All Activity

@Chad Watton No rush, but I had a couple of questions about the styli roundness scan program that you attached. If you could provide some feedback, it would be greatly appreciated. When do you consider the stylus unusable? If any of the characteristic reports OOT? Or is it more involved? Did the custom report templates provide any extra insight? The reports did not appear to be included, so I used a standard PiWeb report Have you found any use of the stylus deemed no good? Any replacement methods? Have you been able to detect/quantify aluminum buildup in the reporting? Thanks!

I agree. If we had more space on the duramaxs, I'd put a nitrade stylus system on them for the aluminum parts. I've told our higher ups about that too.

Thanks for your feedback, everyone. I received this table from Zeiss Support. Our workpiece weighs “only” 35–40 kg, so it shouldn't be a problem... I think.

A probe qualification should have taken care of this. If you are measuring aluminum, I would advise strongly against using ruby.

Having trouble using this file.. calypso is not reading it on the first run of the program. It only starts reading it after a second run or re-crunch... ie if i run the part.. sn1, it won't read the file, but if i run sn2 or re-crunch sn1, then it reads it.

Same program, similar probes. I'm just assuming that's what it was since the reports are now green and that's all the operators care about or understand. But that machine constantly checks aluminum parts that aren't checked on other machines because of the fixturing and space needed. I measured the probe on a keyence unit for the heck of it. The ruby seems to be .002 off the center of the shaft? Maybe it did crash and nudged the probe out of place? I didn't think the position of the ruby mattered. The dark green lines are from the high and low points of the ruby while rotating in 30 degree increments. The longer dark green line is the average of the 12 lines. Looks like theres a pattern, but I can't figure out if it's significant to anything.

Just thinking out loud: How can it be buildup, when you use the same probes and the same program on all machines? Or did you mean similar probes?

It was aluminum build up. Replacing the probes seemed to have fixed the issue.

We had a technician calibrate the machine last month.

Hello, please see the information on this page: Software Information Hub Nanno

Was it working before? I see this is a notebook with integrated graphic chip from intel CPU Also first datum of eventlog start from 18.5. and your first TomMGomPro.dll crash was 20.5.2026

Dear all, I am writing to report a recurring software crash I am experiencing while trying to use GOM Inspect 2022. For your reference, I am using a physical license dongle. I have attached the diagnostic files and supporting data to this email to help troubleshoot the issue. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bue3gMHlwFgPFOovfFG4cgm11_ANnEuI/view?usp=sharing Could you please review the attached data and advise on a solution? Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, Eric

Usually, you define the actual expression and then click on the blue/green symbol right of the Nominal expression. The actual expression is then 'translated' to nominal expressions. If the results are the same, the circle probably has the same normal. For example if it is constructed in a section with measuring principle 'actual section'.

Main cause that comes to mind is skewed scales due to a crash. Even seemingly harmless crashes can cause a machine to go out of spec. When was the last time the machine was serviced?

I see, in that case I would suspect the CALYPSO version may be at fault. Looks like you are running a slightly older version 8.0.08 where as I was running/testing in 8.0.12. Maybe you can try updating your Service Pack to 8.0.12 or 8.0.1204 to ensure compatibility. How to Download & Install CALYPSO Service Packs

Thanks. However, I tried it on circle center point, but the nominal reading and actual reading are same. I have to manual type nominal value in the Nominal expression box below actual expression.

I was using a probe that was absolutely gigantic compared to the feature, I cheated a bit by not being able to fit between the teeth

I got it. Thanks.

Thanks. However, I tried it on circle center point, there is no actual 3d vector for selecting, only nominal. Is there any way I could find out actual reading?

Is there a way to apply this file to old programs, I have several hundred programs that need to be updated to our new header.

2500_fcdfcff2533342bd8f5c17a3d8f6a9b5.pptx here's a powerpoint that helped me figure out an alignment for locating the first gear tooth.

The problem I have with a circle is that if I don't start on the top of the first tooth, then the probe will jam up against the side of the first tooth and alarm out.

I'm not sure if it works with curves, but it does with a circle. Ive not tried it on a partial circle but had success counting the number of knurls in a circular knob

Martin, I had tried by scripting, however actual.normal.y isn't works. Is it the way you are using in user defined "Normal" -> actual.normal.y..? Could you please show me step by step how did you do that? Thanks,

For a helical strategy I think it would be best to have the CAD aligned (e.g. gap aligned to X or Y), so you can make sure all traces will be on tooth tips, etc. Let us know how you make out !