[Er...] Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 Is there any way Calypso can evaluate how many points taken on a surface that is in/out of tolerance as a percentage? I ask because we have a customer that says they will use parts as long as at least 70% of the Keyway surface meets the print dimensions. Any suggestions of how you have accomplished this is great. They only way I know how is to pattern a point on each side, and measure the width and manually calculate what percentage pass/fails. Both measurements in the view are tapered and falling out of tolerance. The Bore and Keyway are about 22mm deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Je...] Posted January 15, 2022 Share Posted January 15, 2022 . Eric, Do you feel that you understand the customer's requirement clearly? Are they requesting for 70% of measured points to fall within the tolerance band, or are they asking for the bottom 70% of the keyway to pass? Or are they asking for 70% of the length of the keyway, starting at the installation end, to pass the tolerance? The only reason I ask, is because it is a unique requirement that I have never come across before. Jeff Frodermann Meier Tool & Engineering Anoka, Minnesota. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ke...] Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 I cannot provide any insight regarding reporting how many points taken on a surface that is in/out of tolerance as a percentage (or otherwise)... I would suggest that, in addition to reporting each width 1x; you also report each width as a cross section. That way if 70% of these sections meet print specifications (say 14 out of 20 sections), then the parts meet the customers requirement. It may be easier to construct a formula to create this calculation, than using the percentage of points method, and therefore you would not need to report the resut for every individual cross section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Is...] Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Er...] Posted January 17, 2022 Author Share Posted January 17, 2022 Please sign in to view this quote. This request is definitely not at all logical. Unfortunately, I don't have PCM. Since the surface flares open toward center of the cylinder, I need to account for the .6mm that I cannot probe (from interference of the 1.55mm wall) because they will not pass if I don't. This is becoming a programming nightmare. So, for now, I am going to pattern points .1mm away and measure the lengths at each location. I will need to recall the points in a line so i can then project the measurement towards the 1.55 mm to account for these measurements as well. I will do this every 2.54mm deep, and see what the outcome is. If 70% of all measurements meet our AQL sample, i will present the data to the customer for approval, and move forward from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ma...] Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 If this shape is conical ( meaning that is made by pushing through ) then it will make sense to measure in layers and 70% of layers should be within tolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Er...] Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 If I am understanding correctly... I would take two measurements. Each measurement at 70% of the "about 22mm" from each end. If either measurement passes it is good. The key stock evidently is about 15mm long? As long as the key fits in one end they will make it work. Google 3mm key stock for reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in