All Activity

I don't think rigidity over 50 is reachable with T extensions. I have only a few probes over 50 and they short probes directly attached to the cube or with a very short extension. Myself, I don't worry about rigidity causing issues if it is over 20.

Back to my original questions. Any ideas on how to copy from one version on one pc to another version on another pc? Anything that will make this task easier?

try CFX Reach extensions ??

I've built a new stylus system and am curious about the rigidity values I am seeing. Based on what I've read, an ideal system would have a rigidity of 50+ while Zeiss recommends a rigidity of at least 30 to minimize deflection error. The system I've built shows a rigidity between 14 and 15 for either stylus while performing a standard Tensor qualification. I also tried a dynamic tensor qual and it was the same result. For reference, the only stylus on our machine that reaches 50+ is the masterprobe (barely). All other stylus' on our machine fall short of the 30 threshold. Both the styli and extensions are carbon fiber for this system. Is this an expected rigidity or do we have a potential issue with our Vast XT?

MMB was first disambiguated from MMC in ASME Y14.5-2009. The engineers at your company are not the only ones who haven't quite found time to read it yet. I've read the entire spec many, many times now, and learn something new every time. There are newer versions. This is the document that defines GD&T. It is the only source (unless you're an ISO shop; I'm less familiar) for this information. I'm not looking at 2009 now but rather at 2018. Here are pertinent screenshots, but there are more than 300 pages in the spec rich with more info. I'd start your research here.

You could certainly poke in there with a self-center point and a big stylus tip, evaluate as midpoint, and take the (x,y, and / or Z) of that point to execute a suitable probing.

Let me make some small adjustments; hopefully this helps: First, datum A is the centerplane of the (0.300) feature, not its surface. Datum B is the centerline of the boss, not its surfaces. TP 1: TP of a boss tied to -A-, the normal plane. The normal plane shouldn't control any location, so am treating this as a "perpendicularity" for the cylinder of datum -B-. Assume a perpendicularity constraint would make more sense? The primary datum sets the orientation of the coordinate system. In this case, you're very close. Datum A constrains the orientation of the tolerance zone to be perpendicular to A. The entire axis of the considered feature needs to fall within that zone to pass. In this case I'd expect (as you do) to get similar results from a perpendicularity evaluation. TP 2: TP of opposing boss tied to -B- To me, this reads as concentricity. Having -B- for a datum to tie the second boss too means this TP makes the most sense to me out of the three, but again would thing a concentricity control frame would make the most sense. (Fixturing it on the CMM to inspect in one setup is a different story tho 🙂) Here I disagree. The DRF sets the orientation of the tolerance zone to be (first) perpendicular to A and (second) centered about B. This is not the same as concentricity for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons were the justification for doing away with concentricity years ago. TP 3: TP of the OAL between the bosses? This feature makes the lease sense to me out of the three. Don't believe I've ever seen a True Position of the length of a shaft The ABC datums used make sense in theory. -A- is my plane, -B- gives location, and -C- clocks my rotation. Perfectly constrained. But in how its applied to the .600 dim, I get confused. Thinking about the form and location, the form should be controlled by the dimensional sizes (Boss Ø .200, OAL .600) and the location should be already established by the first and second TP's, giving the locations of the boss's centerline. I believe this means that the third TP is redundant, as the part is already entirely constrained for form and location? Yep. This one is weird. What is says is that the calculated centerplane between the two planes (0.600) apart must lie between two parallel planes (distance variable thanks to MMC) which are (first) parallel to A (not the surface), (second) centered about B (this has no effect on the evaluation; test it and you'll see you can ignore this), and clocked to C (again, this has no effect). If the distance between the two measured planes is at MMC, you need that centerplane perfectly located and oriented, and of perfect form, or it fails. I have no idea what the intent of this drawing is. That GD&T looks on its surface like an assembly tolerance, but I can't think of a real-world scenario that fits this. I'm guessing new guy at the drafting table.

The touching off on the adapter plate is for determining the length of the MasterProbe. You probe a surface with the bottom side of the adapter plate, and probe the exact same surface with the sphere of the stylus - it then calculates the length of the MasterProbe.

Hi All, first off wanted to appreciate anyone who discusses on this form. I started a new Quality Engineer role a few months back and have been cutting my teeth learning Calypso on a Zeiss Duramax. The discussion posts here are a great resource and I appreciate anyone who shares their knowledge. As for business, wanted to get others interpretation of some GD&T that came through our shop earlier. Part simplified for customer protection but drawing below follows how they used three true position callouts. My best understanding is there are better ways of controlling this part, and might be some sloppy tolerancing, but wanted to confirm my interpretation. TP 1: TP of a boss tied to -A-, the normal plane. The normal plane shouldn't control any location, so am treating this as a "perpendicularity" for the cylinder of datum -B-. Assume a perpendicularity constraint would make more sense? TP 2: TP of opposing boss tied to -B- To me, this reads as concentricity. Having -B- for a datum to tie the second boss too means this TP makes the most sense to me out of the three, but again would thing a concentricity control frame would make the most sense. (Fixturing it on the CMM to inspect in one setup is a different story tho 🙂) TP 3: TP of the OAL between the bosses? This feature makes the lease sense to me out of the three. Don't believe I've ever seen a True Position of the length of a shaft The ABC datums used make sense in theory. -A- is my plane, -B- gives location, and -C- clocks my rotation. Perfectly constrained. But in how its applied to the .600 dim, I get confused. Thinking about the form and location, the form should be controlled by the dimensional sizes (Boss Ø .200, OAL .600) and the location should be already established by the first and second TP's, giving the locations of the boss's centerline. I believe this means that the third TP is redundant, as the part is already entirely constrained for form and location? Wanted to see if anyone else had a better understanding of what the engineer was trying to accomplish in dimensioning this way and if there was anything I missed. Should i chalk it up to a new engineer over eager to use GD&T, or someone who knows what they're doing and there's some reasoning I'm missing Thanks again, Ben V

Roy, you're a life saver bud, omg Zeiss could not show a similar pic in any documentation - no words... Question, is the flat area on opposite side used for anything? Do I ever need to touch off on adapter plate as instructions say..(lol) if so what part of adapter plate , just tried Roy's method and it works. Thank you again everyone !

Did you try probing the angled flat area?

maybe this would help

Hey Chris, See pic below. Start with the top slanted plane.

i try probing the flat area and it starts probing 3 points in a weird manner then says failed... We have the zeiss standard xtr holders

I have an XTR, I think it ask you another question after that but I'm totally blanking now. I would test it out for you but I'm packing up and about to leave and don't want to screw something up on my Friday afternoon

Ok team, who can help describe how to define an XTR holder location. Working at a new site, the lack of instructions how to do this is absolutely atrocious. I've read thru manual, sensor cookbook, searched knowledge base. Im thinking its similar to XXT touching off on a little flat area on the holder and adapter plate - however this picture prompt that comes us throws me for a curve, probe in the random middle of a random angled plane ?? sheeesh. Thanks everyone !

It is a one off

Is this something you are hoping to do automatically each time a part is run, or as a one off?

That info left my brain as soon as I read it 🤣 Sorry about that.

That's a fairly easy thing to do in Calypso for probes, but I'm using the O-inspect (2d optical CMM).

The only insight that I can provide is that the Curve uses center of the stylus ball, rather than the contact points. So, you would probably need to find a way to offset that by 1/2 of your probe diameter

Working on an O-inspect, I have been tasked with finding the surface area of the part in the Image. Each slot and triangle pocket are found using the Curve function 2000 points each, The ID and the OD have curves applied to them as well 2000pts each. Output all the curves using Surface area, then I subtracted all the slots/pockets/ID from the OD. My result was about 3000mm off. I've never used this function before and looking at my report some of the slots have a greater Surface area than the ID. My question: Can someone please explain to me how to go about finding the surface area the correct/better way?

In regards to Richards post, sometimes a third party SPC software eats the table file before the Excel has a chance to pull the information. Might be a spot to look into. Make sure macros are enabled for the ini file too if you are getting any errors in regards to the ini file.

Is your point cloud pointing to a secondary alignment? Just double checking. If so could be some kind of bug. And unfortunately those exports are always in metric.

deleted. Thought i was in the inspect section.