From: Chris R. <ch...@ti...> - 2011-04-15 16:06:03
|
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:28:00AM -0500, Stuart Stevenson wrote: > Gentlemen, > Another point of interest FYI. > The operator reported putting .392 in the g54 offset has eliminated the > miss position occurrences. Apparently, the g55 position was not miss > positioning at all, ever. I do not believe this is really cause/effect. It's easy to mistake a small amount of data to be a pattern. It's much worse when an error condition is rare; anything can seem to fix it. Did you check for lost counts in Y using the process I suggested? I think you can get some unmistakable data that way. Chris |