activity? Is this work you are performing for yourself, or someone else?

Is there another standard procedure out there besides the ASME procedure?

It is accurate that you should go to a higher order procedure (in this case, the national standard). However, I would think you should be able to develop a plan where you have established repeatability of your instruments, and thus, be able to relax things a bit.

But all that would need to be documented.:agree1:

One idea is that you might could establish training levels for your technicians (documented of course:D) where the different level technicians have demonstrated measured precision with their testing methods (not the device). You might could relax # of repetitions based on this testing.

Also, you could perform gauge R&R to establish acceptable instruments.

Just some ideas; hope they help. Of course, these proposals would need to be presented to your accreditor. :D

Is there another standard procedure out there besides the ASME procedure?


That is essentially what I am trying to determine via this forum. Our instruments are all NIST traceable, and we have established repeatability for them. That having been said, we also need to be pretty close to an industry standard. I do feel that our quality officer may have gone overboard by following the ASME to the letter, when we were only really told, that our existing procedure was insufficient in one specific area. I have been reading and trying to find something in ASTM, no luck yet.

Thanks

That is essentially what I am trying to determine via this forum. Our instruments are all NIST traceable, and we have established repeatability for them. That having been said, we also need to be pretty close to an industry standard. I do feel that our quality officer may have gone overboard by following the ASME to the letter, when we were only really told, that our existing procedure was insufficient in one specific area. I have been reading and trying to find something in ASTM, no luck yet.

Thanks

Ok, gotcha. What was it about your existing procedure that was insufficient? Would it be worth validating it to demonstrate its effectiveness?

I realize that is not the answer to finding another standard, but am interested in what is inadequate about your existing procedure. Maybe your existing procedure needs to be improved, testing, and communication made with your AB. Do you think that would work?

what is inadequate about your existing procedure. Maybe your existing procedure needs to be improved, testing, and communication made with your AB. Do you think that would work?

I cant tell you what was wrong with it, because it would involve advising you of our procedure, even if its our old one. I could possibly be reprimanded for even talking about this subject on an open forum. We hold a particular accreditation that nobody else has, and our procedures are very tightly controlled. sorry!
I do think that a rework along with a demonstration would be adequate, but our Q.O. doesn't agree. He believes in overkill as a deterrent to questions.:tg:

I cant tell you what was wrong with it, because it would involve advising you of our procedure, even if its our old one. I could possibly be reprimanded for even talking about this subject on an open forum. We hold a particular accreditation that nobody else has, and our procedures are very tightly controlled. sorry!
I do think that a rework along with a demonstration would be adequate, but our Q.O. doesn't agree. He believes in overkill as a deterrent to questions.:tg:

Yes! By all means, please don't divulge anything that you feel might be information of a proprietary nature or anything. I have yet to see things that could not be answered in a generic fashion.

The thing is not that I know what is wrong with it, but that you do, which sounds like the case.:agree1::yes: I would move to improving the procedure, and making it the way it should be.

As for the overkill and your Q.O, that is a matter which needs to be addressed. Running scared from auditors and jumping overboard every-time something happens is a sure-fire way to develop a bloated/ resource-consuming process.:D

Like I said, I think that good communication needs to be cultivated with the auditor.

Another thing you can do is send one of them to a competent lab. See what results (and procedure) they use to calibrate the instrument.