T
Timmer
We are currently communicating with a company that produces a reference artifact that in theory would eliminate the need for an outside company to come in a perform yearly verifications- unless service is needed. This is not a plug for the company, rather a chance for others to look at their product and respond if you like! www.metronomUS.com Our plan if we indeed go forward with the system would be to send the artifact out yearly to a certified lab for calibration, and if all is well use the system to perform monthly verifications on each of our 9 CMM's. The report generated from the software is much like our external cal lab's report with squareness, linearity and volumetric readings given. IF we do monthly 15 minute verifications with this system we should be able to watch for trends or drifting on each axis, then if need be call in for outside service. In theory if we adopt this practice, we could see a drift on an axis that occurs prior to a scheduled calibration, or in fact let us extend our calibration appointment for a time until we notice the need for outside service on a machine. The cost savings to the company would be great since each machine costs over $600 to get an outside calibration service call, not including parts and labor if more work is needed. My question to our registrar, and our QS/ISO facilitator and to you all is.....is this a sound plan to follow, using a certified artifact to verifiy our machines on a monthly basis and extend our need for an outside calibration company to come in yearly? Or are there other factors to consider when examining the ISO 10360-2 CMM standard which are covered by an outside company performing our calibrations. Thanks, Tim