Inhouse CMM Verification using Artifact (metronom/tetronom) vs. Outsourcing

[Timmer]

We are currently communicating with a company that produces a reference artifact that in theory would eliminate the need for an outside company to come in a perform yearly verifications- unless service is needed. This is not a plug for the company, rather a chance for others to look at their product and respond if you like! www.metronomUS.com Our plan if we indeed go forward with the system would be to send the artifact out yearly to a certified lab for calibration, and if all is well use the system to perform monthly verifications on each of our 9 CMM's. The report generated from the software is much like our external cal lab's report with squareness, linearity and volumetric readings given. IF we do monthly 15 minute verifications with this system we should be able to watch for trends or drifting on each axis, then if need be call in for outside service. In theory if we adopt this practice, we could see a drift on an axis that occurs prior to a scheduled calibration, or in fact let us extend our calibration appointment for a time until we notice the need for outside service on a machine. The cost savings to the company would be great since each machine costs over $600 to get an outside calibration service call, not including parts and labor if more work is needed. My question to our registrar, and our QS/ISO facilitator and to you all is.....is this a sound plan to follow, using a certified artifact to verifiy our machines on a monthly basis and extend our need for an outside calibration company to come in yearly? Or are there other factors to consider when examining the ISO 10360-2 CMM standard which are covered by an outside company performing our calibrations. Thanks, Tim

 

[lee01]

The Artefact you refer to, the SRS (Spatial Reference System), is a certified and calibrated tool that I recommend personally.

I have used them for some time now, the original one was created in Germany and was called the Tetronom. I think there was some infighting and the guy who designed it and created it left and went to America where he created MetronomUS and started to design the better SRS.

I have spoken to him on many occasions; his English is very good although I do not think he has been tutored.

We use the SRS to determine when our official 10360 calibration check is required. As it is not simply a manufactured artefact but a calibration tool.

In fact the SRS is a valuable piece of kit which we use every Monday on all our CMM’s, portable CMM’s, and even machine tools.

We have a system where we analyse the SRS every Monday, conduct daily Gauge R&R (Over the course of three days, day one referring to operator 1 etc), and the 10360 when we deem it necessary.

We have used this system for around three years now and have never had any problem with our ISO visits

Oh in addition, the software they use Innora, has the most accurate algorithms I have seen to date, we are also in talks with our measurement software vendors to somehow employ the Innora algorithms from MetronomUS

 

[Hershal]

If you go that route, and if you need a U.S. based calibration I recommend sending your fixture to Oak Ridge National Lab.....they are a NIST-affiliate, which means for specific things they actually are NIST

Hershal

 

[Jcowan - 2010]

Re: Inhouse CMM verification vs. Outsourcing Calibration

has anyone seen or use artifacts that have differnt features on them i.e ellipses, rads and more than just round holes

 

[AndyN]

Re: Inhouse CMM verification vs. Outsourcing Calibration

We are currently communicating with a company that produces a reference artifact that in theory would eliminate the need for an outside company to come in a perform yearly verifications- unless service is needed. This is not a plug for the company, rather a chance for others to look at their product and respond if you like! Our plan if we indeed go forward with the system would be to send the artifact out yearly to a certified lab for calibration, and if all is well use the system to perform monthly verifications on each of our 9 CMM's. The report generated from the software is much like our external cal lab's report with squareness, linearity and volumetric readings given. IF we do monthly 15 minute verifications with this system we should be able to watch for trends or drifting on each axis, then if need be call in for outside service. In theory if we adopt this practice, we could see a drift on an axis that occurs prior to a scheduled calibration, or in fact let us extend our calibration appointment for a time until we notice the need for outside service on a machine. The cost savings to the company would be great since each machine costs over $600 to get an outside calibration service call, not including parts and labor if more work is needed. My question to our registrar, and our QS/ISO facilitator and to you all is.....is this a sound plan to follow, using a certified artifact to verifiy our machines on a monthly basis and extend our need for an outside calibration company to come in yearly? Or are there other factors to consider when examining the ISO 10360-2 CMM standard which are covered by an outside company performing our calibrations. Thanks, Tim

Tim:
Sounds like a plan!
I do, however, have one question - were you using the data from the calibrations to decide when to do them again?

Often people fall into the trap of doing the cal annually, then never taking the time to review the results - boring, I know, but if you get them uploaded into some cal. software you can do your trend analysis. Before you launch off into the (hidden) costs of frequent checks which simply confirm what you already know, then you might want to look at other, equally valid

 

[TIMMYS - 2010]

Re: Inhouse CMM verification vs. Outsourcing Calibration

Hi,

I was interested in this post so I tried the webpage that you posted. I found a site called "INORA Technologies" but it had no mention of the device that you described nor did the site mention CMM's. Am I at the correct site?

TIMMYS

 

[harry]

Re: Inhouse CMM verification vs. Outsourcing Calibration

Hi,

I was interested in this post so I tried the webpage that you posted. I found a site called "INORA Technologies" but it had no mention of the device that you described nor did the site mention CMM's. Am I at the correct site?

TIMMYS

Search for 'tetronom' instead. We do have a recent thread on this subject and a user registered as tetronom responded to it. According to him, he's from Tetronom, Germany.

 

[Dale D. Barnes]

Re: Inhouse CMM Verification vs. Outsourcing Calibration

Neither website is useful. The second one actual shows you the product but is an absolute horrible site. I cannot even get contact information from the site. Does anyone have any U.S. contact information on this product. What is the cost of this product and software. I am spending $5000 usd a year to calibrate 5 cmm's and would love to stretch that out if it is possible to save the company money.

Thanks
Dale

 

[harry]

Re: Inhouse CMM Verification vs. Outsourcing Calibration

This is the thread. See post #4 by Tetronom. Large CMM Calibration - Tetronom or Giant Ball Bar

 

[iamthewalrus]

Re: Inhouse CMM verification vs. Outsourcing Calibration

Hi,

I was interested in this post so I tried the webpage that you posted. I found a site called "INORA Technologies" but it had no mention of the device that you described nor did the site mention CMM's. Am I at the correct site?

TIMMYS

I took a look at the INORA Technologies page too and it seems that you might have overlooked the INORAsrs which is under the Metrology Products section. It took a little digging to uncover since the site is not laid out very well, but I think that is what you are looking for.

inorasrs.com is a direct link for that particular section of their webpage if you are still interested in this type of verification tool.
Hope this helps!