I've seen open fingers spoil an otherwise clear unloading route, so I want them included from the start of this steel-blank review. Our FR10 sketch still omits the complete hand and open door. What should join the toolmaker's grip definition to the machine and receiving layout before we choose it?
Include the whole route into the grip, out with the blank and through release at the receiving location, with the machine's actual door positions and the setter's required tasks represented on the same revision.
My own earlier access review failed at a machine-side fitting which the finger sketch missed. An actual survey is worth doing before a more elaborate model, especially if the machine has fittings absent from its old general drawing.
Jonas, yes, and don't stop the tool definition at the gripper's mounting face, because its adapter and rear connections still travel with it even when nobody gave those bits a nice outline in the quotation.
The machine lead has surveyed the door and nearby fittings. Toolmaker supplied the complete assembly and intended steel-blank grip, not just finger spacing. Our receiving arrangement is still an ordinary collection tray with no defined support pockets.
That last detail matters, because the robot needs a defined place to release each blank and leave, while an operator can make little judgement calls around a growing pile that your reach sketch hasn't priced or described.
Nora, an ordinary tray could still be suitable with a properly defined arrangement. We should not assume Mei needs a machined receiver before the handling requirement is clear.
Agreed, Jonas, I meant a defined receiving process, not necessarily a pocketed tool, and I'd ask who clears the tray and how that affects the rest of this short-batch job.
Identified blanks ready for inspection. The operator currently removes each blank and puts it into the next labelled position. I left that last movement out of the first description; an undivided collection tray would add sorting rather than reproduce the task.
Then price the defined positions and tray exchange as part of the option, not as mysterious finishing work somebody will discover after the arm has arrived.
Has the completed machine route revealed an actual clash yet, Mei? I would keep the receiving question open without losing the result of the geometry work already done.
The complete loaded and open-tool route clears the surveyed machine at the proposed base. The setter's fixture-removal and service access also remain clear. We have a viable access candidate there, subject to the full application assessment, but not a complete unloading process yet.
That's useful, and now the receiving choice can be compared honestly instead of being sold as the little extra which makes an already-purchased arm useful.
Tooling proposed an indexed receiving tray with identified positions; its model allows the fingers to open and withdraw. The load assessment accepts the proposed assembly for the defined motion. Costing includes tray manufacture, exchange time and training, all of which were absent from the reach sketch.
And are those exchanges compatible with the operator's other machine duties, rather than merely short enough when someone is waiting beside the receiver?
Pavel's question is where I would spend the next bit of analysis. A clear access route is a valuable result even if the production pattern makes this particular purchase unattractive.
The planner compared our actual order mix and operator duties. Frequent receiver changes would repeatedly interrupt the other machine work. With that time and the receiving tooling included, this proposal does not meet our cost case, even though the modelled access works.
Would a larger receiving capacity change that, or has the planner already considered the space it would need? Asking because the exchange frequency and the purchase price aren't the same problem.
A larger receiver was included as an alternative. It would occupy the inspection transfer space and require a different surrounding layout, which is outside our agreed project. We've decided to retain manual unloading rather than extend the purchase scope again.
That is a decision with a reason, not proof that the FR10 cannot unload steel blanks, so keep the successful access finding alongside the workload and space limits which actually stopped this option.