another quickie

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

  • another quickie

    cmm calibration just finished and shows total volumetric performance whatever at .0006" Is this acceptible, he says no adjustment is needed, yet i have to inspect parts with ledss than that as a tolerance. even at .001" tolerance, this can be out due to this deviation? im not sure

  • #2
    That is a lot. B & S specs to .002. Mine runs at .0002 volumetric. But that is different than Repeatability. Mine repeats to .00003 in a 2.0000 inch ring gage.



    G
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Kevin Watts View Post
      cmm calibration just finished and shows total volumetric performance whatever at .0006" Is this acceptible, he says no adjustment is needed, yet i have to inspect parts with ledss than that as a tolerance. even at .001" tolerance, this can be out due to this deviation? im not sure
      You have to look at the factory specs for your machine. You can not expect your machine to be any better than the factory said it could be. If you are checking things with a total tolerance of 0.001", then your machine (factory specs AND calibration results) SHOULD be 0.0001" or less (10% of the total tolerance).
      sigpic
      Originally posted by AndersI
      I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

      Comment


      • #4
        What type of machine, do you use TP2, TP20,TP200

        Your volumetric is like an measuring envelope for the variation your machine measured during the B89 certification. Did the use the ball bar.

        .001 is to tight for my machine for me to trust the accuracy & repeatability.
        sigpic.....Its called golf because all the other 4 letter words were taken

        Comment


        • #5
          phto t and tp20 extended force, i meant to put +/-.001" tolerance

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kevin Watts View Post
            phto t and tp20 extended force, i meant to put +/-.001" tolerance
            If it was me I'd tell the accuracy is not there...my .02
            sigpic.....Its called golf because all the other 4 letter words were taken

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bw_bob View Post
              If it was me I'd tell the accuracy is not there...my .02
              You can NOT expect ANY calibration tech (no matter WHERE they are from) to make the machine better than the factory says it is going to be. If the factory specs on his machine (the machine, not his set-up items, I don't care if he has a PH9 and a TP2 with a 75mm long tip or an SP600 with a 5mm long tip) is total volumetric of 0.0008" and the calibration tech shows it at 0.0007", then he IS done. It does not matter if YOU want it better, it is already showing better than the factory said it could be, period. That is the end of it.

              Sure, we would ALL like to see calibration values of 0.0001" or less, but if the machine is NOT made for it, then you CAN NOT expect to see numbers that low.
              sigpic
              Originally posted by AndersI
              I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Matthew D. Hoedeman View Post
                Some days its not even worth chewing through the restraints.

                http://www.ericrogers.org/photos/tra...s/DSCN3106.jpg
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  In a similar line of thought... go back and double check the cal. numbers. Are you sure they are in inches? Last time mine was done, at first glance the numbers looked huge but then I realized he calibrated it in mm.

                  Comment

                  Related Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X