hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 15 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 256 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Looking for new portable CMM

Nguyen
Hi all,
I'm looking for a portable CMM and found some Romers but not sure which one is best fit my need. I need a touch probe CMM, (PC-DMIS software preferred) to measure the mold/die feature mounted on the machine. Accuracy about 0.0002", arm is able to reach 40". I already submit a request to Romer but still want to ask your opinion on any pros and cons of the portable CMM? What machine type you have or suggest, etc...
Currently we have to disassemble the mold/die to put on the CMM to meaaure so I'd liek to avoid that.
Thank you in advance.
Nguyen
Parents
  • Look, I have been reading your posts on this forum for years and I know you generally know what you write about but this time I disagree.

    Discussions like this are exactly why we have standards in this business. If the equipment is sold with a specification and no longer meets said specification, its not only “not accurate enough”, its out of spec. The standards are designed so that the give end users the ability to prove that their equipment works, not some arbitrary engineers guess at what is important.

    You list 0 experience actually measuring anything yourself with an arm. I don’t care what some sales guy at a demo did or what other people did that you heard about. If I don’t measure it myself, with equipment I know meets its spec, I’m skeptical and I absolutely would not advise someone on a forum without that experience.

    And yes, I do work for a large metrology company that makes equipment such as stationary automated CMMs, arms and trackers that are all certified to standards such as ASME B89.4.22. I have used them all in “real world applications” and I know what they CAN do, not just from measuring things but because of the standards.

    Yep. I recognointered you as a Hexagoon from history.

    I declare upfront the source and extent of my knowledge here, allowing the reader to judge for themselves how much weight if any to give my comments. I don't just weigh in without disclosing a bias or conflict of interest. Opps, sorry if I disillusioned you about the nature of moral high ground. Rolling eyes

    I don't hate arms. I think they do somethings far better than any other piece of metrology equipment that I know of.

    I am also not one of those people who think the CMM is the be-all, end-all inspection device.

    Yes the standards verify the equipment is not malfunctioning. They are not a real world test of the accuracy and repeatability of the device unless you work for the company that makes ballbars. Using a prismatic part with multiple types of features in multiple workplanes to certify these machines would be quite time consuming and costly, so we settle for the B89 in most cases. It is what it is and it isn't what it isn't.

    So admittedly, my +/-.010" is pure opinion.

    You say you measure things with these arms. What do you believe the real world accuracy and repeatability is? .0006" ????!!!!!??!?!?!?

    If your company was supposed to ship a $45K part today and at 9am when you check it with your arm you find the critical dia. .500 +.000/-.001 hole with a TP dia. .002 A/B/C to be actually TP .0027, how confident are you in the integrity of that number?
Reply
  • Look, I have been reading your posts on this forum for years and I know you generally know what you write about but this time I disagree.

    Discussions like this are exactly why we have standards in this business. If the equipment is sold with a specification and no longer meets said specification, its not only “not accurate enough”, its out of spec. The standards are designed so that the give end users the ability to prove that their equipment works, not some arbitrary engineers guess at what is important.

    You list 0 experience actually measuring anything yourself with an arm. I don’t care what some sales guy at a demo did or what other people did that you heard about. If I don’t measure it myself, with equipment I know meets its spec, I’m skeptical and I absolutely would not advise someone on a forum without that experience.

    And yes, I do work for a large metrology company that makes equipment such as stationary automated CMMs, arms and trackers that are all certified to standards such as ASME B89.4.22. I have used them all in “real world applications” and I know what they CAN do, not just from measuring things but because of the standards.

    Yep. I recognointered you as a Hexagoon from history.

    I declare upfront the source and extent of my knowledge here, allowing the reader to judge for themselves how much weight if any to give my comments. I don't just weigh in without disclosing a bias or conflict of interest. Opps, sorry if I disillusioned you about the nature of moral high ground. Rolling eyes

    I don't hate arms. I think they do somethings far better than any other piece of metrology equipment that I know of.

    I am also not one of those people who think the CMM is the be-all, end-all inspection device.

    Yes the standards verify the equipment is not malfunctioning. They are not a real world test of the accuracy and repeatability of the device unless you work for the company that makes ballbars. Using a prismatic part with multiple types of features in multiple workplanes to certify these machines would be quite time consuming and costly, so we settle for the B89 in most cases. It is what it is and it isn't what it isn't.

    So admittedly, my +/-.010" is pure opinion.

    You say you measure things with these arms. What do you believe the real world accuracy and repeatability is? .0006" ????!!!!!??!?!?!?

    If your company was supposed to ship a $45K part today and at 9am when you check it with your arm you find the critical dia. .500 +.000/-.001 hole with a TP dia. .002 A/B/C to be actually TP .0027, how confident are you in the integrity of that number?
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement