I'm glad we are on the same page, lazyengineer! And great pictures.
Unfortunately since the pics aren't set up the same and aren't always in focus, it's difficult to assess their relative differences. I will say that they all look deeper than 0.005" and I feel confident that my 0.0625" depth assumption isn't out of the ballpark.
Also, if we could get the radial thickness measurement of the cone from any one of those pictures, and knowing the cone's angle, we could get a second estimate of the cone depth. Using good old trigonometry I think we could calculate the depth.
Unfortunately since the pics aren't set up the same and aren't always in focus, it's difficult to assess their relative differences. I will say that they all look deeper than 0.005" and I feel confident that my 0.0625" depth assumption isn't out of the ballpark.
Also, if we could get the radial thickness measurement of the cone from any one of those pictures, and knowing the cone's angle, we could get a second estimate of the cone depth. Using good old trigonometry I think we could calculate the depth.