Using two Vast XXT Sensors on same program

[[Ni...]]

Good Morning,

I am currently working at a new place with an older Acura CMM that has two Vast XXT sensors on the rack..
One is TL1 and the other is TL3.
They are not using RDSCAA so they have created a styli for every single angle they have ever used.
The practice here is that they qualify the styli they need for every single program they run.

One thing i noticed is that one program uses two probe systems from the TL1 sensor and one probe system from the TL3 sensor.

So it goes and qualifies the two probes from the TL1 sensor and after it is done, it drops off the TL1 sensor on the rack and switches to the TL3 sensor to qualify that one probe system.
Then it goes and checks the part.

My question is, does the accuracy of the stylus system get lost the moment the machine drops off one sensor to pick up the other one? does it matter?
Should the program run qualify the TL1 sensor and run the program first, then after its done checking those features it can switch to the TL3 sensor and qualify that probe and then keep running?

Thank You,

[[Cl...]]

The sensor and its styli should keep their qualifications. The difference
between the two styli is how much length and weight they can each handle.

viewtopic.php?p=47290&hilit=TL1+tl2#p47290

[[Ke...]]

Another question is why they are using the TL1 at all, as a TL3 can handle any probe a TL1 can, and more,

[[Je...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

This is absolutely true. A TL3 is a complete upgrade over the TL1 with no drawbacks. The only "exception" to Kevins statement is that the stylus plates are not interchangeable so its not quite as simple as just changing the stylus over to the other sensor. The plates would have to be changed and new stylus systems created for the TL3 sensor in CALYPSO

My advice here is that if both a TL1 and TL3 are available on a machine, take the TL1 off and store it for backup emergency. Use the TL3 exclusively.

[[Ri...]]

The probing force is at least half less on a TL1 vs a TL3, so they are not exactly the same at all.

[[Je...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

No one said they are exactly the same at all. Please allow me to elaborate.

I stated the TL3 is an upgrade to the TL1 in every way. It is an upgrade to the TL1 in EVERY way with zero drawbacks as was its design intent.

The measurement force applied by a TL1 is exactly the same as a TL3 (this is not arbitrary, I have that data). While the TL1 may be more sensitive at much lower forces (lower than each should or could ever be utilized), this is not realized by CALYPSO or your CMM as both TL1 and TL3 have the same forces applied as defined by the 3 selectable settings. 100mN, 130mN and 200mN respectively.

Both also have the same minimum and maximum measurable force application values.

TL1 is not capable of any type of Self-Centering measurement. TL3 is capable if vectored directly towards sensor. (As in using a straight stylus and self-centering in direction of shaft but application should be tested on case-by-case basis)
TL1 is not capable or RC-CAA mode. TL3 is RC-CAA capable.
TL3 range of star probe reach is expanded 25mm over the TL1 with the exception of RC-CAA mode (which is 40mm vs 65mm)
TL3 has expanded range of 25mm in stylus length over the TL1
TL1 is not 3D-Curve capable. TL3 is 3D-Curve capable.

[[Ri...]]

[[Je...]]

Thank you for the HW specification chart. I am fully familiar with this chart. It does give the impression that the TL1 applies a lower measuring force but is misleading in its real-world use. Since you aren't using the XXT on non-ZEISS equipment or with any software other than CALYPSO or CALIGO, that chart is absolutely irrelevant in terms of applied measurement forces. The applied forces are dictated by software parameters as I stated previously and there is absolutely zero applied difference between them when used in CALYPSO or CALIGO. The TL1 is NOT more sensitive in any quantifiable way that can be realized by your CMM, I can assure you of this. Each sensor is capable of a range of .005mN to .500mN however, those values are are the far limits of SW/HW interaction/use and are not advised for acceptance measurement.

I'll repost this again. Please read:

Please sign in to view this quote.

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Can you please post some documentation that supports this statement as it completely contradicts the information received directly from Zeiss.

[[Je...]]

I'd be happy to. Please check your PMs 😃 .

[[DA...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Hello,
I continue this very interesting post.

I have a question about the "Probing dynamic (in %)".
I successfully changed the Sensitive/Standard/Robust mode when qualifying the stylus manually.

But I don't know what value to put in the "Probing dynamic (in %)" box.
Some of my probes are set at 10 or 50 or even 100%.

Is there a rule recommended by Zeiss?

Are these the settings available in the following settings menu?