hexagon logo

Questions Regarding a 45° Fixed Probe

Hello!
Running PC-DMIS 2013 MR1 SP5 With a TP200 Tactile/Vision System
--------------------------------------------
So I've got this probe here; a 45° on a knuckle (I believe is the term)
It does not rotate, it's fixed at 45°.

Well... I recently had a crash and destroyed the TP200 module ($$$) which has been replaced. [If that's correct; the piece with the red light!]
This module is, as you can imagine, clocked slightly differently than the last one (I had to reload all of my probes into the probe changer manual/DCC or they would not seat correctly)
Which was easy.


Well now I've got this probe! It's swayed!

With the old module, the 45° probe was **** near (if not) perfectly in line with Y- (So it faces 45° between Z- and Y-)
With the new module, it's tilted 45° towards X- (So now it's 45° between Z- and Y-, AND 45° between Y- and X-!)

I'm curious on if that matters.

Ideally I'd just unscrew it a little, make the adjustment, lock it back in and calibrate.

I'd like to know how precisely I need to have it aligned, I guess? I think the fixed 45° won't change, because of the knuckle, I just need to change its X rotation.
----
Will "eyeballing" (e.g. not using an indicator) to "level" the probe to Y- be fine? As in there will be negligable uncertainty from doing so, or should I call Hex-a-Tech?
-----

Hmm... All looks like word soup to me. Hopefully you guys understand what I'm looking for. Per my understanding (of star probes) it doesn't matter a whole lot (as long as it's not like crazy tilted), but I don't use this probe (literally ever except today, though I'd like to use it more) and I want to make sure my setup is correct.

We're due for calibration pretty soon, so someone'll be out here I can defer all my questions to, eventually
Hoping y'all have some advice
Parents
  • Not necessarily. Adjusting the angle of the probes from machine to machine takes time because there is no calculable angular reference from TP200 to TP200. You have to put it on the TP200, make adjustments, check it against the machine axis, and do that until it's square. We also have probes that are built very specific to certain parts that fit into very tight spaces at different angles. Breaking those down is not cost efficient. It's cheaper to either run the same parts on the same machine all the time or build separate probes for each machine.
  • Makes sense! I only have 1 machine, so I'm naive to the tribulations of multiple!
    +1

    EDIT: I think I was confused; I had originally thought you were suggesting using the same phsical probe, but defining it 3 seperate times, one for each machine. I now understand you were referencing 3 seperate probes altogether
Reply Children
No Data