Why does our FR10 panel trial begin after somebody separates the stack?

LuisBrooks0869 · 3 Dec 2025, 22:56 UTC

Closed
LU
LuisBrooks0869
I watched the supplier lift one access panel from a bench, which is what its seal report describes. Our job starts with a stack. The quotation never says who separates a panel, how the tool supports it away from the cups, or how the receiving station knows it got only one. The first spreadsheet called all of that automatic. I have taken the word out, but I still need a fair comparison between a more complete tool proposal and keeping some preparation manual.

14 replies

NI
NinaBrown0936
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

Keep both options. We once nearly deleted a correction bench because the successful demonstration began after its work. Your manual preparation might be sensible; the problem is that nobody has priced or described it yet.

22 points
LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to NinaBrown0936

That is where I am leaning, Nina. Our operator could prepare panels, but I have not checked what that would stop them doing elsewhere.

7 points
RE
RebeccaBaker0517
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

Price the preparation with the operator before you call it the cheap option. Stuck pairs and rejected panels still need somewhere to go.

8 points
RA
RaviAllen0302
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

What did the bench observation show about panel shape while held? Was the panel supported at anything besides the cups?

18 points
LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to RaviAllen0302

Only cups, Ravi. The report records a seal, and the video gives no side view that would let me judge the unsupported edges.

15 points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

Then keep the shape question open in both options.

11 points
NI
NinaBrown0936
Replying to NoraAli0235

Agreed, Nora. Paying a person to separate panels doesn't automatically solve support during transfer. Luis needs the actual tool-and-panel arrangement assessed whichever preparation route he chooses.

18 points
RE
RebeccaBaker0517
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

Luis, can the supplier show where the panel lands and releases? I would not want the operator separating it at the start and then peeling it off at the other end.

8 points
RA
RaviAllen0302
Replying to RebeccaBaker0517

Rebecca, useful question. I would also ask what the proposed single-panel check measures and what happens when its answer is uncertain, rather than accept a sensor name on the quote.

16 points
LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to RaviAllen0302

The supplier is revising the receiving and release proposal, Rebecca. Ravi, it has named a possible check but has not explained its limits or uncertain result. Those are now explicit questions, not included features.

8 points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

Who owns deciding the response to that uncertain result?

23 points
LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to NoraAli0235

The integrator will define it with our production lead and controls owner. We also need the operator involved in the manual-preparation comparison, so I have asked for one joint review of both proposals.

5 points
NI
NinaBrown0936
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

Take a representative stack to that review, not a row of already separated perfect panels. Otherwise the meeting can repeat the demonstration's convenient starting point with better paperwork.

25 points
RA
RaviAllen0302
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

Have they supplied the missing support view since, Luis? The options may still be commercially open, but that view would help you understand whether either tool concept is ready for a representative trial.

15 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .