Keyence IM or LM series measurement systems and your work holding solutions

Who out there is using a Keyence IM system, or the new LM high-accuracy model: How has purchase and use of that system involved the need for specific built / configured work holding?

This is influenced by part shape and type of course. Flat parts, or parts with a base can lay on the bed of the unit. But round parts, for example, might need to rest in a v-block. Or a custom made v-block setup that's skinny to minimize v-block infringement in the view. Or perhaps slipped onto a gage-pin that's secured in a v-block if it has an ID running through it.

Some features, such as small radius' or angles might be sensitive to parts not being "perfectly" true/square, so that's a factor, etc.

Additionally, some parts might require multiple scans if there are features on multiple faces of the part. We see this in some of their videos where, laying on the bed, one face is scanned, then the part is flipped to a different face and that scanned. This might also need to be true for parts requiring specific work holding, not laying on the bed.

So, for those of you who have a Keyence "Instant Measurement" (IM or the new LM series) measurement system in use, have you had to develop any workholding methods for your parts?

We've got a demo of an LM series coming up after submitting a couple of parts to them. Just cycling variables through my head.

Thanks in advance.

We had to of those a couple employers ago. Used them enough that the operators wore the paint off the button in the center, although they never did manage to break the glass stage to our great surprise.

I never needed any fixturing that wasn't already stored within a few feet of a granite table already, although the majority of our parts were flat. A few parts I placed a dowel through the center of between two v-blocks. One I set down flat then propped up on a block of clay.

If you have a demo coming in, especially if it's your first time with Keyence, know that they don't meet their specifications unless you happen to be in an underground vacuum chamber at NIST AND the heavens are aligned.

I like to hand them a part and measure it (without picking it up off the table) 5 times (it's fast). The take the part off the table and put it back and measure it a few more times. Look at the variation.

Give them a ring gauge or a gauge pin and have them measure that. Compare to the known value.

They are great machines within their actual capability. Very easy to set up, easier to actually measure on, and very fast. It's fun to put a pre-programmed part from a month ago on the stage, hit the go button *without telling the machine what the part is*, then having a report come out a few seconds later. A bit like an optical comparator merged with an iPod (or iPhone for you young folks, point is it's intuitive). The catch is you have to be happy with something near their stated accuracy, not at their stated accuracy, which is a bit unusual for metrology equipment.

As with all optical comparator type things OD measurements will grow with tilt, ID measurements will shrink with tilt, top lit (reflective) things will have some trouble with rounded edges, etc. Once more, stay within its limits and all is well.



Edit, I knew it felt like I'd been through this before:

2016 before they finally put it to regular floor use and I was expecting it to behave as advertised:
https://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/metrology/anyone-have-keyence-measuring-machine-know-about-them-316126/#post2713031

A couple months ago when the same question came up (you did do a search, right?):
Anyone have experience with the Keyence IM-7000 unit?

Great feedback jccaclimber. Most of our parts are round, so the workholding factor is an n/a because of product profiles, but your EXPERIENCE with the machines helps me calibrate how we are going to look at the demo to us of parts we submitted.

Based on your input, I'm going to be very interested in how one particular part comes out. Too difficult to verbalize, but essentially a rounded form pin that, out on the OAL end of the part, has a complicated little "triangular" form. I little nubbin sticking up from the face of the OAL that has a tiny .005 radius that blends to the OAL, the sides are angled and radiused, and has a couple of form features machined into it's tip. Has to be central/aligned to the body of the part, etc.

Thanks again for your input.

P.S.: The target question for this post of mine related to Work Holding experiences and feedback. My recollection on past posts by both myself and others were more general and/or about accuracy. My intent with this post was to drill into something that I didn't recall seeing before (work holding factors related to the units).

I didn’t think of it until now, but bear in mind the Z height as well. This is not just clearance height but height to the focal plane, which is less than the clearance height. I had an occasional hockey puck shaped part that needed to be on its side. By the time I put a vise under it to hold it up I was often out of space.

I'll keep that in mind jcca. I just heard from Keyence this morning, and he's ready to come out and demo the parts we submitted. I'm super interested, because it's rubber-meets the road. He measured each part 10 times and he's "pleased with the results", so I'll be focused on what that means in real terms. Three of the four submissions needed no special work holding, just micro-vblocks, but one did need specific work holding setup.

I'm excited to see if the unit, as their new "high accuracy" LM series, holds up to claims, and against our parts. But I have to see it.

Appreciate your time and attention.