I have already asked for fittings and held-tool geometry in another access discussion. This 216-blank FR5 proposal starts with less: the gripper body and open machine door are absent. What should the integrated review establish before we choose an arm for this enclosed cell?
Bring the complete loaded tool into surveyed machine and fixture geometry, with the parked door included. Assess the loaded route and empty return rather than only the fixture pose; a missing body cannot have a clearance result, however respectable the reach circle looks.
Our fixture drawing is current. The machine outline is generic and the tool supplier has provided only finger dimensions. I have asked the integrator to identify missing geometry before comparing the candidate arm positions.
That's where my own polymer-blank proposal got stuck too: everybody could point at the fixture, nobody had drawn what went through the opening. I would want the adapter and connections included, not another slightly larger dot called gripper.
Who changes the fixture on your cell, Zara? Have them define the human access before a candidate base occupies it. They may need room at a different door position from the one the robot uses.
Setter works at the front and opens the door fully for fixture removal. That access is not marked. We are adding their required working and handling space to the installed survey.
Does the setter remove the fixture by hand or with lifting equipment? I would mark the actual handling arrangement, not a standing-person outline that misses the fixture on its way out.
Daniel, yes. Zara, the robot's assembly also needs assessment against the applicable load limits for the proposed movement. Geometric access and loaded-tool suitability should stay distinguishable in the comparison.
Daniel, lifting aid used. Its working space is now in the survey scope. Jack, the integrator has separate geometry and loaded-tool checks listed, neither completed. Thank you for keeping both visible.
Measured now, including the handle projection. Complete tool model is still awaited. I can describe the opening more accurately, but cannot establish interference or clearance for an assembly that is not yet represented.
When the combined view arrives, let the setter check their own route in it. That will catch a different class of omission from the integrator checking the robot path, without asking the setter to approve the whole design.
Agreed with the layout owner. Tool supplier has a named delivery date for the model, but no model received yet. Arm choice and base position remain provisional; no alternative has been accepted from the survey alone.