The sensor did not carry out the measurement with the expected measuring force.

[[Ri...]]

I keep getting this, but only on our RDS XXT sensor.

Mostly with thread scans (4 to 6 line scans).

Please sign in to view this quote.

I use the same settings when using the VAST XTR or XT sensor. Speed is definitely not too high. Of course, the "Form" would be high.

Is there a setting that will prevent "scanning optimization" per feature for the RDS XXT sensor?

It is hit or miss if scanning optimization happens on any thread scan. I do not see any pattern yet.

When the scanning optimization happens, it appears to scan maybe half the programmed speed (based on time ran). I have lowered the scan speed to 50% less, and then it just runs it at a lower speed again.

Edited February 7

[[To...]]

That's due to the differences between active and passive sensors.  The XT and XTR are active sensors and work by applying a certain amount of force while probing the part.  The XXT is a passive sensor and relies on a certain amount of deflection.  Standard is 150um, Sensitive is 100um and Robust is 200um.  If the feature you are scanning has high form or location error, the sensor is not able to maintain its given deflection amount which causes the sensor to report the "air scanning" message.  Scanning Optimization will re-measure the feature based on the data it was able to collect but at a slower speed.  Doesn't apply to lines or planes.

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

I know this info, because I think you told once before a long time ago. 😉

Thats why I am asking if I can prevent (disable?) for certain features. Far too many features can have a true position of .030, 200um is about .007".

This XXT is rescanning every other hole location. (I don't make the parts; I just measure them). 🤣

[[To...]]

I didn't see anything about turning it off.  Go to Resources > Compatibility Settings   .... for this measurement plan.  Find Scanning Optimization and set it to off.  I don't believe there is an option to turn if off for all programs.

[[Za...]]

You are able to turn off Scanning Optimization for passive sensors on a program or multiple program basis, but as far as I know, not on a feature basis. Below is a Knowledge Base Article which discusses the topic.

https://carl-zeiss-industrial-metrology-llc.helpjuice.com/calypso-programming-navigation/calypso-air-scanning-optimization-for-passive-sensor?from_search=175108546

My coworker mentioned in another thread recently that there is an increased risk of incorrect results if this is turned off. We generally recommend using a measurement reference (Own Geometry) as one possible option if the features in question are significantly displaced.

https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=1262073

Edited February 7

[[Ri...]]

Zak, thank you for the information.

I was thinking if optimization was off, I could use "Meas. Ref" to pick up the hole location because it is faster, but now I see when you have a cylinder there is no option for "Meas. Ref".

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

In this case, I normally create a circle or cylinder and take 4 or 8 single points, then reference that feature with formulas in the scanning feature.

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

An anomaly (?) I have picked up on.

Every thread that is pulling along the scan path that randomly required scanning optimization doesn't require scanning optimization when I change to pushing the stylus along the line scan path.

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

I like simple solutions, thanks.

[[Je...]]

Unless you are attempting to output the minor diameter of the threaded hole, line scans are not the optimal scanning method and require very precise filter methods and scanning speeds.  This is an inaccurate method of obtaining the location of threads. 

If this is for position, you should be helical scanning the thread with a stylus that rides in the flanks of the thread.  The scan path should match the helical pitch of the threads so the stylus rides around the thread flanks.  Do not position on the minor (though your diameter report will be significantly better than line scans).  The position requirement of a threaded hole falls on the pitch diameter of the thread, not the minor diameter and, in most cases, these a closely aligned but not directly coincidental (drilled then tapped or drilled then thread milled). 

I usually advise 2 helical scan paths , each covering 2 threads (720°).  One starting at 10% of thread depth, the second ending at 90% of thread depth.

Disclaimer - This is not the "easy way" but it is the way you write an inspection plan that will pass a GR&R.  Getting your stylus to ride on the flank while scanning rather than the minor is easier said than done but is the proper application.  The difficulty is further compounded using an XXT as you are unable to self-center in the thread flanks so you have to get creative in locating max/min points for the ID cylinder to determine your scan starting points.

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

As always, I appreciate your input, you are quite knowledgeable. I have been using line scans on threads for almost 12 years, I have developed methods that produce affective GRR's and or MSAs specifically for location. Line scans were less effective on diameters in my study. I have almost 12 years of data on using scan lines.

In development, I designed a stylus and a method of qualifying the stylus that will allow scanning at the pitch diameter for most threads (Very small ID/OD threads are still a concern to stylus design constraints). Some time ago, I had posted the design of one stylus on this forum.

 

Link to Thread Stylus (Patent Pending).

 

Edited February 11
Added link to thread stylus