[Me...] Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 How would you folks go about measuring the spheres for size & location on this part? This part is extremely difficult for us to hold consistently off the lathe so if anyone has better ideas than what I've come up with that would be awesomesauce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Cl...] Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 You create several circle segments (as many as will fit) in each sphere (lots of points) and constrain size for location, location for size, which you can do in the characteristic. If you have curve, I like slicing through the model (spheres) to create 2d curves, criss/cross like a pizza. Scan and recall those points into the sphere features. I get better results this way. I'd use nothing bigger than a 0.5mm stylus for the spheres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[SH...] Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Please sign in to view this quote. What is the problem in using greater than 0.5mmstyli, I usually using 3mm styli . That is why lam asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Cl...] Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 You are correct sir, a 1.0mm stylus would be fine, but a 3mm stylus for SR.0.049? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Mi...] Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Please sign in to view this quote. For starters, the radius on the print is .049", or about 1.24mm; a 3mm stylus wouldn't fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ro...] Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 As i've said many times, i'm a huge fan of 12+ touch points when dealing with small and partial features such as Spheres, cones, Cylinder & radii. It's never a very popular opinion, but it has served me very well over the years. Here's a picture i posted in 201512 points-2.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Cl...] Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Yep, I've done this with success as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 Please sign in to view this quote. That's exactly what my method is. Using a 1mm. Repeats up to a .0001, so I figured it was accurate enough. Just trying to get the best results and repeat-ability possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Please sign in to view this quote. You can change the axis of the circle path inside of a sphere, so there is no need to perform this method. Just an FYI. For most spheres, I have found that at least 1 circle path across each direction is the best. If you have a complete sphere, there is a new helical scan which I would suspect would be best, but I rarely get to measure complete spheres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 Please sign in to view this quote. I was trying that in the strategy and I keep getting an error when I change the "starting height" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Please sign in to view this quote. You should only get that if the height goes beyond the sphere. Always start at 0, and work from there. It from the center, so it can be negative, and positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 Yep tried that as well, whether negative or positive it kept showing the error. 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