HassanArcher0356 · 8 May 2025, 15:07 UTC
What is available from the toolmaker now? A complete provisional envelope may allow an initial access study, provided the remaining dimensions are identified.
14 pointsFinger drawing only; body, fittings and services are absent.
10 pointsAsk for the assembled tool outline with the part held and the fingers open. The reviewer also needs the actual door position and the planned exchange sequence.
14 pointsRequested; the door has a projecting handle that the machine outline also omits.
24 pointsHas the supplier measured the handle and door stop, or will someone at your workshop provide that?
22 pointsWhy not move the stand out a bit before chasing every tiny obstruction?
16 pointsA farther position may help, but the current sketch does not show whether the complete arm and tool can perform the exchange from there.
13 pointsI'd explore the farther position too. Our teaching layout improved when we stopped trying to preserve the first stand location. But take the whole tool into that study; ours gained a spacer during commissioning and suddenly the old drawing was optimistic again.
-1 pointsTwo base candidates are now in the request, using the same full tool model when supplied; our maintenance technician is measuring the actual door assembly.
15 pointsCheck the manual fixture-change space at both spots. One can be better for the robot and worse for the person carrying the fixture. I'd like the setter in that conversation.
14 pointsWhich way does the finished part leave the machine? Is it withdrawn in the loading orientation or turned inside?
13 pointsThe sequence turns the loaded tool inside before withdrawal, which is absent from the reach illustration.
24 pointsThat turn needs to be included in the motion study. Two reachable endpoints will not show the space used between them.
9 pointsDid the toolmaker provide the assembly yet? I'm interested in whether the fittings or the body turn out to be the awkward bit.
-1 pointsAssembly received; the fittings project toward the handle, so the reviewer is examining orientation as well as base position.
15 pointsDoes moving the stand still look worth considering?
7 pointsHassan, what did the setter think of the two positions? That could remove one candidate before more modelling time is spent.
13 pointsThe review report should identify which candidate and tool revision its conclusion covers, especially with several options now in discussion.
20 pointsThe farther stand remains viable for setup access and is the reviewer's preferred candidate; tool routing remains provisional, so selection awaits that final geometry check.
19 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .