All Activity

there is another alternative son the link bellow https://www.victoryprogramming.com/post/calypso-tip-7-naming-conventions-2-stylus-systems

Hi, looks like the triple scan has a shorter working distance. Do you have space left to bring the sensor further up on that thing?

This is why the new position characteristic makes you select ASME/ISO/LOOSE. It is automatically ensuring compliance with the selected standard and at ALL OTHER TIMES you must account for evaluation manually

My Monday brain led me astray of your question.

I use a similar naming convention on RDS and XT, XTR sensors. Only one caveat, the number one stylus would be 1 A0B0 (Using your examples), number 2 "2 A90B-65". Or your naming: 1 0_0 2 90_-65 Basically, just adding the stylus number indicating the stylus used within Calypso (Calypso doesn't care about the name, it's all about the index number). I have not had any issues with measuring results or qualification.

Richard, Thanks for the description how to calibrate a disc stylus. The issue is not the calibration or using the stylus in physic. It’s simply a question of how to use a button like this in the Planner. In the Button Builder, I can create the button using generic geometries. With the generic button, I can define the flat sides of the button. If I change the radius to 7 mm, I can only use the radius and no longer the flat sides, as a partially invisible sphere with a diameter of 14 is defined.... We need a reliable method in Planner to simulate a disc stylus with both contact surfaces. Just like a real disc stylus..

I tried the TrenProtocol, and it is close to what I need, but engineers would like to see the raw data as an excel or csv file. I can export into Excel for each individual part. 1 part, 1 excel file. What I need to do is figure out how to save all the parts ran with the same program into the same excel file. Each part with it's own row, and headers. Can someone help me figure it out? I do not have pcm, and I'm not allowed to run python scripts on the computer. How do I do this with just PiWeb Reporting Plus?

I can export into Excel for each individual part. 1 part, 1 excel file. What I need to do is figure out how to save all the parts ran with the same program into the same excel file. Each part with it's own row, and headers. Can someone help me figure it out? I do not have pcm, and I'm not allowed to run python scripts on the computer. How do I do this with just PiWeb Reporting Plus?

Hi, we are discussing upgrade options and we want to go from old Atos III triple scan [1] to Atos 5 [2] or Atos 5 Airfoil [3]. Our tilt, swivel, lift unit [1] is still working well, but so far we've got short answer from supplier, that it isn't compatible with Atos 5. Can someone comment on this? [1] - https://youtu.be/eKYCgn1L6yY?t=29 [2] - https://www.zeiss.com/metrology/en/systems/optical-3d/3d-scanning/atos/atos-5.html [3] - https://www.zeiss.com/metrology/en/systems/optical-3d/3d-scanning/atos/atos-5-for-airfoil.html

All you have left to do is change the radius value. After you change the value, calibrate the disc with a Ring Gage then edit the Radius value to match. For using the upper or lower plane surfaces as contact points, I calibrate my Disk styli with a custom program that uses the Reference Sphere. This allows me to control all three axes. When using the Disk, you will have to manually calculate the difference from center of the disk (It is treated as a sphere) to the surface used for probing, I also use this method in my programs. Most reported values I use a Result Element and calculate the difference. When I use this method, I always use one quadrant of the disk (Let's say 3 O'clock) and only about .02" (inch) of depth from the outer radius of the disk due to the disk is never perfectly normal to the surface being probed. All results are verified in some form of a manual measurement and the Result Element adjusted as needed.

Hi Richard, Thank you for the example and the hint to use a generic stylus. All I can define is a small tip and align DS / DG / L in this way that the tip is plan to the disk. In this case I can use the stylus only in -Z direction. But I need to use the disk stylus as a real physical stylus, means the outer diameter of Ø14, the plane in -Z as well as +Z. How to define such a stylus? Attached my example .... Regards Karsten Q42421.zip

Yes i agree you should verify on tolerance position window what calypso is doing datums should be using in ISO the ISO 5459 method, for planes out tangencial feature and for holes and bores, Max Inscribed, Min Circumscribed,

This usually because the "specific features chosen" whithin the Position characteristic is applying Evaluation Methods (such as Outer Tangential, Min Circumscribed, Max Inscribed) to the selected features; whereas, when creating alignments, you must ensure that the correct settings are applied.

I've never understood why sometimes I get different true position results when I select a created alignment vs selecting each feature individually for the datums. Can someone please shed some light on this? I saw something pretty different today and don't know why. 505-1 and 505-2 are the specific "features" chosen, 505-3 and 505-4 created alignments.

Thank you all for posting this. I am going to try it as I have a painful problem I am trying to solve right now.

I didn't have any trainings - just what was told and shown to me in roughly 5 weeks. If you are scanning ( tensor ) then you can not change angular range - it's still force 180°. But passive should work. All i can think of is either shanking ( which would result at least in wrong probe tip diameter ), loose probe tip or it's not rigid enough for probing force. Also i am not sure if those numbers are in inch - i think they are in mm's.

The calibration procedure we are using is pretty generic. It is basically what they would teach in a beginner calypso class. I don't know if that counts as manual as I haven't learned any other way to calibrate these probes. We did switch to a 3mm probe that has more shank clearance just in case, but I don't think it is shanking. The sphericity, probe diameter, and sigma are all really good. Maybe I should reduce the angular range of the scan from 180° to 160°? I have not tried lowering the probing force and dynamics. It seems like there is the one pop-up when you create the new probe. Maybe that is the way to go. It just seems so odd that the two features are measuring off about 0.03" in the +Y direction even though the A is 90 for one and -90 for the other while they both have B=-65. The two orientations have to be calibrated with different reference sphere orientations. We have gotten the same results with a 2mm ball and a 3 mm ball over multiple calibrations. When the calibration starts we get a popup window asking about the angle. As far as I can tell we are supposed to enter the angle from the center of the reference sphere to the center of the probe if everything is right where we want it. It seeds the answer and is usually between 5°and 10° off in the X/-Z and Y/-Z directions. We have a duplex set up with two reference spheres set up roughly 15" apart on the same plate that get loaded into the machine at the same time. I would have to ask if I can post a picture as they are pretty strict here. I would have to get approval to take the picture and then have the picture reviewed before posting it. It is a big hassle.

Okay, I kind of understand this but it's going to mean re-programming my program. I think it would have been fine if datum B was just the one hole, but obviously that's not the case and I tried telling the engineer that was helping me this and he said the way I was doing it was correct. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction folks

Make sure the probe is using the correct reference sphere for its associated position or you will get some crazy numbers. This is important as you are using two different spheres.

Fixed i meant VAST XT and others where you have fixed probe rotation. With RDS you can rotate probes around head axis ( Z ) and also another angle. RDS

Maybe it's for calculation ( to be more accurate ) or for cases where more nominals would take same actual. I also don't understand when you have curve with adaptive nominal distance ( on straight path it would be less point density than on curved path ), because now you have somewhere nominals 2mm apart and then you have nominals 0.5mm apart.

Maybe I don't understand what a fixed head is. Wouldn't a fixed head mean that A=B=0 always?

Thank you Martin, this seems to be consistent with all other occurrences of this issue too. Do you know why this is the case? Is it simply a best practice for feature calculation, or is it based on some other reason?

This is the approach that I would use. three points define the plane and potentially the center of the part. I might use some side holes to control rotation about the Z axis and similarly the X? direction (the direction that the arc is open.

What i would do is make TP for all 10 holes .122 in pattern. Enable translation and rotation for bestfit together with MMC. Now you can use this "alignment" in profile datum instead of selecting single datums. Or you can create theoretical line and point ( or circle instead of a point ), set their feature's alignment as patterned and use that as your datums in profile callout. ( line for stopping rotation and circle/point for origin )