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


  • cowrevenge
    commented on 's reply
    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.

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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • fatso666
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • cowrevenge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacMan23
    commented on 's reply
    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

  • Rush2112
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • louisd
    commented on 's reply
    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!

  • InspectorJester
    commented on 's reply
    +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!

  • InspectorJester
    commented on 's reply
    I'd prefer maximum-minimum error over minimum-minimum error any day

  • Matthew D. Hoedeman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kp61dude!
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndersI
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Matthew D. Hoedeman
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X