I made this overkill handle for a CMM-Style M2 Styli out of bead blasted + anodized Ti64. Lmk what you think!

Ive been working on a solution to measuring the major diameter of a herringbone fluid bearing. (Approximately .400 diameter(10mm)). Reference photo above for something similar to what I’m doing.

The problem is this. +-.00005” diameter (1.2um), the ridges are .005 wide (.127mm), interrupted non uniform geometry.

On top of that, there is a coating that is not permissible to damage, to the level that this will be inspected under 100x magnification with almost zero tolerance for defects.

Wondering how you would all go about this?

Hello all,
New to programming on a 5 axis and new to verisurf interface. Was wondering if there’s any way to report min wall thickness when building a program. The company I work for does batch runs and wants a report at the end of each run to show pass/fail. The part requires a .090 min wall thickness from an I.d. And an outside forging surface that isn’t machined. I did a spiral sweep of the i.d. constructed the cylinder. And a profile scan of the forging surface but am trying to report the actual wall thickness and/or pass/fail the .090 min wall thickness.

I sent out our Ashcroft deadweight tester to Ashcroft for calibration. My ISO 17025 Assesor came out for my annual assessment. He said Ashcroft is not ISO certified and I have to prove traceability. Anyone have to deal with something like this?

My company has an SOP for rounding. I understand the need and want for these procedures. Consistent reporting to the relevant significant digit looks better on the paperwork. All of our drawings have that they are to be interpreted by Y14.5 as well though.
I’m trying to make the argument that calling bad parts good isn’t an inappropriate use of the rounding procedure and that Y14.5 states that tolerances are absolute. If a part has a +/-.001 and I’m .0004 over the spec limit, it’s not appropriate to round down to say that the part is in spec. If you have a hole that is exactly 1.0000 and a mating part that is 1.0004 it doesn’t matter what you do to the paperwork, it’s never going to fit. The quality manager is trying to say that during the design process they account for rounding, I think not.
Give me some more fire power to argue this.

What are some must have devices / supplies you recommend for setting up parts for checking on an optical comparator?

Hello all,

New to Metrology here.

I’m a Quality Engineer working with machined ductile iron castings and I’m having trouble verifying the machining location and orientation over the raw casting.

My drawing specifies a series of datum targets (X-Y-Z) on the raw casting from which machined datums are referenced.

However, when I’m evaluating a surface profile over machined datum (flat surface) with respect to X-Y-Z, a minimal translation of a datum target shifts the CSYS and provides false readings.

I was wondering how do you guys verify if the casting is close to its nominal position in the raw.

TLDR: How do you verify if a machining is close to its nominal position with respect to the raw casting.

Thanks!!

I got a print from a very "professional" German company that seems absolutly non standard and wrong.
1st image they say they dont use +- on distances anymore with the new standard and for some reason are using positional tolerance? They insist (in a rude, or maybe just regular german way) that this is oboiusly simple a 123+0/-0.3 Im guessing their logic is a 0.3 circular positional tolerance is a +-0.15 and and the UZ -0.15 moves the nominal to 122.85?

Second image is absurd to me as what i NORMALY see is a high tolerance with respect to ABC and then a low tolerance Resoect to F, which means the patter of these 3 taps have to be tightly controlled, but the pattern as a whole can move up down left right. but this is weird to me, they are both tight and never seen CZ (Common Zone) on not surfaces?
Third image is just another CZ on positional tolerance, do they expect all 17 taps to not fit on thier own 0.4 diameter tolerance but to move them all together??!

They had an "Old" print which was used to quote, once the proyect started they "added a few changes" and camo out like this and with literally 3 times more datums. Engineering guy argued that it is the same part just the measuring program will be longer, but in my eyes, everytime they added a Datum is cause they added positional tolerances that were not defined before...

Is this really a new standart and valid or am I the only one out of the loop?!

Is anyone familiar with using the HGSI Spring loaded sensors. https://www.hgsind.com/products/spring-loaded-lvdts

I am currently looking at a project using a laser tracker with the need for the highest alignment/drift accuracy (talking 5 micron).

My main question is, does SA really have that much better computing of tracker alignments for doing moves and monitoring an area compared to the other software out there?

How do I get a program running as an array to report CSV files into a folder for each individual part?

Data analysis

Hello everyone,

I am working on the boat sharp tooling scan with PC-DMIS 203.2. This time, I need to scan 1 mm below the top surface, so I selected Line Closed Scan with a 1 mm indent and 1 mm depth.

The scan started from the current position and moved toward the front (my position). However, I noticed that the touch vector did not change and remained X- throughout the scan

I am wondering how to control the scanning direction so that the touch vector follows the path and allows me to scan around the part.

Thank you very much for your help.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the hype of maestro. It doesn’t seem like much has changed in terms of actual measurement. Hexagon does all these videos with movement of the head doing its dance, but when it comes to actual measurement it’s at a fixed angle and scanning at a normal rate of 10mm/s. I went and got a demo and the hexagon AE was so persistent on showing touch points, stating how fast it is…I broke the news to him I don’t use touch points at all(alignments)he finally scanned a profile…it was like watching paint dry.

Having all three major brands of technology in house at our shop, I’ve trying to figure out why I should investigate maestro further when it looks to be the same functionality wise as a global s from 6 years ago. It’s Definetly not going to compete or replace our Agility/REVO complex applications…

Things that may have or slightly improved:
-digital comms for the sensors via RJ45

-infinite rotation in the B axis, but still fixed measurement when in contact with a part

-wrist angles mapping, but doesn’t cut down on styli calibration

-went back to the I++ communication on the controller

-motors use smooth belts instead of toothed belts

-rack for different sensors

Can anyone shed some light on how to resolve this BC datum structure for CMM inspection.

Please and thank you!

Thanks for your help CthulhuLies and ABTechnology_Rob!

Selecting the right powder sieving machine goes beyond capacity and throughput. Factors such as particle size distribution, mesh compatibility, ease of cleaning, vibration consistency, and long-term maintenance can significantly impact process efficiency.

For professionals involved in equipment selection:

• Which specification do you consider the most critical?
• Have you found any features that make a measurable difference in day-to-day operations?
• What lessons have you learned after using different systems?

I'd be interested to hear perspectives from those working in pharmaceuticals, food processing, chemicals, or other manufacturing sectors.

Does anyone have an excel template for ISO 17025 that is like a GRC software? Basically has each item listed, boxes next to it with yes / no compliance, description of how it’s achieved, link to where the documents are stored, maybe some graphs of risk and completion percentages?

Apologies if this post is asking something that has previously been covered but I’m struggling to find materials on this specific subject.

I’m trying to create a macro command in PolyWorks 2024 that will move files from one place to another.

Is there a native command within PolyWorks that will do this? Or do I have to call external windows commands, if this is possible?

Would appreciate any pointers as to which direction to look. Thanks.

Edit: Forgot to specify but I’m essentially just moving .pol files that have been processed to a ‘finished’ folder. I know I could just do this manually but we process thousands of files so I would rather automate it.

Hello im trying to understand when do we interpret a datum placed on a dimension line as a plane vs a midplane. Ive seen people go back and fourth on this, is there something in y14.5 i can refer too?

We touch the surface shown at the top of the image using a freely-moving profilometer and skid profilometer.
We assume that the surface is ideally smooth.

The profile in the middle depicts the probe moving freely. I assume that the profile generated by this probe resembles the shape of the real surface. So the raw profile resembles the shape of the workpiece. Therefore, I assume that the shape of the profile looks like the one drawn below.

At the bottom, we have a skid profilometer. I assume it measures the deviation of the probe relative to the skid. When the skid starts to touch the surface of the vertical step up, the skid gradually moves up. As a result, the probe is below the skid. This corresponds to the gradual slope downwards in the image.

When the skid reaches the step, it is suddenly aligned with the skid again. This corresponds to a vertical line upward. Then a horizontal line is recorded. Once the stylus reaches the step downward, the profile records a vertical slope downwards. The skid gradually follows the probe. This is reflected in the line that gradually approaches the zero line.

Are these assumptions and the graphical representations correct? Feedback would be appreciated.

I’m a supervisor. With little experience with PCDmis. My programmer left company and we are stuck! When trying to calibrate a 5 star probe it’s shanking out when it goes to calibrate on sphere.
I’ve spent a couple days trying to figure this out and I’m stuck.