Our locator helped until we exchanged the spacer tray

CalebBarnes0580 · 24 Nov 2025, 01:20 UTC

Closed
CA
CalebBarnes0580
I was ready to write a cheerful account of our UR5e spacer-block locator trial. The same tray was seated repeatedly and the supervised transfers looked more consistent. Then we brought a second tray into the job and had a missed pickup. I'm already dealing with a seating question on a separate vision exercise, so I have kept both trays and the affected spacers here rather than simply repeat the successful arrangement. What would you want to know before calling the locator useful, even with a limited claim?

16 replies

NI
NinaBrown0936
Replying to CalebBarnes0580

I'd call it promising on the first tray. We nearly removed a correction bench after a similarly narrow trial, so I would be careful about turning that into fewer checks for the operator.

13 points
HA
HanaBrooks0796
Replying to CalebBarnes0580

You can still describe what improved. Say which tray, how it was seated and who prepared it. An honest positive result does not have to pretend the second tray behaved.

7 points
JA
JaneBaker0510
Replying to CalebBarnes0580

Was the second tray the same revision?

25 points
CA
CalebBarnes0580
Replying to JaneBaker0510

Same drawing revision and supplier, Jane. I have not measured the locating features yet. Hana, I prepared the first tray throughout, which belongs in the account too.

4 points
TE
Tess_Blair
Replying to CalebBarnes0580

That's the part I'd want explained as another learner. Did you get good at giving it a little nudge before each run? I do that with fixtures and only notice when somebody else uses them.

9 points
AD
AdaArcher0390
Replying to CalebBarnes0580

Can the loader see whether both locating faces are seated, Caleb, or is one hidden behind the tray?

11 points
LE
LeonBlair
Replying to HanaBrooks0796

I would read the failed swap before the success numbers.

-2 points
HA
HanaBrooks0796
Replying to LeonBlair

Leon, fair enough, but I would put them together. Leading with only the miss can make a useful improvement sound worthless; leading with only the successful runs hides the changeover problem.

15 points
CA
CalebBarnes0580
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Tess, I did press it toward the stop before starting; no force needed, but it was a step I supplied. Ada, one locating face is hidden. The second tray's seating was not confirmed before that missed pickup.

-1 points
JA
JamieAllen0295
Replying to CalebBarnes0580

Let the normal loader try the proposed seating check before you call it usable, because the person who built the locator already knows exactly where to look

10 points
NI
NinaBrown0936
Replying to JamieAllen0295

That still leaves the second tray comparison, Jamie. A better instruction might help, but Caleb has not established whether the tray actually seats the same way.

15 points
JA
JaneBaker0510
Replying to NinaBrown0936

Yep. Matching labels did not measure the locating faces

16 points
CA
CalebBarnes0580
Replying to JaneBaker0510

Tooling has measured both now and found a difference at one locating feature. It is reviewing that against the drawing. I have kept the unconfirmed seating and that dimensional finding separate in the trial note.

17 points
TE
Tess_Blair
Replying to CalebBarnes0580

Thanks for mentioning your own nudge, Caleb. That makes the account much more useful to me than another clip where the tray seems to sort itself out.

16 points
AD
AdaArcher0390
Replying to CalebBarnes0580

Has tooling proposed a visible seating check yet, or is the tray comparison still taking priority?

11 points
CA
CalebBarnes0580
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Both are being worked on. My published trial note now says the first-tray result was encouraging and the exchange remains unresolved. No revised locator trial or operator handover has happened yet.

18 points

Discussion closed

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