We assume that metrology software is validated in so far as there has been a standardized evaluation by NIST or PTB that the calculations made by metrology software are accurate. It seems like this is not the case at all. In my pursuit of validating a particular software that will go unnamed, I’ve learned that the only validation that occurs as explained by the manufacture are……
“PTB certification is related only to LS calculations of simple geometrical features: line, plane, circle, cylinder, and cone. There is so far as I know, no formal authority to certify GD&T evaluations”.
So all the datum-less surface profile , pattern, best-fit whatever is all theoretical and not guaranteed by sanctioning body such as PTB or NIST. Is this why correlation on complex geometry with vendors using different metrology software such a nightmare? As I understand it, people at NIST and PTB know its a problem but no one want to open the proverbial “Pandora’s box” of admitting most of the calculations used to evaluate to the ASMEY14.5 2018 standard have not been 3rd party validated so everyone looks the other way.
What do you guys think? am I way off and missing something?
submitted by /u/Hobbit144
[visit reddit] [comments]
Source link
