Probe tips

[THEE THAINZ™]

What type of probe tip do you use in your probe in you machines? We have an MP 40 - 2 and use RENISHAW extensions and styli. Our purchasing manager has been fed a line that only ZIESS should be used at an increased cost of around 35% Personally I do not see where there is any major difference.

[YoDoug®]

Unless I need an extension for extra reach I like a 3mm ball, 50mm stainless shaft Renishaw stylus. 

[Tim Johnson]

We use Renishaw but buy our styli from Q-mark.

[Mic6]

I run a carbide shank with a .07 ball from Q-mark.

[GoetzInd]

 

 

 ZIESS should be used

Why? He knows this is a machine tool probe with accuracy of .0002 at best right? We have all Zeiss CMM's and don't even buy their styli. I believe we get them from ITP. I would try to go ceramic if you can. That way it just snaps off at impact and you don't run the risk of making bad parts because someone bumped the probe in the tool magazine or something and bends the shaft without realizing it.

 

Mike

[crazy^millman]

What type of probe tip do you use in your probe in you machines? We have an MP 40 - 2 and use RENISHAW extensions and styli. Our purchasing manager has been fed a line that only ZIESS should be used at an increased cost of around 35% Personally I do not see where there is any major difference.

 

:laughing: 

 

Sorry one second;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:laughing:

 

Sorry one more second:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:laughing: :laughing:

[THEE THAINZ™]

  So Ron,

I really value your opinion what would you recommend, and do you see a quality difference between RENISHAW and ZEISS?

   Tim

[jlw™]

Renishaw is an excellent product. I can't see using anything else.

 

We use .24in balls on carbon fibre shafts for nutating heads and .24in balls on ceramic shafts for all verticals.

 

I really like Renishaw products myself.

[THEE THAINZ™]

I really think our purchasing manager is getting taken for a ride. She was told from what I under stand the probes would not calibrate correctly or be repeatable without using ZEISS.  Thanks for all the responses I'm trying to give her a leg to stand on when she voices her opinion about ZEISS not being worth the extra mark up in price due to there not being enough of a difference in quality or performance. 

[The Cathedral]

Does Renishaw own Zeiss or is owned by them? If not, why would Renishaw make a product that "can only be" accurate with another manufacturers probe tips?

 

We use Renishaw probe tips, and I have zero complaints about them, except that they should replace them for free when a fart-knockin' night shift rookie snaps one off. Seems reasonable.

[crazy^millman]

  So Ron,

I really value your opinion what would you recommend, and do you see a quality difference between RENISHAW and ZEISS?

   Tim

 

Sorry wasn't trying to be a smart butt, but yes they are being taken for a ride. The ruby used for all probe tips comes from few places. They all can make whatever marketing claim they want, but I have personally used Qmark for almost a decade in anything from PCMM arms to Trackers and CMM's with no issue ever. They stand behind their prodcuts and have good customer service. You can build anything you want from them.

 

I agree with Gotez only use ceramic shaft for machine probing. I have seen $750k worth of parts get scrapped because of a bent carbon fiber shaft on a machine.

[jlw™]

 

 

I agree with Gotez only use ceramic shaft for machine probing. I have seen $750k worth of parts get scrapped because of a bent carbon fiber shaft on a machine.

 

The problem I've had is that on table/head or head/head machines the ceramic is too heavy and triggers the probe in protected positioning moves.  For trunnion machines like a Variaxis I prefer ceramic.  If some one whacks a probe and doesn't throw the flag or catch it, that's on them.

[crazy^millman]

I really think our purchasing manager is getting taken for a ride. She was told from what I under stand the probes would not calibrate correctly or be repeatable without using ZEISS.  Thanks for all the responses I'm trying to give her a leg to stand on when she voices her opinion about ZEISS not being worth the extra mark up in price due to there not being enough of a difference in quality or performance. 

 

Then how can it do with theirs correctly? The process to calibrate a probe is a very straight forward process. The actual diameter of the sphere they are being touched off to is used to calculate the probe diameter. The math used takes the actual position of the machine in relation to the place where the probe hit is taken on the sphere is recorded. Then depending on the number of hits the actual diameter of the probe radius is calculated and used for all measurements at that prob angle. If he is saying you must only use certain ones then he is saying the machine algorithms have flaws and you have to suspect the whole machine. If the process traceable back to NIST? Are they using the correct ISO 15330 Parts 1,2 and 3 and ISO 10360-2 standard or the B89.4.10, B89.1.11 and B89.4.15 for the calibration process? Are they using the NIST digital geometric fitting shapes to check the math of the calculated fits? Here is a link to something I helped with when I worked at Verisurf. ftp://ftp.pppl.gov/pub/sraftopoulos/Verisurf/NIST%20Test%20for%20Verisurf%20X.pdf

 

I was in a Major Rocket Company's shop a few months ago. A salesman that works for a 6 sided company starts talking about they are the only company that can support them. They can't use this certain equipment since it only used the B89 standard for checking the device. I laughed and said so when are you removing all of your 100 pieces of equipment from here since that is the same standard all of them use? He shut up real quick.

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

Here's a probe protection disk I designed that 3D prints pretty well.  You can also just cut a disk of plastic and drill a hole in the middle.  Press it onto the base of the stylus and make sure it's a little larger than your probe body, and as long as you're in a protected move you won't smash the probe body.

 

PPD 01.SLDPRT

[THEE THAINZ™]

Thanks for the info guys, I fully believe the info is given more for personal gain than true knowledge or info. And yes Ron the way you calibrate your probe is directly related to the accuracy of the probe. The same group that is passing this info does not always center their probes before using them. I always set the run out to less than a 0.0001" then I know the repeatability will be in the boundary of what I need.

 

P.S. I knew your point Ron  just I needed a solid answer this way I could show the purchasing manager what was said which also confirmed what I had told her. Thanks again.

[crazy^millman]

Thanks for the info guys, I fully believe the info is given more for personal gain than true knowledge or info. And yes Ron the way you calibrate your probe is directly related to the accuracy of the probe. The same group that is passing this info does not always center their probes before using them. I always set the run out to less than a 0.0001" then I know the repeatability will be in the boundary of what I need.

 

P.S. I knew your point Ron  just I needed a solid answer this way I could show the purchasing manager what was said which also confirmed what I had told her. Thanks again.

 

Sorry and I find humor is certain things others probably don't and figured you already had a good enough answer without me getting into the deep side of things. :turned: :geek: :vava:

[Mjölnir]

what brand of test indicators are you guys using to center probes? i'm new to probing and feel my interapid indicators have kind of a "heavy" tip pressure for the task. brown and sharpe indicators have a light feel to them. any recommendations for other brands of indicators? 

[jlw™]

I use a Mahr long stylus 0.002mm and barely hit it, only loaded on the high side.  Spin it and bring it in.

[MIL-TFP-41]

what brand of test indicators are you guys using to center probes? i'm new to probing and feel my interapid indicators have kind of a "heavy" tip pressure for the task. brown and sharpe indicators have a light feel to them. any recommendations for other brands of indicators? 

 

I have fought indicators to dial these things in. My B&S did a decent job. Then I had the chance to do it with an optical presetter. If you are fortunate enough to have one, it is the only way to fly. Makes the job soooo much easier, and no worry about the tip deflecting.

[Mjölnir]

a presetter is on the wish list.

 

it appears a company called hexagon manufacturing bought out tesa, browne and sharpe, and interapid. i didn't know that until today. sheeze. wtf. their web site is a quagmire. (giggity )

 

for that reason, and what jlw uses, i'm going to order myself a mahr. 

 

thanks gentlemen!

[civiceg]

Starrett .0001. I only use .001 to .002 preload on the indicator. 

[jlw™]

I've got a few Starrett 0.0001in indicators myself. The best one is the white/yellow face but it still triggers the probe. The Mahr can preload up about half turn without triggering. Has to be the long stylus tho, same indicator with short stylus triggers and is harder to use for this job.

 

Not to mention I'm partial to Mahr, I've always had good luck with Mahr tools and MSI turns them around super fast if you need work done. I use Mahr mics and drop indicators too.