Our aluminium-blank exchange proposal reaches the fixture in its drawing but omits the gripper and open door; this is another preliminary layout being circulated as if the arm choice were settled.
The FR10 layout has a tool centre and no tool
HassanArcher0356 · 8 May 2025, 15:07 UTC
19 replies
Replying to HassanArcher0356
What is available from the toolmaker now? A complete provisional envelope may allow an initial access study, provided the remaining dimensions are identified.
14pointsReplying to NadiaCarter0987
Finger drawing only; body, fittings and services are absent.
10pointsReplying to HassanArcher0356
Ask 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.
14pointsReplying to NadiaCarter0987
Requested; the door has a projecting handle that the machine outline also omits.
24pointsReplying to HassanArcher0356
Has the supplier measured the handle and door stop, or will someone at your workshop provide that?
22pointsReplying to HassanArcher0356
Why not move the stand out a bit before chasing every tiny obstruction?
16pointsReplying to HanaAdams0100
A farther position may help, but the current sketch does not show whether the complete arm and tool can perform the exchange from there.
13pointsReplying to HanaAdams0100
I'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.
-1pointsReplying to NadiaCarter0987
Two base candidates are now in the request, using the same full tool model when supplied; our maintenance technician is measuring the actual door assembly.
15pointsReplying to HassanArcher0356
Check 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.
14pointsReplying to HassanArcher0356
Which way does the finished part leave the machine? Is it withdrawn in the loading orientation or turned inside?
13pointsReplying to NadiaCarter0987
The sequence turns the loaded tool inside before withdrawal, which is absent from the reach illustration.
24pointsReplying to HassanArcher0356
That turn needs to be included in the motion study. Two reachable endpoints will not show the space used between them.
9pointsReplying to HassanArcher0356
Did the toolmaker provide the assembly yet? I'm interested in whether the fittings or the body turn out to be the awkward bit.
-1pointsReplying to FionaAli0238
Assembly received; the fittings project toward the handle, so the reviewer is examining orientation as well as base position.
15pointsReplying to HassanArcher0356
Does moving the stand still look worth considering?
7pointsReplying to HassanArcher0356
Hassan, what did the setter think of the two positions? That could remove one candidate before more modelling time is spent.
13pointsReplying to HassanArcher0356
The review report should identify which candidate and tool revision its conclusion covers, especially with several options now in discussion.
20pointsReplying to BrunoAli0191
The 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.
19pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .