trouble with probes (?)

[[Sa...]]

Good morning everyone.
We're a bit at a loss right now, so I'm hoping someone here can help us.
When measuring a component, it was noticed that the axial runout and coaxiality was too high. Because that wasn't plausible, my colleague proceeded as follows: He created a program with an adjustment ring to check whether the X and Y probes on our star styli fit together by measuring the diameter once in Y + and once in Y- as well as in +X and -X.
If a deviation was visible on the report, we should adjust this in the Geometry Data.
After we adjusted the data and measured the component again, the value of the axial runout and coaxiality was much more plausible (the sensor probably had a deviation in the hundredth range, I think it was around 300)

In order to check whether our corrections to the geometry data could be overwritten, we should calibrate the probes with the calibration (or its called reference ?) sphere, then use the program again with the adjustment ring.

Either the value should theoretically (as far as I understand Calypso) be reset again so that we have an offset in the hundredth again or our changes are not so overwritten and we are in the tenth of a µm range (which is what we actually need ). But my measurements are completely different because according to the calibration (reference ?) sphere the value is neither the original nor the adjusted one. Attached are the logs, which hopefully show more easily what I'm trying to achieve.

*We have now tried to clarify this in more detail on our Conturas, we also have the same problem on our Prismo Ultras*

(and sorry for any grammar mistakes, please correct me, english is my second language)

dritte messung einstellring.JPG

[[ST...]]

Hello Saskia,

Were you able to resolve your issues with runout and coaxiality?

I have a similar test to check positions of the qualification sphere reported by Left & right directions of a Star Probe. [Front & Back as well, also comparing between different Star Probes]

First I calibrated all probes with the best mode available, ie Dynamic Tensor in which you expose 360° of the sphere by inclining the stem away from probe direction. Do this only once in a while and in the interim run 'Geometry Requalification'. [Also do it if there is any substantial rebuild of the probe system].

My results by independent test were great (Average of 0.005mm Position error across a large Star Probe with 4mm rubies). I could see a big improvement for a duration after qualification, then I must frequently requalify or before every new job with tight tolerances.

The only time I ever thought of adjusting the Geometry Data was for a DISK probe which has obviously much less coverage of the sphere during qualification.

What I wonder is if anyone might misuse this avenue to make borderline parts appear to pass. Any anecdotal stories out there?