Jump to content

Point Evaluation


Recommended Posts

Please sign in to view this quote.

Are you sure? Let's say you are measuring a "precision" cast 3d-surface with points specified on the drawing, X Y Z i j k. And based on your results, a CAM-program is generated. To machine the part. Do you still stand with your statement, to use Space Points with radius compensation in the nominal vector and projection to the nominal location?
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/15808-point-evaluation/#findComment-86422
Share on other sites

The reason Im asking is because you said that if none of the vector isnt parallell to any of the coordinate systems axis. Use space points. While it eliminates to cosine error otherwise introduce by a touch point, (that compensate in the vector of the closest axis). It does so in the nominal vector by default. It also create a projection back to the nominal location. How ever, on the 3d surface there is no guarantee, that the nominal vector is a good option, Its more likely to be more accurate at a flat surface.

Lets say a milling head is to scrub this surface 0.01mm, based on the value of your space point. Dont you see any risk of machining in the air, or to deep?

A general statement like yours is in my opinion just to general. But I tought maybe you hade some solid research behind your claim instead of a LOL.

Space poins is handy to have, but not a general solution.

And if you dont like me, sure, atleast dont give others false hope of a solution for everything.
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/15808-point-evaluation/#findComment-86436
Share on other sites

To add input to the topic though - I tend to use Space Point a lot. I've gotten great results out of it. Plane Point is very useful too though, especially when working with RPS/3d Best Fit Alignments.

I cannot say that I've compared a thickness/distance measurement between using Space Point/Plane Point. Mostly because I tend to not use Points a lot, and also majority of the Points that I would use for these type of measurements would be in the vectored in a single axis only.
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/15808-point-evaluation/#findComment-86440
Share on other sites

Theres just to much, and a brief description isnt of any help. But alignment is crucial, (as always) and we tend to use lsq only for everything that has with it to do. Pressure flanks control pretty much every DoF. Some times a standard alignment is good enough. Some times we need Geometrical best-fit. Some times we devide pressure and suctions side separatly. Rotating by actual flank angle, so one CS-axis is prep, then best fit with translation, only along that axis. Then rotate it back, repeat at other side. Calculate average and translate base alignment.

Theres just so many variants. And hard to give a quick how to. I see a lot of our suppliers when visiting (quality assurance and some times trouble shooting or brain storming (stupid corona, no paid travles any more)), in a big picture, the whole blade world does the same thing, with small tweaks.

Its easier to say something of value if you are specific 🙂

Oh, Just to be clear. I dont measure aero space blades. I measure blades for power generation. Both compressor (fan) and turbine blades. Range from 25mm to ~1000mm in height. Our blades must withstand force that would get an air plane to cry 🙂
But to make it confusing we are manufacturing rb211 and trent engines (Rolls Royce) But they will never fly, land based. But customers try to force us to stick to Aero space standard on those two...
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/15808-point-evaluation/#findComment-86450
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...