View Single Post
  #52   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-08-2012, 10:29
Ether's Avatar
Ether Ether is offline
systems engineer (retired)
no team
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 1969
Location: US
Posts: 8,012
Ether has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coefficient of Friction Testing

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesCH95 View Post
That particular angle gauge isn't exactly appropriate then. There are digital angle gauges with a "level" function that does not require calibration on a particular surface.
They do not require calibration by the user because they are calibrated at the factory. That is a source of error, analogous to using a bubble level to locate a level surface for test set-up.

In most modern buildings, it is easy to find a flat level location using a bubble level. Once that location is selected for the test setup, multiple "tilt" tests can be conducted without the need to measure the gravity reference each time.

Whether or not the factory calibration of a device with a built-in level is inferior or superior to the use of a mechanical bubble level is an open question at the moment.

The digital readout of an angle sensor is certainly more convenient1, but that's not the point of contention here.


1It's also more expensive if you don't already happen to have one on hand