How do I stop this faceplate rocking during our UR5e camera comparison?

EllaAli0207 · 15 Oct 2025, 21:55 UTC

Closed
EL
EllaAli0207
Bright stripes move after reseating our faceplate. Pictures say scratches. The holder rocks slightly. Which problem comes first?

15 replies

NA
NaomiArcher0419
Replying to EllaAli0207

Get the sample condition established and inspect the holder. You can do both before tuning. Do the same identified faceplates rock each time, or does it vary between pieces?

9 points
LI
LinBell0618
Replying to EllaAli0207

Don't use those scratch labels as truth while you investigate the holder. A stable presentation can make a wrong label very repeatable.

17 points
EL
EllaAli0207
Replying to NaomiArcher0419

Same plate rocks. Two clean-looking ones don't. None has a recorded quality decision.

12 points
OS
OscarAbbott0010
Replying to EllaAli0207

Keep the original pictures as well as the folder labels. On another job the presentation copies had changed what an edge looked like. That won't settle your plate's condition, but it can explain part of the image disagreement.

23 points
RA
RaviArcher0389
Replying to EllaAli0207

And keep the awkward plate in the holder comparison, Ella; a test made only of the two that sit nicely would be rather kind to your fixture.

4 points
EL
EllaAli0207
Replying to RaviArcher0389

It's kept separately and identified. Quality is checking it; I'm checking where it touches the holder.

10 points
NA
NaomiArcher0419
Replying to EllaAli0207

Good. Look for an unintended contact, not just a missing clamp. A part can rock because it touches something that was meant to clear.

22 points
OS
OscarAbbott0010
Replying to LinBell0618

Lin, would you remove the guessed labels entirely or retain them as image history? I wouldn't want someone mistaking old guesses for current decisions.

9 points
LI
LinBell0618
Replying to OscarAbbott0010

Retain the originals and their history outside the approved reference set. Make the current quality decision explicit on the controlled sample record. The training or tuning set should not inherit the old guesses.

6 points
RA
RaviArcher0389
Replying to OscarAbbott0010

Oscar, thanks for distinguishing history from the working set. Deleting the guesses would also hide how they spread, but nobody needs them offered as truth again.

14 points
EL
EllaAli0207
Replying to NaomiArcher0419

Quality accepted the rocking plate's surface. Its folded edge touches a holder corner that should clear.

15 points
NA
NaomiArcher0419
Replying to EllaAli0207

Then have the fixture designer compare that edge with the permitted part geometry. Don't modify the holder around one sample until you know what range it must accommodate.

21 points
OS
OscarAbbott0010
Replying to EllaAli0207

That accepted plate is a useful awkward example now. Do you also have a confirmed reject to check the eventual lighting still reveals the damage that matters?

4 points
EL
EllaAli0207
Replying to OscarAbbott0010

Quality selected one with a rejected nick. Holder change not designed yet. No threshold work started.

15 points
LI
LinBell0618
Replying to EllaAli0207

When the presentation is repeatable, compare both identified samples under the candidate lighting. Include repeated loading, rather than selecting one well-positioned image of each. Acceptance decisions and image conditions should remain traceable separately.

24 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .