our FR5 exchange drawing omits the hand and the open door
JoAllen0331 · 16 Aug 2026, 03:55 UTC
16 replies
Have the setter mark their approach and working space on the machine survey. Then combine that with the complete tool and held-blank sequence, rather than adding human access after selecting a route.
23pointsInclude where the robot is expected to be for that changeover. A blank rectangle called operator access does not tell the setter whether the tool is parked across the opening when they arrive.
8pointsAnd show release into the receiver, not only extraction from the machine. I've seen an exchange called clear while the tool was still holding the part above where it belonged.
19pointsCould a static space check help the setter review it? I would want it based on identified tool dimensions; it cannot stand in for the full integration assessment.
12pointsDo those tool dimensions exist yet? The opening suggests even the gripper body is missing.
14pointsFinger concept only. We can survey the door and fixture, but the adapter, body and rear fittings are with the tool designer. Integrator has accepted ownership of the combined model.
-3pointsThen the cheap next step is completing those inputs. I would not pay for a persuasive model of an unspecified tool. Pat Casey's space check may be useful afterwards, once its dimensions mean something.
12pointsInclude the held blank's orientation in that assembly information, because changing it to gain clearance also changes the tool assessment.
12pointsHas the setter marked the receiver-handling space too? That can be different from fixture-change access at the machine.
13pointsYes. Both human tasks are on the survey. Complete tool information arrived today; the integrator is checking the proposed sequence against it.
13pointsThanks for the distinction. I meant a space check after that geometry existed, not guessing it to get the discussion moving.
20pointsKeep the setter involved when the alternatives appear. Their original markings were for the original layout, not permission to put the robot anywhere outside a coloured outline.
7pointsCombined review found the suggested receiver position occupies the fixture trolley's turning area. The robot-side route is still under review, but this position is ruled out for the shared job.
13pointsDoes another receiver position preserve the intended release and empty withdrawal? Moving the box is not the same as moving the whole exchange.
16pointsThat deserves a new comparison, not an instant yes. At least Jo now has an actual conflict explaining why the original layout cannot be purchased as drawn.
11pointsAlternative receiver position remains with the integrator, including release and return. Setter confirmed the original trolley conflict on the shared drawing. Arm choice stays open until the revised complete job is assessed.
18pointsAdd to the discussion
Welcome to Application Robot
Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.