Tips/Techniques DRO Glass vs. Magnetic Scale Accuracy Etc.

Tips/Techniques

Tecnico

(Dave)
I just noticed that Yuriy of TouchDRO has put up an interesting and informative posting on Hobby-Machinist about his recent testing of glass and magnetic scales. DRO Scale Recommendations

He has also updated his site at Recommended DRO Scales with lots of good information.

Regarding optical/glass scales he says the following: "I have not come across an inaccurate optical scale. "If they work, they are accurate."

Regarding magnetic scales he says: "The story with magnetic scales is complicated." He avoids magnetic if he can. He posted some graphs showing accuracy he measured plus a couple which Ditron gave permission to post.

D :cool:
 

Tecnico

(Dave)
I also found it interesting that he said magnetic scales are less costly to produce. They are definitely higher priced when it comes time to buy them. Marketing vs. reality.

D :cool:
 

Susquatch

Ultra Member
Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
Good info @Tecnico. Leave it to you to find and point this out.

I have corresponded with Yuriy about the Samsung tablet issue and have found him to be a very knowledgeable and competent individual.

I confess that I have wondered about how magnetic can achieve its stated accuracy. Quadrature encoding only gets you so far. And the linearity of magnetic fields is never going to be perfect.

I've also come to believe that glass can only be as good as its base etching.

Scale can be a confusing thing. We humans can do a fairly good job of judging scale within our normal sphere of experience, but that tends to fall apart as things get very big or very small.

I did some basic qualification type testing on my Ditron 1 micron magnetic scales when I first installed them. I confess I was shocked at how good they were. Each and every measurement repeated EXACTLY. Within the limits of my testing equipment, they were also bang on for accuracy.

But I do not have the metrology equipment required to test the Ditron scales over long distances. And I certainly don't trust my leadscrew and handwheels. So I had to accept them as is. I rationalized that it was inevitably "good enough" whatever it is. Longer lengths are inherently fraught with accumulated errors. But does it really matter if a part is exactly 30.000mm long or just measured 30.000 but is actually 30.002?

I suppose it does in some situations, but not in anything that I do. It is important to remember that the longer something is, the more it stretches or shrinks with temperature and load. A tenth "might" matter over a short distance but gets lost in the fog at long distances.

For me at least, I am happy with magnetic. They are much more compact than glass and easier to install. That's worth a lot to me but might not be so important to someone else. The ability to stick a piece of magnetic tape onto a surface without a frame is also extremely valuable.

Iron dust happens all the time in my shop because I mostly work with steel (and..... I have a surface grinder...... LOL!) BUT, I have found that it is a zero problem because it wipes off easily and does not collect on the sensor - only on the tape and even there to a very very minor degree. I even ended up abandoning the need for Shields. With very minor maintenance, I have found that they are just not necessary. YMMV.

Life is full of compromises and glass vs magnetic is just another set of compromises that have to be sorted out by each of us to suit our situation.

I also found it interesting that he said magnetic scales are less costly to produce. They are definitely higher priced when it comes time to buy them. Marketing vs. reality.

I believe I said the same thing way back when. I used it in the context of negotiating a better price. Of course, they will never share that with the world but its a no brainer that a magnetic strip is less costly. They know it too but they wouldn't admit it. However, having an idea of cost is always important when you are trying to negotiate a fair price.

Thanks for sharing this info. I am wiser now.

Edit - I sent Yuriy a private note asking him how he did the testing. I'm interested in duplicating it or at least reviewing it from a scientific perspective.
 
Last edited:

Larry_C9

Super User
Premium Member
I have glass scales on my mill and magnetic scales on my lathe. They both have worked perfectly so far for what I am machining. I am finding that the magnetic scales on my Craftex lathe are more accurate and sensitive than the lathe is capable of machining some times.
 

PeterT

Ultra Member
Premium Member
I found this DRO Pros comment interesting. Not everything which is cheap is necessarily bad, but often times there are contributing factors if they cut corners or use inferior components. Unless electronics is your specialty, how would one ever know? DRO's have come down so dramatically in price past decades thanks to offshore makers, its been a gift to hobby machinists IMO.
 

Attachments

  • SNAG-08-07-2023 8.39.29 AM.jpg
    SNAG-08-07-2023 8.39.29 AM.jpg
    137.7 KB · Views: 14

Tom Kitta

Ultra Member
I tested my cheap Aliexpress DRO some time ago and its very, very good - and it is 5 micron. I highly recommend for professional or home shop use. High end magnetic could be good as well when space is an issue.

I would not recommend DRO from https://www.dropros.com/ as they are way, way, way too expensive.

Also for info for the dropros guys, you can rather easily cut glass scales to any size you want. It is just more time consuming than magnetic scales.
 

Susquatch

Ultra Member
Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
Unless electronics is your specialty, how would one ever know?

I spent a good portion of my career working with and developing good sensors. You have touched on one of my pet peeves. Unless you are highly experienced, you have to use blind faith. My own experiences don't support having a lot of blind faith.

Yuriy's write-up is excellent. I need to know more about his methods, but consider for a moment his findings. Despite readouts that imply accuracies of +/- less than a tenth, he finds a few thou. If he is right, that digital display is lying to us. That's been my main complaint ever since digital anything arrived on the market. Can you believe what you see on the readout? I think far too many of us believe what we see. When my back is to the wall, I prefer analog. But I sure like the convenience and speed of digital.

DRO's have come down so dramatically in price past decades thanks to offshore makers, its been a gift to hobby machinists IMO.

Amen to that Peter. A very precious gift at that!
 

Rauce

Ultra Member
Edit - I sent Yuriy a private note asking him how he did the testing. I'm interested in duplicating it or at least reviewing it from a scientific perspective.

I’d be interested in seeing the same tests on a glass scale to see the difference.

A machinist friend of mine told me something years ago when I got started hobby machining and using metrology tools. He said to always remember that resolution is not the same as accuracy and that a safe assumption is that the accuracy of a measurement is 10x the resolution of the measuring tool (ie. a 1 micron encoder is good to +/- 5 micron). I think this is especially relevant with digital where there is no nuance.
 

Danzo187

Member
Premium Member
I just noticed that Yuriy of TouchDRO has put up an interesting and informative posting on Hobby-Machinist about his recent testing of glass and magnetic scales. DRO Scale Recommendations

He has also updated his site at Recommended DRO Scales with lots of good information.

Regarding optical/glass scales he says the following: "I have not come across an inaccurate optical scale. "If they work, they are accurate."

Regarding magnetic scales he says: "The story with magnetic scales is complicated." He avoids magnetic if he can. He posted some graphs showing accuracy he measured plus a couple which Ditron gave permission to post.

D :cool:
just my humble opinion magnetic scales are completely enclosed (sealed), water and oil resistant no dirt no dust you can even lay a magnet on them and it doesn't change the output, glass scales are subject to dirt and dust, oil water especially if machine operator is crazy with an air hose, I find very little difference between glass and magnetic. I think, we all try to hit the numbers dead on on a blueprint despite the tolerance given ,so the kind of accuracy we try to machine to is neither here nor there when talking about .001 over 10 inches .I think if your DRO measures in 1Um you'll find accuracy all the way down the scale ,the Chinese 5 Um scales well there ok if you can live with .002 over 10 inch's ,again I think its all in the person doing the machining IMHO
 

Tom Kitta

Ultra Member
just my humble opinion magnetic scales are completely enclosed (sealed), water and oil resistant no dirt no dust you can even lay a magnet on them and it doesn't change the output, glass scales are subject to dirt and dust, oil water especially if machine operator is crazy with an air hose, I find very little difference between glass and magnetic. I think, we all try to hit the numbers dead on on a blueprint despite the tolerance given ,so the kind of accuracy we try to machine to is neither here nor there when talking about .001 over 10 inches .I think if your DRO measures in 1Um you'll find accuracy all the way down the scale ,the Chinese 5 Um scales well there ok if you can live with .002 over 10 inch's ,again I think its all in the person doing the machining IMHO

I measured repeatability of my 5um DRO and it is well within a tenth over 10 inches - not two thou. The actual error of a thou can more happen due to simply not clamping the table hard enough and say a drill moving it just a bit. Or not clamping Z axis etc.
 

DavidR8

Scrap maker
Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
I need someone to explain what this quote from Yuriy’s post means:
“I tested 7 Chinese magnetic scales, and the best one had 0.0045" worth of cyclic error”

4 thousandths of an inch doesn’t seem trivial but I really don’t understand what this means.
 

Danzo187

Member
Premium Member
I measured repeatability of my 5um DRO and it is well within a tenth over 10 inches - not two thou. The actual error of a thou can more happen due to simply not clamping the table hard enough and say a drill moving it just a bit. Or not clamping Z axis etc.
no your right 5 Um is accurate. I think most error comes from a poor installation of the scales ,duct tape and bailing wire and a carpenter level are not conducive to precision maching. I had a 5 Um on my grizzly and it hit the numbers all day long ,didn't mean to offend any DRO owners out there ,the .002 was just a poor example of trying to make a point that was too far out there
....me bad!
 

Danzo187

Member
Premium Member
I need someone to explain what this quote from Yuriy’s post means:
“I tested 7 Chinese magnetic scales, and the best one had 0.0045" worth of cyclic error”

4 thousandths of an inch doesn’t seem trivial but I really don’t understand what this means.
jeez...I remember my army days crewing helicopters. Cyclic errors usually meant returning to base wasn't happening
 

Larry_C9

Super User
Premium Member
Can you believe what you see on the readout? I think far too many of us believe what we see. When my back is to the wall, I prefer analog. But I sure like the convenience and speed of digital.
I'm with you Suquatch, When it is critical out comes the mic to check.
 

Susquatch

Ultra Member
Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
I need someone to explain what this quote from Yuriy’s post means:
“I tested 7 Chinese magnetic scales, and the best one had 0.0045" worth of cyclic error”

4 thousandths of an inch doesn’t seem trivial but I really don’t understand what this means.

I "believe" what he means is that this is the error (prolly +/- 2.25 thou that results as the signal is decoded throughout a full sweep pole to pole of one magnetic length of the scale. Different scales have different magnetic lengths.

If you look at his graphs, you can see the cyclical nature of the output and its error.

I don't quibble with the fact that there is cyclical error. It has to be there. However, I'm not at all sure how that error translates to positional error. If it's 1 to 1 then I'm on your page - it's not trivial at all! But that may not be the case (and in fact, I doubt that it is). Hence my questions to Yuriy. If he answers, I'll assess that answer, give him some feedback, and comment here.

Till then, I don't think we should get too concerned.

Bottom line is that my magnetic scales are very linear and do not jump around like that at all. It is a very smooth constant rate of change which suggests that the error is not 1 to 1 but much much less.
 
Top