HassanArcher0356 · 10 Dec 2024, 11:31 UTC
That's a fairly large omission, does the drawing at least have the full twin-gripper body or is it only showing a tool centre point?
20 pointsFull body, one workpiece, and no open-door handle.
25 pointsAsk for each occupied state, the spare blank may be the thing that meets the handle even when the active fingers have plenty of room.
24 pointsI have added an exchange sequence with both positions occupied at withdrawal; the reviewer had assumed the finished part went to a tray before the new blank was collected.
13 pointsAh, thanks for finding the sequence mismatch, that means the clearance discussion and the quoted cycle need to use the same version now.
20 pointsWe changed from single to twin tooling and lost the place where we used to put the setting gauge. Nobody noticed in the cycle drawing. Put the setup routine through this review as well.
8 pointsYes, and include the person who'll change those fingers, two sets of fasteners tucked behind a machine door can make a decent cycle a pain to maintain.
18 pointsOur handover only covered normal production. Can I ask what happens to the part still in the other gripper when a cycle is interrupted?
5 pointsThat recovery case is not defined in the proposal; I have added it as an acceptance question, not assumed it can repeat the normal route.
10 pointsThe revised layout has arrived. Both occupied positions are now modelled, but the reviewer requests a measured handle position before making a clearance judgement.
6 pointsPlease get the handle and actual door stop measured together, our last nominal door drawing left just enough imaginary space to make the tool look brilliant.
10 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .