Where can I find these, how rare are these because I havent seen them. Why would you need to measure something so big with such high precision? Those images are from photos I found online of large micrometers, but why would you need to measure something like this in the first place with such high precision?
Hello!
I have an issue with parts that came back from zinc plating. Specifically, the runout was good before plating, but after plating, it is terrible. For some reason, it measures much higher than it actually is. I am certain that the parts are fine and that the error occurs during measurement, but everything is fine with the program and the probe.
To me, it looks as if "vibration" occurs during the measurement, but I don't know where it's coming from. If you have any ideas or have experienced a similar issue, please let me know.
Btw it's zeiss machine
I'm not sure if this kind of question is allowed here, but the company I work for is purchasing a top tier 3D scanner for both quality control and mesh based simulation, in the automotive field.
We're currently evaluating the new Creaform HandySCAN 3D EVO Elite (the one which comes with a touchscreen), the Zeiss/GOM T-Scan Hawk II and Hexagon's MARVELSCAN.
Price-wise Creaform and Zeiss are pretty close while Hexagon's solution is about ~20% cheaper.
On paper they look close, but spec-sheets don't always tell the full story, so if anyone has experience with those guys, it will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
I do a lot of CMM programming and inspection work, mostly with Zeiss/Calypso, and I’ve been wondering what kind of opportunities are out there outside of just working a normal inspection job.
Has anyone here turned it into side money somehow? Contract programming, helping smaller shops, remote work, doing inspections for companies that don’t have someone in-house, starting your own thing, etc.
I’m not really looking to quit my job or anything. More just curious what people have actually done with the skill and how you got started.
Seems like one of those skills where there has to be ways to make money independently once you get good enough, but I don’t really hear people talk about it much.
A gauge passed its last calibration but fails the next one. By then, it may have been used on many parts, some of which may already have shipped.
How do you decide how far back to review the previous measurements for the impact assessment?
I use a hexagon CMM 07.10.07 global s. I'm using PC-DMIS 2025.2. We have a probe changer rack and I have multiple programs I have written that use different probes, including an hp-l-10 laser probe.
Sometimes, after I have run a program, the loadprobe step to switch to the hp-l-10 is just missing. Everything else is there, including the angle changes, just that one step. I add it back and everything is fine. I just can't figure out what causes it or how to stop it happening.
If it matters, I'm not running the programs in inspect, I run them in pc-dmis since I'm the one who writes the programs and runs them here, so being able to see everything while it is running is nice.
Hello all,
Hope everyone's been doing alright. Last week I dropped the method I follow to assess the process capability (like I'm sure many of you do) of a Position call-out assigned to a hole or boss.
Many of you agreed with the percent of tolerance used Ratio conversion method (Single Sided Upper of 1 in Minitab using converted value with or without MMC). Well I'm creating a procedure, a very generic, basic guide, on how to assess Position call-out with MMC using this method and ran into a snag that should have been clear from the get go.
When assessing normality to determine what capability report to use I realized that with a single sided upper tolerance, the process spread is usually going to look like a fish tail instead of a single bell curve.
When you take this fish tail process and run normality, it'll give you a P value below .05. From there, I then was selecting the NON NORMAL Capability study report within Minitab, then using the PPK value as my result. Have you all ran across this before? Can I even propose a simple, sequential guide assessing process capability without making it extremely complex? Co-Pilot and ChatGPT can only take me so far and there's not a reliable Validation engineer on staff to run these sort of questions by.
Open to feedback, guidance, examples of what your organization does..anything.
Thank you,
Daniel
Just wanted to post a question.. I'm having a debate about the tolerance zones for the above form controls.
Both are determined by a value given, say .5mm .. the tolerance is two concentric circles (or cylinders) that are spaced .5mm apart from each other at all points radially around the tolerance zone.
In theory, lets say you have a part with 25mm +- .4mm
You could have one side of the circle have a .5mm dip and every other part of the circle be perfect, for a total tolerance used of .5mm in circularity, and .5mm in diameter. Everything is good.
Lets take that same part, add another .5mm dip to the exact other side of the circle so that both of the .5mm dips are a mirror image to each other.
The circularity is still .5mm, but the diameter drops another .5mm across the two dips.. for a total size drop of 1mm.. which exceeds the size tolerance.
So it appears that even with a geometric tolerance "less than" our size tolerance, we can still in theory experience undersize or oversize diametric conditions. Is this accurate or am I not understanding? I would think the method would be to have a geometric tolerance equal to half the size tolerance for worst case conditions? (Think rule 1)
The person I'm debating is going as far as to say I am incorrect and that the .5mm tolerance zone given isnt the radial distance between 2 circles, but in fact its half the .5 and it should be .25mm .. makes no sense. Y14.5 clearly states the tolerance is a radial width between two concentric circles.
He is also claiming you can accurately measure circularity with 2 point measurement devices, in that the circularity consumed is equal to the diameter size differences on a mic.
I believe this to be incorrect as well. If you had a .2mm dip on one side, the diameter would change by .2mm with a circularity of .2mm. If you had .2mm dips on both sides, the diameter would change .4mm and circularity would be .2mm.
Who would you say has a better understanding of this?
Asme y14.5 2009
Thanks for any info!
I just finished programming a CMM inspection for a mid-sized support made out of formed sheet stock, .250" thick with machining on 2 faces. The bottom of the 1 part was datum A, the bottom of the second part was datum E. There were 2 large holes on the top as B and C, and the machined step they were located on was D. F was a hole on the bottom, centered on the outside edge. Two smaller holes on the top were J and K, and 2 small holes on the bottom were G and H, and the machined step F was in was datum L. Whew!
So now come the datum callouts, and every circular, cylindrical, or planar surface had a different combination of these ELEVEN datums, some of which made no sense at all; like a hole on the lower surface aligned to datum E (lower), F (lower), and C (upper)?? Huh???? And, since this is Calypso, I have to enter each alignment in my alignment library, which was more than TWENTY!
Also, when you get these 'skewed' datums, I often create a secondary "cartesian" version just so I can report how far off the locations are in the axis shown on the print, like alignments "FGB" and also "FGB-cart", using the line from B to C as my default X+ direction.
​
Just curious if there’s anyone who started working independently with a laser tracker, either as a freelancer or through a small company.
How did it go for you? How did you find your first customers, and was it difficult to get enough work in the beginning?
Also interested in hearing from anyone who knows someone who successfully built a business around laser tracking / dimensional metrology.
What type of projects do you mainly do, and would you say it was worth going out on your own?
Would be really interested to hear some real experiences.
At work I tried to use our Rahn Repeat-o-meter to calibrate a surface plate. It's a Grade A plate, so definitely has deviations, yet the repeat-o-meter is showing nothing. Granted, the last time it was touched(besides when I calibrated the dial indicator) was probably 6 months ago. And when our dimensional guy(who isn't here, hence why I'm on it) last used it, it ran perfectly fine.
Inspecting it, I noticed the front footpad barely isn't touching the surface. Enough of a gap I can see light through. Can't find anything online about actual setup of the repeat-o-meter itself, so how do I adjust that front foot down? The bolt and nut that the dial indicator sits on are well over hand tight, so I can't imagine that came loose but I'm willing to try anything.
Hello everyone,
I’m preparing to take ASQ CCT exam and I am looking for prep material. I prefer video learning modules to reading material. A mix of both is ideal for me. I looked up the ASQ online learning and it is essentially reading material in online format.
I came across Alpha Training and Consulting, but I’m not sure if they are good. Can you kindly suggest any training platform that offer video learning? TIA