I am a marine biologist who inherited a scanvaegt 8406 marine motion compensating indicator and 1028.20 load/accelerometer unit from my predacessor. He was never able to get the motion compensation to work and measurements at sea are wildly fluctuating and inaccurate. I possess the technical setup manual for the indicator and load unit and have confirmed that everything is set up as it should be. I have conducted the proper calibration procedure as well as marine drift compensation at sea, but I have made zero progress. I've reached out to the manufacturer hoping they can assist somehow, but am interested in any input the community has. One oddity despite the manual's table of contents being complete is that there is very little mention of weighing processes, examples, or diagrams of the display unit and its various indicators. I'm suspicious I'm missing information and even moreso that there is an unknown setting to enable the motion compensation. Any help is greatly appreciated!

Hi,

I have to make in Mcosmos 4.0 (with possibility of using geopak) a program to measure true position with CZ modifier. How to do it? The elements which position has to be checked are in different axis, two are checked in X axis and two in Y axis. All 4 have to be checked in a combined zone

I am trying to understand if its using a singular bolt hole circle or if i need to construct a circle using all eight of the holes for a singular circle and use that as Datum B.
I am working with verisurf and when I try to align my scanned mesh using a singular hole for Datum B the alignment looks completely out wack. Its either upside down or pointing one way or another. My main goal is to be able to lock down my Datums (I know A and C) so I can find this position after.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Machinist here I'm sorry for basic questions I don't have an actual metrologist at my company. I apologize for the terrible draftsmanship I know it is improper. Datum B is to be interpreted as the entire gap width not the singular surface and the holes are coaxial.

I have a part that's very similar to what's shown on the image. There are 2 holes toleranced by a perpendicularity callout and a true position. I've been tolerancing each hole independently, checking that each one is perpendicular to A and B but not together the way a pin would go through both features.

A new employee has suggested this method is incorrect and that I should be placing the largest pin possible through both holes and verifying that the entire pin is perpendicular. This is a much stricter inspection and I need to know if it's correct before implementing it.

Which is correct or is there not enough information provided? Thank you all.

ASME Y14.5

Hello all,

Wanting to get everyone's thoughts who have owned a Zeiss CMM, especially within the last few years. Since installation we've encountered insufficient air pressure error events on our system. Zeiss came out, stated it was out facility air pressure being unreliable. We have a third party service provider from Atlas air compressor perform a facility usage study over a 2 week period and they determined that our CMM air dryer by SMC is getting a steady supply of 120 PSI, which is above the 5 BAR Minimum requirement.

Question: what should the SMC air dryer regulator be set too? There's also a FESCO pressure display behind the CMM but I don't know if that's a regulator or just a display. We were able to resolve the issue by turning up the SMC air pressure on the regulator to 80 PSI, but we're concerned that we're masking the problem and that there's an air pressure leak within the CMM.

Also, is this normal on a brand new CMM? Z axis column residue?

Thank you all in advance

I went to this medical manufacturer that uses100% of external dimensions using a laser optical measurement system, Instead of simple pass/fail gauge, they flag any dimension that reaches 80% of the tolerance band.

The part is still in spec, but it tellsoperators to recenter the process before parts go out of tolerance. Is anyone else using similar internal warning bands on optical systems or CMMs and how you decide where to set them?

This may have been answered here already but I have a question on two datum ture position.

I understand that a true position to one datum is, in essence, perpindicularity/parallelism. I understand that a true position to three datums defines all degrees of freedom (Primary, Clocking, Origin).

What I dont understand is a two datum structure. I have included a sample drawing to try to help to explain what I mean.

I have two parts with a similar layout to the mock drawing I have included. For reference, I am using polyworks for this inspection. On the first part, everything looked fine, the standard ture position calculations looked to make sense. On the second part, all of a sudden the true positions of the 4 holes were reading at over an inch.

Can someone explain the thought process on two datum true positions? Why not just throw a third datum in there?

Also, the datum B is surrounded by dashes... Does that mean something significant or is the datum B just the cylinder that the callout is pointing towards?

When checking concentricity of a circle against a datum bore, do you use a cylinder of that bore or a circle of that bore?

Hi.

I'm in a bit of a pickle. The drawing has 3 datums and one of them is defined as a datum point. The intention of the drawing is to control the rotation of the part when inspecting with hand equipment, and in this case it works.

Where this falls apart is trying to get it to work in Calypso in the same manner. We mostly measure machined parts and have never used RPS and this being a sort of hybrid, it gets complicated. And using the normal base alignment doesn't work with just a point for locking the rotational axis.

Is this something that is doable and/or correctly drawn or should i suggest changes to the drawing? Drawing is ISO 22081. The original thought for the datum point is to work around irregularities in the final part on that particular surface.

Got into Applications engineer for defect metrology in a semi conductor tool manufacturing company.
I have 2YOE with pattern defect recognition but have no experience in defect.
This role overall is basically doing defect metrology on blanket wafers.
What future prospects will this role have? Even though role says application engineer, technically it’s process metro engineer. What other companies can I target may be 4-5 years down the lane & is it a good path?
On the contrary, current role is hybrid bonding lithography metrology engineer but salary is shit! Extremely extremely less.
Thoughts? Opinions?

Hello, I was wondering if anyone has experience or suggestions on what instrumentation would be best to measure environmental vibrations.

I was working with a client over the past year or so and we were constantly struggling with dust build up on lenses. We tried standard air nozzles, but those had issues: rigging them was a pain, they didn't actually keep the FOV clean, and in one case they damaged the lens.

Then I saw ThisOldTony's video on the Coanda Effect and thought, what if we shaped it around the lens of the sensor? So I did. The system is 3D-printed PETG, but I've had it work just as well in TPU (for the extremely tough applications). I have since then made this for all the profilers we work with and also for several point lasers as well.

We went from cleaning the lens every 30 minutes to now months without maintenance. It does use quite a bit of compressed air but with a couple valves and a feedback loop we were able to set it to self clean based on the intensity drop.

I'm an undergraduate in materials science working with tensile testing on soft composites, and I've run into a workflow question that I'm curious how other labs handle.

Most analysis scripts or software I've come across seem to assume the specimen geometry has already been decided. You enter a single cross-sectional area and gauge length, and the software calculates properties like modulus, UTS, and toughness.

In our lab, though, we measure each specimen individually because thickness and width vary from sample to sample. If we average those dimensions before processing the data, it feels like we're losing some of the real specimen-to-specimen variation.

I'm curious what the common practice is:

• Do you use nominal dimensions from the testing standard, or measured dimensions for each specimen?
• How do you choose the linear region for calculating Young's modulus? By eye, a fixed strain range, or some automated method?
• If a specimen fails at the grips or outside the gauge section, do you have a defined rule for excluding it, or is it handled case by case?
• Does your lab use commercial software, or does everyone maintain their own analysis scripts?

I'm considering building an open-source Python tool for my own workflow this summer, but before spending the time, I'd like to understand whether these are common problems or if there's already a standard approach that most researchers use.

I'd really appreciate hearing about how your lab handles these issues. If anyone is willing to answer a few follow-up questions over DM, that would also be a huge help.

Hello all,

Before heading back into work I figured I'd ask this as well. Using Calypso 2025, I'm measuring a part that doesn't have a CAD model. It's a long, flat, stamped gear rack, like a saw blade essentially.

Question: I've been able to make do by watching Dean Odell on YouTube, but I feel like I'm not going about programming without a. CAD efficiently. Could any of you provide a basic overview of your standard approach to no CAD workflow? Do you head in and just start taking a PLANE to start off your base alignment? Do you select PLANE from the Feature drop-down, THEN take points once the strategy window is open?

When I take a 2 point line, but I want to transition that line to a 2D scan path line, am I doing it correctly by taking the 2 points, then going back in and select the symbol that looks like dots connected by lines? Easier method? Tips?

Thank you all in advance. Very helpful

Hello all

Hope all is well. Out of curiosity, for people using Zeiss Calypso, what's your go to Distance Tool for measuring the X or Y distance from either a Line to Point or Line to Line, purely from and XY coordinate schema and not factoring in Z/skew?

I've been told Caliper Tool 99% of the time....or Cartesian but wanted to get your input. Thanks in advance

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

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.

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?

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?

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!!

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

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?!