The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Statistical Techniques and 6 Sigma
  gage R&R for optical system

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   gage R&R for optical system
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 3
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 31 July 2000 11:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for marklee   Click Here to Email marklee     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm developing a measurement system for optical sensors. The alignment error of the sensor in the test fixture causes a component of gage error that is proportional to the true value of the sensor response when alignment is perfect. For example, if the true value of one sensor response is 100 counts and alignment error adds another +/-10 counts, then another sensor of true value 200 counts will have an alignment error of +/-20 counts. This kind of measurement error doesn't typically happen in measurment of mechanical components. All of the discussions of gage R&R that I have seen assumes that gage variability is a constant whether you are measuring small parts or large parts. For my application, the largest contributor to gage variability is a function of the underlying values I am trying to measure. I can influence my gage R&R results by selecting only weak or only strong response sensors. Is there a way to characterize the variablity in my gage that that avoids this problem?

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 09 August 2000 09:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It sounds like you do have a constant based on your example. Its 10%. I say that based on GRR studies we did on our optical CMM's. When we varied measurement parameters such as point quantities, focal thresholds, light contrasts and intensities, etc., when testing on a calibration standard, there was a definite correlation to the error generated and the variation of the measurement parameters and it was accurately expressable as percentage. I learned long ago to avoid comparing mechanical to optical measurement analysis, obviously because optics introduce so many variables that do not exist mechanically.
A GRR was "mechanically" consistent though when optical measurements were taken manually by operators, but the automated measurements resulted in a reliable percentage product.
I dont know if what I just explained applies to your sensors, but if it helps, then great.

Steve Truchon

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!

Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!