Gauss Filter

[Darin Steiner]

Can anyone tell me in layman’s terms when constructing a circle from scanned points how to determine what value to use when applying Gauss filter cutoff frequency {UPR}? I understand the standard deviation multiplier for outliers. Or if you know of a good website please add a link. Thanks

[justncredible]

Same question?????????

[\v/inston]

here is an article Johnathan J. O'hare from Brown & Sharpe wrote, maybe you could get his email.

http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/find-articles.pl?&05fem004&ME&20050209&PUBME-66.249.65.199&SME&

[cmmguy]

We usually just unscrew our gas filters, not cut them off. And why do you spell it funny??

[Peter Warcholyk]

Folks,

I've just read Mr. O'hares' article. There is no indication as to what value of multiplier should be used, or how one would determine this value.

I'm sure that the pcdmis manual as well as the help files are just about as useful as ever..............................

I too would like to know more about the Gauss Filter. When and how to use it etc.

ZydecoPete

[cmmguy]

This is all related to Roundness. Search the form measurement sites(Taylor Hobson, Federal, Mahr, Mitutoyo, Hommel, etc..) for information on this...

Here are a few links from taylor hobson:
Roundness
UPR

[justncredible]

Yes it is for roundness, I am scanning a ø constructing it into a circle and checking roundness. It is failing a GR&R for roundness .0002, I slowed scan speed and changed increment to .01. Still getting high readings so now am thinking the global is messed up.


Thanks for the info so far, hopefully someone that uses it will chime in with some info.

[cmmguy]

If it is a roundness of .0002", you might as well give up now. You need a roundness machine.

[Wes Cisco]

WJS ! ! !

What kind of probe are you using? If it is a tp2 or tp20 you are picking up some lobing error from the probe. What is the volumetic accuracy of your machine? I bet it is at least .0004 (or double your tolerance) if not more! All that aside, roundness is not one of the things CMMs do best.

[craiger_ny]

WJS ! ! !

What kind of probe are you using? If it is a tp2 or tp20 you are picking up some lobing error from the probe. What is the volumetic accuracy of your machine? I bet it is at least .0004 (or double your tolerance) if not more! All that aside, roundness is not one of the things CMMs do best.

The guy that highjacked this thread that you are refering to uses a SP600. Not bad 2 posts and he has already highjacked his first thread. I wonder if he likes beer?

[justncredible]

100X8.0 mm Styli on a SP600M Renishaw 2 years old this month, brand new tip, and machine calibrated on 3/23/06. Roundness error on paper from B&S is .045um, uncerntainity of measurement <0.08um. So it should be able to pass a .0002" GR&R. I think 2nd shift crashed it........LOL

[cmmguy]

Nope, wont do it. To pass a 10% GR&R on .0002, the range of measurements over the same parts alone have to be 0.000006" (0.0001524mm) and we havent even started talking about the capability of your CMM yet.

Nice hijack though!

[craiger_ny]

..Nice hijack though!

I know. Man he highjacked it without changing the subject, I think we are dealing with a pro here. Welcome aboard justncredible (I'm not picking on you really, stick around you'll understand) you have set a highjacking record and you just started posting here. I am jelous. Who held the record before this guy anyway, Kingston?

Craig

[Darin Steiner]

Using a TP2 and I normaly take 1 point per MM. Not sure of volumetric accuracy. Had the machine mapped last month and worst error was .0010. I'm somewhat new to PCDMIS. I've used zeiss software for the past 15 years and it had a circle smoothing program that use the mean value of a specified number of points in intervales. A lot easier to understand, for me anyway.

[justncredible]

Blah, no hijack, the filter and what I am trying to understand and do are tied in together. Kinda like bread and butter, you can have bread by its self or butter by its self, yet they are ment for each other.

The gauss filter and roundness checking go hand in hand. And now that I have firmly established myself as a BSer, what guass settings has people been useing to get decent roundness readings?

Darin, the gauss filter does smooth the high and low points, and from the article polar is the correct one. For the control of the process I am looking for what settings has worked for others, instead of spending days corelating data between the talyrond and the cmm.


Oh beer, is for women, gimme whiskey, I just cashed off a bottle of russels 10 this week. If I am forced to drink beer, it is michelob ultra amber, or lieninkrugels honey.