Honeycomb measurments.

[[Ro...]]

Hello GOM team,

I am currently working on a correlation study between a Scancobot with Atos Q and a CMM using Calypso. We are measuring a radius section of 194 mm on a honeycomb part.

We have observed differences in the measurements obtained from both pieces of equipment. Specifically, we are measuring three sections at different heights, over an approximate length of 15 mm, with 7 points per section.

On the Scancobot, we use a touch point edge measurement with an edge height of 4 mm. On the CMM, we measure the same points but use a 2.5 mm radius probe.

We have noticed that the point-to-point variation is greater on the Scancobot than on the CMM. The dispersion between points on the CMM is about 0.01–0.03 mm, whereas on the Scancobot it is 0.04–0.07 mm.

Do you have any recommendations for measuring this type of part?

[[TI...]]

Put some green highlighted points(or section cut) you are using to create a radius on that mesh....no one knows where you are measuring the radius at with just a picture of a mesh.

Edited 11 hours ago

[[Jo...]]

Hello Rodrigo,

we need way more information.

im just thinking in writing ...

• measurement volume Atos Q
• surface of the part
• are you using any matting agent?
• what exactly are you measuring from that picture?
• how is the mesh looking in this region in detail? how solid is the mesh aquisition on the scaner?
• polygonisation which settings?
• clamping the same way or not at all?
• why compare single points and not results? that will always put the scaner in a very bad position. Use the information available like you would in real world measuring task and dont try to use the scaner like it is a cmm with a switching probe.
• Radius: how much of a full circle?
• point (edge) 4mm vs ballprobe 2,5 mm is a vastly different thing, think about using something else for the scanner.
• Why is your cmm so inaccurate? Could be a hint to a problem in the approach.

Edited 4 hours ago