RobinBarnes0599 · 21 Oct 2025, 22:45 UTC
What uncertainty can the pilot answer without the final fixture? If it is whether the molded block can be located consistently, name that explicitly rather than presenting the trial as a production demonstration.
16 pointsPut a spending limit beside that question. A pilot can consume its budget perfectly well while everyone agrees the result is interesting. There needs to be a decision at the end.
16 pointsAnd don't count a hand-prepared tray as free. You can use one to investigate a grip, but it won't settle what the complete loading job costs.
20 pointsAnna, locating the blocks is the uncertainty. Some sit differently in the existing manual holder. Anil, tray preparation is timed; I'm not claiming we have automated that.
23 pointsWe spent a modest amount on a holder study before choosing the handling equipment. It stopped us asking the arm supplier to cure a part-location problem. Would a bench study answer this before you need the UR5e present?
14 pointsWill's right to ask. If the block won't sit repeatably in the holder by hand, borrowing a robot can make a simple investigation much harder to arrange.
21 pointsIt depends what Robin needs to learn. Hand seating is a useful first comparison, but it may conceal an awkward approach or extra manipulation that the proposed transfer cannot reproduce.
-2 pointsAnna, that sounds like two decisions, not a reason to combine the costs. First find out whether the holder needs work. Then decide whether a handling trial is worth funding.
5 pointsTwo decisions suits us. We can use identified production blocks for a capped holder study. The handling trial stays unapproved until that result and a fixture estimate exist.
10 pointsInclude the ones the operator finds awkward, Robin. On our study the convenient sample was also the only one the designer had handled. That did not make it a useful selection.
5 pointsWill, yes, and capture what makes them awkward in the operator's words before translating it into measurements. A small twist or an extra push can disappear from a tidy seating description.
23 pointsWho owns the holder study? Please don't make it Robin's unofficial evening project and then call the labour allowance settled.
4 pointsToolmaker owns it, Anil. Booked hours, including my observation time. Operator says one moulding batch catches at the entry, so that batch is in Will's sample group.
20 pointsHow does your colleague want the result presented? Buying a fixture and abandoning the idea should both be possible answers, not only different sizes of the next trial.
5 pointsHe wants the proposed holder changes, their cost, and the work still left to a person. Fair request. Thanks Will for the bench-study suggestion; it reduced the immediate ask considerably.
10 pointsRobin, has the catching been observed by the toolmaker yet? The batch link is worth following, but I would not describe it as a molding cause until the parts and holder have been compared.
7 pointsAnna's caution matters. Our awkward pieces exposed a damaged contact in the holder, not a reason to reject the incoming batch. Same complaint, different bill.
21 pointsObserved, not explained yet, Anna. Study still running within the agreed hours. No UR5e order, and no claim that the holder modification is obvious.
16 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .