I need a better gripper comparison for our UR5e. Fresh pads leave our coated housings looking fine, but later samples get dull crescents. And one housing sticks when released into its tray.
The change over repeated handling is useful evidence, are the dull crescents matching the pad contacts and has anyone checked what's building up on those pads?
Keep those used pads for the tooling supplier and compare them with unused ones, a fresh-pad beauty contest won't tell you how often the operator will need to clean or replace them.
Inspection conditions. Agree where and how the crescents are judged before comparing pad materials. Keep accepted production samples beside the trial pieces. Otherwise a change of light at the packing bench can look like a change in tooling performance
Quality picked a viewing light and reference pieces with us. They reject the dull crescents. Thanks for the used-pad suggestion, those are going back with the marked housings.
We had a residue problem that only appeared after a packaging change. Did your sample housings all go through the same cleaning and packing route, or did somebody prepare the first few specially?
What will happen when a pad is replaced during production? The trial needs a documented pad condition and replacement method. Otherwise repeated use may look acceptable until somebody fits a different thickness and changes the contact geometry.
Exactly, ask the toolmaker to specify the consumable and its fitting method with the fingers, otherwise maintenance gets handed a part number and a small improvisation exercise.
First samples were wiped especially for the demo. The later ones weren't. We're repeating with our normal incoming condition and adding release and pad replacement to the trial, no material winner yet.