Many of you know I am a strong advocate of some sort of process control on CMMs.
I have put together some of the lessons learned over the last 40 years and hope some of you will not experience some of the things I have when the machines don't deliver what you want or you question the results delivered.
* The machine may meet all the accuracy requirements of the manufacturer, and you may not be able to measure a part accurately.
* If the machine and lights in the lab are turned off at the end of the day, the machine will not be as repeatable as it would be if left on.
* The smartest programmers and the most experienced inspectors will not be able to convince manufacturing that good data is being provided to fix discrepant parts when features not being reworked do not repeat.
* Static repeat on the qualification sphere or cube has almost nothing in common with measuring a real part.
* Qualification of probes should be as automatic as possible.
* You need to have a test part to measure periodically to get a baseline on the machine so you will know when the machine begins to drift.
* You need to chart features that are representative of the features that you measure on production parts so that you can calculate control limits. This will help you to determine your measurement uncertainty.
* You cannot afford to be rejecting parts for being .0001 to .0002 in. out of tolerance if your measurement uncertainty at +/- 3 sigma is on the order of
.0005 to .0007 in.
* If your machine is not in control, the data you report is not as valuable as it could be in determining a course of corrective action.
* The little things will hurt you. If the temperature in the area where you use your cmm is not stable, computer compensation of that variable is of limited value.
* Drafts on the machine will destroy geometry.
* If drafts are present while qualifying tools, your results on every part measured with that tool qualification will be compromised.
* The beauty of process control is that charts will show that you have a problem.
* The beast of process control is that it will not always tell you WHERE the problem is.
That is why it is so important to have a part that you measure regularly that is NOT from the process stream.
If you measure a part from the process stream to validate whether you are in or out of control, the presence of out of control characterisitics can either be part of the manufacturing process or the measuring process.
If you do not know which is which, you may head down the yellow brick road to fix a problem in manufacturing that is in fact a problem in measuring.
Forty years of measuring things has taught me a lot. Chief among those things is the pride and ownership that manufacturing has on parts they produce. When those parts are rejected, for any reason, there is an ownership issue with the person or machine that present the part to us.
Sometimes it is an incorrect tool offset or wrong corner radius or cutter diameter that produces the discrepant part. These things occur in our line of work.
Those of us who are fortunate enough to work on these machines also have ownership of the process and pride that the results we report are valid and repeatable.
We owe it to our customers, both upstream and down, to report the true numbers of the features we measure and we must be certain enough to know the machines will repeat the numbers reported when we are tasked to re-measure a part.
I know this is long, but I really hope this helps.
Thanks for bearing with me on this.
Hilton
I have put together some of the lessons learned over the last 40 years and hope some of you will not experience some of the things I have when the machines don't deliver what you want or you question the results delivered.
* The machine may meet all the accuracy requirements of the manufacturer, and you may not be able to measure a part accurately.
* If the machine and lights in the lab are turned off at the end of the day, the machine will not be as repeatable as it would be if left on.
* The smartest programmers and the most experienced inspectors will not be able to convince manufacturing that good data is being provided to fix discrepant parts when features not being reworked do not repeat.
* Static repeat on the qualification sphere or cube has almost nothing in common with measuring a real part.
* Qualification of probes should be as automatic as possible.
* You need to have a test part to measure periodically to get a baseline on the machine so you will know when the machine begins to drift.
* You need to chart features that are representative of the features that you measure on production parts so that you can calculate control limits. This will help you to determine your measurement uncertainty.
* You cannot afford to be rejecting parts for being .0001 to .0002 in. out of tolerance if your measurement uncertainty at +/- 3 sigma is on the order of
.0005 to .0007 in.
* If your machine is not in control, the data you report is not as valuable as it could be in determining a course of corrective action.
* The little things will hurt you. If the temperature in the area where you use your cmm is not stable, computer compensation of that variable is of limited value.
* Drafts on the machine will destroy geometry.
* If drafts are present while qualifying tools, your results on every part measured with that tool qualification will be compromised.
* The beauty of process control is that charts will show that you have a problem.
* The beast of process control is that it will not always tell you WHERE the problem is.
That is why it is so important to have a part that you measure regularly that is NOT from the process stream.
If you measure a part from the process stream to validate whether you are in or out of control, the presence of out of control characterisitics can either be part of the manufacturing process or the measuring process.
If you do not know which is which, you may head down the yellow brick road to fix a problem in manufacturing that is in fact a problem in measuring.
Forty years of measuring things has taught me a lot. Chief among those things is the pride and ownership that manufacturing has on parts they produce. When those parts are rejected, for any reason, there is an ownership issue with the person or machine that present the part to us.
Sometimes it is an incorrect tool offset or wrong corner radius or cutter diameter that produces the discrepant part. These things occur in our line of work.
Those of us who are fortunate enough to work on these machines also have ownership of the process and pride that the results we report are valid and repeatable.
We owe it to our customers, both upstream and down, to report the true numbers of the features we measure and we must be certain enough to know the machines will repeat the numbers reported when we are tasked to re-measure a part.
I know this is long, but I really hope this helps.
Thanks for bearing with me on this.
Hilton
Comment