Posted by Steviegtr on 12/05/2020 13:49:06:
Posted by Tony Pratt 1 on 12/05/2020 12:23:04:
Posted by Steviegtr on 11/05/2020 22:55:24:
'I would at least expected a Jacobs chuck to be true.'
…
Another thing I had not taken into account ,Tony is that most of my stuff is used. How much of a hard life they have had , who knows…
Steve.
Another suspect is how and what was measured. For example, I'd measure the run-out of something held by the Jacobs chuck, not the chuck itself, and that something needs to be a known precision round item itself. (Maybe that's what you did?)
However, a chuck only has to be accurate internally to position the drill in line with the spindle axis: it doesn't have to be externally accurate. Quite often chucks are internally and externally coaxial because of the way they're made, but it's not guaranteed! Any hoo, it doesn't matter how much the outside of a chuck wobbles.
Be good if some kind expert did a master-class on precision measurement for us. It's full of pitfalls, really easy to get wrong. One clue to faulty technique is getting contradictory measurements from the same set-up, which Luke might be experiencing. Maybe some of your results are misleading too – the accessories are actually OK.
When measurements get down to a thou or less tiny errors in technique intrude seriously. How the DTI or micrometer was held, choice of reference points, the geometry of the object and many other factors matter. In the tenths region, temperature makes an observable difference, or at least it should do. Remember a chap explaining temperature didn't interfere with his micrometer readings when a quick calculation showed temperature should have made a visible difference. He was probably subconsciously torquing the instrument to get the exact reading expected, not letting it stop on the ratchet for the true, slightly off, answer.
I'd love to set up a trial at an Exhibition were chaps measured a number of unknown slips with a few different micrometers, some calibrated, others not. The slips would be finished to non-standard sizes. I guess quite a few would make 9.99mm read 10.00, and there would be a scatter of results around an odd dimension like 14.385mm. I find it quite hard to work a micrometer truthfully and reliably, especially on rods. Be really good to learn how to do it properly!
Dave