Jump to content

NOt Updating Realistic Nominal size


---
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good Morning,


Recently I was asked a question as to why the CMM printout shows 4 Radii being checked as being exactly .135 r without any deviation throughout a significant period of the run. Actually all of the run. +

An endmill is interpolating this feature, I sincerly doubt this feature is being checked perfect 100% all the time.

Any ideas as to how to double check this? We've used point and scans to check the radius and called out the Ø (.270)
All are perfect?!!??!?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have constraints on those radii features?

Have you tried taking single points without having the CAD feature selected? (Manually creating a new feature?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're taking single points and scanning. We also had the y constraint on and off but we keep seeing our .135 R
reporting @ .135.

Also this program is not using a CAD model
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

To further clarify this question.. It is possible to have constraints at the FEATURE and/or CHARACTERISTIC level. It is also possible to be rounding at 3 decimal places..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently my co-worker found that the actual s weren't being reported when the Radius box was checked.
Any anyone tell me What is the purpose of this Radius box?

2040_18218e089e6d0984ec67747c6ff39512.docx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

That is a size constraint. The purpose is to more accurately read location values, by constraining the size to nominal. If you only care about the size, you could constrain the x,y, and/or z.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.


Ok so to read true position in the best possible manner considering its a small radius, the R box should be checked.
Also if this feature is in my XZ i should constrain in Y. In my mind constraining would keep my probe readings in the XZ
"plane" without deviation in the Y axis to calculate a more stable reading?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...