hexagon logo

Bogus Inspection Program

Greetings!
So I started working at this company this year that had a CMM since 2013. They paid a chunk to get a couple programs out to us.
They used these programs (at least 3 of them, but there were around 7 in total)
I started working here with little/no experience in a shop. As in no CNC, no CMM, no quality, hell I was barely qualified to sweep the floor!

Well I love to program and literally the second I saw our Optiv 443 I wanted to see what it did.
It sat for almost 4 years as a glorified paper weight!

The individual who was responsible for programming it was our former Quality Manager (who has since moved to Materials manager or something)
She would run the inspection program until the part was good, then give it back to the machinist to say "Good job sir!"
---
I don't like this mentality. I like to program! And I like things to be right, not just "look good" on paper just to find out the customer rejected them again.
So after I got put into quality and got the ball rolling in that department (for about 6 months or more) the CEO of the company asks me if I like my job.

Well, let's say he appreciated my honesty and let me move out of quality and onto the CMM!

So I get some guy who was probably from Hexagon to come down for a day and run through the basics with me (which I already knew from genuine curiosity)
Then ol' Roger Conway comes down and calibrates it and I get more or less free reign from then on.

I can make or break programs, build or destroy!

Anyways, I was looking into the programs we purchased, and I thought they were garbage to be honest.

The vectors weren't perfect, was my biggest issue, along with extra nitpicky stuff.

So I rewrote them and now we have these really nice programs that are neat and concise.

To check a feature that we don't have the tools to verify....
------------
My question is, how can I know if I'm getting good data if there's no way I can verify the CMM is measuring this feature correctly?
It's not necessarily off topic, but we are able to accept these parts from the measurements we get so I moved it here
Parents
  • I agree! Hence the CMM. I'm pretty sure these specific parts are the whole reason we got a CMM in the first place.
    So what do I do when I get a measurement that's bad, and then re measure and it's good?
    I take the liberty to hand deburr all the angles for posterity's sake so I don't think it's hitting anything unusual. It takes the points perpendicular to the surface (aligning to 19.38° and measuring Y line from Z; XPLUS workplane) so the vectors aren't an issue (the whole reason I rewrote the program)

    Would that be because it's taking a hit at a non-standard angle and poorly compensating for it?
Reply
  • I agree! Hence the CMM. I'm pretty sure these specific parts are the whole reason we got a CMM in the first place.
    So what do I do when I get a measurement that's bad, and then re measure and it's good?
    I take the liberty to hand deburr all the angles for posterity's sake so I don't think it's hitting anything unusual. It takes the points perpendicular to the surface (aligning to 19.38° and measuring Y line from Z; XPLUS workplane) so the vectors aren't an issue (the whole reason I rewrote the program)

    Would that be because it's taking a hit at a non-standard angle and poorly compensating for it?
Children
No Data