Trouble qualifying a .3mm stylus

[[Er...]]

I am trying to qualify a .3 mm stylus with CAA. Keeps telling that it has insufficient data when it completes. Will I need to use a smaller reference sphere or is there a work around?

[[Ca...]]

I've also had trouble qualifying 0.3mm probes. I had much better luck using an 8mm sphere. Sometimes I still get the insufficient data/points or whatever message. I think it also depends on it the probe is maneuvering around the reference sphere shaft of not. Try rotating the reference sphere, and see if that helps.

[[Me...]]

I agree with Casey. Depending on which 0.3 styli that you're using (or any of them below 1mm for that matter) you could be shanking out depending on how short the smallest shank is on the stylus. You may have to drop down to something smaller than 8mm. Also, if the smallest shank is too long, it can exhibit too much flex which results in inconsistency making it difficult for Calypso to analyze. One last option (I don't recommend it but it would tell you if you're shanking out) is to reduce artifact coverage.

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

When qualifying XXT Sensors, no matter what sphere coverage is entered the Passive Qualification uses 180° of sphere coverage during the bending map portion of the qualification, i.e. the scanning portion. The Geometry Re-qualification routine will use whatever is entered in the sphere coverage, but what is the point if you build your bending map on portions of the shank. A smaller reference sphere is the better option.

On that note, a smaller reference sphere is only required if your probe shanks out at the 180° point on the Ref Sphere. Some smaller probes actually have enough clearance that they won't shank out. Attached is an example of a 0.3mm stylus (non-Zeiss) that must have skipped an grinding op. Ref Sphere is 30mm

[[Aa...]]

Our 0.3's are stepped like that, too. We switched to a lower-cost manufacturer. (Actually, they're the third manufacturer we tried. The second one was a California-based company recommended by our Zeiss distributor. But we had issues with their rubies smaller than 1 mm simply falling off the stem at initial qualification, even with reduced probing force and probing dynamic.)

We reduce coverage for the static tensor portion of the qualifications for anything smaller than 1.0 mm to avoid shanking out (on the 30mm ref sphere that came with the machine). The dynamic tensor portion we conduct with a 8mm virtual reference sphere.

Even with some of the tapered 0.3's we were getting from Zeiss before, we were shanking out with 180° on a 30mm ref sphere.

[[Er...]]

Thanks for all the advice. I guess we will be getting another reference sphere.

[[CA...]]

Hello guys!!!
I'm working with a Contura G-2 VAST RDS-XXL TL3, and now I want to qualify a small probe, but POINTER (0.1mm).
I need some instruction in order to carry out this qualification but with reduction of Shere couverage. I don't find the form to obtain this reduction.
CALYPSO 2019
Best regards

[[An...]]

Perhaps you want to change the calibration sphere?
See attached.

Calibration_06_04_2020.xlsm

[[CA...]]

I have tried with only the option of my first Reference Sphere, but here in the picture I show the real problem with this Zeiss Stylus, the holder and probe are a same body, the radius at the end is 0.1mm, but it is formed with 30 degrees, and ever we obtain some reduction of Sphere coverage in order to avoid false path or contact.
The RDS-CAA with the unique option of passive qualification is blind to any degrees that we put on this field, ever the same path around the Ref. Sphere.
What to do? Will be Re-qualification an option to take in account the Taper Angle?
Thanks a lot, please if you or members know something about that, let me to know.