## 3 Results and Discussion
### Statistical Analysis of the Results
Conclusions can also be drawn from an earlier paper by some of us [1]:
* Looking at results for both Ti6 Al4V and Inconel 625, we see that the largest average value was observed for sample T6, while the smallest was for T2. For sample T6, the largest spread of measured deviation values in both material groups was also observed. * For nickel alloy samples, the effect of strategy on the deviation results was opposite compared to their titanium alloy counterparts, i.e., smaller values were obtained using \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **N1\_BOF** & **N2\_BOF** & **N3\_BOF** & **N4\_BOF** & **N5\_BOF** & **N6\_BOF** \\ \hline Difference (mm) & 0.01 & 0 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0 & 0 \\ Difference (\%) & 3.8 & 0 & 1.9 & 3 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The discrepancy between the maximum values of dimensional variations from the bottom of sample obtained by optical and contact measurements. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Sample** & **Mean Value** & **Median** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **Variance** & **Standard** & **Standard** \\  & **Number** & **Value** & **Value** & **Value** & **Value** & **Deviation** & **Error** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Contact} & N2\_MS & 0.23 & 0.25 & \(-\)0.03 & 0.38 & 0.01 & 0.10 & 0.01 \\  & N2\_BOF & \(-\)0.29 & \(-\)0.32 & \(-\)0.41 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.10 & 0.01 \\  & N3\_MS & 0.44 & 0.45 & 0.12 & 0.59 & 0.01 & 0.12 & 0.01 \\  & N3\_BOF & \(-\)0.40 & \(-\)0.41 & \(-\)0.53 & \(-\)0.09 & 0.01 & 0.12 & 0.01 \\  & N4\_MS & 0.22 & 0.23 & 0.01 & 0.31 & 0.01 & 0.07 & 0.01 \\  & N4\_BOF & \(-\)0.25 & \(-\)0.26 & \(-\)0.33 & \(-\)0.06 & 0.01 & 0.07 & 0.01 \\  & N5\_MS & 0.14 & 0.16 & \(-\)0.08 & 0.24 & 0.00 & 0.07 & 0.01 \\  & N5\_BOF & \(-\)0.24 & \(-\)0.26 & \(-\)0.33 & \(-\)0.02 & 0.01 & 0.07 & 0.01 \\  & N6\_MS & 0.23 & 0.23 & 0.09 & 0.32 & 0.00 & 0.06 & 0.00 \\  & N6\_BOF & \(-\)0.19 & \(-\)0.20 & \(-\)0.26 & \(-\)0.04 & 0.00 & 0.06 & 0.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **N1\_MS** & **N2\_MS** & **N3\_MS** & **N4\_MS** & **N5\_MS** & **N6\_MS** \\ \hline Difference (mm) & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0 & 0.02 & 0.02 \\ Difference (\%) & 3.4 & 7.9 & 1.7 & 0 & 8.3 & 6.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The discrepancy between the maximum values of dimensional variations on the machined surface obtained by optical and contact measurements. the adaptive cylindrical milling strategy (N4-N6) than for the face milling strategy (N1-N3). * Higher average values were obtained for nickel alloy samples than for the titanium alloy (excluding T6). The maximum deviations reported by [PERSON] [23] and [PERSON] [24] are \(\approx\)0.10 mm, by [PERSON] [25] 0.34 mm, by [PERSON] [26] 0.18 mm, and by [PERSON] [27] 0.21 mm. The N1 sample (the tool for general purpose, adaptive face milling) has that deviation equal to 0.28 mm. Our other samples have comparable maximum deviations. Apparently, larger deviations are due to the use of the nickel alloy, which is a harder material.