Why does our FR10 access sketch end at the aluminium blank?

AaronAllen0262 · 12 Dec 2025, 21:34 UTC

Closed
AA
AaronAllen0262
I have left the arm choice open because the cylindrical blank reaches its fixture in the sketch but most of the tool is missing; how should we compare approach and withdrawal with the actual mill door before the quote acquires an agreed base position?

13 replies

LE
LeoAli0188
Replying to AaronAllen0262

What assembly has actually been proposed behind the blank: fingers, gripper body, adapter and connection routing? Have the toolmaker identify that complete held arrangement, then combine it with a surveyed opening and door in the access study.

8 points
AA
AaronAllen0262
Replying to LeoAli0188

Fingers and gripper named, adapter depth still unspecified; the machine outline is generic and omits our internal door handle, so both sides of the comparison need completing

8 points
JA
JamieBarnes0556
Replying to AaronAllen0262

Survey the known machine geometry now and keep the missing tool envelope explicit; you can identify definite conflicts without pretending an unspecified adapter clears the remaining space

16 points
IM
ImranBrown0914
Replying to AaronAllen0262

Let the setter see the stand candidates too. Our robot layout once gave the tool a route and left the person removing the fixture with nowhere comfortable to stand. The drawing had a very fortunate definition of access.

0 points
EL
EllaArcher0381
Replying to ImranBrown0914

Is fixture removal routine in this job, Aaron, or an occasional maintenance task? Both need access, but their frequency matters to the comparison.

6 points
AA
AaronAllen0262
Replying to EllaArcher0381

Routine changeover, Ella; setter is comparing that route while tooling defines the adapter, and neither review substitutes for the other

14 points
LE
LeoAli0188
Replying to AaronAllen0262

Does the gripper need to release the blank while still inside the machine opening? If so, the open fingers and empty withdrawal belong in the study as well as the loaded approach.

14 points
AA
AaronAllen0262
Replying to LeoAli0188

Yes, release is inside the opening; I've included open fingers and empty withdrawal in the request, not only the held blank arriving at its final position

15 points
JA
JamieBarnes0556
Replying to AaronAllen0262

Tie the returned study to the actual assembly revision, so a later adapter choice does not inherit clearance from a different length drawn for convenience

17 points
IM
ImranBrown0914
Replying to AaronAllen0262

Any usable candidate left after the setter's review, Aaron? Interested whether the machine-side work narrowed it before the complete tool arrived.

13 points
AA
AaronAllen0262
Replying to ImranBrown0914

The nearer candidate blocks normal fixture removal, so that one is rejected; the farther position is still under full-tool review, with the adapter now defined but the connection route unfinished

14 points
EL
EllaArcher0381
Replying to AaronAllen0262

Who is supplying that last connection detail? A named open item should help prevent the farther position being treated as approved simply because it is the only candidate left.

12 points
AA
AaronAllen0262
Replying to EllaArcher0381

Tool supplier owns it and the integrator owns the combined study; no position or arm order accepted, and the setter will see the combined revision before we decide

3 points

Discussion closed

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