Are there any known issues with auto-feature cones and V3.7 MR3? Getting some funny values for the cone 'A'ngle.
Cones
Collapse
X
-
Well, I seem to be getting a lot of variation in the results. The cone is formed, then pierced. I have run the same cone, over and over, and I am getting up to 0.5 degrees difference from check to check. I am simply doing a CTRL-E and executing the same feature, over and over. Now, it IS a rather small cone and it is pretty shallow. It calculates out to about 0.0015" of error over the length of the cone I am checking, which isn't much, but one heck of a lot more than I am used to seeing on this machine (about 4X as much). I just wanted to know, really, if the manually learned would be 'better' than the auto-feature or if there were ANY thinig about either that I need to watch out for. I am using 4 hits/level with 3 levelssigpic
Originally posted by AndersII've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goodluck View PostOther than that they are kind of a pain in the **** to get in the right spot, not that I know of.
Did you try checking the angle another way (couple of lines)?sigpic
Originally posted by AndersII've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.
Comment
-
One thing I have noticed, the learned cone does not use the cone's side vectors for teh touches, it measures it more like 2 circles, but all hits ARE on the 'good' portion of the cone surface. 2 cones in the part, that is all I just checked:
learned cone #1 82.295
Auto feature cone #1 83.752
Learned cone #2 82.307
Auto featuer cone #2 82.375
So, one cone shows a LOT of difference depending on which method is used, the other repeats quite well, over 4mm of cone length, it is a total error amount of 0.0048mm total but the first one is .1017mm. WTF? I will try the line method next, however, that will not fix my over-all problem, there are 2 circles that get constructed from these cone at the intersecion of the cones with a plane and those intersections have a positional tolerance of +/-0.010" and a size tolerance of +/-0.002" Yeah, right! For the freaking bracket that holds the spring to the oven door.sigpic
Originally posted by AndersII've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Matthew D. Hoedeman View PostOne thing I have noticed, the learned cone does not use the cone's side vectors for teh touches, it measures it more like 2 circles, but all hits ARE on the 'good' portion of the cone surface. 2 cones in the part, that is all I just checked:
learned cone #1 82.295
Auto feature cone #1 83.752
Learned cone #2 82.307
Auto featuer cone #2 82.375
So, one cone shows a LOT of difference depending on which method is used, the other repeats quite well, over 4mm of cone length, it is a total error amount of 0.0048mm total but the first one is .1017mm. WTF? I will try the line method next, however, that will not fix my over-all problem, there are 2 circles that get constructed from these cone at the intersecion of the cones with a plane and those intersections have a positional tolerance of +/-0.010" and a size tolerance of +/-0.002" Yeah, right! For the freaking bracket that holds the spring to the oven door.
You could always do 4 lines around the cones. Then create a point where each line pierces the plane. Use those 4 points to create a circle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goodluck View PostI would suspect the cone which the hit vectors look funny on was not learned properly.
You could always do 4 lines around the cones. Then create a point where each line pierces the plane. Use those 4 points to create a circle.sigpic
Originally posted by AndersII've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.
Comment
-
Originally posted by craiger_ny View PostI always use learned features. With the cone you should get good hit vectors after an edit, if you are not something is surely up. Do you edit the learned feature including the feature vector?sigpic
Originally posted by AndersII've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Goodluck View PostSo did that put the angle closer to the autocone?sigpic
Originally posted by AndersII've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.
Comment
-
I guess I would try changing the number of hits on the auto cone so that maybe it won't hit that questionable point.
Is it possible your probe has a chip stuck to it or a chip in it? Or is there maybe some grease in that hole? That could explain the wandering results.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goodluck View PostI guess I would try changing the number of hits on the auto cone so that maybe it won't hit that questionable point.
Is it possible your probe has a chip stuck to it or a chip in it? Or is there maybe some grease in that hole? That could explain the wandering results.
I SMASHED IT! Yippie! It's been some time since I've done that. I program almost ALWAYS in metric, but this thing is in english, and I used a metric value where I should have used an english one and SMACK-O, time for a new tip!
No grease, I wipe them out. But, the surface of the cone is almost mirror-like due to the forming process and I am checking the concave portion, not the convex side and that is the side that is mirror-like from the form punch. It is too small to get my fingers in there to feel it and with the mirror-finish, you can't see for crap. It's like a Grand Illusion, man.sigpic
Originally posted by AndersII've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.
Comment
Related Topics
Collapse
-
I have a small morse taper cone top diameter roughly 0.460 depth of 0.625 and the angle of the cone should be 2.86°. I have attached my program using...
-
Channel: PC-DMIS for CMMs
11-13-2020, 11:09 AM -
-
I have found that when measuring a cone with a measured feature the location of the measured cone is not accurate. I was using 4 points on 2 levels....
-
Channel: PC-DMIS for CMMs
04-09-2018, 08:48 PM -
-
by larsenqaI have not touched a CMM in years so please be gentle. Will I get an accurate/repeatable cone measurement if the cone is 0.120" deep has an angle...
-
Channel: PC-DMIS for CMMs
04-30-2007, 09:27 AM -
-
by Jonathan S
OK, now I remember why I don't like cones. I don't know if the newer versions have this problem, but I can't get the cone to calculate properly....-
Channel: PC-DMIS for CMMs
05-19-2008, 09:25 AM -
-
by HemingI measured a ID cone (in). The first time was fine. The 2nd time, Pc-Dmis automatically changed the cone to OD (out). The measurement passed but the...
-
Channel: PC-DMIS for CMMs
01-24-2012, 01:04 PM -
Comment