Jump to content

Accuracy of a Prismo Navigator MASS


Recommended Posts

A Quality Engineer just asked me how accurate is our most accurate CMM. The Prismo we have is our most accurate CMM, but what spec do I give him? I see U=0.1 + L/843 (Uncertainty of measurement) in the C99/II tech data book for the machine.

Can someone explain this to me so I can explain this to him. My guess is that a customer has requested this info.
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/11678-accuracy-of-a-prismo-navigator-mass/
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

The larger the distance you're measuring, the larger the uncertainty.

L is the feature size in millimeters, and I think the uncertainty result is micrometers, so for a 10mm feature, the uncertainty is 0.1μm + (10/843)μm = .112μm.
My personal opinion is that MPEe is a useless number. (Other then a quick argument with a hexagon sales person, "Mines better") How many of you are measuring gauge block like parts?

Give him numbers for RONt and MPE-THP or something that more reflects the parts you are measuring.

Or run a VCMM to get some estimations of what you can achive.

Please sign in to view this quote.

I don't want to say you are not the best, because you are, but my 2 cents would be: "look QE, ALL those numbers mean nothing. Because we only took minimal formal training and our measurement strategies and GD&T knowledge are questionable. We shouldn't even get into how company stimulates our will to work".

Again, that is nothing to take personally.
Stay sharp and fight hard like a metrologists have to these days.
Better if you check the capability of your Methods in each characteristic..
Using VDA5 studies you can calculate QMP and QMS according to your design specifications.
You can include all the uncertainties you want; Normally we only consider MPE, RONt, resolution and the temperature as fixed uncertainty values additional to the Bias and the repeatability (using different days, parts and clamping as factor of reproducibility).
in the automotive industry this is a requirement from german customers and capability tolerances are agreed with them.

These screenshots are from google (using Qdas ):

qdas.png

Seriously, It really does depend on how deep you want to dive. Knowing the uncertainty of your measurements is definitely important; moreso, if you are actually working with tight tolerances. As Israel pointed out, different evaluation methods (2D vs 3D; scanning vs single point) all have different uncertainty values. HN Metrology Consulting has a great (and affordable) online training module for learning how to calculate measurement uncertainty.
https://www.hn-metrology.com/
  • 1 year later...
I don't have it, but it's of course an option you have to pay for. And it's not plug and play. It needs some kind of preparation. I don't remember exactly, but it needs accuracy data that must be collected on the physical CMM you want to use it for, since this is what its calculations are based on. That data collection is probably also done by Zeiss, for extra cost.

Please sign in to view this quote.

.
.
.
Thanks, Dane, for providing sober insight on the role programmer skill plays in measurement uncertainty. The struggle is real and all-too-often overlooked.

Although I've been with companies with a similar culture to what you described, my present company is a stark contrast. They prioritize employee training and ensure metrologists understand GD&T. Overall, it is simply a great company to work for. Everyday, I feel engaged in my work and challenged to get better. These conditions lower (but don't eliminate) the risk of programmers introducing measurement error.

I just wanted to share a success story. Although rare, there are great companies out there for metrologists. I had to leave a previous employer to find this one. I realize that's not always possible for people, but the current employment landscape is screaming for anyone with Calypso experience.


Jeff Frodermann
Meier Tool & Engineering
Anoka, Minnesota
.
×
×
  • Create New...