Pro/Forums - View Single Post

Cathar · 06-09-2003, 04:17 AM

My Maze 3 was lapped properly by me after I received it. The base wasn't that flat to begin with and I picked up an easy 2C from that lapping of it. Since I'm comparing against a well known product, I want that product to be operating in the best possible way that it can be made to, and to remove any possible inherent performance variances that may exist as it comes from the factory. That way I'm comparing against a well defined "high point" for a design, rather than a possible "middle or low point" in which performing "better" can suddenly be absorbed by merely picking/receiving a better example of the competing block.

All tests were run to equilibrium and the environment was very carefully controlled. Each block was mounted at least 10 times to minimise mounting variations which could, on occasion amount to 3C differences, and the various blocks were alternated between mounts to ensure that results were repeatable and comparable with earlier results and to provide additional control and detection for test setup and environment variances.

Since I'm developing a block, I feel that I absolutely owe it to myself to do these things, since it costs me money to make blocks and I don't want to be fooling myself as to what direction I'm heading at any point in time, or worse, that should anyone buy a block from me and perceive that I have fooled them as well.

I don't know how any of that applies to what is going on here. I just thought I'd share what I do to determine how well a block that I make performs relative to any other block. If I'm going to claim it's better than another block, it must be better than the best possible representation of that other block.

06-09-2003, 04:17 AM	#8
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	My Maze 3 was lapped properly by me after I received it. The base wasn't that flat to begin with and I picked up an easy 2C from that lapping of it. Since I'm comparing against a well known product, I want that product to be operating in the best possible way that it can be made to, and to remove any possible inherent performance variances that may exist as it comes from the factory. That way I'm comparing against a well defined "high point" for a design, rather than a possible "middle or low point" in which performing "better" can suddenly be absorbed by merely picking/receiving a better example of the competing block. All tests were run to equilibrium and the environment was very carefully controlled. Each block was mounted at least 10 times to minimise mounting variations which could, on occasion amount to 3C differences, and the various blocks were alternated between mounts to ensure that results were repeatable and comparable with earlier results and to provide additional control and detection for test setup and environment variances. Since I'm developing a block, I feel that I absolutely owe it to myself to do these things, since it costs me money to make blocks and I don't want to be fooling myself as to what direction I'm heading at any point in time, or worse, that should anyone buy a block from me and perceive that I have fooled them as well. I don't know how any of that applies to what is going on here. I just thought I'd share what I do to determine how well a block that I make performs relative to any other block. If I'm going to claim it's better than another block, it must be better than the best possible representation of that other block.