Can I get some input from anyone who's used a laser scanner?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can I get some input from anyone who's used a laser scanner?

    My company is looking into buying a laser scanning probe for our CMM. The idea is to not only speed up programs, but to add more focus on scanning profiles on parts like cupped washers. We're currently looking at a Nikon LC15Dx (https://www.nikonmetrology.com/en-us/product/lc15dx)

    I have only used tactile probing so I can't really give them feedback on whether or not it's a good idea. Before I go telling them yay or nay, I thought I'd get some advice from the gurus.

    Thanks

    sigpic

    :alien: Adam Rivard :alien:

  • #2
    I think that you will have to use a different software to use that laser scanner, I don't think Pcdmis supports it, thus the need to retrofit your system.
    sigpic
    Originally posted by AndersI
    I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

    Comment


    • #3
      I see. Well, I imagine our company would then ask the next question, "what should we get that matches our software?"

      Would you recommend a laser scanner that is compatible with PC DMIS 2016 Cad++? Would you even recommend a laser scanner in the first place?
      sigpic

      :alien: Adam Rivard :alien:

      Comment


      • #4
        Matthew is correct in that the Nikon scanner is not supported by PC-DMIS. Unfortunately, adding a laser scanner after the machine has already been purchased can be troublesome. If you don't have a Hexagon product to begin with or if that product was sold with a minimal hardware configuration you might just be stuck either purchasing a new machine or a retrofit regardless of which scanner you choose to purchase. Your best option would be to discuss this with a salesman who can research your machine configuration and determine if your product is capable of supporting a compatible laser scanner.

        If you send me a message with contact information and your location (approximate, I don't need an address or anything) I can get you connected with the right person to discuss your options.
        Systems Integrator
        Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm pretty sure you would have to go right to Hex to see what (if anything) they have in the way of lasers that will work on a head on a CMM. You may have to update the head to get one from them that will work. As in, if you are currently using a Renishaw head, you might be out of luck, you might need a Hex head to get a Hex scanner to work.
          sigpic
          Originally posted by AndersI
          I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

          Comment


          • #6
            +1 for the responses, I learned a lot!
            For example I had just assumed PC-DMIS would just run **** if you told Hexagon to make it so!
            All jokes aside, I wanted to reiterate that no matter what you choose (except for nothing, of course) the hardware requirements of your computer CMM computer might change.
            Be sure to take a look at those requirements to see if your machine is capable even after the purchase. Factor any upgrades or adjustments you would have to make to the PC in order to use the laser.
            This may not apply to you, but I personally run on a "minimum-requirement" computer; makes it hard to get any cool gizmos!
            Last edited by InspectorJester; 04-17-2018, 09:58 AM. Reason: The first "the" used to be "both"

            Comment


            • #7
              We don't have a pcdmis laser scanner, I do believe that Hexagon do sell one that is compatible with pcdmis however.

              For me they are not quite there yet with the technology, especially when higher accuracy is needed. We have a stand alone laser scanner that is admittedly a few years old now but it just doesn't give repeatable enough results for things such as Cap studies when you are looking at reasonably tight tolerances. They are brilliant for certain parts such as castings or rubber parts and we have had good success measuring both with the laser scanner. These were parts that we would not really measure on the CMM though for various reasons. One of the big problems for me is It cannot deal very well at all with holes and other "hidden" features. The laser simply misses them, even after a few passes at different angles.

              I will say from my experience ( this may be because of our software) but any time you save in measuring you seem to spend in reporting and interpreting the data. With the scanner you can collect hundreds of thousands of points in a really quick time. But then in the end you don't get a nice report that says hole out by 0.5mm in X or something like that like you do with traditional ttp measuring.

              That is a brief record of my experience. But it does massively depend on what you are measuring. There are a few people on here who use scanning a lot more than I do and they may have different experiences but from what I have seen I think it is a few years away yet from replacing the CMM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yeah, the accuracy is something that you need to look REAL close at.

                Machine accuracy to begin with
                Head accuracy gets added on that
                Laser accuracy gets added to both of those

                If you are working with +/-0.010" tolerances, IMO you are pushing the limit on that stackup. If you are working with +/-0.040", you'd probably be OK. AND, I would ADD each 'error' value from each piece of equipment. Don't look at the Hex scanner and only see the "probing form error of 22um", see that as +22um and -22um, as in the error will be within 22um, not +/-11um. and the probe dispersion value of 34um, see that as +34um and -34um. So, you have a total possible error from JUST THE LASER of +56um to -56um. That is +/-0.002" (roughly). Now add in all the other error values (machine & head) and see if that falls within the acceptable range for what you are checking (remember the 10-1 rule).

                sigpic
                Originally posted by AndersI
                I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Plain adding of all the uncertainties is a bit pessimistic - you assume all the errors go in the same direction. Normally you would take the root of the sum of squares of [independent] uncertainties, which gives a bit better number than plain adding.

                  Unless I have misunderstood something...
                  AndersI
                  SW support - Hexagon Metrology Nordic AB

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Biggest joy kill for us was the laser's inability to measure shiny surfaces. No one ever told the engineer who bought it here. We make all aluminum parts and finishes are somewhat reflective. The laser is installed on an automation cell so there's no way the parts will get coated with a non reflective substance. So if you're planning on coating your parts...go for it! It's an awesome tool.
                    Last edited by Kp61dude!; 04-17-2018, 11:34 AM.
                    PcDmis 2015.1 SP10 CAD++
                    Global 7-10-7 DC800S

                    Comment


                    • InspectorJester
                      InspectorJester commented
                      Editing a comment
                      +1 because it makes sense and I still didn't know that.
                      I also don't have a laser but our parts are chrome and quite reflective!

                    • louisd
                      louisd commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Vision: be it laser, cast shadows, LED ring lights, and even white light - will have issues with accuracy when it comes to reflective parts.

                      Also, even when you do get the settings dialed in & measuring accurately, any slight change in reflectivity between batches or parts will impact the measured values. We would measure gold plated components using a Nikon VMR with a TTL Laser and normal optics.
                      The gold plate finish would vary from a matte-finish all the way to almost a mirror-finish, between batches, and man did it cause havoc in our lighting strategies and laser settings.

                      He11, we have a CT Metrotome, and reflectivity even affects the xray sensor!

                    • PacMan23
                      PacMan23 commented
                      Editing a comment
                      we Make Sun Visors out of Stainless steel and I usually use my laser scanner that is incorporated on my Romer Arm to scan them for profile. I have to spray paint them with primer to get a good scan because of the light reflection but I can get away with spray paint since my tolerances aren't so tight

                  • #11
                    Originally posted by AndersI View Post
                    Plain adding of all the uncertainties is a bit pessimistic - you assume all the errors go in the same direction. Normally you would take the root of the sum of squares of [independent] uncertainties, which gives a bit better number than plain adding.

                    Unless I have misunderstood something...
                    worst case scenario. you COULD see that much. you could see much less. I look at it in the worst case while the salesman will only show you/tell you the best case.
                    sigpic
                    Originally posted by AndersI
                    I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

                    Comment


                    • InspectorJester
                      InspectorJester commented
                      Editing a comment
                      I'd prefer maximum-minimum error over minimum-minimum error any day

                  • #12
                    We have the Leica scanner that Hexagon sells. It works quite well with PC-Dmis. Its rather expensive but i dont have any problem with it holding ± .001" on contoured surfaces. Of course its all in how you use it.

                    As far as reflection, we were told to use Tinactin foot spray to coat the parts if we didn't get a good reflection. That has worked well for us.

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      We have a separate Laser Romer Arm that will completely replace the CMM starting next year. The customers even approved it for PPAP use. We have decently lax tolerances of .5-1.5 . The CMM might just be a dead art very soon. But don't worry, there will always be that one guy who insist on it. The Parts are stamped steel and reflections are never really an issue. Most days I sit and stare at the wall now since no one is requesting me to measure anything.

                      Comment


                      • Kp61dude!
                        Kp61dude! commented
                        Editing a comment
                        A bit narrow minded, no? Is this concerning your facility or industry wide, the comment about dead art?

                      • cowrevenge
                        cowrevenge commented
                        Editing a comment
                        I think it would be silly to bank on a CMM being the industry norm in even 10 years, but this is specific to automotive. I would hope that aircraft still care about their tolerances. That being said, there is no reason to think that future laser scanners will not out perform a CMM.

                        I would love to have a laser head of some kind on the CMM. I would assume you could use it to auto locate parts before taking points with the touch tip. I also think a simple white light system would work too and be instant.
                        Last edited by cowrevenge; 04-25-2018, 03:03 PM.

                    • #14
                      In the end, what is this for? Who is the end-customer of the laser report? We looked at a number of laser scanners (Free standing, CMM mounted, etc) and found none would work well enough for our needs. We found accuracy/repeatability on the order of .002", like others, and we need to be on the order of .0005". THEN we talked about getting one anyway, but only using it for certain (lower tolerance) projects. As others, we work with highly reflective metals, so that was a hit. We tried spraying different coatings to dull up the finish, but they tend to be thick enough to make a difference in the data. The final nail in the coffin was when we went to our customers and asked if they would accept us buying off parts using this technology (aerospace industry) and they mostly said 'NO'. The tech looks promising, but we have shelved it for the time being. Someday, it will be accurate/repeatable enough for industry to universally accept it. Someday, the reflection 'problem' will be resolved/overcome, but that day isn't here yet for us. Your needs may be different, and your customers requirements may also be different.

                      Comment


                      • #15
                        We are using the CMS106 Laser with PcDmis 2017 MR2 on a PH10MQ Head.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X