|
alain pilon
I think you are overthinking it.? You are listing a bunch of variables without knowing if they actually have an impact or not on the end result. For example, you?cite using variable pressure. Unless one of the papers behaves completely differently when the pressure changes during sanding (which I doubt), this variable would be irrelevant since the controlled experiment?would?use the same pressure variation for all of them. The stock removal would change from the constant pressure vs variable pressure tests, but only in absolute values, not relative. Testing without dust extraction is useless since it would?not represent real life usage.? Regarding pricing, you can easily get the data and put your own price and see how it changes the results.? My point is, even if the experience isn't?perfect in the sense that it represents a best case?scenario, it has one of the most important criteria for experimentation: it is reproducible. So anyone (with a robot) can replicate it with its own set of parameters and create a new set of results to add to the knowledge base. Just like Patrick Sullivan research on glue (), I think this kind of work is improving the craft by transforming guesses into facts.? On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:38 AM marty shultz <azmartys@...> wrote: Having spent some of my career designing and running experiments I can see flaws in his experimental process. I thought about running my own test.? I'd like to see additional factors like: Grain (open vs closed grain),? Hardness, With/without vacuum extraction, Force (heavy vs light), and say 5 additional professional sandpaper types. I'd like to measure how the paper does when sanding glue joints.? Does it clog up fast??? |
