Renishaw Calibration Probe Macro

[FROZEN]

[cncchipmaker]

 

Im sure I can probably gain access to the regular macros here at work but I dont what is involved in setting #500, #501, #502, #503. From what I can tell they set ball rad, x shift, y shift, and ball centerline. Can anyone else confirm this. I dont think this is a trade secret or at least it isnt anymore.

[cncchipmaker]

%

O0001

(BORE A 1 INCH HOLE AT X0Y0)

(THEN PROBE)

T120M06

(T120 = PROBE)

G0X0Y0

G43Z5.H120

Z.1

G1Z-.2F50.

G65P9914D1.Q1.R.2

#501=#135

#502=#136

IF#501LT.0002]GOTO1

#501=[[-.5+.03937]-ABS[#135]] <<<<<<<<<

N1IF#502LT.0002]GOTO2

#502=[[-.5+.03937]-ABS[#136]] <<<<<<<<<

N2

M30

 

This is just a quick thought without knowing what #135 & #136 did equal (I guessed .48ish) but I could be out in left field depending on how O9914 was written.

 

Thank you Tim, I'm sorry I overlooked your post the other day but this is exactly what I am looking for. Right now we are currently experimenting with #500, #501, #502, #503. Basically what we are trying to do is mathmatically manipulate the probe outputs to change these variables to numbers we want. Ex. 2mm ball, X shift, Y shift, and 2mm ball Z centerline. All of the probe macros that we have use these variables in there calculations. When you get right down to it looks like everthing is just + - / * and trigonometry, you know math we all use everyday in the shop.

[crazy^millman]

Yes which is why I puzzled when I thought it was answered before. Yes and no it is basic math, but the process and the method they use is one they charge for. That is what I was referring to. Math is math, but the Macros and things they did are Renishaw's not mine. Yes just trig, but again what you are looking to do eludes me.

 

Why do you feel the need to manipulate things?

 

What about the process is giving you bad or undesirable results?

 

I know of thousands of companies who use the Renishaw process with no problem. They are the company everyone else is trying to duplicate with their process. To me it is like Velcro the person who was smart enough to invent it got rich. They were smart enough to identify the need and problems with machine probing before anyone else. They spent the money and research to prefect the great process they have. Your missing of Tim's help is one point you missed. The other thing said were also helps yet you see it differently. I am always trying to figure out how to help people and when people see if differently I try to see what I can do better.

 

Yes all the probing macros use those variables because they are key to doing the process correctly, Error mapping is one of the most overlooked process today. Renishaw understands the need for it and sorry, but your statements keep pointing in a direction of no need for them. All CMM machines that measure down to Microns take error into account when taking measurements. What I keep taking from your posts are you want to disregard that and not use it. Again I do not understand why and you are not giving a reason why. You want it your way and we all are not helping you get your way. I will be glad to help anyone do it there way, but if I see error in that way how am I helping that person if I do not point our what my experience has told me needs to be considered? You keep saying I do not want to us those errors? Okay then why does everyone else who is doing what you are doing wrong for using those errors and taking those errors into account as part of their process. Please teach me and I am willing to learn.

[Tim Johnson]

Thank you Tim, I'm sorry I overlooked your post the other day but this is exactly what I am looking for. Right now we are currently experimenting with #500, #501, #502, #503. Basically what we are trying to do is mathmatically manipulate the probe outputs to change these variables to numbers we want. Ex. 2mm ball, X shift, Y shift, and 2mm ball Z centerline. All of the probe macros that we have use these variables in there calculations. When you get right down to it looks like everthing is just + - / * and trigonometry, you know math we all use everyday in the shop.

 

What I edited was a guess of what you were looking for. I use Inspection+ also and can't fathom the idea of doing what I think you're trying to do. If you have ten hours "experimenting" with this more than likely the Inspection+ would have already paid for itself and you would have so many more options to add to your arsenal. At a little over a $K it's very inexpensive for what you get.

[cncchipmaker]

If I have a tool at my disposal I want to know how to use it and manipulate it for our application. If you did not know how to use mastercam would u just not use it? Or would u get on a site like this and try to save some time and money. Eveyone here has great advice. All I am saying is what if it is easier than they are making it out to be? You know the KISS rule. After we are done at work with our findings if I cant get it to work than I will apoligize to all of u and sorry for being stubborn about it.

[Tim Johnson]

I don't use everything Inspection+ has but with what I do use there is no reason to manipulate the calibration process. It's one of those "set it and forget it" processes.

 

Here is my calibration program that uses a fixture pinned onto pallet A. We run this on every probe stylus change.

 

%

O7001(PROBE TOTAL CALIBRATION)

(K:NCSYS\ENSHU GE480H\PROBE\AUTO-CAL102.NC)

 

(THIS WILL USE THE AUTO-CALIBRATION FIXTURE)

(FIXTURE OFFSET -- G54)

(XOYO CENTERLINE -- Z TOP OF RING GAGE)

M00(SET TOOL LENGTH WITH A TAPE MEASURE)

(THIS PROGRAM MUST BE RUN ON PALLET A)

 

#5221=0

#5222=0

#5223=#921

#5224=0

G00 G17 G20 G40 G49 G80 G90 G94

M06 T04 (PROBE)

G10L52

N6202R1

G11

M19

G54 X2.1 Y-31.

G43 H04 Z13.

G65 P9810 Z11.3 F20.

G65 P9801 Z10.8425 T04

G65 P9810 Z13. F200.

G65 P9810 X.00093 Y-30.63006

G65 P9810 Z10.2

G65 P9802 D1.

G65 P9804 D1.

G65 P9810 Z13. F200.

M30

%

[crazy^millman]

CNC like I said in the very beginning of this thread trying to help. I just gave back a contact job and that cost me needed money. I quoted based off a model then I got a print that had tolerances that changed everything. A less that caring or dare I say honest person would have programmed the job and left the problem on the customer. I let my customer know the 4 operation went to 8 operations. I helped them quote it telling to play it safe on the high side. They went to the low side and I told them they should requote based off the print finally being supplied. They will probably loose the job which means I loose the work already put into it, and the whole thing. Point is it cost me money, but it was the right thing to do. If I think you are heading down the wrong path with your process and nothing you tell me or put up shows me differently I am sorry, but I cannot help you go in that path. Again sorry I just can't wrap my brain around what you're doing. If you get the SME yearbook on the cover is an article I help with about MBI (Model Based Inspection) and I also spoke at NIST (National Instutie of Techonolgy) this year about model based inspection. Having worked for Verisurf for 5 years I learned a thing or two about inspection. Everything tells me to caution you and do my best to point you in what I think is the right direction. Helping you in layman terms cheat the calibration process goes against ever thing I know about making quality part of the manufacturing process.

 

I learned this at Verisurf and spoke on it at IMTS last year. People, Process and Techonolgy. There are processes that fall short giving the people the Techonolgy they need to do the job. There are companies that spend tons of money on Techonolgy to fall short on making sure the right process is in place. The people are just as important to the process as they are to the Techonolgy they are using. You have a proven industry accepted process with proven industry accepted Techonolgy. You keep making statements about manipulate or modify that worries me. I suggest you go read some of my postings over the years. I do not have crazy in my name because of the paper saying so, but because I do and try very crazy things all the time in making and programming parts. I like my hair on fire doing parts no one else wants to even look at. One thing I have learned and take it for what it is worth, the standard is the standard and if you can find an easier way you do it that way. I use KISS all the, but if I need a micrometer to measure something and i got a micrometer to use. I do not go off making up a new one or changing my 25 year old one. I have ground down and cut apart a many of them, 1st one I every got is still in my machinist box and went with me to Malyasia on my last 4 week contract assignment. So yes I get your point, but mathmadicallly how do you envision taking needed parts of an equation out of the process and expect the results to be correct? How you do you applying KISS to a proven industry accepted process we all have adopted and use with great success, but leave out some of the most important parts and expect it to work? My granddad said I should have been a lawyer because I always had something to say and that was when I was 5. I have laid out my case with compelling facts why I think it is going in the wrong direction. So have many others, yet you have felt we were not helping you. You have told us nothing to make use see what you are doing as better and how you have taken all of the things we have mentioned into account. I hate even mentioning my accomplishments and even bringing it up. I can be as hard headed and stubborn as anyone. Thing is I had to learn to quit beating my head against the brick wall and open the door, or walk 2 steps to the left or right and go around the brick wall. Guess what I am the least smartest in this group of people in this thread. Some very bright and smart people stepped up to the plate in this thread. All of us are trying to help, but how can we help if we are not still sure how to? How can we help if we think you are going in the wrong direction?

[cncchipmaker]

Got busy the past couple of weeks with other projects, but I did start to write the 4 axis probe calibration cycle for the Mitsui. It will use variables #500~#503 as the set values for all of the other probe macros. This program will also be able to check and help set the grid of the machine as well. I wont know until we run it, wish me luck.

[Guest]

What model probe are you using?

[cncchipmaker]

1. Here is my rough draft of the probe calibration Macro for 4 AXIS. Please give me your feed back as I have not proven this out yet. As for the probe head this macro would work regardless of the ruby size. You would just have to change the size of #500.
    
   
2. 
   O0001(MITSUI Probe Cal 15M Fanuc)
   (Probe Calibration Block Is)
   (A 6x6x1 Inch Aluminum Plate)
   (Y0 IS BASE OF BLOCK)
   (Machine is grided to COR X0 Z0)
   G90G10P1L2X0Y0Z0B0
   G11
   T1
   (SET VARIABLES)
   (2MM RUBY BALL RADIUS)
   #500=[1./25.4]
   (X SHIFT)
   #501=0
   (Y SHIFT)
   #502=0
   (BALL Z CENTERLINE)
   #503=#500
   M00
   (MEASURE RAIL W/ A MICROMETER)
   (CHANGE VARIABLE #600 TO RAIL)
   (MEASUREMENT AND THEN xxxxM)
   (RAIL AND BORE FOR FULL CLEANUP)
   (RUN DRY OR USE ALCOHOL)
   #600=1.
   M00
   N1T1M06
   T2
   (T1 = .5 4FLT EM)
   (CUT RAIL BOTH SIDES)
   (REMOVE .005 FROM EACH SIDE)
   M03S8000
   M11
   G0G90G54B-3.
   B0
   M10
   G0X-4.Y5.8
   G43Z5.H1D1
   G1Z[[#600/2.]-.005]F5.
   X4.F50.
   (SPRING PASS)
   X-4.
   Y10.
   M11
   G0G90G54B177.
   B180.
   M10
   G1Y5.8
   X4.
   (SPRING PASS)
   X-4.
   GOZ5.
   M98P8800
   M01
   N2T2M06
   T9000
   (T2 = BORING BAR)
   (NEED FULL CLEAN UP)
   (BORE A HOLE AT X0Y0)
   (ALL THE WAY THROUGH BLOCK)
   (RUN DRY OR USE ALCOHOL)
   M03S1000
   M11
   G0G90G54B-3.
   B0
   M10
   G0X0Y3.
   G43Z5.H2D2
   G98G85X0Y3.Z-.55R.55F5.
   G0G80Z5.
   M98P8800
   M01
   M00
   (MEASURE RAIL AGAIN WITH MIC)
   (INPUT #600)
   (THIS FEATURE WILL BE USED)
   (TO SET #503 AND Z GRID)
   #600=.99
   M00
   (MEASURE BORED HOLE WITH)
   (A TRI MIC OR DIAL BORE)
   (INPUT #601 WILL BE USED)
   (TO SET #500~#502 AND)
   (X GRID SHIFT)
   #601=1.
   M01
   N100M00
   T9000
   (T9000 = 2MM PROBE)
   (USING STANDARD 9911 AND 9914)
   (MACROS SET #500~#503)
   (AND VERIFY GRID)
   (IF THIS SECTION OF CODE)
   (KEEPS GOING BACK TO)
   (N100 CHECK BALL)
   (FOR RUNOUT AND/OR SEE)
   (IF IT IS LOOSE OR DAMAGED)
   T9000M06
   M11
   G0G90G54B-3.
   B0
   M10
   X0Y3.
   G43Z5.H9000D9000
   Z.1
   (SAFETY Z MACRO)
   G65P9910Z0F50.
   (SET PROBE HOLE AT B0)
   G65P9914D#601R.5Q.5
   #500=#500+[#143/2.]
   #501=#140/2.
   #502=#141/2.
   #503=#500
   (SET ACCURACY AT .0002)
   #602=[#140+#141+#143]/3.
   IF[#602GT.0002]GOTO100
   G0Z1.
   Y5.75
   (PROBE RAIL Z AT B0)
   G65P9911Z[#600/2.]R.5Q.5
   #603=#138
   #604=#142
   G0Z5.Y10.
   M11
   G0G90G54B177.
   B180.
   M10.
   X0Y5.75
   Z1.
   (PROBE RAIL Z AT B180.)
   G65P9911Z[#600/2.]R.5Q.5
   #605=#138
   #606=#142
   (CHECK GRID PROBE HOLE AT B180.)
   X0Y3.
   (SAFEFTY Z MACRO)
   G65P9910Z0F50.
   G65P9914D#601R.5Q.5
   #607=#140
   IF[ABS[[#604+#606]/2.]GT.0005]G0T0200
   IF[ABS[#607]GT.0005]G0T0300
   G0Z5.
   M98P8800
   M30
   M00
   N200
   (Z GRID IS OFF CHECK #603~#606)
   M00
   N300
   (X GRID IS OFF CHECK #607)
   

[Craig-B]

All of the sub that you are calling did you write them ( 9910, 9911, 9914)? for what you are doing. they have the same name as the Renishaw but they use 98 in the front not 99 (9810 protective positioning, 9811 Single surface measurement, 9814 Bore or Boss measurement.[/font]

[cncchipmaker]

I think they are the same someone just renamed them here for whatever probably non essential reason.

[Craig-B]

Well if thats the case you have all the tools you need for calibrating, Do you have a Renishaw Inspection plus Manual http://ma.gnu.ac.kr/SoftLib/OMP40/OMP40-Software02.pdf