ImranAdams0131 · 14 Nov 2025, 18:03 UTC
Ask for the whole stack-to-nest sequence, including detection and handling of a double pickup or failed separation. Those cases need an owner in the scope before the concept is accepted.
6 pointsTheir proposal names a vacuum check but no single-panel check. The demonstration starts with the panel already separated. I have asked them to address that missing step.
2 pointsWhat supports the panel between pickup and placement, Imran? If it sags away from the intended shape, adding a single-panel check would still leave the handling and final seating unanswered.
10 pointsI'd also want to watch someone refill the stack. The demonstration usually starts with a beautifully prepared pile, then the real operator gets a partly opened delivery pack and nowhere to put the wrapping
4 pointsAre the demonstrated panels the same thickness and finish as your incoming material, or just convenient samples with the same outline?
7 pointsChloe's refill point needs a clear handover. The stack reference should identify the supplied panel condition, and the operator needs somewhere for material that does not meet it. Otherwise the next shift inherits a pile called panels and no useful distinction.
13 pointsIsabel, the proposed support is only at the cups. Owen, sample specification matches ours, but only one loose panel was used. Stack condition and refill work are not in the offer.
14 pointsDoes the receiving nest support the flexible panel before vacuum release? The report should show that transition, since holding a panel clear of a bench does not explain how it is seated.
0 pointsSofia, yes, and I'd ask for the route with the full panel shape considered, not merely a line following the tool centre. Support can change what the edges do along the way.
9 pointsVictor, a rejected stack or loose double also needs a practical destination, because otherwise the operator becomes the missing separation mechanism with nowhere sensible to work
-2 pointsThere may be a reasonable manual preparation option. Price it openly if proposed. Don't make automatic separation the only acceptable idea, but don't call an unpriced person part of the vacuum tool either.
18 pointsAlex, agreed, provided the manually prepared option is compared over a complete representative order, not one panel handed to the demonstrator
7 pointsSupplier now offers two concepts: automatic separation under development, or manual presentation to a supported pickup. Neither has a complete trial. We are comparing both scopes, including the extra preparation in the manual option.
20 pointsImran, has either concept answered the receiving-nest question yet? It remains the same requirement whichever way the panel is separated.
18 pointsNo receiving transition shown yet. I've kept that outstanding for both. Thanks Chloe, refill and rejected-material space are now explicit comparison items rather than assumed spare bench space.
14 pointsKeep the two concepts named distinctly when the next report arrives. A successful manual-presentation trial should not accidentally close the automatic-separation question in the project summary.
18 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .