Stylus System

[[An...]]

I started in a new lab with a G3 cmm, Calypso 21. The old programmer retired before I started so I have no one to answer my questions.  I'm trying to run a program and its asking for a certain probe but its not in the rack.  Based on the geometry of the probe, how do I rebuild this stylus system?  The stylus system is named StarrTip3.  The X value is 24.57, Y=0 and Z=-21.91 for one of the probes.  The other probe is X=43.78, Y=-.22 and Z=-21.69.  

[[Ma...]]

Do you use ID chips?

If you want to make a new stylus system, then just follow probe radius, it's length and position.
From this you have 3 and 5 position. Y won't matter and Z is roughly same. Those numbers are from center of disk / head to center of probe sphere.

[[Je...]]

Hi 

Please sign in to view this username.

  I sent you a PM.  Feel free to msg me on LinkedIn or otherwise.

I remember what it was like starting on a cmm and not having anyone to ask questions to. (Thank you

Please sign in to view this username.

 for the Calypso pdf's you posted freely online over a decade ago  #mentor)

Probe and rack assignments in Calypso are easy and intuitive, once you know the process.  If the stylus system you want to use is already in the probe database but not assigned a rack position, you simply have to click on the specific rack space you'd like to assign it to (will change from yellow to green once you click on it) and then use the drop-down menu to assign a stylus system from the list of available options.

Best practice is to run a probe qualification after doing so.

If the probe you would like to use is not in the system yet, the process is still simple but involves the standard stylus creation process first.  I can walk you through that if needed.

Also, the specific program you mentioned can easily be updated to new stylus assignments per feature if desired.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-frodermann/

Edited June 8

[[Dr...]]

Hi Andrew,

I noticed that the X values for both styli in your system are positive; can you confirm that’s accurate? If it is, I suspect you’re dealing with an uncommon stylus system setup, but fortunately, it’s not one that breaks the laws of physics with two colinear styli.

Though you didn’t mention which sensor head you’re using, I’m guessing it’s an XXT sensor on an RDS head, as opposed to a VAST XT or XTR sensor – you can google these if you’re unsure; XXTs are smaller and cylindrical. All sensors are available on G3s, but XXTs frequently have Z offsets between -21.5mm to -22.5mm due to the ubiquity of certain cube adapter plates, and moreover, I think the programmer before you was using the pivoting RDS sensor head to make a “Swiss army knife” stylus system.

Perhaps your program needs two X+ (right-facing) styli to measure two markedly different left-facing holes: one small in diameter, and one long in depth. Hypothetically, this could be done with two separate styli systems, each with the appropriate stylus in the X+ position. But why go to that trouble of reserving an extra plate & holder location when a single stylus system could be set up with opposed styli, then articulated 180° as needed?

Can you provide additional info to head off some questions that may arise? In Calypso’s main window, you should have an icon on the top toolbar called “Stylus system management” that looks like a wrench & stylus system. Could you select StarrTip3 → Stylus → Geometry, and then provide a screenshot of all the stylus specs for this system? Note that you may need to resize the window a bit.

[[An...]]

Thank you for the help!!  After some sweat and tears If I figured it out.  Getting thrown into someone else's metrology lab without any guidance from that person sucks!!  Trying to figure out their verbiage and naming is a job in it's own!!  Thank you very much again!

[[No...]]

A careful predecessor would have documented his work 🧐

[[Je...]]

Hi

Please sign in to view this username.

Touché. Hard to argue with that.

This is a philosophical discussion to itself, one that I've had often with other programmers. Workflows and expectations have shifted over time, not just for metrologists but for employees in all facets of manufacturing.

While we’d all prefer well-documented handoffs, the structure of many manufacturing environments today doesn’t consistently support that ideal. In reality, most programmers aren’t writing for their successor; they’re building to meet immediate needs within evolving systems. The expectation often seems to be that the broader process, not the individual, will carry the continuity.

Of course, when a company explicitly defines how and when to document procedures, and has the infrastructure to support that, then yes, the onus becomes clearer. But even then, long-term retention and accessibility rest with the organization, not solely the departing programmer.

At the end of the day, our first obligation is to do excellent, professional work today. Anything beyond that depends on whether the system around us is set up to value and preserve it.