All Activity

When I hit this link it takes me to the generic zeiss portal for the knowledge base and tells me that it cannot find anything useful. When search for "master password" it cannot find anything relevant as per usual.

okay, have you just asked for projection angle one or projection angle two? The nominal projection angle should be 70°, and then the projected angle should match or be whatever the part actually is.

Locking the radius is definitely the way to go when you need the location of such a small section of a radius. You may consider also locking the X location AND using a formula to determine the X-location. It kind of depends on the tightness of the tolerance that determines that dimension as compared to the tolerance for the radius etc. Are the features in bubble 16 the same as the ones in bubble 21? I would say that they are from the picture shown. Look at the way that the feature is programmed. They may have locked the XYZ location to get a more reliable radius. They may have even done something more sneaky and difficult to program in order to get that dimension cleanly. In the most complex version of the programming, they already have the information hidden in the data and you would just have to coax it out. Even in a moderately complex version, they may have all the information that you need. Judicious use of recall feature points and formulas for nominals could get you what you want without taking any additional datapoints.

Pete, There are plenty of Zeiss CMMs measuring the exact geometry you mentioned. VAST sensors specialize in the longer, heavier stylii that may be required to reach inside the barrel, but XXTs can handle the job as well depending on how deep you need to probe.

Hello, we have a new part type to inspect. I have a Gun Barrel with two ID's to measure with an inner and outer ID. Has anyone tried this on an CMM? I was going to scan the ID and possibly try to extract a max and min circle if possible. Just getting started with a fixture and probe set-up, any tips based on previous similar measurements is appreciated. Thanks

@Aidan Jenson You add a timestamp to the filename convention using header variables. So instead of something like +getRecordHead("planid")+".pdf" you would use +getRecordHead("planid")+"_"+getRecordHead("date")+"_"+getRecordHead("time")+".pdf" which would give you something like PART123_10-20-2026_14-37-52.pdf.

I cannot access the PDF, How would you results append instead of overwrite?

sorry for the delay. We are using 2025

Did you make a screenshot? For me, it says post deleted or removed.

I did not changed those on machine, but i am changing similar on our own prefilters. Turn off air and release pressure. Then i usually push from bottom up and twist - it should open by twisting counterclockwise, then pull down. It should be on bayonet.

Seems like you have same number of nominal and measured points - as many states on this forum - you should have 3 measured points for 1 nominal point. You either reduce nominal points or increase measured points - that should help.

For small angle on radius you can measure their position with constraining their radius - forcing calculations with nominal radius. What i found on small radiuses ( R1.0mm; 90° ) is that your probe needs to be on correct position - so do alignments, bestfit - whatever to be on correct spot for taking points.

https://lnkd.in/p/g5nSVmvt I dont see it in the portal yet....

We have had an intermittent problem with skewed points in freeform. I have checked everything I know to look at, so I would like some support from you guys. I apologize that I am not able to send better pictures due to customer restrictions. We get a bad point that throws our profile way out. As shown in the screenshots below, there is one point that is way worse than the others. Also, it appears to be "stacked" on the adjacent point. NOTE: Values in report are in inches. When you look at the points in the feature, you can see a similar skew. This seems to correlate with the "stacked" points theory above. Most importantly, the form in the feature is nowhere near the .0999" shown in the profile report. It usually lands around .010"-.015" which is typical for these parts. I have verified that there is no such defect on the part, and this has happened on many various occasions in the past. It does not repeat consistently in the same spot. Sometimes it jumps from one point set to another. Sometimes there are multiple outlier points. And sometimes, it doesn't happen at all. Freeform settings: Strategy Multiple point sets from curves .100" step width .750" speed Evaluation Best Fit: Off Point Elimination: On Outlier Elimination: On (3) Have any of you seen this before? Do any of you guys have any idea what causes this, and how we can prevent it?

Hello, Backstory: Zeiss had written some programs for us to measure multiple features on this part. They used curves to measure the radius in balloon 16. We are after the results of balloon 21, the center of the "16" radius to the top of the tubes. I have verified these on a vision system, and the results vary significantly from what the CMM is outputting. We aren't recording the value of the radius, just primarily after balloon 21 (0.080 - 0.100). Calypso will almost always output these results as 0.99 - 0.1 with no variation. I have measured these to be about 0.084 - 0.087 using a smart scope. We are using a Duramax, Calypso 2024, 0.5mm probe / also attempted a 0.3mm probe on an angled knuckle @ 45 deg to minimize deflection. These are fixtured with the tubes aligned with the Z axis. I have made my own copies of these programs to play around with no success at improving these features. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I feel that vision would be the best way to achieve these accurately and repeatably. Thank you!

Inspection plan specific reports are stored in each inspection plan folder. For example if you use default inspection plan location - which is (in my case): C:\Users\Public\Documents\Zeiss\CALYPSO 8.0\workarea\inspections then inside I have Inspection plan called - Probe_Calibration_Test If you will create measurement specific report then your location for that report should be: C:\Users\Public\Documents\Zeiss\CALYPSO 8.0\workarea\inspections\Probe_Calibration_Test\PiWebReportingTemplates All measurement specific reports are set to be saved directly inside inspection plan folder - to avoid situation that you will copy program to the other PC and you will miss report required to output results. I hope that helps.

There might be better way - It is like a cheat. Download latest Calypso. Run to install. Let it install all pre-requisites. When finally asked to install Calypso - press cancel. Then run installation of your Calypso version. Tested - works. If yo know what you are doing - you can manually install SQL from pre-requisite folder from latest Calypso. I hope that will help.

Anybody here use the Solidworks add-in called SolidCam for creating CNC machine programs? We're looking into purchasing it and getting away from the Autodesk's Fusion 360 software, which is cheaper but limited in 5axis and swiss type of machining. Because we use Solidworks for model and drawing creation, we'd like to switch to using just one system for all instead of two. The internet and AI has a lot to say about all CAM systems, but I don't know anybody personally that has used Solidcam and would like to talk to somebody that has.

Our filters don't have the release clips. Please see the included photo. It has a 22 MM hex on the bottom of the filter housing. We tried after the system was was bleed of air and the only thing that happened was the housing twisted and clicked one. We were not able to remove it for some reason.

Update zum Temperatursensor: Ein Servicetechniker hat nun doch plötzlich ein nicht vollständig in den Stecker gedrücktes Kabel in der Steuerung gefunden: siehe da, der Temperatursensor wird wieder erkannt!

I recall a past post on this forum about a strange noise caused by a chicken bone.

It's written in the instruction manual.

Woah, you can't just post blueprints to Tesla's new rocket roadster like this, that's proprietary! 😆

Hello All, We have a Contura and are trying to replace the filters on the back of the machine but cant seem to find any information on how to do it. A tech suggest that we replace the filters in the machine. Can someone please walk me through how to replace the filters.

You need to have license for PCM module. Then as Caitlin said.