[Co...] Posted Monday at 04:19 PM Share Posted Monday at 04:19 PM Hi all, Wondered if you may be able to help with something that is confusing me here. I am looking into my probe qual program because we are having many probes show up with a .000000" result and I don't think this is correct. I then noticed this morning that when I use my MasterProbe for Ref Sphere Position I saw the Sigma was at 0.000065" so I went to my qual program to see if it matched and it did not. The qual program for my MasterProbe is showing me an actual value of 0.000003". Does anyone have any idea why I am seeing this difference? Maybe something wrong with my formula or how I am reporting things out? I imagine that these should be showing some result other than 0 and this MasterProbe reading makes me think something here is wrong. Let me know if I can share anything else that might be helpful to get to the bottom of this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Dr...] Posted Monday at 04:55 PM Share Posted Monday at 04:55 PM The outputs for stylus system variables should already give values in your environmental unit (which I'm taking to be inches here); dividing by 25.4 shouldn't be necessary and would explain why the results differ by about that factor (.000065/25.4≈.000003). If you swap out .stdProbeDev for, say, .radius in the formula, does it return .098274", or is it [erroneously] about .003869"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Co...] Posted Monday at 05:02 PM Author Share Posted Monday at 05:02 PM Drew...Nailed it. It spits out .003868! I adjusted the formula to remove the /25.4 and now it matches and everything looks to match up as I had expected. I'll adjust for all of my probes and imagine all should be back in order here. Thank you very much for the crazy fast reply and fix! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Cl...] Posted Monday at 05:04 PM Share Posted Monday at 05:04 PM (edited) Removed Mistake. Edited Monday at 05:06 PM Mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted Monday at 06:48 PM Share Posted Monday at 06:48 PM Please sign in to view this quote. Isn't this version dependent? I know I have at least one report that uses "/25.4" in the string. (I thinks its v2016 and v2017). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Dr...] Posted Monday at 07:48 PM Share Posted Monday at 07:48 PM Please sign in to view this quote. It wouldn't surprise me; I feel like Alice falling down the rabbit hole when it comes to Calypso mixing units. Though I don't think this is directly applicable since it applies to very specific variables, this bit from the Compatibility Settings [in the Resources menu] is worth adding to the discussion: Converting getMinActual() and getMaxActual() inches On: Recalled values from getMinActual() and getMaxActual() will be converted to inches. Recalled values from getNominal() for 2 Point Diameter, Result Element, and the statistic characteristics (Minimum, Maximum, Average) will be converted to inches (from V.6.8). Off: Recalled values from getMinActual() and getMaxActual() will not be converted to inches. Recalled values from getNominal() for 2 Point Diameter, Result Element, and the statistic characteristics (Minimum, Maximum, Average) will not be converted to inches. The text from the 6.8.24 release notes (2/25/21 patch for Calypso 2019) expounds upon it a bit more, so I'll attach that to this post. It's not v2016/v2017, but I could plausibly see it having flown under the radar for a while. 1 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