[Me...] Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 It's been a very long time since I've programmed with an XXT and I'm super rusty with it. We have an RDS-CAA. What is the suggested method for qualifying these various systems in regard to them being either Sensitive/Standard/Robust with the % as well. 1.5x50mm Star 3x50MM 4x85MM 1x44MM 1.5x85MM 0.5x75MM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[To...] Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Is your 0.5mm actually have an ML of 75mm or are you factoring an extension? A standard 0.5 x 20 is the only one I would consider reducing the Probing Force and Probing Dynamic for. Me personally, I would use Sensitive and 30% but everyone is likely to have a different opinion on this. These settings work well for me and I don't break a lot of probes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted October 31, 2018 Author Share Posted October 31, 2018 For the 0.5x75MM I'm using Sensitive/50% with a 150° Sphere Coverage. It's calibrating .0001mm - .0002mm with 5 positions. Yes I have long extension attached as well Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[To...] Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 I don't know if anything has changed but during Passive Qualification, sphere coverage is always 180° regardless of what value you enter. Sphere coverage is effective during Geometry Re-qualification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted October 31, 2018 Author Share Posted October 31, 2018 Oh wow I did not know that. The Stylus System I'm seeing the most deviation from calibration is the 1.5x50MM Star. It's not really a star, more an "L", I just used a quick name...IMG_1920[1].jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ow...] Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Shawn, Taking the weight limits into the equation, try putting another probe of equal weight on the other side to see if qualification improves. The probe is probably to small to use a carbon stem? Even though I was once told by a Zeiss rep that balance didn't matter if the length was within the limits, I can tell you from experience that even on Vast Gold heads, balance plays a critical role. POST EDIT - I JUST READ YOUR USING AN RDS (BLONDE MOMENT) SO BALANCE, I don't know about with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ja...] Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 The distance between that ruby and shaft is something I have never seen before. Looks like its coming off or did it come that way?Capture.GIF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ow...] Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Jason, what he's using is a probe with a pilot stem that goes into the drilled hole of the ruby. When you get small ruby's, that is the best method to use when making them. Not all stylus manufactures use the pilot, they just glue the ball to the end and they eventually fall off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Please sign in to view this quote. Sphere coverage is always 180° only for the scanning portion (bending calculation). It will still use what value you have entered when calculating the geometry (6 points at the end) - which is the same thing you will see with a Geometry Re-qualification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Please sign in to view this quote. I would say that weight and balance were the two most important things. The balance can be somewhat forgiving, but the weight is crucial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[To...] Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Please sign in to view this quote. However, the reason some people reduce the sphere coverage is because they're shanking out on the reference sphere. Considering the bending parameters are established during the scanning phase of the qualification, are you not influencing the bending parameters by scanning on a portion of the probe that is more rigid than the actual shank? How much difference would there be in the bending parameters if you didn't shank out because you were using a smaller reference sphere? ❓ ❓ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 Please sign in to view this quote. I agree 100%, and the honest question is I'm not for sure. I would have to do side-by-side comparison test to see if there is an effect. My suspicion is that you shouldn't (keyword shouldn't) see much of an issue in accuracy, but more of a performance affect. I suspect that you could potentially see more air-scanning errors. The official answer is to use the appropriate size qualification sphere when using small probes. I would suggest that if you are using small probes frequently to just swap to the smaller qualification sphere across the board. Reference sphere, RS-D8-C for RSH-system; Item No.: 600332-8443-000; List price is $450 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Cl...] Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 Speaking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted November 1, 2018 Author Share Posted November 1, 2018 I'm seeing this with that Star/L probe the vectors seem a bit off...Is this a calibration or alignment issue?Capture.PNG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Cl...] Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 With a "Star, or "L" probe you will generally see this. If the star isn't balanced, or is slightly over weight. Other than that it's OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 This is typical behavior of the XXT when probing in anything other than the -Z direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[To...] Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 Everything looks good to me. Check out this post to see more on this topic. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=625&p=4426&hilit=p ... sues#p4426 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted November 2, 2018 Author Share Posted November 2, 2018 Thanks guys, I'm so grateful for this forum! 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