hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 16 subscribers
  • Views 225 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Inspecting a 3D part with Vision Probe

acgarcia
We have a Optiv 321 TP that we haven’t used in about 2 years. I took the vision course at Hex when be bought the unit. It was used in a cell to check 1 part. I used the tactile probe %100 because I couldn't get the vision probe to work. The part was a shiny cylinder on its side and I just couldn't get any good measurements. I’m determined the get it checking something. I’ve only been successful with using bottom light and the tp20 for measurements. No probe rack or rot table. I can only check a less than half the part which isn’t real useful.

I attached a drawing the circled the dimensions that I want to check. Can this be down with just the vision probe? I currently have the part with the wide base laying flat on the glass so I can see the large ID in the center of the part. It has a tight tolerance so I need to check and I have not tried to check the part on its side.

Please let me know what ya'll think.
Attached Files
Parents
  • The 2Z443 was my baby. I spent an unreasonable amount of time with that machine so i get what you're saying. Unfortunately, due to the surface imperfections and how cameras work, we will never get the Z-value repeatability that we will with a probe. BUT

    let's not get confused with what i'm proposing here: I'm simply proposing that we are measuring the profile of the part using backlight, not any top/ring light, which is where the z-value inconsistencies come into play. When we backlight the part i'm absolutely confident we are measuring properly as we are TECHNICALLY just measuring x-y values.

    As far as addressing what you're saying in laying it down and measuring those values in Z, no i would not personally do that as a simple type 1 study would prove the repeatability to be absolute garbage because what you're really doing in measuring the distance in Z is relying on the focus point of the camera. Keep in mind that the Z-Value of your surface points is simply the focal point. So if your focus parameters are off, your Z value will be also.

    I hope that makes sense!

    I have seen some generally acceptable correlation values (no more than a handful of microns) between the LSP and camera on the 2Z443 but it does take some tweaking.

    That particular machine is pretty expensive but it's so versatile there's really no competition to it.
Reply
  • The 2Z443 was my baby. I spent an unreasonable amount of time with that machine so i get what you're saying. Unfortunately, due to the surface imperfections and how cameras work, we will never get the Z-value repeatability that we will with a probe. BUT

    let's not get confused with what i'm proposing here: I'm simply proposing that we are measuring the profile of the part using backlight, not any top/ring light, which is where the z-value inconsistencies come into play. When we backlight the part i'm absolutely confident we are measuring properly as we are TECHNICALLY just measuring x-y values.

    As far as addressing what you're saying in laying it down and measuring those values in Z, no i would not personally do that as a simple type 1 study would prove the repeatability to be absolute garbage because what you're really doing in measuring the distance in Z is relying on the focus point of the camera. Keep in mind that the Z-Value of your surface points is simply the focal point. So if your focus parameters are off, your Z value will be also.

    I hope that makes sense!

    I have seen some generally acceptable correlation values (no more than a handful of microns) between the LSP and camera on the 2Z443 but it does take some tweaking.

    That particular machine is pretty expensive but it's so versatile there's really no competition to it.
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement