Our UR5e tool supplier wants to try softer pads on anodised sleeves. The bench samples show dull arcs, but we have no agreed appearance check and no pictures from before those samples were handled. I would like a comparison that answers the finish question without losing sight of holding and release.
Get quality to define the viewing method and identify an accepted sleeve plus the kinds of rejected marks that matter. Then examine the next samples before handling too. Your current arcs may be useful examples, but nobody can tell when they appeared from an after-only photograph.
And please don't let 'softer' settle the tooling choice by itself. I'd want the tool supplier to explain the proposed contact, what keeps the sleeve secure, and how it lets go into the next nest. A pretty sleeve that needs someone to peel it out of the fingers is a different problem, not a successful comparison.
Compare the complete pad shape and support as well as material, Victor, because a softer replacement can spread contact or change where the sleeve sits; I'd want those changes shown before treating it as the same tool with a kinder surface
Robin, yes, each sample can stay identified. Naomi, the proposal changes thickness as well as material. I had been thinking of it as a simple swap, which is too simple.
Thickness belongs in that holding review. On the appearance side, don't photograph the candidates under different lamps because one looks nicer there. Agree the inspection method first, and use it consistently for the comparison.
Isabel, I'd keep ordinary handling in that method too. Not deliberately rough treatment, but not a pampered single sleeve that arrives with someone holding it like a museum object.
Yes, but ordinary handling and the viewing method are separate descriptions. I meant stop changing how you look at the finish. The route through the proposed nests still needs to represent the job.
Our current samples were passed round at the bench. That is another reason I cannot blame the arcs on the pads. For the next comparison I can keep the planned handling route explicit.
The nests deserve a look too, since changing pads won't help a visible surface rubbing against the receiving contact; not saying that's happening here, only that the contact map shouldn't stop at the fingers
Not all of it. One side is hidden by the nest. The appearance check would need a defined presentation outside it, not just the picture of a seated sleeve.
Then include that extra handling in the sample plan. I've seen a careful trial spoiled by everyone lifting the parts out differently for the final photo. You needn't turn it into a grand ceremony. Just know which contact happened during the proposed process and which happened while you were trying to inspect it.
Priya, that's useful. I'd ask quality to choose how the sample is supported for viewing, so the inspection itself doesn't add a fresh unknown on the face we're arguing about.
Quality will define that presentation and the finish decision. Tooling will cover both nests and the thicker pads. No material choice yet; we are still agreeing the comparison.
I'd keep that sketch question open before ordering, Victor. The pads might be a good idea. You just haven't got enough yet to say what the complete tool will do with them.